Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

fuck both y'all

2 views
Skip to first unread message

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to

's all I got to say.
toni, you got it. Projecting your bullshit of being a censor onto me
simply because I posted a half serious, half funny post in regards to
ed and turi, Get your fucking panties out of a twist. I submit to your
grandness and pz's awesomeness as well. I may be a censor in your
book, but as far as I have been told, I have done no wrong by noone
else than you and pz.

I have to make a little trip out of town, and I may not be back home.
Enjoy your peace without a censor at a computer.

Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.

and I leave you with this censoring.
1. RoachClip™, dk/ cahooter™ #28; ttl'r #4/Aries Moon,Tarus Rising,Gemini Sun MeoW?? beep beep!!
2. Studying astrologer; septic cultist (and a woo); psychic; censor; abuser; whiner-pussy/ User of astrospinology and *kennology
3. This post powered by RoachFlame™ (Merc Sq Pluto+Aries Moon)/ irc.powerchat.net Channel #irrelevant ~To irr is human~
4. PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL BE MET WITH VEHEMENT RESPONSE... So, what's your problem? (Aries Moon kicks ass)


PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to
In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
roac...@databasix.com wrote:

>
> 's all I got to say.
>toni, you got it. Projecting your bullshit of being a censor onto me
>simply because I posted a half serious, half funny post in regards to
>ed and turi, Get your fucking panties out of a twist. I submit to your
>grandness and pz's awesomeness as well. I may be a censor in your
>book, but as far as I have been told, I have done no wrong by noone
>else than you and pz.
>
>I have to make a little trip out of town, and I may not be back home.
>Enjoy your peace without a censor at a computer.
>
>Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.

That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you. It's
pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude. Walk up to any person you might
meet on the street and start flinging abuse with that kind of language --
and then tell the cops that you can't understand why someone might be
offended. I'm sure they'll be sympathetic.

Grow up.

--
PZ Myers

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to
In article <myers-20039...@ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,

PZ Myers wrote:
>In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>
>>
>>Projecting your bullshit of being a censor onto me
>>simply because I posted a half serious, half funny post in regards to
>>ed and turi
...
The projection problem is Roachie's. I have already reposted Deja News
pointers to my postings in response to Roachie's original postings.
They are, as I have already remarked, quite mildly worded. It was Roachie's
own over-reaction that is to blame for his own downfall--he could have just
laughed them off as half serious at the time, but he defended them vehemently,
and has indicated that he did, indeed, send his kookmail to SDSU.

>>
>>I have to make a little trip out of town, and I may not be back home.
>>Enjoy your peace without a censor at a computer.

Anonym also seems to have business elsewhere. I hope that I can now begin to
believe that a line has now been drawn over which people will be unwilling to
step in future--the misbehavior of a kook does not give you carte blanche
to hound him without fear of criticism--after all, some of us value kooks
greatly, and will go to great lengths to protect the species. If so, then it
has been well worth the small trouble. If not, then I expect I shall enjoy
banging metaphorical heads together in future weeks as much as I have enjoyed
doing in recent weeks. I have always done my own research, in any case; this
comes less easily to some, who have tended to rely on speculation to serve
for factual data.
>>
>>...suck my dick, you bastards.


>
>That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you. It's
>pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude.

--
Sherilyn

J. White

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:

> >Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.


>
> That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you.

...and why others applaud Roachie!

> It's pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude.

It's the Tony-PZ show.

> Grow up.

Grow balls.


J. White
...pull my finger

anonym™

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to

Tony wrote:
>
> In article <myers-20039...@ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
> PZ Myers wrote:
> >In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
> >roac...@databasix.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Projecting your bullshit of being a censor onto me
> >>simply because I posted a half serious, half funny post in regards to
> >>ed and turi
> ...
> The projection problem is Roachie's.

And the gender confusion problem is yours.

When you finally figure out what you are, let us know.

We will compare your results against the ones that everyone else can see.

Until then, your perception of reality is suspect.

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to
In article <36F41B...@hooked.net>, "J. White" <whit...@hooked.net> wrote:

>PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:
>
>> >Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.
>>
>> That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you.
>
>...and why others applaud Roachie!

Comments like "suck my dick" earn your applause?

I know this is a bit much to ask of some people...but try to think a little
bit. Roach is not witty, he isn't rational, he isn't cogent -- he's a potty-
mouthed little boy making noise on usenet.

You can go ahead and like the little twerp personally, but by praising
his putrid little eruptions you are doing him no favor, and you are also
setting the bar on what you consider good commentary very, very low.

>
>> It's pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude.
>
>It's the Tony-PZ show.
>
>> Grow up.
>
>Grow balls.
>
>
>J. White
>...pull my finger

Good point. Why do I waste my time criticizing a crude pissant like you?
You and roach are two of a kind.

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to
In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com wrote:

>:
>:>
>:> 's all I got to say.
>:>toni, you got it. Projecting your bullshit of being a censor onto me


>:>simply because I posted a half serious, half funny post in regards to

>:>ed and turi, Get your fucking panties out of a twist. I submit to your


>:>grandness and pz's awesomeness as well. I may be a censor in your
>:>book, but as far as I have been told, I have done no wrong by noone
>:>else than you and pz.

>:>
>:>I have to make a little trip out of town, and I may not be back home.


>:>Enjoy your peace without a censor at a computer.

>:>
>:>Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.


>:
>: That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you.
>

>Some people would be people like you, like marsha, like eddie...

...people who expect a little more rationality on usenet (which,
obviously, does not include wollmann or marsha)...

>
>THe answer is:
>: It's pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude.
>
>The question is: What is an Eddie.

The questions "What is Roach?" and "What is GBurnore?" also fit nicely,
I see.

>
>: Walk up to any person you might


>: meet on the street and start flinging abuse with that kind of language --
>: and then tell the cops that you can't understand why someone might be
>: offended.
>

>Fuck you little wimp. If you don't like it. Don't read it. Run along now,
>I'm sure you're missing an episode of Barny and friends.
>
>: I'm sure they'll be sympathetic.
>
>I'm sure you're a loser.
>
>: Grow up.
>
>Pussy.

Dang. You guys have shown me the light. I shouldn't try to debate anyone,
nor should I criticize people who stoop to vulgarity, thinking it is
erudite.

I should just follow your example, and reply to disagreement by just
saying "suck my dick, you bastards" or "pussy" or "fuck you".


I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
but just whether they make a persuasive case.

--
PZ Myers

anonym™

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to

PZ Myers wrote:
>
> In article <36F41B...@hooked.net>, "J. White" <whit...@hooked.net> wrote:
>
> >PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:
> >

> >> >Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.
> >>
> >> That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you.
> >

> >...and why others applaud Roachie!
>
> Comments like "suck my dick" earn your applause?
>
> I know this is a bit much to ask of some people...but try to think a little
> bit. Roach is not witty, he isn't rational, he isn't cogent -- he's a potty-
> mouthed little boy making noise on usenet.

But fe's a VERY down to Earth kinda guy, and no matter what his faults
are, he's not intimidated into silence by your bullshit and tring to
shame him. Folks root for the underdog, sometimes.


>
> You can go ahead and like the little twerp personally, but by praising
> his putrid little eruptions you are doing him no favor, and you are also
> setting the bar on what you consider good commentary very, very low.
>

Did J. White SAY he considered it "good commentary", fish fucker?

People applaud a good punch at the prizefights, you fucking moron.

Does this mean they are applauding good commentary?

It's amazing that you pride yourself on your supposedly good powers of
reasoning when you're so guilty of putting words in people's mouths, and
either understating or exaggerating the crux of a problem.

The amount of hypocrisy and bile you inject into any thread makes you
very unpopular, Peez.

Sneering will only get you so far.


> >
> >> It's pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude.
> >

> >It's the Tony-PZ show.
> >
> >> Grow up.
> >
> >Grow balls.
> >
> >
> >J. White
> >...pull my finger
>
> Good point. Why do I waste my time criticizing a crude pissant like you?

Why, indeed? You certainly spend a lot of time responding to and
sparring with J, Roach, and I.

The noticeable paucity of any amount of intellectual discussion that you
have with others here indicates that you love to roll around in the muck
while chiding others for being so filthy.

How kooky of you to spend so much time involved in things you claim are
beneath you.

I'm sure you read "Blue Boy" for the articles, as well.

anonym™

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to

PZ Myers wrote:
>
> In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com wrote:
>
> >In article <myers-20039...@ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>, PZ
> Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >: In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
> >: roac...@databasix.com wrote:
> >:
> >:>
> >:> 's all I got to say.
> >:>toni, you got it. Projecting your bullshit of being a censor onto me
> >:>simply because I posted a half serious, half funny post in regards to
> >:>ed and turi, Get your fucking panties out of a twist. I submit to your
> >:>grandness and pz's awesomeness as well. I may be a censor in your
> >:>book, but as far as I have been told, I have done no wrong by noone
> >:>else than you and pz.
> >:>
> >:>I have to make a little trip out of town, and I may not be back home.
> >:>Enjoy your peace without a censor at a computer.
> >:>

> >:>Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.


> >:
> >: That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you.
> >

> >Some people would be people like you, like marsha, like eddie...
>
> ...people who expect a little more rationality on usenet (which,
> obviously, does not include wollmann or marsha)...
>
> >
> >THe answer is:

> >: It's pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude.


> >
> >The question is: What is an Eddie.
>
> The questions "What is Roach?" and "What is GBurnore?" also fit nicely,
> I see.

And if the answer is : It's a condescending, 98 lb. weakling pansy with
a shrill little asshole that bleats everytime it hears a curse word.

The question is: "What is a PZ Myers?"


>
> >
> >: Walk up to any person you might
> >: meet on the street and start flinging abuse with that kind of language --
> >: and then tell the cops that you can't understand why someone might be
> >: offended.
> >
> >Fuck you little wimp. If you don't like it. Don't read it. Run along now,
> >I'm sure you're missing an episode of Barny and friends.
> >
> >: I'm sure they'll be sympathetic.
> >
> >I'm sure you're a loser.
> >
> >: Grow up.
> >
> >Pussy.
>
> Dang. You guys have shown me the light. I shouldn't try to debate anyone,
> nor should I criticize people who stoop to vulgarity, thinking it is
> erudite.

Who said they thought they were being erudite?

Is that the only standard your limited mind can conceive of?

It has its' place. But here? On alt.astrology? In the middle of a flame war?

Erudition and precision. The most noble goals in life, if you go by what
PZ treasures.

I guess Hemingway was a hack.

I guess Picasso was a failed artist because his paintings lacked precision.

Peezy, you are just an effete little ponce.


>
> I should just follow your example, and reply to disagreement by just

> saying "suck my dick, you bastards" or "pussy" or "fuck you".

Coming from you, it would lack any real power or force. We'd just laugh
at you, you pencil-necked little sissy.

No, it's better that you stick to what you're good at: limp-wristed,
over-intellectualized flaccid little whiffs of KookPoot.


>
> I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
> and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
> with their clever use of language?

Have you even figured out what "our side of the issue" is yet, puffball?

What's the issue that you think is at hand, ya pillowbiter?

How many think PZ is an overweening fussbudget with his head up Tony's ass?


> Not whether they are right or wrong,
> but just whether they make a persuasive case.

Case for what, idiot?

This is Usenet. It's here primarily for entertainment, as far as I am concerned.

When I feel I need to make a persuasive case, I do so.

At all other times, I take it, and you, only as seriously as is
minimally required.

J. White

unread,
Mar 20, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/20/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:

> I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white

> and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately [...]

I'm curious, how many people give a rat's ass?

J. White
...lick my hole

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 22:43:17 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:

>In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com wrote:

SNIP


>
>The questions "What is Roach?" and "What is GBurnore?" also fit nicely,
>I see.

The question is: where is your buttfuck support? toni has left. You
have no back up.

>>
>>: Walk up to any person you might
>>: meet on the street and start flinging abuse with that kind of language --
>>: and then tell the cops that you can't understand why someone might be
>>: offended.
>>
>>Fuck you little wimp. If you don't like it. Don't read it. Run along now,
>>I'm sure you're missing an episode of Barny and friends.
>>
>>: I'm sure they'll be sympathetic.
>>
>>I'm sure you're a loser.
>>
>>: Grow up.
>>
>>Pussy.
>
>Dang. You guys have shown me the light. I shouldn't try to debate anyone,
>nor should I criticize people who stoop to vulgarity, thinking it is
>erudite.

<pppffft>

>I should just follow your example, and reply to disagreement by just
>saying "suck my dick, you bastards" or "pussy" or "fuck you".

It works for me.

>I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
>and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately

>with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,


>but just whether they make a persuasive case.

Me.

No case. Just showing how much of a prick you are.

wildearth

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

PZ Myers wrote in message ...

>In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com
wrote:
>
Since you're soliciting feedback from the a.a. viewing audience at large:

>Dang. You guys have shown me the light. I shouldn't try to debate anyone,
>nor should I criticize people who stoop to vulgarity, thinking it is
>erudite.

I doubt they think vulgarity is erudite.


>
>I should just follow your example, and reply to disagreement by just
>saying "suck my dick, you bastards" or "pussy" or "fuck you".
>

Your brand of vulgarity is erudite quite. You refer to fish guts or bottled
remains of cats to make your point. When you're not obscenely morbid, you
are condescending and duplicitous.

>
>I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
>and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
>with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
>but just whether they make a persuasive case.

Since you are so curious, I think that your clever manipulation of language
makes the most persuasive case........ against yourself; everyone else
appears persuasive, if not simply by default.

Speaking of curiousity, it killed the cat. Stick that in your bottle and
cap it.
>--
>PZ Myers

wildearth

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...

>
>PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com
>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <myers-20039...@ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>, PZ
>>Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>: In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>>>: roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>>>:
>>
>>I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
>>and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
>>with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
>>but just whether they make a persuasive case.

Actually, on second thought, you do make a persuasive argument: if this is
the most constructive use of a Prof's time, then Ed should post from his
school account. Every moment you linger here, you rob someone of a better
education. How hypocritical of you to to detest inarticulate speech. If you
are so concerned with erudite conversation, your time would be best spent
teaching your students to read.

>>PZ Myers
>
>

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

PZ has never made a secret of his contempt for his students.

He's a biologist, not an English teacher, but nevertheless, you can
safely assume that with his condescending and (falsely assumed) superior
attitude, that the contempt is reciprocated in force.

We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
by most.

PZ. What a prick.

Stella

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

PZ Myers wrote:

>

<snip>

>
>
> I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
> and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
> with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
> but just whether they make a persuasive case.
>

I think that Roach, anonym™, J. White and Gary have been using their language
very effectively indeed. There is no pretense in their insults, whereas you
think you can insult with flowery multi-syllabic dialogue, and that makes you
appear intelligent. Can you see the problem? There is essentially no
difference between calling someone a "cock-sucking mother-fucker" or a "crude
pissant" - an insult is an insult no matter how much sugar you deliver with it.
You show a clear example of elitist, intellectual snobbery without seeming to
understand the implications of your criticisms.

------------------------------------
Stella Hill
Sceptic astrologer
------------------------------------

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36F4E3B5...@pop.net.ntl.com>, Stella wrote:
[PZ]

>> I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
>> and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
>> with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
>> but just whether they make a persuasive case.
>>
>
>I think that Roach, anonym™, J. White and Gary have been using their language
>very effectively indeed. There is no pretense in their insults, whereas you
>think you can insult with flowery multi-syllabic dialogue, and that makes you
>appear intelligent.

Whether one makes a persuasive case depends, not on one's use of language,
but how on one's arguments support one's actions. The methods used by Roachie
against the kooks are the methods of the kooks themselves, to wit: calls for
the removal of newsgroups, attempts to haul them into court, and attempts to
cancel their accounts. Have Roachie and company presented a persuasive case
to support these arguments? You have ducked PZ's question. Try again.
--
Sherilyn

Pamela Gross

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to


Is anybody else besides me staying out of this mess?

Pam
tired of seeing friends tear each other apart
and
taking this lupus headache from hell back to bed

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
<ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>wildearth wrote:
>>
>> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>> >
>> >PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>> >>In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <myers-20039...@ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>, PZ
>> >>Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>> >>>: In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>> >>>: roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>> >>>:
>> >>

>> >>I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
>> >>and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
>> >>with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
>> >>but just whether they make a persuasive case.
>>

>> Actually, on second thought, you do make a persuasive argument: if this is
>> the most constructive use of a Prof's time, then Ed should post from his
>> school account. Every moment you linger here, you rob someone of a better
>> education. How hypocritical of you to to detest inarticulate speech. If you
>> are so concerned with erudite conversation, your time would be best spent
>> teaching your students to read.
>
>PZ has never made a secret of his contempt for his students.

Really? When have I expressed contempt for my students? Since this
is not my attitude at all, I don't know where you got this idea.

>
>He's a biologist, not an English teacher, but nevertheless, you can
>safely assume that with his condescending and (falsely assumed) superior
>attitude, that the contempt is reciprocated in force.

You'd be wrong.

>
>We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
>by most.

I know this would seriously contradict your image of me, but it's not true --
I'm actually one of the more popular teachers in my department. I have to
turn away students every semester, and I've got twice as many students asking
to work in my lab as I can accommodate.

>
>PZ. What a prick.

Right. That's what all the kooks say.

Perhaps that's the reason my students wouldn't agree with your assessment
here -- they tend not to be kooks.

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36F41047...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
<ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>PZ Myers wrote:
>>
>> In article <36F41B...@hooked.net>, "J. White" <whit...@hooked.net>
wrote:
>>
>> >PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:
>> >

>> >> >Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.
>> >>
>> >> That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you.
>> >

>> >...and why others applaud Roachie!
>>
>> Comments like "suck my dick" earn your applause?
>>
>> I know this is a bit much to ask of some people...but try to think a little
>> bit. Roach is not witty, he isn't rational, he isn't cogent -- he's a potty-
>> mouthed little boy making noise on usenet.
>
>But fe's a VERY down to Earth kinda guy, and no matter what his faults
>are, he's not intimidated into silence by your bullshit and tring to
>shame him. Folks root for the underdog, sometimes.
>>
>> You can go ahead and like the little twerp personally, but by praising
>> his putrid little eruptions you are doing him no favor, and you are also
>> setting the bar on what you consider good commentary very, very low.
>>
>Did J. White SAY he considered it "good commentary", fish fucker?
>
>People applaud a good punch at the prizefights, you fucking moron.
>
>Does this mean they are applauding good commentary?

This isn't a prizefight.

It is also not an insult-swapping contest.

Once upon a time, there was opportunity here to ARGUE over real matters,
like the validity of astrology. The stuff that counts over a text-only
medium like usenet is the quality of your discussion, the facts that you
can marshal, the logic you apply. It was bad enough that there were a few
prolific little ignorami like Wollmann and Kettler who spewed that godawful
canned screed all over the place, but there were also a few good skeptics
(and even a few semi-rational astrologers) who could put together something
worth reading.

Now what do we have? A number of people who think "suck my dick" is a
"good punch".

Roach is just the most recent and egregious example of this kind of
degradation of the discussion. Roach, White, Burnore *never* have
anything rational to say, but find it sufficient to check in, find the
latest post they disagree with, and reply with a hearty "fuck you". And
now we have a fine population of gutter-minded individuals who clap their
hands and say "Hooray, good punch!"

You used to be able to sometimes exercise some pretty potently barbed wit
yourself. But now all I see is a massive dilution of what intelligence you
have with volumes of posts that say little more than "fuck you". Do you
think that is a good thing?

>
>It's amazing that you pride yourself on your supposedly good powers of
>reasoning when you're so guilty of putting words in people's mouths, and
>either understating or exaggerating the crux of a problem.

No worse than you do. You accuse me of hypocrisy and bile below; you claim
I'm unpopular with students, something you know nothing about; your entire
reputation rests on hyperbole. Any time anyone restates someone's position
you can choose to call it understatement, exaggeration, or putting words
in people's mouths -- that's the nature of communication.

>
>The amount of hypocrisy and bile you inject into any thread makes you
>very unpopular, Peez.

Oh, right. Nowadays I'm supposed to inject more vapid profanity to make
myself popular.

Here's some real news for you: I don't want to be popular with the kinds of
people I am berating here.

>
>Sneering will only get you so far.
>> >

>> >> It's pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude.
>> >

>> >It's the Tony-PZ show.
>> >
>> >> Grow up.
>> >
>> >Grow balls.
>> >
>> >
>> >J. White
>> >...pull my finger
>>
>> Good point. Why do I waste my time criticizing a crude pissant like you?
>
>Why, indeed? You certainly spend a lot of time responding to and
>sparring with J, Roach, and I.

Yes, too much.

Especially since you boys would think it the acme of intellectual discussion
if I just replied with a brief "fuck you".

>
>The noticeable paucity of any amount of intellectual discussion that you
>have with others here indicates that you love to roll around in the muck
>while chiding others for being so filthy.
>
>How kooky of you to spend so much time involved in things you claim are
>beneath you.

As I've said, once there was a point -- there was a time when you could
actually debate an issue here, as long as you ignored the flaming idiots
like Wollmann. Now the newsgroup is dominated by illiterate idiots like
Roach and White and Burnore. Similarly, you used to be able to get into
a good feisty discussion on IRC -- and now it is "la casa de roachie"
where the most miserably lackwit of the old regulars can now call himself
"leader" and run the show as he wishes.

>
>I'm sure you read "Blue Boy" for the articles, as well.

I don't even know what "Blue Boy" is...I assume it is something you find
repulsive, yet are familiar with.

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36F4E3B5...@pop.net.ntl.com>, ma...@NOSPAM.net.ntl.com wrote:

>PZ Myers wrote:
>
>>
>
><snip>


>
>>
>>
>> I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
>> and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
>> with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
>> but just whether they make a persuasive case.
>>
>

>I think that Roach, anonym™, J. White and Gary have been using their language
>very effectively indeed. There is no pretense in their insults, whereas you
>think you can insult with flowery multi-syllabic dialogue, and that makes you

Flowery? Multi-syllabic? Me? No...just basically literate. There is a real
problem when people see the repetitive use of the phrase "fuck you" as a
legitimate component of common discourse. Once in a while, sure, it can
be effective. In every single post? It becomes noise.

>appear intelligent. Can you see the problem? There is essentially no
>difference between calling someone a "cock-sucking mother-fucker"

7 syllables.

>or a "crude
>pissant"

3 syllables.

> - an insult is an insult no matter how much sugar you deliver with it.

No, there is a HUGE difference here. I have never sucked a cock, nor have
I had sex with my mother. Nor have I ever expressed any interest in doing
such things. On the other hand, somebody who calls someone else a
"cock-sucking mother-fucker" IS demonstrably and evidently a crude pissant.

>You show a clear example of elitist, intellectual snobbery without seeming to
>understand the implications of your criticisms.

OK. How about if you explain to me in plain words how someone should respond
to a post that says little more than "suck my dick" or "fuck you". That seems
to be all we are getting out of Roach...there just isn't much too wrestle with,
there. I've responded by saying, essentially, "Wait a minute -- you are just
spewing vulgarisms and acting like a crude pissant. Say something INTELLIGENT.
If you can." Perhaps you have some gentler way of breaking the news to someone
like Roach that he is being coarse and irrational? If so, why haven't you
said something like that to him or White or Burnore or anonym? You've found
your voice to break the terrible news to me that I'm flowery and elitist,
implying that you find that more objectionable than someone whose posts
consist of little more than expletives.

You and I have managed to have some worthwhile arguments in the past. I don't
seem to recall ever needing to say "fuck you" or even "crude pissant" to
you, and you haven't needed to say anything like that to me. We're even
disagreeing strongly but civilly here, and I suspect neither of us will
stoop to calling each other "cocksucker" or "pissant". Could Roach or even
anonym do that?

--
PZ Myers

Bob Officer

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 12:19:02 +0000, in alt.astrology Stella
<ma...@pop.net.ntl.com> wrote:

>
>
>PZ Myers wrote:
>
>>
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>
>> I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
>> and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
>> with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
>> but just whether they make a persuasive case.
>>
>
>I think that Roach, anonym™, J. White and Gary have been using their language
>very effectively indeed. There is no pretense in their insults, whereas you
>think you can insult with flowery multi-syllabic dialogue, and that makes you

>appear intelligent. Can you see the problem? There is essentially no

>difference between calling someone a "cock-sucking mother-fucker" or a "crude
>pissant" - an insult is an insult no matter how much sugar you deliver with it.


>You show a clear example of elitist, intellectual snobbery without seeming to
>understand the implications of your criticisms.

Well said Stella... I am in awe.

No matter what label you apply to shit, calling it a rose doesn't make
it smell good.


ahumblestudent
Bob Officer
Warning! Reproduction without the writen permission in or on any other media than USENET NEWS GROUPS is
prohibited. All claims for copyright according to the BERN and UCC
Agreements are held by the writers. Quotes are allowed subject to Fair Use Rules of the above agreements.

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:

> >PZ. What a prick.
>
> Right. That's what all the kooks say.
>
> Perhaps that's the reason my students wouldn't agree with your assessment
> here -- they tend not to be kooks.

Ed? Is that you?

J. White
...scary

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Tony wrote:

> Whether one makes a persuasive case depends, not on one's use of language,
> but how on one's arguments support one's actions.

I have no need to support my actions.

<snip load of Tony dung that everyone, save Tony and PZ, sees right
through>

> You have ducked PZ's question. Try again.

Go dutch oven yourself.

J. White
...like you don't already

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:

> This isn't a prizefight.

Who says?

> It is also not an insult-swapping contest.

It does in fact appear to be just that.

> Once upon a time, there was opportunity here to ARGUE over real matters,
> like the validity of astrology.

Whoa there sparky...

There was never any "argument".

*You* want to attack astrologers and belittle their beliefs.

I know *I'm* here to mock pompous turds like you Tony and Ed.

Don't pretend you have any high and lofty goals, fishfucker.


> The stuff that counts over a text-only
> medium like usenet is the quality of your discussion

Who decides what is or isn't quality?

You?

Tony?

Ed?

> Roach, White, Burnore *never* have anything rational to say,
> but find it sufficient to check in, find the latest post they
> disagree with, and reply with a hearty "fuck you".

Your point?

<snip to...>

> Oh, right. Nowadays I'm supposed to inject more vapid profanity to make
> myself popular.

Try a little honesty. Admit why you are here and stop pretending you
are better than the people you feel are beneath you.


> Here's some real news for you: I don't want to be popular with the kinds of
> people I am berating here.

Then you are succeeding beyond your wildest dreams, asshole.

J. White
...point 'n click

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:

> > - an insult is an insult no matter how much sugar you deliver with it.
>

> No, there is a HUGE difference here. I have never sucked a cock, nor have
> I had sex with my mother.

Thou doth protest too strongly.

J. White
...7 syllables

wildearth

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
><ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>wildearth wrote:
>>>
>>> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>>> >
>>> >PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>> >>In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com
>>> >wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>In article <myers-20039...@ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
PZ
>>> >>Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>> >>>: In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>>> >>>: roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>>> >>>:
>>> >>
>>> >>I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and
white
>>> >>and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
>>> >>with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or
wrong,
>>> >>but just whether they make a persuasive case.
>>>
>>> Actually, on second thought, you do make a persuasive argument: if this
is
>>> the most constructive use of a Prof's time, then Ed should post from his
>>> school account. Every moment you linger here, you rob someone of a
better
>>> education. How hypocritical of you to to detest inarticulate speech. If
you
>>> are so concerned with erudite conversation, your time would be best
spent
>>> teaching your students to read.
>>
>>PZ has never made a secret of his contempt for his students.
>
>Really? When have I expressed contempt for my students? Since this
>is not my attitude at all, I don't know where you got this idea.
>
>>
>>He's a biologist, not an English teacher, but nevertheless, you can
>>safely assume that with his condescending and (falsely assumed) superior
>>attitude, that the contempt is reciprocated in force.
>
Does it matter if he is an English teacher or biologist? He is a proponent
of education. I find his position hilarious given that the school where he
teaches is not highly concerned with literacy.

>>
>>We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
>>by most.

Well, you know, he may very well be popular, particularly if he is the
"slack" he appears to be.


>
>I know this would seriously contradict your image of me, but it's not
true --
>I'm actually one of the more popular teachers in my department. I have to
>turn away students every semester, and I've got twice as many students
asking
>to work in my lab as I can accommodate.

Yep. I would believe this. "Take PZ's class; he's easy." That certainly
insures popularity.


>>
>>PZ. What a prick.
>
>Right. That's what all the kooks say.
>
>Perhaps that's the reason my students wouldn't agree with your assessment
>here -- they tend not to be kooks.

What do your students tend to be? Your school has been portrayed in the
press as a glorified community college. Not very elite. Perhaps this is
the origin of your frustration.

You are extremely kooky. A worse advertisement for an academic institution
can probably not be found.


>PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36F537...@hooked.net>, "J. White" <whit...@hooked.net> wrote:

>PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:
>
>> This isn't a prizefight.
>
>Who says?
>
>> It is also not an insult-swapping contest.
>
>It does in fact appear to be just that.
>
>> Once upon a time, there was opportunity here to ARGUE over real matters,
>> like the validity of astrology.
>
>Whoa there sparky...
>
>There was never any "argument".

You've missed some of the discussion that has gone on in the past, then.

>
>*You* want to attack astrologers and belittle their beliefs.

No, I want to attack astrology.

>
>I know *I'm* here to mock pompous turds like you Tony and Ed.
>
>Don't pretend you have any high and lofty goals, fishfucker.
>
>
>> The stuff that counts over a text-only
>> medium like usenet is the quality of your discussion
>
>Who decides what is or isn't quality?
>
>You?
>
>Tony?
>
>Ed?

OK, we'll let YOU decide what is quality. That's fine with me.

So...is "fuck you, asshole" a fine, high-quality response?

Care to try and pin things down a little bit?

>
>> Roach, White, Burnore *never* have anything rational to say,
>> but find it sufficient to check in, find the latest post they
>> disagree with, and reply with a hearty "fuck you".
>
>Your point?
>
><snip to...>
>
>> Oh, right. Nowadays I'm supposed to inject more vapid profanity to make
>> myself popular.
>
>Try a little honesty. Admit why you are here and stop pretending you
>are better than the people you feel are beneath you.

I see. You are resentful because I feel that "fuck you, asshole" is
NOT a quality response...and that's the best you can muster. I'm sorry.
But as I said above, I'll let you be the arbiter of taste here. If "fuck
you, asshole" is the new empyreal standard of discourse, I shall then
proceed to feel diminished and inferior whenever I post here.

>
>
>> Here's some real news for you: I don't want to be popular with the kinds of
>> people I am berating here.
>
>Then you are succeeding beyond your wildest dreams, asshole.

Hooray!

--
PZ Myers

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:21:14 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:

SNIP


>
>As I've said, once there was a point -- there was a time when you could
>actually debate an issue here, as long as you ignored the flaming idiots
>like Wollmann. Now the newsgroup is dominated by illiterate idiots like
>Roach and White and Burnore.

Yep, that's me. Illiteriate. I guess reading AND comprehending the
newspaper at 2 1/2 means dick. (BTW, I didn't start talking till about
6- with a speech impediment) Same with spelling. I know when words
are mispelled.

Illiterate. Yep.

Idiot too. Yep, cause it takes one to know one. And I am an idiot for
carring pz's and sher's shit this far.

Similarly, you used to be able to get into
>a good feisty discussion on IRC -- and now it is "la casa de roachie"
>where the most miserably lackwit

what ever. When was the last time YOU had a spiritual or psychic
vision? Huh? ¡Contesta la pregunta, cabron!

of the old regulars can now call himself
>"leader" and run the show as he wishes.

Not.

I need not get into the nomenclature of the ruling heads of the
Channel #irrelevant, but know this: I make no shots. I make no rules.
They do. Well, they suggest, I only enact the business of the
channel.

How many times do you think we have had policy meetings?

3 times. This was to suggest assistance with X and what to do about
said bot, when they were taking the voice command away from it.

How many times have the people there been offended by me? Surely not a
whole bunch of them, cause they still come around pretty regular. I
know that if I don't like someone or thing I avoid it. Just like
crotch-22.

I have changed the greeting for X. Here it reads:

¡Hola! Bienvenidos a la hacienda del roachie y los compadres. Mi casa
es su casa. Que dice "hola" para el attencion de los personas en el
canal.

Do you really want to know who uses the powers of said channel? Well,
it certainly is not me.

chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
magnifinco, tambien.

Heh. Merc RX eat your heart out. ¡Chinga el mercurio retrograda!

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <7d3ds7$h7v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "wildearth"
<wild...@erols.com> wrote:

Not concerned with literacy? Where do you get that bizarre idea?

>>>
>>>We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
>>>by most.
>
>Well, you know, he may very well be popular, particularly if he is the
>"slack" he appears to be.

Wrong again. The most common complaint I've gotten from students is the
volume of reading and writing required to get through my courses.

>>
>>I know this would seriously contradict your image of me, but it's not
>true --
>>I'm actually one of the more popular teachers in my department. I have to
>>turn away students every semester, and I've got twice as many students
>asking
>>to work in my lab as I can accommodate.
>
>Yep. I would believe this. "Take PZ's class; he's easy." That certainly
>insures popularity.

I see. When you can't find anything solid to criticize, make up lies. How
despicable.

No, my classes do not have a reputation for being easy. In the current class,
we flunk between 20% and 25% of the students. In upper-level courses, I
flunk between 5% and 10%; median grade is somewhere around a high C or low B.
These are typical numbers for just about any university.

>>>
>>>PZ. What a prick.
>>
>>Right. That's what all the kooks say.
>>
>>Perhaps that's the reason my students wouldn't agree with your assessment
>>here -- they tend not to be kooks.
>
>What do your students tend to be? Your school has been portrayed in the
>press as a glorified community college. Not very elite. Perhaps this is
>the origin of your frustration.

I see again. You can't seem to find enough to criticize in me, so you choose
to disparage the place where I work. How about Philadelphia? Now there's a
big target for insults. Pennsylvania? The East Coast? The United States?
The whole dang Western Hemisphere?

Do I have to start tagging one of those silly disclaimers on my messages? I
do not speak for Temple University, nor does it speak for me.

(however, your description of Temple is incorrect. It is a certified research
university, with perhaps more emphasis on teaching than most such. You can
find out more about it at http://www.temple.edu/ -- but it is irrelevant to
any complaint you have about me.)

>
>You are extremely kooky. A worse advertisement for an academic institution
>can probably not be found.

Alas. I know. I'm supposed to say "fuck you" more often. But I have been unable
to meet the high standards of this newsgroup.

Now I expect you to start judging everyone else on alt.astrology by their
occupation, and by making up evaluations of their work on the spot. Anything
else would be hypocritical, don't you agree?

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36f537d...@nntpd.databasix.com>, roac...@databasix.com wrote:

[snip whining that he's not illiterate, he can read a newspaper!]

If you are so clever, then why is your most common retort something along
the lines of "fuck off, bastard"?

[snip]

>of the old regulars can now call himself
>>"leader" and run the show as he wishes.
>
>Not.

Oh? I've seen you call yourself "leader" on the channel. But then,
I assume that was just for humorous effect, with no real meaning...
kinda like "czarina".

[snip]

>
>chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
>magnifinco, tambien.

Oh, yeah. It makes your insults so much more refined if you put them
in Spanish.

--
PZ Myers

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36f9f46b...@206.214.99.8>,

be...@ix.netcom.com (Pamela Gross) wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:04:58 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
> (Sherilyn) wrote:
...

> >
> >Whether one makes a persuasive case depends, not on one's use of language,
> >but how on one's arguments support one's actions. The methods used by
> > Roachie
> >against the kooks are the methods of the kooks themselves, to wit: calls for
> >the removal of newsgroups, attempts to haul them into court, and attempts to
> >cancel their accounts. Have Roachie and company presented a persuasive case
> >to support these arguments? You have ducked PZ's question. Try again.
>
> Is anybody else besides me staying out of this mess?
>
> Pam
> tired of seeing friends tear each other apart

I don't think any of us is seriously bothered by all this stuff, to
be honest. We have to be able to state our opinions; that's what USENET
is for. This is not real life. That, in a nutshell, is my argument.

> and
> taking this lupus headache from hell back to bed
>

Hope it gets better.

Sherilyn
/server irc.powerchat.net
/join #catch-22
No ops, no kicks, no bans. Just talk.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Stella wrote:
>
> PZ Myers wrote:
>
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >
> > I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
> > and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
> > with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
> > but just whether they make a persuasive case.
> >
>
> I think that Roach, anonym™, J. White and Gary have been using their language
> very effectively indeed. There is no pretense in their insults, whereas you
> think you can insult with flowery multi-syllabic dialogue, and that makes you
> appear intelligent. Can you see the problem? There is essentially no
> difference between calling someone a "cock-sucking mother-fucker" or a "crude
> pissant" - an insult is an insult no matter how much sugar you deliver with it.
> You show a clear example of elitist, intellectual snobbery without seeming to
> understand the implications of your criticisms.

Fuckin "A"! ;-)

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:37:19 GMT, roac...@databasix.com (RoachClip™,
dk) wrote:

SNIP

>
>Heh. Merc RX eat your heart out. ¡Chinga el mercurio retrograda!

Perdon me. I messed up the gender. ¡Chinga el mercurio retrogrado!

SNIP

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
TOny wrote:
>
> In article <36F4E3B5...@pop.net.ntl.com>, Stella wrote:
> [PZ]
> >> I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
> >> and burnore have been promoting appropriately

> >> with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
> >> but just whether they make a persuasive case.
> >>
> >
> >I think that Roach, anonym™, J. White and Gary have been using their language
> >very effectively indeed. There is no pretense in their insults, whereas you
> >think you can insult with flowery multi-syllabic dialogue, and that makes you
> >appear intelligent.
>
> Whether one makes a persuasive case depends, not on one's use of language,
> but how on one's arguments support one's actions. The methods used by Roachie
> against the kooks are the methods of the kooks themselves, to wit: calls for
> the removal of newsgroups, attempts to haul them into court, and attempts to
> cancel their accounts. Have Roachie and company presented a persuasive case
> to support these arguments? You have ducked PZ's question. Try again.

No, Buddy, nice try at a red herring, but it doesn't work.

Peezy didn't specify which "issue", in fact, he said "their side of the
issues".

Issues. Plural.

He does mentions "they" making a "case", but of course, that can easily
be read as each person making a case for their own particular issue.

Funny, a man who prides himself on his communication skills confuses the
one person who is allied with him.

Therefore, without having specified which issues he had in mind, it is
only possible to respond in a general fashion, which Stella did admirably.

Of course, your single-tracked, kooky mind assumes everyone's talking
about the issues YOU want to talk about.

I'm curious. Do you also wear women's sanitary napkins as part of your delusion?

Or would that be considered kooky?

Just trying to figure out where Tony draws the line of "kooky".

anonym™
...shaking his head at the hypocrisy with which Mr. Sidaway draws it for
others, while Tony draws a big circle to exclude himself.

wildearth

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>In article <7d3ds7$h7v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "wildearth"
><wild...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>>In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
>>><ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>wildearth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>>>> >>In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>,
gbur...@databasix.com
>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>In article <myers-20039...@ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
>>PZ
>>>>> >>Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>: In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>>>>> >>>: roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>>>>> >>>:
>>Does it matter if he is an English teacher or biologist? He is a
proponent
>>of education. I find his position hilarious given that the school where he
>>teaches is not highly concerned with literacy.
>
>Not concerned with literacy? Where do you get that bizarre idea?

From your bizarre interactions on this newsgroup while posting from Temple
U.


>
>>>>
>>>>We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
>>>>by most.
>>
>>Well, you know, he may very well be popular, particularly if he is the
>>"slack" he appears to be.
>
>Wrong again. The most common complaint I've gotten from students is the
>volume of reading and writing required to get through my courses.
>
>>>
>>>I know this would seriously contradict your image of me, but it's not
>>true --
>>>I'm actually one of the more popular teachers in my department. I have to
>>>turn away students every semester, and I've got twice as many students
>>asking
>>>to work in my lab as I can accommodate.
>>
>>Yep. I would believe this. "Take PZ's class; he's easy." That certainly
>>insures popularity.
>
>I see. When you can't find anything solid to criticize, make up lies. How
>despicable.

Since when is speculation based on a usenet performance equivalent to a lie?
Are you unable to differenciate between the two?


>
>No, my classes do not have a reputation for being easy. In the current
class,
>we flunk between 20% and 25% of the students. In upper-level courses, I
>flunk between 5% and 10%; median grade is somewhere around a high C or low
B.
>These are typical numbers for just about any university.

Each university has differing standards of ciriculum as well as performance
expectations. You neglect this variable when making the statement that
"these are typical numbers for just about any university."


>>>>
>>>>PZ. What a prick.
>>>
>>>Right. That's what all the kooks say.
>>>
>>>Perhaps that's the reason my students wouldn't agree with your assessment
>>>here -- they tend not to be kooks.
>>
>>What do your students tend to be? Your school has been portrayed in the
>>press as a glorified community college. Not very elite. Perhaps this is
>>the origin of your frustration.
>
>I see again. You can't seem to find enough to criticize in me, so you
choose
>to disparage the place where I work.

Fuel for the fodder, particularly when that person prides himself as an
academic and uses it as a tool to denegrate others.


How about Philadelphia? Now there's a
>big target for insults. Pennsylvania? The East Coast? The United States?
>The whole dang Western Hemisphere?

You're ridiculous. While no correlation can be made between your behavior
and your geographical location, a correlation can be made between a
professor and the instiution where he teaches. You are part of the product
they sell.


>
>Do I have to start tagging one of those silly disclaimers on my messages? I
>do not speak for Temple University, nor does it speak for me.

If I were you, I would think this not silly but wise. If you are a prof at
Temple and post from their account while engaging in what appears to be
highly kookified behavior, then this is certainly reflective of what this
academic institution has to offer.


>
>(however, your description of Temple is incorrect. It is a certified
research
>university, with perhaps more emphasis on teaching than most such.

My description? No. I simply restated it's widely recognized reputation as
a glorified community college.

>>You are extremely kooky. A worse advertisement for an academic


institution
>>can probably not be found.
>
>Alas. I know. I'm supposed to say "fuck you" more often. But I have been
unable
>to meet the high standards of this newsgroup.

You articulate the concept of "fuck you" better than anyone else. You win
that award.


>
>Now I expect you to start judging everyone else on alt.astrology by their
>occupation, and by making up evaluations of their work on the spot.
Anything
>else would be hypocritical, don't you agree?

I am not judging anyone. I am merely making an observation about an
academic who thinks that judging others or their "belief systems" is a way
to elevate his own self esteem. Since astrology cannot be scientifically
proven, what other purpose could you possibly have here expect to engage in
cyclical and dysfunctional behavior.

>PZ Myers

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Myers wrote:

(By the way, this little gem is from PZ's little tiff with "C":

""He" has not signed "his" name in the posts I've read -- so thank you
for the correction. I will henceforth sneer at C while using pronouns
of the proper gender."

Which I think comes in handy when he gives me shit about calling Tony "Tony".


>
> In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
> <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >wildearth wrote:
> >>
> >> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
> >> >
> >> >PZ Myers wrote in message ...
> >> >>In article <7d17em$q04$1...@dtbsx.databasix.com>, gbur...@databasix.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>In article <myers-20039...@ppp75.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>, PZ
> >> >>Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> >> >>>: In article <36f8e881...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
> >> >>>: roac...@databasix.com wrote:
> >> >>>:
> >> >>

> >> >>I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white

> >> >>and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately


> >> >>with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
> >> >>but just whether they make a persuasive case.
> >>

> >> Actually, on second thought, you do make a persuasive argument: if this is
> >> the most constructive use of a Prof's time, then Ed should post from his
> >> school account. Every moment you linger here, you rob someone of a better
> >> education. How hypocritical of you to to detest inarticulate speech. If you
> >> are so concerned with erudite conversation, your time would be best spent
> >> teaching your students to read.
> >
> >PZ has never made a secret of his contempt for his students.
>
> Really?

Yes.

>When have I expressed contempt for my students?

There was a post, that I will put a little (not much) effort into
finding, where your condecending attitude was used to put them down.

> Since this
> is not my attitude at all,

Au contraire, cow derriere. Your attitude IS all comtempt.

Take that away and you have no wind in your sails.

>I don't know where you got this idea.

From the careless post you made, you stupid asshole.


>
> >
> >He's a biologist, not an English teacher, but nevertheless, you can
> >safely assume that with his condescending and (falsely assumed) superior
> >attitude, that the contempt is reciprocated in force.
>

> You'd be wrong.

Weak rejoinder. You're an asshole, and a prick on Usenet, no reason it
shouldn't flow through into RL. Why not get all the students who love
you to post in your support? Meanwhile, we could dig around and try to
get the ones who think you're a prick to speak their minds. How would
that be?


>
> >
> >We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
> >by most.
>

> I know this would seriously contradict your image of me, but it's not true --
> I'm actually one of the more popular teachers in my department. I have to
> turn away students every semester, and I've got twice as many students asking
> to work in my lab as I can accommodate.

Yeah, and Ed Wollmann's been honored by the Mayor and City of San Diego
and Academicians applaud is kooky theories. Sure, buddy, sure. I'll bet
they even carry your autographed works in the student bookstore.

It could easliy be that you've got overcrowding in your school, and you
teach a required course for which the school doesn't have enough
instructors. That doesn't mean YOU are popluar, jerkoff.


>
> >
> >PZ. What a prick.
>
> Right.

Thank you.

>That's what all the kooks say.

You just agreed with me. By your own logic, you must be a kook, then.


>
> Perhaps that's the reason my students wouldn't agree with your assessment
> here -- they tend not to be kooks.

Let's try the experiment above and see what the results are!

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <myers-21039...@ppp48.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,

PZ Myers wrote:
>In article <36f537d...@nntpd.databasix.com>, roac...@databasix.com wrote:
...

>>
>>chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
>>magnifinco, tambien.
>
>Oh, yeah. It makes your insults so much more refined if you put them
>in Spanish.
...
If this is Roachie's attempt to appear erudite, perhaps he should stick to
a language in which I have not in the past had cause to correct him on
basic grammar.
--
Sherilyn

wildearth

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Pardon me anonym, but are you refering to me as "C"? I am assuming that you
are, considering you're quoting my post which is unsigned. I'm a "she",
genetically determined and reality enforced.

anonym™ wrote in message <36F4E378...@pacbell.net>...


>PZ Myers wrote:
>
>(By the way, this little gem is from PZ's little tiff with "C":
>
>""He" has not signed "his" name in the posts I've read -- so thank you
>for the correction. I will henceforth sneer at C while using pronouns
>of the proper gender."
>
>Which I think comes in handy when he gives me shit about calling Tony
"Tony".
>>
>> In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
>> <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >wildearth wrote:
>> >>
>> >> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>> >> >

!

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Myers wrote:
>
> In article <36F41047...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
> <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >PZ Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <36F41B...@hooked.net>, "J. White" <whit...@hooked.net>

> wrote:
> >>
> >> >PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Troll on. sher, pz, suck my dick, you bastards.
> >> >>
> >> >> That kind of comment is exactly why some people despise you.
> >> >
> >> >...and why others applaud Roachie!
> >>
> >> Comments like "suck my dick" earn your applause?
> >>
> >> I know this is a bit much to ask of some people...but try to think a little
> >> bit. Roach is not witty, he isn't rational, he isn't cogent -- he's a potty-
> >> mouthed little boy making noise on usenet.
> >
> >But fe's a VERY down to Earth kinda guy, and no matter what his faults
> >are, he's not intimidated into silence by your bullshit and tring to
> >shame him. Folks root for the underdog, sometimes.
> >>
> >> You can go ahead and like the little twerp personally, but by praising
> >> his putrid little eruptions you are doing him no favor, and you are also
> >> setting the bar on what you consider good commentary very, very low.
> >>
> >Did J. White SAY he considered it "good commentary", fish fucker?
> >
> >People applaud a good punch at the prizefights, you fucking moron.
> >
> >Does this mean they are applauding good commentary?
>
> This isn't a prizefight.

Sure isn't. You ain't the champion by a long shot.


>
> It is also not an insult-swapping contest.

That's what it looks like to everyone else here. What bizarro reality
have you created for it?


>
> Once upon a time, there was opportunity here to ARGUE over real matters,
> like the validity of astrology.

That still exists.

> The stuff that counts over a text-only

> medium like usenet is the quality of your discussion, the facts that you
> can marshal, the logic you apply.

That would be YOUR assesment of the situation, dodo.

In my view, the stuff that counts over a text-only medium is how you can
stretch the envelopes of it, and get to to seem like it isn't limited to
text. Hence the introduction of spelling out sound effects, using
emoticons, and all-caps conventions.

In other words, turn Usenet into an entertainment. And you have
contributed to that, unwittingly.

> It was bad enough that there were a few
> prolific little ignorami like Wollmann and Kettler who spewed that godawful
> canned screed all over the place, but there were also a few good skeptics
> (and even a few semi-rational astrologers) who could put together something
> worth reading.

There still are. I guess I'm one of them; you certainly seem to reply to
a helluva lot of my posts, indicating that they are worthwhile reading.

>
> Now what do we have? A number of people who think "suck my dick" is a
> "good punch".

Oh, are we back to that analogy again? I thought you tossed it away! But
you'll use it if it serves your argument, I see. Invalid if others use
it, valid if you want to use it. How hypocritical.

Yes, "suck my dick" can be a very good punch.

Remember in "Raiders of the Lost Ark", the guy who jumped out, wielding
his sword in all these fancy ways, and making a big show of it? That's you.

And Indy pulled out his .45 and just blew the guy away with a coarse,
unsophisticated, monosyllabic single gunfire.

That's me, and Roach, and J.

>
> Roach is just the most recent and egregious example of this kind of

> degradation of the discussion. Roach, White, Burnore *never* have
> anything rational to say,

This is patently false.

You're in exaggeration mode again. When you become upset, you get
flustered, and your reason fails you. It seems to be a recurring problem
with you.

> but find it sufficient to check in, find the
> latest post they disagree with, and reply with a hearty "fuck you".

Again, you'll now be required to post evidence of each of those
gentlemen making that post.

Or were you generalizing, and hurting your argument in the process?

> And
> now we have a fine population of gutter-minded individuals who clap their
> hands and say "Hooray, good punch!"

Wow! You really did like that analogy! You;ve been hanging around with
Tony too long. I come up with a creative idea, he steals it as his
own,...you're following along the same path.

But, yeah! It's the Usenet equeivalent of that "Raiders' scene. You come
in, all hoity-toity, making your annoying, shrill little noises, and we
blast you away, and it's a big crowd pleaser.


>
> You used to be able to sometimes exercise some pretty potently barbed wit
> yourself.

Oh, I'm still able to.

> But now all I see is a massive dilution of what intelligence you
> have with volumes of posts that say little more than "fuck you".

That's all you see because all of a sudden that barbed wit is aimed at YOU.

You simply have less of an appreciation for it because you're expending
too much energy on the defensive to appreciate it.

> Do you
> think that is a good thing?

I think it's a GREAT thing that I'm exposing your hypocrisy and lack of reason!


>
> >
> >It's amazing that you pride yourself on your supposedly good powers of
> >reasoning when you're so guilty of putting words in people's mouths, and
> >either understating or exaggerating the crux of a problem.
>
> No worse than you do.

So, you admit it!

> You accuse me of hypocrisy and bile below;

Because you;re full of both.

> you claim
> I'm unpopular with students,

I said it was a safe bet. There you go again, mamking my point. Putting
words into other's mouths.
What a weak position you must have if you feel you must resort to that tactic.

> something you know nothing about;

I base it on a careless post you once made.

>your entire
> reputation rests on hyperbole.

Again, not true. Like any great wine, my reputatiion is based on a
number of complex variables.
Sure there's hyperbole. But there's also truth, generosity,
outrageousness, mercy, reason, surrealism, viciousness...

A rich, satisfying blend, with an aftertaste that is either pleasant or
unpleasant, depending on what kind of meat is being chewed, and whose.

Try not to be so simplistic next time; it hurts YOUR reputation.

>Any time anyone restates someone's position
> you can choose to call it understatement, exaggeration, or putting words
> in people's mouths -- that's the nature of communication.

However, that doesn't excuse your dishonest abuse of those conventions.


>
> >
> >The amount of hypocrisy and bile you inject into any thread makes you
> >very unpopular, Peez.
>

> Oh, right. Nowadays I'm supposed to inject more vapid profanity to make
> myself popular.

No, as I said, coming from you, it would be laughable.

>
> Here's some real news for you: I don't want to be popular with the kinds of
> people I am berating here.

Then why are you making pleas to the populace for support?

Hypocrite.

Interesting that you admit to berating people. Again, why waste your
time, if such people are supposedly beneath you?


>
> >
> >Sneering will only get you so far.
> >> >
> >> >> It's pathetic, it's infantile, it's crude.
> >> >
> >> >It's the Tony-PZ show.
> >> >
> >> >> Grow up.
> >> >
> >> >Grow balls.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >J. White
> >> >...pull my finger
> >>
> >> Good point. Why do I waste my time criticizing a crude pissant like you?
> >
> >Why, indeed? You certainly spend a lot of time responding to and
> >sparring with J, Roach, and I.
>
> Yes, too much.

Well, then, the obvious idiot here is YOU! Don't be blaming US for your
decision to waste your own time!
Thae fact that you spend a lot of time here means you must enjoy it!

Why can't you just admit that?


>
> Especially since you boys would think it the acme of intellectual discussion
> if I just replied with a brief "fuck you".

There you go again. Assuming what people would think.

When we want the acme of intellectual discussion, do you think we
traipse over to Usenet?

Is that why you're here?

Are you saying the poison you spew is the acme of intelectual discussion?

Buddy, you came to a wrassling match and you want to know why people
aren't reading Heidegger in the ring?

YOU are a MORON!


>
> >
> >The noticeable paucity of any amount of intellectual discussion that you
> >have with others here indicates that you love to roll around in the muck
> >while chiding others for being so filthy.
> >
> >How kooky of you to spend so much time involved in things you claim are
> >beneath you.
>

> As I've said, once there was a point -- there was a time when you could
> actually debate an issue here, as long as you ignored the flaming idiots
> like Wollmann.

And you think that you can no longer have an intellectual discussion?

> Now the newsgroup is dominated by illiterate idiots like
> Roach and White and Burnore.

BWAHAHAHA! Dominated? Care to tell me how J.White dominates this
newsgroup? He's posted maybe a TENTH of what you have over the past few
months. Ever seen his website? Pretty literate, if you ask me!

See, numbnuts, the decision to use profanity does not make one illiterate.

Anymore than the decision to lord one's erudition over others is a sign
of intelligence.

> Similarly, you used to be able to get into
> a good feisty discussion on IRC -

Still can, asshole.

>- and now it is "la casa de roachie"

> where the most miserably lackwit of the old regulars can now call himself


> "leader" and run the show as he wishes.

On one particular channel. Funny, it doesn't take much to go to another channel.

Doesn't take much to subscribe to another newsggroup.

Doesn't take much to ignore or killfile those who bother you.

You now blame others for your own wallowing in supposed filth, as though
people are holding you back from climbing out of this pit of iniquity?

You're free to go, buddy!

Don't let the door hit you on your way out!

What are you still doing here?


>
> >
> >I'm sure you read "Blue Boy" for the articles, as well.
>
> I don't even know what "Blue Boy" is...I assume it is something you find
> repulsive, yet are familiar with.

There you go assuming, again! It's not repulsive, just not my cup of
tea, and my familiarity begins and ends with viewing a few pages of it
once at a newsstand when someone said "Here! Looka dis one!"

It just seemed like the type of thing that would be "up your alley".

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
wildearth wrote:
>
> PZ Myers wrote in message ...
> >In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
> ><ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>wildearth wrote:
> >>>
> >>> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
> >>> >
> >Really? When have I expressed contempt for my students? Since this
> >is not my attitude at all, I don't know where you got this idea.

> >
> >>
> >>He's a biologist, not an English teacher, but nevertheless, you can
> >>safely assume that with his condescending and (falsely assumed) superior
> >>attitude, that the contempt is reciprocated in force.
> >
> Does it matter if he is an English teacher or biologist? He is a proponent
> of education. I find his position hilarious given that the school where he
> teaches is not highly concerned with literacy.
> >>
> >>We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
> >>by most.
>
> Well, you know, he may very well be popular, particularly if he is the
> "slack" he appears to be.
> >
> >I know this would seriously contradict your image of me, but it's not
> true --
> >I'm actually one of the more popular teachers in my department. I have to
> >turn away students every semester, and I've got twice as many students
> asking
> >to work in my lab as I can accommodate.
>
> Yep. I would believe this. "Take PZ's class; he's easy." That certainly
> insures popularity.
> >>
> >>PZ. What a prick.
> >
> >Right. That's what all the kooks say.

> >
> >Perhaps that's the reason my students wouldn't agree with your assessment
> >here -- they tend not to be kooks.
>
> What do your students tend to be? Your school has been portrayed in the
> press as a glorified community college. Not very elite. Perhaps this is
> the origin of your frustration.
>
> You are extremely kooky. A worse advertisement for an academic institution
> can probably not be found.
>
Ba-dah BING, BA-DAH BOOM!

anonym™
...celebrating the acme of intellectual discussion.

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
"J. White" wrote:
>
> PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:...

> > Once upon a time, there was opportunity here to ARGUE over real matters,
> > like the validity of astrology.
>

> Whoa there sparky...
>
> There was never any "argument".
>

> *You* want to attack astrologers and belittle their beliefs.
>

> I know *I'm* here to mock pompous turds like you Tony and Ed.
>
> Don't pretend you have any high and lofty goals, fishfucker.

Exactly.

...


>
> > Oh, right. Nowadays I'm supposed to inject more vapid profanity to make
> > myself popular.
>

> Try a little honesty. Admit why you are here and stop pretending you
> are better than the people you feel are beneath you.

Precisely.


>
>
> > Here's some real news for you: I don't want to be popular with the kinds of
> > people I am berating here.
>

> Then you are succeeding beyond your wildest dreams, asshole.

Without a doubt.

anonym™
...reveling in the idiosyncratic hypocrisies, the injurious
self-contradicitons of the college professor who prides himself on his
"superior" reasoning abilities.

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <slrn7falvd....@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk (Sherilyn) wrote:

>In article <myers-21039...@ppp48.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,


>PZ Myers wrote:
>>In article <36f537d...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>...
>>>
>>>chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
>>>magnifinco, tambien.
>>
>>Oh, yeah. It makes your insults so much more refined if you put them
>>in Spanish.
>...
>If this is Roachie's attempt to appear erudite, perhaps he should stick to
>a language in which I have not in the past had cause to correct him on
>basic grammar.

Oh, well...I know very little Spanish, other than those bits I learned
in grade school and from my pals who'd made trips to that lovely little
family-oriented vacation spot, Tijuana.

Maybe Roach has changed his tune and is saying NICE things in that language.
"Chinga tus madres" -- I *thought* I knew what that meant, but "chinga"
is kinda colloquial and I could be wrong. Perhaps he's just saying something
complimentary about my mother.

The rest is very confusing to me, but "puta mas grande" sounds vaguely
familiar. Maybe that's the part where he is saying something sweet about
HIS mother!

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36F4E378...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
<ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>PZ Myers wrote:
>
>(By the way, this little gem is from PZ's little tiff with "C":
>
>""He" has not signed "his" name in the posts I've read -- so thank you
>for the correction. I will henceforth sneer at C while using pronouns
>of the proper gender."
>
>Which I think comes in handy when he gives me shit about calling Tony "Tony".


By which you completely miss the point. I referred to C as "he" in the
absence of any knowledge of C's preference -- since corrected, I've
consistently referred to her as "she".

You'd have a case if I started referring to C as a "he" in order to irritate
her. That would be a most pathetic and superficial thing to do, don't you
think?

>>
>> In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
>> <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >wildearth wrote:
>> >>
>> >> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>> >> >

[snip]


>> >
>> >PZ has never made a secret of his contempt for his students.
>>
>> Really?
>

>Yes.


>
>>When have I expressed contempt for my students?
>

>There was a post, that I will put a little (not much) effort into
>finding, where your condecending attitude was used to put them down.

Since it is a comment that is very much the antithesis of my feelings
about my students, I did a little digging, too. I couldn't find it. I
searched for every instance where "student" was mentioned in one of my
posts -- most of them were replies to Wollmann puffery.

Here's the closest I could come:
---
http://x9.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=320250897
Whoa...I've visited SDSU. A friend and colleague used to work there. It
is a very nice university, with at least some very qualified and intelligent
faculty. Let's not tear down the whole place because it has one "slacker
dumbshit" student. Every university has a pool of unqualified twits who
are only there because they continue to shovel money into tuition.
---

I suppose you could claim that recognition that there are a few stupid
students at every university could be called contempt for SOME students...
but not for MY students or ALL students. And if you want to disagree
with me about that, all I have to do is point out Mr. Edmond H. Wollmann
to show you wrong.

There was also the post below where I acknowledge that sometimes I
have students who have stupid ideas:
---
http://x9.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=190785390
> A good reason for my setting the record straight, now, as to what
> the people who *REALLY BELONG, WHO ACTUALLY IDENTIFY WITH THE
> NEWSGROUP'S SUBJECT* want, is to make it clear what is happening
> in these newsgroups, that the present activity of "skeptics" in
> these newsgroups is undesirable, and is probably the reason that
> some newsgroups are degenerating to mostly conflict and
> advertising, that people who once contributed to the newsgroups
> are leaving. So, if the "skeptics" cite the condition of the
> newsgroups to close them down, let it be known that the condition
> exists, largely, because of the "skeptics."

Hey, I actually belong and identify with some of these subjects. I
strongly disagree with them, and that's why I make disagreeable comments
about them, which is a perfectly valid reason to participate in a
discussion. I'm an educator, and have to deal with students who have
swallowed a line of hokum about creationism or psychic powers or
whatever all the time -- I _want_ my students to be capable of
critical thought!
---

Again, though, it's quite a reach to come up with your interpretation.
I may think some students can be very, very wrong about some things, but
that's to be expected -- and that I want them to learn by being capable
of critical thought on their own does not sound too condescending to me.


Now there was a reply to the comment you quoted above from the lovely
Ms. C...she wanted to go whining to my university and complain that I
was a wicked person. She wanted me kicked right off of usenet (have you
considered asking her to join your little club? She'd fit in well).

---
http://x9.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=409376255
>I've collected a large list of demeaning terms you have used against me
>which most
>people would consider abuse. There are all the signs there Paul, and you
>can use
>them on your wife and your students but not no me.

Grow up.

You cannot get all touchy and offended by the content of a post on usenet,
and go screaming to mommy and daddy to tell big bad Paul to stop being mean
to you. It doesn't work.

If you are this thin-skinned, get off usenet. Or use a killfile.

Oh, and my wife and students are quite intelligent people -- they don't
deserve to be belittled.
---

Perhaps this is the source of your misconception. I do get quite snarly
with some of the more egregious nitwits on usenet, like C or Wollmann or
Roach (but then, of course, so do you. Or have your buddies sanctified you
now, too?). Some of the butts of my ire think that's how I treat students...
but of course, they are wrong. I actually have a lot of respect for the
great majority of the students. They are people who have made a decision
to better themselves with education, obviously, and further, the ones I
encounter have committed themselves to the rather difficult discipline of
biology.

Oh, and if you want to continue this crap about who despises students,
take it up with this "wildearth" bozo. He's the one who just said all
the students at a university of 30,000 were illiterate. You're chasing
the wrong guy if you want to lynch me for being nasty to poor little
college students.

--
PZ Myers

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Myers wrote:

>
> In article <36F537...@hooked.net>, "J. White" <whit...@hooked.net> wrote:
>
> >PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:
> >
> >> This isn't a prizefight.
> >
> >Who says?

> >
> >> It is also not an insult-swapping contest.
> >
> >It does in fact appear to be just that.
> >
> >> Once upon a time, there was opportunity here to ARGUE over real matters,
> >> like the validity of astrology.
> >
> >Whoa there sparky...
> >
> >There was never any "argument".
>
> You've missed some of the discussion that has gone on in the past, then.

That same lack of informed context didn't stop you from barging in and
judging people in the discussion surrounding Tony's IRC cock-up, so you
going around chastising others for the same thing only cements your
reputation further as a fucking hypocrite.


>
> >
> >*You* want to attack astrologers and belittle their beliefs.
>

> No, I want to attack astrology.

Well, the little perk is that you get to haul out a whole lot of
personal insults while you pursue what uou want, isn't it?


>
> >
> >I know *I'm* here to mock pompous turds like you Tony and Ed.
> >
> >Don't pretend you have any high and lofty goals, fishfucker.

Notice Peezy has no response to that one.


> >
> >
> >> The stuff that counts over a text-only

> >> medium like usenet is the quality of your discussion
> >
> >Who decides what is or isn't quality?
> >
> >You?
> >
> >Tony?
> >
> >Ed?
>
> OK, we'll let YOU decide what is quality. That's fine with me.
>
> So...is "fuck you, asshole" a fine, high-quality response?

Why are you putting words into his mouth?

You DID say J. could decide!


>
> Care to try and pin things down a little bit?

We try and pin you doewn but you're a slippery little weasel, so it's
better just to lob the big boulders.


>
> >
> >> Roach, White, Burnore *never* have anything rational to say,

> >> but find it sufficient to check in, find the latest post they
> >> disagree with, and reply with a hearty "fuck you".
> >

> >Your point?
> >
> ><snip to...>


> >
> >> Oh, right. Nowadays I'm supposed to inject more vapid profanity to make
> >> myself popular.
> >
> >Try a little honesty.
>

> I see. You are resentful because I feel that "fuck you, asshole" is
> NOT a quality response.

No, he's not resentful at all.

How fucking kooky can you get, Peezy?

By acting like you haven't a chink in the front of your armor you're
showing us all that huge gap in the back, along with your ridiculous buttcrack!

>..and that's the best you can muster. I'm sorry.
> But as I said above, I'll let you be the arbiter of taste here. If "fuck
> you, asshole" is the new empyreal standard of discourse,

Who said it was, dickwad?

> I shall then
> proceed to feel diminished and inferior whenever I post here.

Boy. Talk about missing the point!

Hey, Professor Non Sequitur!

Care to respond to the statement?: "Admit why you are here and stop


pretending you
are better than the people you feel are beneath you."

The fact that you choose not to use profanity in your insults makes them
no less vicious, or insulting. In fact, by your own reasoning, profanity
blunts an insult due to its lack of sophistication, intellectualism, and
literacy. Ergo, your insults are even more vicious.

So, you're an even bigger assshole han the people you're berating.

You enjoy being an asshole.

So, why don't you admit why you are here and stop pretending you
are better than the people you feel are beneath you?


>
> >
> >
> >> Here's some real news for you: I don't want to be popular with the kinds of
> >> people I am berating here.
> >
> >Then you are succeeding beyond your wildest dreams, asshole.
>

> Hooray!

Yet watch PZ continue to slop around in the muck, while claiming to be
lily-white and unstained.

Geez, Peez, at least we're HONEST about enjoying the fight.

You're deceiving no one but yourself.

wildearth

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>In article <7d3ds7$h7v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "wildearth"

><wild...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>>In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
>>><ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>wildearth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >PZ Myers wrote in message ...

>>>> >>Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>:


>>>>> >>
>>>>We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
>>>>by most.
>>
>>Well, you know, he may very well be popular, particularly if he is the
>>"slack" he appears to be.
>

>Wrong again. The most common complaint I've gotten from students is the
>volume of reading and writing required to get through my courses.


Said complaint relative to a student's ability and level of ambition. So,
they express a preference for you, albeit they do not have a preference for
reading and writing? Highly unlikely. Your statement supports the
perception of your school as a glorified community college while shifting
the blame to your students. How astutely sleazy of you.

It also reflects your motivation for insulting those that you "perceive" as
underachievers. Pathetic.


Keera A. Fox

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <36f9f46b...@206.214.99.8>,
> be...@ix.netcom.com (Pamela Gross) wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:04:58 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
> > (Sherilyn) wrote:
> ...
> > >

> > >Whether one makes a persuasive case depends, not on one's use of language,
> > >but how on one's arguments support one's actions. The methods used by
> > > Roachie
> > >against the kooks are the methods of the kooks themselves, to wit:
> > >calls for the removal of newsgroups, attempts to haul them into court,
> > >and attempts to cancel their accounts. Have Roachie and company
> > >presented a persuasive case to support these arguments? You have
> > >ducked PZ's question. Try again.
> >

> > Is anybody else besides me staying out of this mess?
> >
> > Pam
> > tired of seeing friends tear each other apart
>
> I don't think any of us is seriously bothered by all this stuff, to
> be honest. We have to be able to state our opinions; that's what USENET
> is for. This is not real life. That, in a nutshell, is my argument.
>

This is not real life? No one is seriously bothered by all this stuff?
Former friends/allies are fighting with each other, foul language is
flying and there is no astrology, just bandwidth clutter.

I, personally, am not seriously bothered. But I am somewhat bothered,
constantly finding long threads of nothing but fighting and "he said,
she saids" that I have no interest in nor any ability to verify, should
I ever care to.

This *is* real life, Sher. *Real* people think these thoughts, type
these words, post them, read them and react to them.

Just because we can't smell, hear or see each other doesn't make it "not
real life".

Freedom of speech is not synonymous with discounting people's feelings.

--
****** Keera in Norway ******
** Think big. Shrink to fit. **
** http://home.sol.no/~keera **

Stella

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

PZ Myers wrote:

> In article <36F4E3B5...@pop.net.ntl.com>, ma...@NOSPAM.net.ntl.com wrote:
>
>

<snip>

> >
> >I think that Roach, anonym™, J. White and Gary have been using their language
> >very effectively indeed. There is no pretense in their insults, whereas you
> >think you can insult with flowery multi-syllabic dialogue, and that makes you
>

> Flowery? Multi-syllabic? Me? No...just basically literate.

Yes, you are literate, but I would argue that using the popular culture of crude
expletives does not show illiteracy, if Roach prefers to express himself this way
towards you, or me, he has every right. But I am also aware that Roach can express
himself in a more eloquent manner which proves he is capable of attaining the
higher realm of expression you promote. In fact, Roachie has discovered he can use
language to his own means to express feelings, which wouldn't seem raw enough to
suit his needs if he uses the language you prefer. I see nothing wrong in this, is
seems quite practical when faced with a computer monitor instead of a human being,
language is the *only* way you can get your feelings across. Obviously in 'real
life' the harsh confontations exhibited on usenet would be unnecessary and
diplomacy would be much more likely.

> There is a real
> problem when people see the repetitive use of the phrase "fuck you" as a
> legitimate component of common discourse. Once in a while, sure, it can
> be effective. In every single post? It becomes noise.

Well, if is too much for your sensitive disposition you could always use a
killfile, but as I read earlier "Killfiles are for pussies". And I believe that
you are not so sensitive to such crudity, it just pisses you off when it is aimed
at you.

>
>
> >appear intelligent. Can you see the problem? There is essentially no
> >difference between calling someone a "cock-sucking mother-fucker"
>

> 7 syllables.
>
> >or a "crude
> >pissant"
>
> 3 syllables.

I made up the first example - so perhaps I am multi-syllabic, not as if that is a
problem though. That isn't my general argument.

>
>
> > - an insult is an insult no matter how much sugar you deliver with it.
>

> No, there is a HUGE difference here. I have never sucked a cock, nor have

> I had sex with my mother. Nor have I ever expressed any interest in doing
> such things.

But nobody really expects you to have or want to do these things - it is a name
given as an insult, and therefore is extremely effective if you have taken the
stance you cite above.

> On the other hand, somebody who calls someone else a
> "cock-sucking mother-fucker" IS demonstrably and evidently a crude pissant.

But to tell someone this is also an insult - therefore, no difference. The clear
fact of the matter is that no matter what language is being used, an insult is an
insult, and the effectiveness of the language used is evident in the reaction it
creates. The fact that you have reacted so strongly to a spate of name calling
demonstrates how effective Roach's choice of words are.

>
>
> >You show a clear example of elitist, intellectual snobbery without seeming to
> >understand the implications of your criticisms.
>

> OK. How about if you explain to me in plain words how someone should respond
> to a post that says little more than "suck my dick" or "fuck you".

I would not respond with insults - behaviour breeds behaviour. If you do not wish
to be insulted or attacked you should not return the insults and attacks.
Intelligence is shown by rising above all that by refusing the bait. Do you really
think that you will get Roach to change his choice of language by constantly
calling him ignorant?

> That seems
> to be all we are getting out of Roach...there just isn't much too wrestle with,
> there. I've responded by saying, essentially, "Wait a minute -- you are just
> spewing vulgarisms and acting like a crude pissant. Say something INTELLIGENT.
> If you can." Perhaps you have some gentler way of breaking the news to someone
> like Roach that he is being coarse and irrational?

Why should I judge his form of expression? What right do I have?

> If so, why haven't you
> said something like that to him or White or Burnore or anonym?

Likewise for the others, they have all shown wit and intelligence smattered with
swearing; sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's disgusting, but I accept them as
they are.

> You've found
> your voice to break the terrible news to me that I'm flowery and elitist,

I never said you were flowery and elitist, I said your language was an example of
flowery elitistism. This is not a fault by any means, look at the wit of Oscar
Wilde, etc. you are in good company. I commend your use of language but I dislike
your criticisms of other's choice of expression.

> implying that you find that more objectionable than someone whose posts
> consist of little more than expletives.

You assumed wrongly, perhaps my style of writing is a little too vague for you?

>
>
> You and I have managed to have some worthwhile arguments in the past. I don't
> seem to recall ever needing to say "fuck you" or even "crude pissant" to
> you, and you haven't needed to say anything like that to me.

Like I said, behaviour breeds behaviour, I personally try to avoid insults and if
somebody lays into me I may question their reasons but would try not to return the
insults. Pete Stapleton severely tempted negative reaction and sadly I may have
lapsed my guard ocassionally ;-)

> We're even
> disagreeing strongly but civilly here, and I suspect neither of us will
> stoop to calling each other "cocksucker" or "pissant".

I hope not :-)

> Could Roach or even
> anonym do that?

Why does it matter when you indulge in this behaviour yourself?

-----------------------------------
Stella Hill
Sceptic astrologer
-----------------------------------


Stella

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

Sherilyn wrote:

> In article <36F4E3B5...@pop.net.ntl.com>, Stella wrote:
> [PZ]


> >> I'm curious...how many people out there think roach and anonym and white
> >> and burnore have been promoting their side of the issues appropriately
> >> with their clever use of language? Not whether they are right or wrong,
> >> but just whether they make a persuasive case.
> >>
> >

> >I think that Roach, anonym™, J. White and Gary have been using their language
> >very effectively indeed. There is no pretense in their insults, whereas you
> >think you can insult with flowery multi-syllabic dialogue, and that makes you

> >appear intelligent.


>
> Whether one makes a persuasive case depends, not on one's use of language,
> but how on one's arguments support one's actions.

But this is not what PZ requested. The issue at hand here is the use of language
chosen to deliver a message. This is what I have addressed.

> The methods used by Roachie
> against the kooks are the methods of the kooks themselves, to wit: calls for
> the removal of newsgroups, attempts to haul them into court, and attempts to
> cancel their accounts. Have Roachie and company presented a persuasive case
> to support these arguments? You have ducked PZ's question. Try again.

*You* need to try again - you need to reread PZ's question which I have retained
at the beginning of this post for your perusal. You have tried to turn the topic
around to your preferred avenue, PZ was not interested in the case of 'right' or
'wrong' in his question and neither am I. Personally I do not care to become
involved in the ethics or hypocrisy that have been clearly displayed during this
flame war, but wished to give my opinion of the use of language used on both
sides.--------------------------------
Stella Hill
Sceptic astrologer
--------------------------------

Piltdown Man

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

RoachClip™, dk <roac...@databasix.com> wrote...

<snip>


> Yep, that's me. Illiteriate. I guess reading AND comprehending the
> newspaper at 2 1/2 means dick.

Wow! Did you also master the noble art of falconry at age 10? Or were you
recently honoured by the mayor of some US municipality? That would impress
me even more.

<snip rest as it seems to be about some IRC channels and we're not on IRC>

--
Piltdown Man P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Dawson Publications, BFN 299-5603

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:08:15 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:

>[snip whining that he's not illiterate, he can read a newspaper!]

what whining? I didn't whine. I don't whine anyway, voice is way tooo
deep. Ask around if you think you know better.

>If you are so clever, then why is your most common retort something along
>the lines of "fuck off, bastard"?

because you are acting as common as I, by continuing this nonsense.

>[snip]


>
>>of the old regulars can now call himself
>>>"leader" and run the show as he wishes.
>>

>>Not.
>
>Oh? I've seen you call yourself "leader" on the channel. But then,
>I assume that was just for humorous effect, with no real meaning...
>kinda like "czarina".

Well, I don't go on with the same shit the czarina does. But then
again I don't have a gender problem.

>[snip]


>
>>
>>chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
>>magnifinco, tambien.
>
>Oh, yeah. It makes your insults so much more refined if you put them
>in Spanish.

it makes it easier for me to write.

thank you =))

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36F4F62B...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
<ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:

[snip]

>So, why don't you admit why you are here and stop pretending you
>are better than the people you feel are beneath you?

I'm trying to figure this one out.

"Stop pretending you are better than the people you feel are beneath you".

It's a toughie. A real puzzle in logic.

The answer is I can't. I'm not pretending, so I can't stop. I *am* better
than the people I feel are beneath me.

I bet you feel the same way -- that you are better than the people you feel
are beneath you. About the only way we could get out of this logical
tautology would be to argue that everyone is exactly equal...and we can't
do that.

Of course, that leaves wide open the question of WHO I might think these
people are that are beneath me. Or who you judge as being beneath you.
But I can say that I don't think everyone, or even the majority, on a.a. is
beneath me. There are good, smart, and decent people on both the skeptical
and the woo-woo side, and there are a few loud, revolting lackwits on both
sides, too.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> Here's some real news for you: I don't want to be popular with the
kinds of
>> >> people I am berating here.
>> >
>> >Then you are succeeding beyond your wildest dreams, asshole.
>>
>> Hooray!
>
>Yet watch PZ continue to slop around in the muck, while claiming to be
>lily-white and unstained.

Really? What was that criticism of me you were making, about putting words
in people's mouths?

Show me the bit where I claimed to be "lilly-white and unstained", or admit
that you are a hypocrite.

>
>Geez, Peez, at least we're HONEST about enjoying the fight.
>
>You're deceiving no one but yourself.

You are just going to have to make up your mind here, anonym.

Am I deceiving someone about not enjoying this mucky little fight?
Or am I reveling in my delusions of superiority?

Am I claiming to be lily-white, or have I admitted in the past to being
in the same soup with you?

If you want these insults to stick, a little consistency would help!

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <7d3p10$cha$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "wildearth"
<wild...@erols.com> wrote:

>PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>In article <7d3ds7$h7v$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>, "wildearth"
>><wild...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>>PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>>>>In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
>>>><ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>wildearth wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >PZ Myers wrote in message ...
>
>>>>> >>Myers <my...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>We all remember a teacher like PZ; always alone, always unpopular, hated
>>>>>by most.
>>>
>>>Well, you know, he may very well be popular, particularly if he is the
>>>"slack" he appears to be.
>>
>>Wrong again. The most common complaint I've gotten from students is the
>>volume of reading and writing required to get through my courses.
>
>
>Said complaint relative to a student's ability and level of ambition. So,
>they express a preference for you, albeit they do not have a preference for
>reading and writing? Highly unlikely. Your statement supports the
>perception of your school as a glorified community college while shifting
>the blame to your students. How astutely sleazy of you.

Hmmm. What a conundrum you face. On the one hand, you want to accuse me
of being a "slack", easy instructor. On the other, you've got to deal with
the fact that students complain that I make them work too hard for their
3 or 5 credits. On top of all that, you've got to do it with absolutely
no information about me, my classes, or my students!

But yeah, you're right. Students at Harvard never ever complain about
how much readin' and writin' they have to do. Tell a Harvard man that
he has to read everything Mayr, Gibbon, and Foucalt have written by the
end of the week and turn in a 50-page synthesis by Monday, and they just
roll over and do it happily. Do the same thing to a Temple student and
there's a lynching by the bell tower.

>
>It also reflects your motivation for insulting those that you "perceive" as
>underachievers.

It does? Wow.

Did you know I also encoded the complete works of Wm. Shakespeare in compressed
form in the pattern of the letters I used in my comments? Stare at them long
enough, and use your imagination a wee little bit (I know you can; I see it
shining forth in this post!), and they'll all emerge.

>Pathetic.

I'll say. This does clarify where anonym got this idea that I despise my
students -- he must be sipping the same 'lectric kool-aid you've been
guzzling. Or at least reading these same strange elaborations on your internal
fantasies.

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36f7697f...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
roac...@databasix.com wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:08:15 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
>>In article <36f537d...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>>
>>[snip whining that he's not illiterate, he can read a newspaper!]
>
>what whining? I didn't whine. I don't whine anyway, voice is way tooo
>deep. Ask around if you think you know better.
>
>>If you are so clever, then why is your most common retort something along
>>the lines of "fuck off, bastard"?
>
>because you are acting as common as I, by continuing this nonsense.
>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>of the old regulars can now call himself
>>>>"leader" and run the show as he wishes.
>>>
>>>Not.
>>
>>Oh? I've seen you call yourself "leader" on the channel. But then,
>>I assume that was just for humorous effect, with no real meaning...
>>kinda like "czarina".
>
>Well, I don't go on with the same shit the czarina does. But then
>again I don't have a gender problem.

Fine example of a non sequitur there, Roach. You've got that fallacy
down pat.

>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
>>>magnifinco, tambien.
>>
>>Oh, yeah. It makes your insults so much more refined if you put them
>>in Spanish.
>

>it makes it easier for me to write.
>
>thank you =))

Another so-called-literate fellow who doesn't recognize sarcasm...

I want to know, though, what ever happened to that good plonking you
were going to give me!

--
PZ Myers

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On 21 Mar 1999 20:48:39 GMT, "Piltdown Man"
<pilt...@newsguy.com.NOSPAM> wrote:

>
>RoachClip™, dk <roac...@databasix.com> wrote...
>
><snip>
>> Yep, that's me. Illiteriate. I guess reading AND comprehending the
>> newspaper at 2 1/2 means dick.
>
>Wow! Did you also master the noble art of falconry at age 10? Or were you
>recently honoured by the mayor of some US municipality? That would impress
>me even more.

Nope. But I can censor and berate and be uncouth. ;) Does that
impreess ya? =)

><snip rest as it seems to be about some IRC channels and we're not on IRC>

Yep. Just going with the flow. toni brought it up, I am gonna carry it
on.

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:32:03 -0500, my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ
Myers) wrote:

>>PZ Myers wrote:
>>>In article <36f537d...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>roac...@databasix.com wrote:

>>...


>>>>
>>>>chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
>>>>magnifinco, tambien.
>>>
>>>Oh, yeah. It makes your insults so much more refined if you put them
>>>in Spanish.

>>...
>>If this is Roachie's attempt to appear erudite, perhaps he should stick to
>>a language in which I have not in the past had cause to correct him on
>>basic grammar.

Yeah, sher. like you use it every fucking day of your life too, huh? I
bet there are as many hispanics over in london as there is here isn't
there?

Fucking hypocritical petaQ.

tera'ngan sher. <spit> nuqneH'? HuH!

Well, I don't remember for any correcting from you, anyhoo.

SNIP crap re t.j.

>Maybe Roach has changed his tune and is saying NICE things in that language.
>"Chinga tus madres" -- I *thought* I knew what that meant, but "chinga"
>is kinda colloquial and I could be wrong. Perhaps he's just saying something
>complimentary about my mother.

Chinga is the third person singular form of chingar, the mexican
spanish transitive meaning "to fuck" When used in the third person
singular it is intentioned as a command. Therefore, in my crude and
vulgar way I told you and sher to go fuck your mothers.

If I wanted to complement your mother, I would say "la madre de el
señor PZ esta una chica fabulosa"

And thus I will not insult her.

>The rest is very confusing to me, but "puta mas grande" sounds vaguely
>familiar. Maybe that's the part where he is saying something sweet about
>HIS mother!

No, I called you a great big whore.

And I say something sweet about my mum: "mi madre esta una perra, pero
te amo ella con todo mi corazon."

and then she laughs heartily.

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:00:30 -0500, my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ
Myers) wrote:

SNIP


>It's a toughie. A real puzzle in logic.
>
>The answer is I can't. I'm not pretending, so I can't stop. I *am* better
>than the people I feel are beneath me.

How? Explain this almighty PZ. Who exactly are the ones beneath you?


>I bet you feel the same way -- that you are better than the people you feel
>are beneath you. About the only way we could get out of this logical
>tautology would be to argue that everyone is exactly equal...and we can't
>do that.

The hell we cant. All you have to do is quit acting like you are
better than everyone else and slaging them down.

>Of course, that leaves wide open the question of WHO I might think these
>people are that are beneath me. Or who you judge as being beneath you.
>But I can say that I don't think everyone, or even the majority, on a.a. is
>beneath me. There are good, smart, and decent people on both the skeptical
>and the woo-woo side, and there are a few loud, revolting lackwits on both
>sides, too.

Just because I think you are full of shit for being a condecending
asshole, me being a skeptic-woo too then makes me a revolting lackwit?

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 17:20:36 -0500, my...@astro.ocis.temple.edu (PZ
Myers) wrote:
SNIP

>>>>chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
>>>>magnifinco, tambien.
>>>
>>>Oh, yeah. It makes your insults so much more refined if you put them
>>>in Spanish.
>>
>>it makes it easier for me to write.
>>
>>thank you =))
>
>Another so-called-literate fellow who doesn't recognize sarcasm...

the hell I don't. I like to respond sarcasm WITH sarcasm, asshole.

>I want to know, though, what ever happened to that good plonking you
>were going to give me!

well, I decided that I would be better off not pussing out and go down
fighting. You may eventually rip me a new one, but not yet by a damn
sight.

Condecending Asshole.

wildearth

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
>On top of all that, you've got to do it with absolutely
>no information about me, my classes, or my students!

You're sure about that?


>But yeah, you're right. Students at Harvard never ever complain about
>how much readin' and writin' they have to do. Tell a Harvard man that
>he has to read everything Mayr, Gibbon, and Foucalt have written by the
>end of the week and turn in a 50-page synthesis by Monday, and they just
>roll over and do it happily. Do the same thing to a Temple student and
>there's a lynching by the bell tower.

This is another hilarious elitist statement, infused with the subtely irony
many have come to appreciate for its inherent entertainment value.


>>
>>It also reflects your motivation for insulting those that you "perceive"
as
>>underachievers.
>
>It does? Wow.

Yes, it certainly does. Wow, indeed.


>
>Did you know I also encoded the complete works of Wm. Shakespeare in
compressed
>form in the pattern of the letters I used in my comments? Stare at them
long
>enough, and use your imagination a wee little bit (I know you can; I see it
>shining forth in this post!), and they'll all emerge.

You can see my imagination? Really? Is this supposed to discredit me or
you? My speculations are based on your usenet performance, your school's
performance and my knowlege of students and teaching professionals who
either attended or taught there or elsewhere. I find your behavior
consistent with this prior knowledge.

>>Pathetic.
>
>I'll say. This does clarify where anonym got this idea that I despise my
>students -- he must be sipping the same 'lectric kool-aid you've been
>guzzling. Or at least reading these same strange elaborations on your
internal
>fantasies.

Strange elaborations of internal fantasies? Is this your imitation of Freud
diagnosing women? Do you really want to go that route considering your most
valued usenet affiliations?

If there is 'lectric kook-aid" to sip, you filleth thy cup.
>--
>PZ Myers

wildearth

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
And of course, PZ, if you find psychological analysis too pseudo-scientific
for you, we could always subject you to a biological analysis to determine
the biological basis for your kooky behavior.

According to the texts I've read, male professor's only have a moderate
degree of testosterone. Perhaps THIS is why you abhor vulgarity so.

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to

Awww, shaaadap, beee-YATCH!

[ If you don't mind. This seems to be your preferred mode of discourse,
after all.

No, I was not concerned with the specifics of the language. I don't turn
pale and faint if someone uses the word "fuck". I object to the way
they carry on a conversation -- by simply shouting out some pejorative,
preferably something obscene, but nothing that actually responds rationally
to the subject at hand.

You make some legitimate points in your comments (or at least you think
you do...I reserve the right to disagree), but how does it further
understanding to just say "shut up"? Or to say "shut up", and also call
someone a "cunt" or a "bitch" or a "bastard" or an "asshole"?

In the future, I'll try to refrain from the long apologetic postscript.
It isn't really in keeping with the honest, effective, blunt way of
communicating that you admire so in White & Burnore & anonym & Roach.
I'm working on easing into their style gradually.

But I'd rather not have to reply with "Fuck you, asshole", if you don't
mind. Can I wimp out that much?]

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36f97216...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
roac...@databasix.com wrote:

>
>>Maybe Roach has changed his tune and is saying NICE things in that language.
>>"Chinga tus madres" -- I *thought* I knew what that meant, but "chinga"
>>is kinda colloquial and I could be wrong. Perhaps he's just saying something
>>complimentary about my mother.
>
>Chinga is the third person singular form of chingar, the mexican
>spanish transitive meaning "to fuck" When used in the third person
>singular it is intentioned as a command. Therefore, in my crude and
>vulgar way I told you and sher to go fuck your mothers.
>
>If I wanted to complement your mother, I would say "la madre de el
>señor PZ esta una chica fabulosa"
>
>And thus I will not insult her.
>
>>The rest is very confusing to me, but "puta mas grande" sounds vaguely
>>familiar. Maybe that's the part where he is saying something sweet about
>>HIS mother!
>
>No, I called you a great big whore.

ZOOOOM! Right over his head.

[a little clue. Read what I said again, but this time with the realization
that I knew precisely what "puta mas grande" means. Oh, and I knew what
"chinga tus madres" meant, too. I do not speak spanish in the slightest,
but the kinds of things you say here were pretty commonly spoken in my
neighborhood]

--
PZ Myers

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Tony wrote:
>
> In article <myers-21039...@ppp48.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
> PZ Myers wrote:
> >In article <36f537d...@nntpd.databasix.com>, roac...@databasix.com wrote:
> ...
> >>
> >>chupa mi peine, puta mas grande pz. Y pedro dice tu boca esta muy
> >>magnifinco, tambien.
> >
> >Oh, yeah. It makes your insults so much more refined if you put them
> >in Spanish.
> ...
> If this is Roachie's attempt to appear erudite,

It isn't, obviously. Why you are so fond of red herrings, dude?

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
wildearth wrote:
>
> Pardon me anonym, but are you refering to me as "C"? I am assuming that you
> are, considering you're quoting my post which is unsigned. I'm a "she",
> genetically determined and reality enforced.

No, wildearth, not at all.

"C" was someone whm PZ was having a fight with a ways back.

I simply found that gem whilst searching for the post in which PZ
expressed contempt for his students.

I didn't want to let it go unpublished, in light of PZ recent
hypocritical take on the matter.

Sorry!


>
> anonym™ wrote in message <36F4E378...@pacbell.net>...

> >PZ Myers wrote:
> >
> >(By the way, this little gem is from PZ's little tiff with "C":
> >
> >""He" has not signed "his" name in the posts I've read -- so thank you
> >for the correction. I will henceforth sneer at C while using pronouns
> >of the proper gender."
> >
> >Which I think comes in handy when he gives me shit about calling Tony
> "Tony".
> >>

> >> In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
> >> <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >wildearth wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
> >> >> >

> !

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36f58f7...@nntpd.databasix.com>, roac...@databasix.com wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:08:53 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>
>
>>ZOOOOM! Right over his head.
>

>No, sarcastic fuckhead. I said I responded to sarcasm WITH sarcasm.

What I said was NOT sarcasm. It was a subtle, but direct insult.

Your response also was not sarcasm. It was a transparent attempt to
ignore the insult.

You should be proud: you are blissfully incompetent in TWO languages.

>
>What a dickhead.

Such piquant eloquence.

[note to Stella: yes, it is flowery and pretentious. But it is a specific
reference to Roach's comment, unlike his little bon mot, which is just
empty, undirected insult, addressing nothing]

[note to anonym: I use bigger words than Roach, and by your own accounting
(bizarre as it is), ain't it vicious? I think the sheer brutal savagery of
my replies so far must mean I'm waaaay ahead on points.]

--
PZ Myers

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Myers wrote:
>
> In article <36F4E378...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
> <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >PZ Myers wrote:
> >
> >(By the way, this little gem is from PZ's little tiff with "C":
> >
> >""He" has not signed "his" name in the posts I've read -- so thank you
> >for the correction. I will henceforth sneer at C while using pronouns
> >of the proper gender."
> >
> >Which I think comes in handy when he gives me shit about calling Tony "Tony".
>
> By which you completely miss the point. I referred to C as "he" in the
> absence of any knowledge of C's preference -- since corrected, I've
> consistently referred to her as "she".
>
> You'd have a case if I started referring to C as a "he" in order to irritate
> her. That would be a most pathetic and superficial thing to do, don't you
> think?

Sure! C's a woman!

You gave me shit because I referred to Tony as a man.

However, Tony IS a man, baby! Why do you have any problem with me
henceforth sneering at Tony while using pronouns of the proper gender?"


>
> >>
> >> In article <36F43BF0...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
> >> <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >wildearth wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> wildearth wrote in message <7d2584$eqt$1...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
> >> >> >
> [snip]
> >> >
> >> >PZ has never made a secret of his contempt for his students.
> >>
> >> Really?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >>When have I expressed contempt for my students?
> >
> >There was a post, that I will put a little (not much) effort into
> >finding, where your condecending attitude was used to put them down.
>
> Since it is a comment that is very much the antithesis of my feelings
> about my students, I did a little digging, too. I couldn't find it. I
> searched for every instance where "student" was mentioned in one of my
> posts -- most of them were replies to Wollmann puffery.

My guess is that you cancelled it, then. I gave you quite a lot of shit
about it at the time.


>
> Here's the closest I could come:
> ---
> http://x9.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=320250897
> Whoa...I've visited SDSU. A friend and colleague used to work there. It
> is a very nice university, with at least some very qualified and intelligent
> faculty. Let's not tear down the whole place because it has one "slacker
> dumbshit" student. Every university has a pool of unqualified twits who
> are only there because they continue to shovel money into tuition.

Hmm, PZ obviously speaks from experience, here.


> ---
>
> I suppose you could claim that recognition that there are a few stupid
> students at every university could be called contempt for SOME students...

I could!

> but not for MY students or ALL students.

I agree!

> And if you want to disagree
> with me about that,

I don;t!

But you had made another post in which you expressed contempt for YOUR students.

From that post, yes. I didn't say it was that post, did I?

> I may think some students can be very, very wrong about some things, but
> that's to be expected -- and that I want them to learn by being capable
> of critical thought on their own does not sound too condescending to me.

Oh, Peezy, you don;t think you;re condescending at all, ever.

It's one of the tell-tale characteristics of your holier-than-thou personality.


>
> Now there was a reply to the comment you quoted above from the lovely
> Ms. C...she wanted to go whining to my university and complain that I
> was a wicked person.

You are. And an asshole and a prick. Your university probably knows this already.

> She wanted me kicked right off of usenet

That wouldn;t be right.

>(have you
> considered asking her to join your little club?

What little club is that? The one you've created in your own little reality?

>She'd fit in well).

How do you figure? Who have I asked to be kicked off usenet?

>
> ---
> http://x9.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=409376255
> >I've collected a large list of demeaning terms you have used against me
> >which most
> >people would consider abuse. There are all the signs there Paul, and you
> >can use
> >them on your wife and your students but not no me.
>
> Grow up.
>
> You cannot get all touchy and offended by the content of a post on usenet,
> and go screaming to mommy and daddy to tell big bad Paul to stop being mean
> to you. It doesn't work.
>
> If you are this thin-skinned, get off usenet. Or use a killfile.
>
> Oh, and my wife and students are quite intelligent people -- they don't
> deserve to be belittled.
> ---
>
> Perhaps this is the source of your misconception.

It isn't, it was another post I am referring to, and it wasn't
miconception. You clearly adopted a contemptuous attitude toward your students.

> I do get quite snarly
> with some of the more egregious nitwits on usenet, like C or Wollmann or
> Roach (but then, of course, so do you.

So, why do you parade around as if you're superior, then?

You just a braying jackass on Usenet.

What's a jackass doing on a high horse?

> Or have your buddies sanctified you
> now, too?).

My "buddies" give me shit when it's warranted. I can take it.

> Some of the butts of my ire think that's how I treat students...
> but of course, they are wrong.

Of course, that's what you'd expect a kooky prof to say.

> I actually have a lot of respect for the
> great majority of the students.

Owing to your hypocrisy and poor reasoning as of late, I find this
statement suspect.

> They are people who have made a decision
> to better themselves with education, obviously, and further, the ones I
> encounter have committed themselves to the rather difficult discipline of
> biology.

Translation: You have to kiss their ass because they pay your salary,
and you resent them.


>
> Oh, and if you want to continue this crap about who despises students,
> take it up with this "wildearth" bozo.

No, asshole, if I want to continue about you despising students, I'll
keep on you, shithead.

> He's the one who just said all
> the students at a university of 30,000 were illiterate.

I didn't read it, and don't trust your word on it.

> You're chasing
> the wrong guy if you want to lynch me for being nasty to poor little
> college students.

"Lynch". Oh, boy, you HAVE been taking drama lessons from Tony, haven't you?

Listen to the contempt just roll out of his sneering mouth: "poor little
college students".

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36F5249D...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
<ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:

[snip]

>My guess is that you cancelled it, then. I gave you quite a lot of shit


>about it at the time.

Nope. I haven't cancelled anything. If it was ever there, it's there now.

[snip]

That was another clue, so I tried searching DejaNews for postings by you
in reply to me that referred to students -- this is the only thing I could
come up with:

---
http://x1.dejanews.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=405776861
Oh, that's right!

You called the kids you teach "empty -headed" the other day.

Wow.

What would a student of yours say if they knew you had that lack of respect for
them?

You have about as much respect for your students as Ed does for his clients.
---

Unfortunately, using that as something to narrow my search for this
amazing little post also turned up nothing: I hadn't called anyone
anything like that on the net anywhere around that time.

I suspect this is another of those little hysterical exaggerations to which
you have been prone lately.

--
PZ Myers

PZ Myers

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
In article <36f797d1...@nntpd.databasix.com>, roac...@databasix.com
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:53:31 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>

[snip]

>>You should be proud: you are blissfully incompetent in TWO languages.
>

>More than that. English, (with the seperate dialects of British [what
>I learned before sher pissed me off so I am more american] Australian,
>Southern, Cajun(French), Black, and Mexican-English, which in and of
>themselves are seperate languages if you look at it) Mexican Spanish,
>Klingon, and am trying to become more incompetent in German as well.

OK. It's pushing it an awful lot to call those different dialects
different languages, but I will concede the point.

By your own count, you are blissfully incompetent in TEN languages.

And don't nobody ever claim I can't acknowledge when I've been shown
to be wrong.

[snip]

--
PZ Myers

jfred

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <36F567C2...@pop.net.ntl.com>, Stella wrote:
> >
> >The fact that you have reacted so strongly to a spate of name calling
> >demonstrates how effective Roach's choice of words are.
>

> So I can I take it that, if instead of his faultless martialing of
> facts and argument (which, curiously, you seem unwilling to challenge)
> PZ had simply said "Fuck y'all", he would have said all that needs to
> be said about one whose raison d'etre is negation, tout simple.
> I couldn't agree more, but where were you when we needed you?

You are being obtuse again. Try reading Stella's post again.

You might also try responding to more of it than this little snippet you
have carved out.

--
jfred, P.M.A.F.A....Cahooter #14....Neumekenology Graduate #1
check out http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/ed-w-con.htm
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey
Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam.

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Tony wrote:
>
> In article <myers-21039...@ppp90.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,
> PZ Myers wrote:
> >In article <36F5249D...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
> ...

> >You called the kids you teach "empty -headed" the other day.
> >
> >Wow.
> >
> >What would a student of yours say if they knew you had that lack of respect for
> >them?
> >
> >You have about as much respect for your students as Ed does for his clients.
> >---
> >
> >Unfortunately, using that as something to narrow my search for this
> >amazing little post also turned up nothing: I hadn't called anyone
> >anything like that on the net anywhere around that time.

Yes, you did. Perhaps you cancelled the post, and nuked it from DejaNews.

> >
> >I suspect this is another of those little hysterical exaggerations to which
> >you have been prone lately.
>

> I also have gone to my usual checks, but have on this occasion found
> anonyn's speculation wanting.

I'm disappointed I couldn't find it either.

But I'm 100% sure he wrote the bit about empty-headed students. He got,
and gets, pretty defensive about it, so it's not a great leap of
imagination to consider PZ nuking it.

How about the rest of the post?

It shows a clear and consistent set of behaviors by PZ, now classic and
apparently pathological: kissing your ass, acting like a hypocrite, and
falsifying arguments by putting words into people's mouths.

I'd written:
--------------------------

PZ Myers wrote:

> In article <363661AE...@pacbell.net>, ano...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> >PZ Myers wrote:
> >

> >> In article <3635EBF7...@pacbell.net>, ano...@pacbell.net wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wait a second.
> >> >
> >> >YOU think that's "easy", because you've done IRC for years.
> >> >
> >> >How pompous, how arrogant of you to assume that someone inexperienced in
> >> >IRC would just immediately pick it up. There are arcane commands and
> >> >specific syntaxes that one must learn before doing even what you
> >> >illustrate above.
> >>
> >> Wait a second, yourself!
> >>
> >> IRC really, really isn't hard.
> >
> >I didn't say it was! You really DO like putting words into people's mouths!
> >
> >PZ! Are you aware of the continuum, between things that are "easy" and things
> >that are "hard"?
> >
> >There's a RANGE, you know!
> >
> >An entire GAMUT of levels of difficulty!
> >
> >So, if I disagree with Sherilyn about something being done "very easily", YOU
> >say it "really, really isn't hard".
> >
> >You are MISTER Strawman!
>
> OK, I get it. You say it's not easy, but that doesn't mean it is hard.
> I guess.

You still have to guess, huh?

>
>
> Let's make it simple.
>
> You say it isn't easy. I disagree. It is.

For some people.

>
>
> >
> >
> >> A lot of people picked it up very fast --
> >
> >I'm sure they did!
> >
> >>
> >> it's a little demeaning for you to say that the people here would have
> >> problems learning it...
> >
> >I didn't say that!
> >
> >Try to let your asskissing of Sherilyn go by the wayside for a moment and stop
> >being dishonest.
> >
> >You eliminated the part that showed a series of commands such as:
> >
> >/join
> >/msg
> >/kick
>
> Oooh. Intimidating.

Who said anything about intimidating?

Geez, buddy!

You really are arrogant.

And you say you're a teacher?

Oh, that's right!

You called the kids you teach "empty -headed" the other day.

Wow.

What would a student of yours say if they knew you had that lack of
respect for
them?

You have about as much respect for your students as Ed does for his clients.


>
>
> >
> >And these are typed where?
> >
> >You know, I know, and Sher knows.
> >
> >Do you not admit that an expert in something can make it look very easy, while
> >in fact the facility with it has been honed and refined through years of
> >experience?
>
> Right. OK. I picked up an IRC client for the first time last week. It took
> me 5 minutes, conservatively, to figure out how to use it.
>
> I guess I am just a frinkin' GENIUS!

You knew all the commands in 5 minutes. Is that what you are saying?

I took less time than that to *start* using it. But there is a lot more
to it,
once you get into it.

Some people can pick it up quickly, others don't.

You and Sherilyn are just so arrogant when you think because YOU can
pick it up
quickly, ANYBODY else can.

>
>
> [snip more of the same]
>
> The point is very simple. Why, it is even easy! Just get on IRC and
> create your own little clubhouse.

There again, your imperious arrogance. "Do tihs, do that!" Is Sherilyn
running you
ragged? Do you take it out on your pet when you get home?

> It's not even as difficult as it was
> back in grade school, when you had to go find the old refrigerator box
> and the scraps from the lumberyard and scribble "no girls allowed" in
> crayon on the front.

I don't recall ever doing that. You obviously speak from experience.
I'll bet you were the only one who went into your box. The other kids
just stood
outside and laughed.

>
>
> Quit whining about that fascist Sherilyn

AH, so you AGREE with me?

> taking away your toys

Not my toys. Just a term I came up with, and which she appropriated in
an arrogant
manner

> and just
> go do your own thing.

I AM doing my own thing!

> This is getting pretty silly

THough you can't help yourself from responding...

I DO note that you snipped out t and evaded responding to he parts that
showed how
hypocritical you were to call me "demeaning" while engaging in the same behavior
yourself.

> when you would rather
> complain on and on about just how darn HARD (I mean, not easy) it all is.

Jesus, you really do go on, and don't mind looking like an asshole when
you do it,
eh?

I'm not COMPLAINING about how HARD it is.

I disagreed with Sherilyn that a certain sequence could be done "very
easily", you
took what I said to the opposite extreme with a strawman argument, and I corrected
you.

You don't like being corrected, do you?

By the way, the header isn't meant as an insult, apparently. Ask
Sherilyn what it
means.
--------------

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Tony wrote:
>
> In article <36fdaa60...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
> roac...@databasix.com wrote:
> >On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:08:12 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
> >(Sherilyn) wrote:
> ...
> >>It's real life when somebody tries to shut down a newsgroup, to drag some
> >>kook into court, or stop somebody putting a piddling URL for a business site
> >>in his university sig.
> >
> >Will you PLEASE cut that shit out? Motherfuck, you beat it into the
> >ground, cut it's tail off and now you are pile driving it down to
> >bedrock!
> ...
> No, that's what YOU did.

He tried to shut down a newsgroup?

He tried to drag a kook into court?

The last bit is nothing to be ashamed about.

For Pete's sake, you helped to get Ed booted off AOl and Pacbell with
full accounts lost, and you give shit to Roachie about sending a complaint?

> Are you shamed of what you did?

Are you?

> If so, this is n
> my problem,

So. Do you wear women's sanitary napkins or not?

anonym™

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Sherilyn wrote:
>
> In article <3701c99d...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
> roac...@databasix.com wrote:
> >On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:27:37 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
> >(Sherilyn) wrote:
> >
> >SNIP

> >>>
> >>>I suspect this is another of those little hysterical exaggerations to which
> >>>you have been prone lately.
> >>
> >>I also have gone to my usual checks, but have on this occasion found
> >>anonyn's speculation wanting.
> >
> >Pbbbt. Whatever in the hell are you talking about? Have you completely
> >gone off your rocker?
>
> No, i simply mean that I cannot confirm anonyn's claim,

Me, neither.

Dammit!
>
> Does this bother you?

The idea of you wearing a women's sanitary napkin to complete your
"disguise" does.

Do you?

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:

> You've missed some of the discussion that has gone on in the past, then.

I have little doubt.

That still does not take away from the fact that you are here to
belittle others.

> No, I want to attack astrology.

What's stopping you?

> OK, we'll let YOU decide what is quality. That's fine with me.

Good. But remember now, *I* decide for you what quality is.

> So...is "fuck you, asshole" a fine, high-quality response?

To you? YES!

> Care to try and pin things down a little bit?

I just did, cunt.


> >Try a little honesty. Admit why you are here and stop pretending you


> >are better than the people you feel are beneath you.
>

> I see. You are resentful because [...]

Read it again pussy man. It says try a little honesty.

> [...] I shall then proceed to feel diminished and inferior whenever I post here.

Boy are you behind.

You've been diminished and inferior for some time now.

> Hooray!

Quite.

J. White
...smell it

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers puts on his Tony the Pedant Action Cap and trys to
reason:

> >So, why don't you admit why you are here and stop pretending you
> >are better than the people you feel are beneath you?
>
> I'm trying to figure this one out.

That expalins the smell.

> "Stop pretending you are better than the people you feel are beneath you".


>
> It's a toughie. A real puzzle in logic.

I'm sure you think so.

> The answer is I can't. I'm not pretending, so I can't stop. I *am* better
> than the people I feel are beneath me.

No you're not. What's more you KNOW your not.

It's all a show.

Admit it.

> I bet you feel the same way [...]

You lose. I know I am no better then anyone here, even Ed (hell, even
you).

[snip rest which seems to be aimed at anonym and not me...how kooky of
PZ]

J. White
...roses are red, violets are blue, PZ sucks spooge, and Tony does too

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Myers wrote:

> You should be proud: you are blissfully incompetent in TWO languages.

You should be proud: you are blissfully an asshole.

J. White
...lick me

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:

> Hmmm. What a conundrum you face. On the one hand, you want to accuse me
> of being a "slack", easy instructor. On the other, you've got to deal with

> the fact that students complain that I make them work too hard [...]

Student's complaints have no bearing on the argument.

Try again.

J. White
...this time with feeling

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
PZ Fishfucker Myers wrote:

> No, I was not concerned with the specifics of the language. I don't turn
> pale and faint if someone uses the word "fuck". I object to the way

> they carry on a conversation -- by simply shouting out [...]

No one can shout. It's Usenet.

Try again.

J. White
...does he always drool like that?

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
Tony wrote:

> I also have gone to my usual checks, but have on this occasion found
> anonyn's speculation wanting.

I heard your penis size was wanting.

J. White
...less to tuck I guess

J. White

unread,
Mar 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/21/99
to
gbur...@databasix.com wrote:

> You're getting boring again.

You mean there was a point when Tony *wasn't* boring?

J. White
...will wonders never cease

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:08:53 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:


>ZOOOOM! Right over his head.

No, sarcastic fuckhead. I said I responded to sarcasm WITH sarcasm.

What a dickhead.


1. RoachClip™ Lite/Aries Moon (in 12),Taurus Rising,Gemini Sun (in 2)

2. Studying astrologer; septic cultist (and a woo); psychic

SNIP
4. Still working on being posted using FreeBSD -www.freebsd.org

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:53:31 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:

>>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:08:53 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ZOOOOM! Right over his head.
>>
>>No, sarcastic fuckhead. I said I responded to sarcasm WITH sarcasm.
>

>What I said was NOT sarcasm. It was a subtle, but direct insult.
>
>Your response also was not sarcasm. It was a transparent attempt to
>ignore the insult.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Goddamn it! You are projecting! I did get that insult. I did not
ignore it. I liked it!

>You should be proud: you are blissfully incompetent in TWO languages.

More than that. English, (with the seperate dialects of British [what


I learned before sher pissed me off so I am more american] Australian,
Southern, Cajun(French), Black, and Mexican-English, which in and of
themselves are seperate languages if you look at it) Mexican Spanish,
Klingon, and am trying to become more incompetent in German as well.

Woher kommen Sie? Ich kommen aus Orange.

Just started learning, thank you.

>What a dickhead.

=) thank you for the complement Haaaccck. <spit in face>

>Such piquant eloquence.

yes, with just a hint of smokyness for that excellent after dinner
taste.

>[note to Stella: yes, it is flowery and pretentious. But it is a specific
>reference to Roach's comment, unlike his little bon mot, which is just
>empty, undirected insult, addressing nothing]

hpppf Addressing nothing but your stupidity of not knowing when to
stop.

>[note to anonym: I use bigger words than Roach, and by your own accounting
>(bizarre as it is), ain't it vicious? I think the sheer brutal savagery of
>my replies so far must mean I'm waaaay ahead on points.]

<pppt> whatever.

I can use big words too, just that I have chosen not to.

Just for you one day I will make a post with nothing but big words.

One's vernacular is littered with "fuck you" often times more than not
when subject to it.

Oddie Wooly Ass mann

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:31:35 GMT, be...@ix.netcom.com (Pamela Gross)
wrote:

Snip of discussion.

>Is anybody else besides me staying out of this mess?

Me.

>Pam
>tired of seeing friends tear each other apart
>and
>taking this lupus headache from hell back to bed
>
>

...
D.R. Oddie Wooly,ass,mann ROTFLMAO
Astrokenologist
Astrokenologist CON.SULKING SAN. 92-01766-048.
Neumekenologist. S.N.I.P.
Fartworks http://www astrokenolgy consulting.com
http://home.Mars&Pluto.Fish,Arse Turi an,COMedy.

RoachClip™, dk

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:31:49 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:

>In article <36f797d1...@nntpd.databasix.com>, roac...@databasix.com
>wrote:


>
>>On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 19:53:31 -0500, my...@netaxs.com (PZ Myers) wrote:
>>
>

>[snip]


>
>>>You should be proud: you are blissfully incompetent in TWO languages.
>>
>>More than that. English, (with the seperate dialects of British [what
>>I learned before sher pissed me off so I am more american] Australian,
>>Southern, Cajun(French), Black, and Mexican-English, which in and of
>>themselves are seperate languages if you look at it) Mexican Spanish,
>>Klingon, and am trying to become more incompetent in German as well.
>

>OK. It's pushing it an awful lot to call those different dialects
>different languages, but I will concede the point.

Oh, no. No need to concede it, break it on back down to English,
Spanish, Klingon and German.

*4* Language incompetencies. I love that Merc Rx!

>By your own count, you are blissfully incompetent in TEN languages.

Yep! Merc in Third can't let me down! Teeheehee. Love it! BTW, that is
Merc conj 3rd house cusp (one degree) and at 18 Can 24. Hmm.

>And don't nobody ever claim I can't acknowledge when I've been shown
>to be wrong.

no comment.

uh oh.

PZ when he wrote the before post: "unnnnnhhhhh" <plop> "that's a big
stinky one."

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
In article <myers-21039...@bio-32.bio.temple.edu>, PZ Myers wrote:
>In article <slrn7falvd....@sidaway.demon.co.uk>,
>Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk (Sherilyn) wrote:
>
...
>>If this is Roachie's attempt to appear erudite, perhaps he should stick to
>>a language in which I have not in the past had cause to correct him on
>>basic grammar.
>
>...saying something sweet about
>HIS mother!
...
If only Roachie realised what he was saying about his mother every time
he said "chinga tu madre", then he wouldn't do it.
--
Sherilyn

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
In article <1dp1fvb.xxn...@ti21a23-0065.dialup.online.no>,
Keera A. Fox wrote:
>Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>>
>> I don't think any of us is seriously bothered by all this stuff, to
>> be honest. We have to be able to state our opinions; that's what USENET
>> is for. This is not real life. That, in a nutshell, is my argument.
>>
>This is not real life? No one is seriously bothered by all this stuff?

I'm only bothered when I find that one of my arguments has a hole in it.
What else is USENET useful for? I do think this is one of the most
important functions possible for any communication medium,

>Former friends/allies are fighting with each other,

Well, if you remember correctly, I didn't set out to create an alliance,
only a space to talk. It's still there, but it no longer has a channel
manager--I sacked myself when I realised that the "channel manager" thing
was getting in the way. Now, you can go on there and do whatever you
like. In other words, it hasn't changed one bit since I resigned.

> foul language is
>flying

Check Deja News. I think you will find this has been a staple on this
newsgroup for some time, though I'm not a subscriber to the "power of
swearing" thesis, myself. My parents' generation were so impressed by
the power of swearing that they impressed upon us that we should never,
under any circumstances, swear. And so we did, and do, swear. Thus we
learned for ourselves the impotence of swearing. Swear away, I don't
care. I think you should be rather more worried that PZ is using his
12th level mage powers in a 4th level dungeon, but then again, you did
insist that this was real life, in which case I guess <heavy irony>
we could all just wave our payslips in PZ's face and wander off to the
wine bar.</heavy irony>

>and there is no astrology, just bandwidth clutter.

This has been the case on alt.astrology, pretty much, since the last part
of 1998. The change has been palpable--Gail and I have our differences,
but she did what other astrology people told me couldn't be done. Do
not lament the impoverishment of alt.astrology, for it is part-and-parcel
of the enrichment of alt.astrology.moderated. And it's not as if this was
achieved at any cost to non-astrologers.
>
>This *is* real life, Sher. *Real* people think these thoughts, type
>these words, post them, read them and react to them.

It's real life when somebody tries to stop people saying what they want to
say.

It's real life when somebody tries to shut down a newsgroup, to drag some
kook into court, or stop somebody putting a piddling URL for a business site
in his university sig.
>

>Just because we can't smell, hear or see each other doesn't make it "not
>real life".

See above. All we see are words on the screen. There are real people
behind those words, but we have to be constantly aware that this is a
very artificial form of communication.

Perhaps you have forgotten the early days of IRC, when those words on the
screen started to interact in real time, and the possibuilities just exploded.
I have had the privilege of meeting people in real life whom I have talked to
on IRC and email, and in USENET. They are all very different--IRC, in
particular, is a medium that favors very exaggerated, flirtatious actions,
and email is often credited as the medium of true passion.

>
>Freedom of speech is not synonymous with discounting people's feelings.

So shouldn't we all sneak off and leave this newsgroup to Edmond Wollmann?
He sure sounds hurt to me. Maybe we should pay attention to his feelings
for once and leave him to ply his trade in peace--or did you have somebody
else's feelings in mind? If so, why must we discount his feelings, in
particular?
--
Sherilyn

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
In article <36F567C2...@pop.net.ntl.com>, Stella wrote:
>
>The fact that you have reacted so strongly to a spate of name calling
>demonstrates how effective Roach's choice of words are.

So I can I take it that, if instead of his faultless martialing of
facts and argument (which, curiously, you seem unwilling to challenge)
PZ had simply said "Fuck y'all", he would have said all that needs to
be said about one whose raison d'etre is negation, tout simple.
I couldn't agree more, but where were you when we needed you?

--
Sherilyn


roac...@databasix.com

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to

Obviously you were not down at Doneraki's on the corner of Fulton en
el barrio en Houston last night with me.

Talk about run for cover.

Los Vatos were shooting at the bruthas. I heard quite a few chinga tu
madre calls. So there.

roac...@databasix.com

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:08:12 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
(Sherilyn) wrote:

>In article <1dp1fvb.xxn...@ti21a23-0065.dialup.online.no>,
>Keera A. Fox wrote:
>>Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>...
>>>
>>> I don't think any of us is seriously bothered by all this stuff, to
>>> be honest. We have to be able to state our opinions; that's what USENET
>>> is for. This is not real life. That, in a nutshell, is my argument.
>>>
>>This is not real life? No one is seriously bothered by all this stuff?
>
>I'm only bothered when I find that one of my arguments has a hole in it.
>What else is USENET useful for? I do think this is one of the most
>important functions possible for any communication medium,

Or when you get shown that you are a shitweed.

>>Former friends/allies are fighting with each other,
>
>Well, if you remember correctly, I didn't set out to create an alliance,
>only a space to talk. It's still there, but it no longer has a channel
>manager--I sacked myself when I realised that the "channel manager" thing
>was getting in the way. Now, you can go on there and do whatever you
>like. In other words, it hasn't changed one bit since I resigned.

Only that most people are not there anymore.

>> foul language is
>>flying
>
>Check Deja News. I think you will find this has been a staple on this
>newsgroup for some time, though I'm not a subscriber to the "power of
>swearing" thesis, myself.

<pppbt> Just subscribe to <stamp foot whine like a baby>

My parents' generation were so impressed by
>the power of swearing that they impressed upon us that we should never,
>under any circumstances, swear. And so we did, and do, swear. Thus we
>learned for ourselves the impotence of swearing.

And a common person such as I turns it into an artform.

You possum breath cock sucker.

Swear away, I don't

>care. SNIP

Good. I will.

>>This *is* real life, Sher. *Real* people think these thoughts, type
>>these words, post them, read them and react to them.
>
>It's real life when somebody tries to stop people saying what they want to
>say.
>
>It's real life when somebody tries to shut down a newsgroup, to drag some
>kook into court, or stop somebody putting a piddling URL for a business site
>in his university sig.

Will you PLEASE cut that shit out? Motherfuck, you beat it into the


ground, cut it's tail off and now you are pile driving it down to
bedrock!

>>Just because we can't smell, hear or see each other doesn't make it "not


>>real life".
>
>See above. All we see are words on the screen. There are real people
>behind those words, but we have to be constantly aware that this is a
>very artificial form of communication.

Bullshit.

Explain my $150 phone bill for this month.

Apparently I didn't spend it on calling my ho. I placed 2 phone calls
to Oz. One was 1.5 hours, one was 20 mins. 3 or 4 to Ca. 2 or 3 to
Utah, of short lengths. 2 to RI, one of which was nearly 3.5 hours.

Not including the ones placed to me.

I made my clique come together a little closer.

They apparently are real on the other end of ma bell as well.

>Perhaps you have forgotten the early days of IRC, when those words on the
>screen started to interact in real time, and the possibuilities just exploded.
>I have had the privilege of meeting people in real life whom I have talked to
>on IRC and email, and in USENET. They are all very different--IRC, in
>particular, is a medium that favors very exaggerated, flirtatious actions,
>and email is often credited as the medium of true passion.

And all that shit can blow goats, cause I am going to visit my clique
as soon as I get my tax refund.

True passion is physical contact.

>>
>>Freedom of speech is not synonymous with discounting people's feelings.
>
>So shouldn't we all sneak off and leave this newsgroup to Edmond Wollmann?

SNIP


Shouldn't we kick toni in his nuts and hope he spews puke?

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
In article <myers-21039...@ppp90.blackbox1-mfs.netaxs.com>,

PZ Myers wrote:
>In article <36F5249D...@pacbell.net>, =?iso-8859-1?Q?anonym=99?=
...
>You called the kids you teach "empty -headed" the other day.
>
>Wow.
>
>What would a student of yours say if they knew you had that lack of respect for
>them?
>
>You have about as much respect for your students as Ed does for his clients.
>---
>
>Unfortunately, using that as something to narrow my search for this
>amazing little post also turned up nothing: I hadn't called anyone
>anything like that on the net anywhere around that time.
>
>I suspect this is another of those little hysterical exaggerations to which
>you have been prone lately.

I also have gone to my usual checks, but have on this occasion found
anonyn's speculation wanting.

roac...@databasix.com

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:27:37 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
(Sherilyn) wrote:

SNIP
>>


>>I suspect this is another of those little hysterical exaggerations to which
>>you have been prone lately.
>
>I also have gone to my usual checks, but have on this occasion found
>anonyn's speculation wanting.

Pbbbt. Whatever in the hell are you talking about? Have you completely
gone off your rocker?

Bitch.

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
>On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:08:12 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
>(Sherilyn) wrote:
...

>>It's real life when somebody tries to shut down a newsgroup, to drag some
>>kook into court, or stop somebody putting a piddling URL for a business site
>>in his university sig.
>
>Will you PLEASE cut that shit out? Motherfuck, you beat it into the
>ground, cut it's tail off and now you are pile driving it down to
>bedrock!
...
No, that's what YOU did. Are you shamed of what you did? If so, this is n
my problem,

--
Sherilyn

Sherilyn

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
In article <3701c99d...@nntpd.databasix.com>,

roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:27:37 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
>(Sherilyn) wrote:
>
>SNIP
>>>
>>>I suspect this is another of those little hysterical exaggerations to which
>>>you have been prone lately.
>>
>>I also have gone to my usual checks, but have on this occasion found
>>anonyn's speculation wanting.
>
>Pbbbt. Whatever in the hell are you talking about? Have you completely
>gone off your rocker?

No, i simply mean that I cannot confirm anonyn's claim,

Does this bother you?
--
Sherilyn

roac...@databasix.com

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:56:38 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
(Sherilyn) wrote:

>In article <36fdaa60...@nntpd.databasix.com>,


>roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:08:12 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
>>(Sherilyn) wrote:
>...
>>>It's real life when somebody tries to shut down a newsgroup, to drag some
>>>kook into court, or stop somebody putting a piddling URL for a business site
>>>in his university sig.
>>
>>Will you PLEASE cut that shit out? Motherfuck, you beat it into the
>>ground, cut it's tail off and now you are pile driving it down to
>>bedrock!
>...
>No, that's what YOU did. Are you shamed of what you did? If so, this is n
> my problem,

I am not ashamed of anything I do. If I have cause to be shamed, I
would not do it.

The piledriver's union is threatening to strike.

Go blow PZ and get out of my face.

roac...@databasix.com

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On 22 Mar 1999 00:05:40 -0500, gbur...@databasix.com wrote:

>In article <slrn7fbi20....@sidaway.demon.co.uk>, Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: In article <36fdaa60...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>: roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>:>On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 02:08:12 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
>:>(Sherilyn) wrote:
>: ...
>:>>It's real life when somebody tries to shut down a newsgroup, to drag some
>:>>kook into court, or stop somebody putting a piddling URL for a business site
>:>>in his university sig.
>:>
>:>Will you PLEASE cut that shit out? Motherfuck, you beat it into the
>:>ground, cut it's tail off and now you are pile driving it down to
>:>bedrock!
>: ...
>: No, that's what YOU did. Are you shamed of what you did? If so, this is n
>: my problem,
>

>You're getting boring again.

Amen, brother Gary, Amen.

roac...@databasix.com

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 05:10:07 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
(Sherilyn) wrote:

>In article <3701c99d...@nntpd.databasix.com>,


>roac...@databasix.com wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 04:27:37 GMT, Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk
>>(Sherilyn) wrote:
>>
>>SNIP
>>>>
>>>>I suspect this is another of those little hysterical exaggerations to which
>>>>you have been prone lately.
>>>
>>>I also have gone to my usual checks, but have on this occasion found
>>>anonyn's speculation wanting.
>>
>>Pbbbt. Whatever in the hell are you talking about? Have you completely
>>gone off your rocker?
>
>No, i simply mean that I cannot confirm anonyn's claim,
>
>Does this bother you?

Not at all, just you need to explain it better.

Keera A. Fox

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <1dp1fvb.xxn...@ti21a23-0065.dialup.online.no>,
> Keera A. Fox wrote:
> >Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ...
> >>
> >> I don't think any of us is seriously bothered by all this stuff, to
> >> be honest. We have to be able to state our opinions; that's what USENET
> >> is for. This is not real life. That, in a nutshell, is my argument.
> >>
> >This is not real life? No one is seriously bothered by all this stuff?
>
> I'm only bothered when I find that one of my arguments has a hole in it.
> What else is USENET useful for? I do think this is one of the most
> important functions possible for any communication medium,
>

> >Former friends/allies are fighting with each other,
>
> Well, if you remember correctly, I didn't set out to create an alliance,
> only a space to talk. It's still there, but it no longer has a channel
> manager--I sacked myself when I realised that the "channel manager" thing
> was getting in the way. Now, you can go on there and do whatever you
> like. In other words, it hasn't changed one bit since I resigned.
>

> > foul language is
> >flying
>
> Check Deja News. I think you will find this has been a staple on this
> newsgroup for some time, though I'm not a subscriber to the "power of

> swearing" thesis, myself. My parents' generation were so impressed by


> the power of swearing that they impressed upon us that we should never,
> under any circumstances, swear. And so we did, and do, swear. Thus we

> learned for ourselves the impotence of swearing. Swear away, I don't
> care. I think you should be rather more worried that PZ is using his
> 12th level mage powers in a 4th level dungeon, but then again, you did
> insist that this was real life, in which case I guess <heavy irony>
> we could all just wave our payslips in PZ's face and wander off to the
> wine bar.</heavy irony>
>
> >and there is no astrology, just bandwidth clutter.
>
> This has been the case on alt.astrology, pretty much, since the last part
> of 1998. The change has been palpable--Gail and I have our differences,
> but she did what other astrology people told me couldn't be done. Do
> not lament the impoverishment of alt.astrology, for it is part-and-parcel
> of the enrichment of alt.astrology.moderated. And it's not as if this was
> achieved at any cost to non-astrologers.
> >

> >This *is* real life, Sher. *Real* people think these thoughts, type
> >these words, post them, read them and react to them.
>
> It's real life when somebody tries to stop people saying what they want to
> say.
>

> It's real life when somebody tries to shut down a newsgroup, to drag some
> kook into court, or stop somebody putting a piddling URL for a business site
> in his university sig.
> >

> >Just because we can't smell, hear or see each other doesn't make it "not
> >real life".
>
> See above. All we see are words on the screen. There are real people
> behind those words, but we have to be constantly aware that this is a
> very artificial form of communication.
>

> Perhaps you have forgotten the early days of IRC, when those words on the
> screen started to interact in real time, and the possibuilities just exploded.
> I have had the privilege of meeting people in real life whom I have talked to
> on IRC and email, and in USENET. They are all very different--IRC, in
> particular, is a medium that favors very exaggerated, flirtatious actions,
> and email is often credited as the medium of true passion.
>
> >

> >Freedom of speech is not synonymous with discounting people's feelings.
>
> So shouldn't we all sneak off and leave this newsgroup to Edmond Wollmann?

> He sure sounds hurt to me. Maybe we should pay attention to his feelings
> for once and leave him to ply his trade in peace--or did you have somebody
> else's feelings in mind? If so, why must we discount his feelings, in
> particular?

I get such a funny feeling that you haven't read a word I said.

I also now know which side of the fence I'm gonna hop down on in regards
to the IRC-fighting, which I've kept my mouth shut about (*you* go read
DejaNews!) until now.

I see now the true colors of the parties involved. Oddly, I've come full
circle. You were one of the first people I put in my killfile when I was
new here; it looks like you may end up there again.

--
****** Keera in Norway ******
** Think big. Shrink to fit. **
** http://home.sol.no/~keera **

ERNESTO SCHOENFELD

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
the sign leo and all its attributes (whatever) is so because of the
location of the sun during those specific leo months in the northern
hemisphere(birthplace of Astrology). In the northern hemisphere leo months
are summer, LEO-->Powerful, confident, self centred,etc.........What about
in the southern hemisphere where leo months are in winter.....are leo's in
the southern hemisphere
different?

If the attributes of leo are based on the suns effects in the northern
hemisphere where it would shine bright and look powerful etc ...then in
the souther part of the planet it is different so the attributes
associated with leo are false.....since they originated in the
north....COULD THIS BE A FLAW IN ASTROLOGY...(like the concept of the
earth being the centre of the solar system)?????????


anonym™

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
"Keera A. Fox" wrote:
>
> Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>

SNIP of Tony's weaselings.


> >
> > >
> > >Freedom of speech is not synonymous with discounting people's feelings.
> >
> > So shouldn't we all sneak off and leave this newsgroup to Edmond Wollmann?
> > He sure sounds hurt to me. Maybe we should pay attention to his feelings
> > for once and leave him to ply his trade in peace--or did you have somebody
> > else's feelings in mind? If so, why must we discount his feelings, in
> > particular?
>
> I get such a funny feeling that you haven't read a word I said.
>
> I also now know which side of the fence I'm gonna hop down on in regards
> to the IRC-fighting, which I've kept my mouth shut about (*you* go read
> DejaNews!) until now.
>
> I see now the true colors of the parties involved. Oddly, I've come full
> circle. You were one of the first people I put in my killfile when I was
> new here; it looks like you may end up there again.

I feel your pain.

anonym™

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to
gbur...@databasix.com wrote:
>
> In article <36F56CCE...@pacbell.net>, anonym? <ano...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
> : For Pete's sake, you helped to get Ed booted off AOl and Pacbell with
> : full accounts lost
>
> Ahem. Pacbell? Uh, me.
>


True, Gary, and sorry to leave you out, but on one of Ed's many "sneak
back on" tries, I believe Tony tooted the horn, as well.

The point bears repeating that Tony has given Roachie a world of shit
for wanting to send a complaint to SDSU about Ed, when in fact Tony
admitted doing the same.

Tony feels he can send complaints about what bothers him but no one else
should be allowed to do the same without Tony criticizing them.

What a fucking hypocrite Tony is.

Lucianarchy

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to

PZ Myers wrote in message ...

>You'd have a case if I started referring to C as a "he" in order to irritate
>her. That would be a most pathetic and superficial thing to do, don't you
>think?

Possibly. But then that would be the same as PZ Myers does with people who believe in
astrology.
Why is insulting a man who wants to be called a woman any different from insulting a man who
wants to believe in astrology?

An insult is an insult, no matter how prettily she is dressed.

Go forth and copulate with thy maternal Myersian mylodon ...... you cunt.

Stella

unread,
Mar 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/22/99
to

PZ Myers wrote:

> In article <36F567E3...@pop.net.ntl.com>, ma...@NOSPAM.net.ntl.com wrote:
>
> >Sherilyn wrote:
> >
>

<snip>

> >> You have ducked PZ's question. Try again.
> >
> >*You* need to try again - you need to reread PZ's question which I have
> retained
> >at the beginning of this post for your perusal. You have tried to turn
> the topic
> >around to your preferred avenue, PZ was not interested in the case of
> 'right' or
> >'wrong' in his question and neither am I. Personally I do not care to become
> >involved in the ethics or hypocrisy that have been clearly displayed
> during this
> >flame war, but wished to give my opinion of the use of language used on both
> >sides.
>
> Awww, shaaadap, beee-YATCH!

That's strange. I answer one of Sherilyn's posts and you reply on her behalf, and
in my other post which directly answers your previous post, Sherilyn replies on your
behalf. Are you part of the same tag team?

>
>
> [ If you don't mind. This seems to be your preferred mode of discourse,
> after all.

Obviously you didn't read my other post where I said:

"I never said you were flowery and elitist, I said your language was an example of
flowery elitistism. This is not a fault by any means, look at the wit of Oscar
Wilde, etc. you are in good company. I commend your use of language but I dislike
your criticisms of other's choice of expression."

Why are you resorting to spin?

As far as me minding? I don't give a shit what you call me. I especially liked the
capitalization ;-)

>
>
> No, I was not concerned with the specifics of the language. I don't turn
> pale and faint if someone uses the word "fuck". I object to the way

> they carry on a conversation -- by simply shouting out some pejorative,
> preferably something obscene

That's the specifics of language, is it not? Are you saying now that you have never
objected to the crude language which has been used?

> , but nothing that actually responds rationally
> to the subject at hand.

That's a bit hypocritical when you consider that you asked for other people's
opinions on the "clever use of language" in Roach's, anonym™'s, Gary's and J.
White's posts; I gave my opinion and my reasons, which both you and Sherilyn have
tried to dilute rather than accepting my opinion. If you didn't want to see the
answer to your question why did you pose it? And if you read the entire thread you
will find that the subject at hand was the use of vulgar language within discussion,
amongst criticisms of your supposed intellectual superiority. Please go back and
check every post you have made on this thread and see that at no time have you
attempted to address the subject which you feel isn't being discussed rationally. I
think you will find that you have just increased the noise of insults further.

>
>
> You make some legitimate points in your comments (or at least you think
> you do...I reserve the right to disagree),

Make up your mind :-) You don't have to agree with my comments to make them
legitimate, you asked for my opinion which surely *is* legitimate.

> but how does it further
> understanding to just say "shut up"? Or to say "shut up", and also call
> someone a "cunt" or a "bitch" or a "bastard" or an "asshole"?

It must make you understand that others disagree strongly with you, often there is
no need to explain the reasons why, because these reasons have been reiterated by
others so many times.

>
>
> In the future, I'll try to refrain from the long apologetic postscript.
> It isn't really in keeping with the honest, effective, blunt way of
> communicating that you admire so in White & Burnore & anonym & Roach.
> I'm working on easing into their style gradually.

That is up to you, but why play a part to gain others appreciation? You could just
knock off the criticisms based solely in personal preference. Tolerance is an
admirable thing, you could occasionally try it :-)

>
>
> But I'd rather not have to reply with "Fuck you, asshole", if you don't
> mind. Can I wimp out that much?]

????? You have already written it, putting it in quotes doesn't make it any easier
to say does it?

Weird!

----------------------------------------------
Stella Hill
Sceptic astrologer
----------------------------------------------


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages