Kevin loses his memory
Kevin Darcy
In article <3...@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> ri...@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
>In article <1990Nov20.0...@cfctech.cfc.com> ke...@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>Well, excuse the fuck out of me. How do you "not put up" with it? By
>
>Depends on the person, bouncing it back is usually pretty effective...
But also reduces yourself to their level. Tell me, what gives you any more
right to bounce back a piece of mail unexpectedly than they have to send it
to you in the first place?
>...but sometimes I post it.
Clearly against net.ethics.
>I only go to sysops as a last resort. No
>one has the right to harrass other netters via email.
Define "harassment". I don't call sending a uuencoded archive "harassment",
when the purpose of its delivery is to put an end to malicious lies perpetrated
by the recipient, and save news bandwidth...
- Kevin
Lefty
(Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <82...@gollum.twg.com> le...@twg.com ("Lefty") writes:
> >She's got you on this one, Kev. I was there; I remember. It was _never_
> >a serious discussion of child support. We were all (myself included) busy
> >flaming Hillel when you stepped in on Mr. Gazit's side.
>
> Your modesty underwhelms me. You were never capable of anything more than
> hit-and-run tactics against Hillel any more than you were against me. Go run
> and hide with Dave Hill, John Woods, Keegan and the crew where you belong...
We're not _hiding_, Kev. We're _ignoring_. Or trying to.
Hit-and-run tactics. I _like_ that. It's almost true; after one or two
exchanges with you, it became apparent that trying to reason with you was
less rewarding than discussing existentialism with a banana slug. Of
course, I just _hit_. I don't recall _running_.
Unlike some others...
Used to be, once upon a time, that alt.flame was _fun_. You could pop in
every once in a while, jump up and down on T*d, or Hillel, or (God! the
good old days!) Billy "Hitler is my idol (It was just an experiment!)"
Steinmetz. Then Kevin came along.
Now, every time I look, it's the same old thing.
Kevin: You make me _sick_, O'Tuama!
Trish: Good!
Kevin: You don't know _shit_, O'Tuama!
Trish: Sez you!
For pages and pages and pages. Oh every once in a while Alex Katzenjammer
pukes up an article, and Dave Moron is good for a few half-witticisms
every once in a while, but it pales against the vast expanse of the tripe
and bilge that you put into here. I'm surprised that the EPA hasn't cited
you on the grounds of excess emissions of toxic waste. I'm actually on
the verge of writing a _real_ news reader for the Macintosh purely so I
can have a kill file to filter this dopiness out. At least Trish is,
occasionally, amusing. Kevin, you are, at best, silly. And that, not
terribly often.
I probably shouldn't do this, but in the interest of saving the Net
hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, let me give you a free clue.
You're being _baited_. And, boy! if trout jumped at the bait the way you
do, we'd feed multitudes!
And by the way, I'm sure it's as shocking to Dave Hill as it is to myself
that we find ourselves on the same side of an issue. But on this, we both
agree. Apes _do_ read philosophy: they just don't _understand_ it. Kevin
_uses_ the word "morality"; he just doesn't have a glimmer of a clue as to
what it might entail.
> Oh, and I never "stepped in on Mr. Gazit's side", either. My "side" is my
> own.
Yeah, and your "front" and your "back"... Not to mention your peculiar
views on the Net in general, and alt.flame in particular. Not to mention
your _extremely_ peculiar views on how parents should support their
progeny. (Which 20% did you say you were going to handle? Does that
include the part that you gotta feed, or the part that you gotta clean the
shit off?)
And silly me! Just because your view on the subject was virtually
identical with Hillel's, I assumed that you were on "the same side"...
Goes to show how wrong you can be...
> >Anybody for creating alt.flame.trish-vs-kevin?
>
> If you can persuade everyone else to stay out, you've got my vote.
Hell, _I'll_ stay out of it. No problem. What's more, I'll chip in a
sawbuck to the first person who'll newgroup this so the rest of us can get
away from the noise, noise, noise, noise, noise!
--
Lefty (le...@twg.com) | Their mouths will hang open a moment or two,
D:.O:.D:., C:.M:.C:. | Then the Whos down in Whoville will all cry Boohoo!
Kevin Darcy
> In article <1990Nov19....@cfctech.cfc.com> ke...@cfctech.cfc.com
> (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <82...@gollum.twg.com> le...@twg.com ("Lefty") writes:
>> >She's got you on this one, Kev. I was there; I remember. It was _never_
>> >a serious discussion of child support. We were all (myself included) busy
>> >flaming Hillel when you stepped in on Mr. Gazit's side.
>>
>> Your modesty underwhelms me. You were never capable of anything more than
>> hit-and-run tactics against Hillel any more than you were against me. Go run
>> and hide with Dave Hill, John Woods, Keegan and the crew where you belong...
>
That many, huh? I'm proud of you, Leftlobe...
> ...it became apparent that trying to reason with you was
> less rewarding than discussing existentialism with a banana slug.
That's absurd. :-)
> Of
> course, I just _hit_. I don't recall _running_.
I got the last word back then, and I'll get it now. Are you going to wait
another 3 months before you try again, Lefthand?
Dave Hill shot his wad, now you're shooting yours. After those two cycles run
their course, I can expect relative silence for a few months...
> Used to be, once upon a time, that alt.flame was _fun_. You could pop in
> every once in a while, jump up and down on T*d, or Hillel, or (God! the
> good old days!) Billy "Hitler is my idol (It was just an experiment!)"
> Steinmetz. Then Kevin came along.
Whine, whine, whine... Ya know, Keegan sang this old lame song once, and then
spent several articles insisting that it wasn't "whining"...
> ...I'm actually on
> the verge of writing a _real_ news reader for the Macintosh purely so I
> can have a kill file to filter this dopiness out....
Please do. The Mac could use some "real" software these days, and I have
yet to find a "real" newsreader that I could port to "real" machines (i.e.
Unix boxes).
> I probably shouldn't do this, but in the interest of saving the Net
> hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, let me give you a free clue.
>
> You're being _baited_. And, boy! if trout jumped at the bait the way you
> do, we'd feed multitudes!
Thank you for this brilliant insight, Lifty. Since I already knew that, you
just wasted net.bandwidth anyway. Smooth move.
> ...Apes _do_ read philosophy: they just don't _understand_ it. Kevin
> _uses_ the word "morality"; he just doesn't have a glimmer of a clue as to
> what it might entail.
Even if this were hypothetically true, please explain how you would be able
to discern my ignorance.
>> Oh, and I never "stepped in on Mr. Gazit's side", either. My "side" is my
>> own.
>
> Yeah, and your "front" and your "back"... Not to mention your peculiar
> views on the Net in general, and alt.flame in particular.
(Tell me, what "views" have I expressed on the Net besides in alt.flame? The
only other newsgroups I post to are techie or semi-techie ones).
> Not to mention
> your _extremely_ peculiar views on how parents should support their
> progeny. (Which 20% did you say you were going to handle? Does that
> include the part that you gotta feed, or the part that you gotta clean the
> shit off?)
Yeah, I remember now: you're the one-celled organism who thought that
"20% of the child's support" == "support for 20% of the child"
Interesting logic, Leftward...
> And silly me! Just because your view on the subject was virtually
> identical with Hillel's, I assumed that you were on "the same side"...
> Goes to show how wrong you can be...
Wrong. Hillel's perspective was intermingled with his views on feminism (mine
was independent), Hillel based his views primarily on "practical" (economic)
principles (mine were based primarily on ethical ones), and, as I heard
second-hand, he had some sort of "plan" for how child-support should work (I
had no such "plan", and, if I understand what I've heard about his, I don't
agree with it).
Our only agreements were that a) the current system unjustly ignores certain
important events and decisions that lead to childbirths, and b) the end
result is more unwanted babies and accidental/unwilling fathers than there
should be.
If you had read and understood our postings, these differences should have been
obvious to you.
>> >Anybody for creating alt.flame.trish-vs-kevin?
>>
>> If you can persuade everyone else to stay out, you've got my vote.
>
> Hell, _I'll_ stay out of it. No problem. What's more, I'll chip in a
> sawbuck to the first person who'll newgroup this so the rest of us can get
> away from the noise, noise, noise, noise, noise!
Newgroup'ing would be easy. Getting Trish to read and post there, on the other
hand...
- Kevin
Kevin Darcy
>> In article <3...@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> ri...@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
>>
>> But also reduces yourself to their level. Tell me, what gives you any more
>> right to bounce back a piece of mail unexpectedly than they have to send it
>> to you in the first place?
>>
Too many syllables?
> ...but I think I've got it now.
>
> So, do I understand this? By bouncing back _your_ mail, Trish is reducing
> herself to _your_ level? Is that it?
By George, I think he's got it!
>> Define "harassment".
>
> Aw, shit! Buy a dictionary! "Define this", "define that"! I'm suspecting
> more and more that English is your second language, Kevin.
I have a dictionary, and a perfectly-adequate command of the language, thank
you very much. When I ask people to define words or terms, it's because they
seem to be using them in very strange or unusual ways. Many, if not most,
disagreements arise from semantic differences, and this is one way of quickly
cutting to the core of the problem.
>> I don't call sending a uuencoded archive "harassment",
>> when the purpose of its delivery is to put an end to malicious lies
>> perpetrated by the recipient, and save news bandwidth...
>
> Well, now _me_, I wouldn't call sending 1,000 copies of /etc/termcap
> harassment.
I could see how, hypothetically, a -single- copy of /etc/termcap could "put an
end to malicious lies perpetrated by the recipient, and save news bandwidth"
(if, e.g. some bonehead without access to /etc/termcap was spewing
disinformation about what was in it), but how would you justify the other 999
copies, Leftlong?
> Others might feel differently...
Others can "feel" anything they want, but that is hardly a justification.
> For you to talk about "saving news bandwidth" is like Attilla the Hun talking
> about "not making _too_ much of a mess while sacking Rome"...
Every little bit helps.
- Kevin
Alex Katz
>Oh every once in a while Alex Katzenjammer pukes up an article
Well, only when I've accumulated enough chi to make you read,
which, as you know perfectly well, doesn't happen to anyone
half as often as you'd want some people to believe, you gutless schmuck.
Alt.flame is not a very nice place to hide in after you've been beaten up
in some other froups, now is it, lefty?
>Lefty (le...@twg.com) | Their mouths will hang open a moment or two,
--
Alex Katz ak...@mizar.usc.edu
Lefty
(Patricia O Tuama) writes:
> >In article <1990Nov20.0...@cfctech.cfc.com>
ke...@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >
> >>Well, excuse the fuck out of me. How do you "not put up" with it? By
> >
> >Depends on the person, bouncing it back is usually pretty effective...
>
> But also reduces yourself to their level. Tell me, what gives you any more
> right to bounce back a piece of mail unexpectedly than they have to send it
> to you in the first place?
>
I had a lot of trouble parsing this at first, but I think I've got it now.
So, do I understand this? By bouncing back _your_ mail, Trish is reducing
herself to _your_ level? Is that it?
Sounds bad, Trish...
> >...but sometimes I post it.
>
> Clearly against net.ethics.
Ah. Another net.cop (or is it net.ethicist) heard from?
> Define "harassment".
Aw, shit! Buy a dictionary! "Define this", "define that"! I'm suspecting
more and more that English is your second language, Kevin.
> I don't call sending a uuencoded archive "harassment",
> when the purpose of its delivery is to put an end to malicious lies
> perpetrated by the recipient, and save news bandwidth...
Well, now _me_, I wouldn't call sending 1,000 copies of /etc/termcap
harassment.
Others might feel differently...
For you to talk about "saving news bandwidth" is like Attilla the Hun talking
about "not making _too_ much of a mess while sacking Rome"...
--
Lefty (le...@twg.com) | "And you may ask yourself,
D:.O:.D:., C:.M:.C:. | 'How do I work this?'"
Alex Katz
>It's nice that you read rec.martial-arts, though.
Don't flatter yourself, putz. The stuff that you write qualifies
neither for rec. nor for martial-arts. But since people that can't
peform are known for dispensing "knowledge" go ahead, talk a little more.
>Maybe the next time
>somebody wipes up the sidewalk with you, you'll be in a position to
>identify the technique used.
Hahahahahaha... go train for a few more years kid, I might let you
sweep the floor in my dojo.
>A little more fresh air and exercise might reduce that gut of _yours_, as
>well...
Exercise? You mean sitting still and concentrating on your internal
energy 'cuz that's the only kind you can claim to have, like you've
been preaching in r.m-a? Try again.
>> Alt.flame is not a very nice place to hide in after you've been beaten up
>> in some other froups, now is it, lefty?
>Hmm. I don't recall being especially beaten up, Alex.
That's 'cuz you were beaten into consciousness. Pretty simple, huh?
>As I see it, the argument is unsettled.
The first part of your sentence neutralizes all the credibility of the
second one (that is if it had any).
>Not to mention unproductive.
Gees, no wonder with you being on one of the sides.
>I _certainly_ don't recall hiding.
See above.
>And if I was going to hide, alt.flame _certainly_ wouldn't
>be the place I'd pick.
Well, how come that was exactly what you did?
You words contradict your actions, but then since they also always contradict
common sense I am not too surprised.
>All in all, I'd say that your messages of encouragement lend Kevin all the
>support he deserves.
Eh?
>Now go back and play with the other kiddies in
>alt.tiny-toons.
Hey, I'm glad to see you're still working on your erection.
>Lefty (le...@twg.com) | Not a clue in a carload,
>D:.O:.D:., C:.M:.C:. | that's our Alex!
Well, can't sell you a clue then, as you're obviously unable
to recognize one, but I still can offer you a life ,
a brain and a couple of lessons in chi-ejaculation.
--
Alex Katz ak...@mizar.usc.edu
James G Keegan Jr
-> Whine, whine, whine... Ya know, Keegan sang this old lame song once, and then
-> spent several articles insisting that it wasn't "whining"...
you lie kevin. i never insisted that you weren't whining. everyone
knows you whine all the time.
perhaps if you wrote longer posts, your image would improve.
--
--
Kevin Darcy
In article <1990Nov30.0...@world.std.com> ri...@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
>In article <1990Nov27....@gator.uucp> ke...@gator.uucp (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>> Yeah, and your "front" and your "back"... Not to mention your peculiar
>>> views on the Net in general, and alt.flame in particular.
>>(Tell me, what "views" have I expressed on the Net besides in alt.flame? The
>
>No, dear, as usual you completely missed the point.
No, I was right on point, but you're on another PLANET. My reference was to
Lefturd's claim that I had expressed "peculiar views" on the Net -outside- of
alt.flame. I challenged him to produce at least one such "peculiar view".
>>only other newsgroups I post to are techie or semi-techie ones).
>
>And alt.child-support, of course.
I forgot about that group. Although I haven't missed reading a single article,
I haven't posted there recently. And I have no reason to think that Left-toe
has seen any of them, so his statement is still full of shit.
>>Newgroup'ing would be easy.
>
>Oh? Why don't you try it, Kevin, and see how far you get with it.
(Shows how much you know, Trish. Most sites do -automatic- newgroups and
-manual- rmgroups. Once a well-formed alt control message leaks out, one is
guaranteed hundreds, if not thousands of sites which will "carry" the group
for a while at least).
>> Getting Trish to read and post there, on the other
>
>Well, why on earth should I? I mean, really, dear.
See what I mean, guys? Don't waste your time...
- Kevin
Kevin Darcy
In article <1990Nov29....@alembic.acs.com> ri...@alembic.acs.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
>In article <1990Nov23.0...@cfctech.cfc.com> ke...@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>But also reduces yourself to their level.
>
>Not at all, not even close. Writing a response is what "reduces" one
>to their level.
Wrong. Writing a response which makes them see the error of their ways would
definitely put one on the moral "higher ground", would it not? This is a
counter-example to what you just said.
In the case of email harrassers who are obviously consuming bandwidth purely
for the sake of doing so, administrative recourse is in order.
However, for your average, run-of-the-mill poison-penletter dweeb, just
ignoring them (either "manually" or with the help of one's friendly MUA) is
the preferred, rational response.
>>Clearly against net.ethics.
>
>In your opinion.
Come on, Trish, get real. If it's considered net.courtesy to ask people before
posting their private email, doesn't it follow that it is, at the very least,
a net.faux-pas to post it *without* permission, and certainly when one has
reason to believe that it is *against* their permission?
>>>No one has the right to harrass other netters via email.
>>Define "harassment".
>
>Sending email to someone against his/her expressed wish. Obviously.
Surely you're not serious. You've sent me email before without my "expressed
wish", so are you guilty of "harassment", too???
Another question: do you always physically visit, telephone or snail-mail
people before sending them email? If not, then how do you obtain their
"expressed wish" without accidentally "harrassing" them, or them accidentally
"harrassing" you?
You live in a strange world, O Tuama.
- Kevin
Trashy
ri...@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
]In article <1990Nov27....@gator.uucp> ke...@gator.uucp (Kevin Darcy) writes:
]> Getting Trish to read and post there, on the other
]
]Well, why on earth should I? I mean, really, dear.
Trish, you've collected the oddest bunch of net.suitors, if that's
what they can be called. I'm fascinated by the process. It is
amazing how you have them drooling.
Just look how sniveling Kevin won't leave you! Astounding.
--
Barry Schwartz b...@hankel.rutgers.edu tras...@toeplitz.rutgers.edu
Mark Smith
> Just look how sniveling Kevin won't leave you! Astounding.
trashystone (n.) A unit of measure.
One trashystone is the level of unrestrained self indulgence
required to post, in one sitting, eleven (11) followups to one
other person's articles, including four (4) consisting solely of
the statement that the poster didn't read the article referenced.
Average levels are measured in microtrashystones.
Is there anyone else on the planet obsessed enough to troll through
weeks worth of otherwise forgotten Kevin Darcy articles in one day,
feverishly posting utterly pointless followups every few minutes?
Astounding indeed.
===========================================================================
Mark Smith sm...@canon.co.uk
Canon Research Centre Europe ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!uos-ee!canon!smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and i thought things couldn't get any worse
Trashy
ke...@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
]In article <1990Nov29....@alembic.acs.com> ri...@alembic.acs.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
]>In article <1990Nov23.0...@cfctech.cfc.com> ke...@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
]>>>No one has the right to harrass other netters via email.
]>>Define "harassment".
]>
]>Sending email to someone against his/her expressed wish. Obviously.
^^^^^^^
]
]Surely you're not serious. You've sent me email before without my "expressed
^^^^^^^
]wish", so are you guilty of "harassment", too???
Tell us the difference between "against" and "without",
university boy.
]You live in a strange world, O Tuama.
At least she lives in the world, academic boy.
Joel B Levin
|
|In article <1990Nov29....@alembic.acs.com> ri...@alembic.acs.com (Patricia O Tuama) writes:
|>>Define "harassment".
|>Sending email to someone against his/her expressed wish. Obviously.
|Surely you're not serious. You've sent me email before without my "expressed
|wish", so are you guilty of "harassment", too???
Learn the difference between "against his/her expressed wish" and
"without his/her expressed wish".
For crying out loud.
And don't call here Shirley. ( <-- net.cop.flame.bait )
=
Nets: le...@bbn.com | "There were sweetheart roses on Yancey Wilmerding's
or {...}!bbn!levin | bureau that morning. Wide-eyed and distraught, she
POTS: (617)873-3463 | stood with all her faculties rooted to the floor."
Lefty
Darcy) writes:
> > less rewarding than discussing existentialism with a banana slug.
>
> That's absurd. :-)
Exactly my point. (no "smiley")
> > Of course, I just _hit_. I don't recall _running_.
>
> I got the last word back then, and I'll get it now. Are you going to wait
> another 3 months before you try again, Lefthand?
I hate to have to be the one to point this out to you, but getting the
last word counts for very little when you weren't saying anything to begin
with.
> Dave Hill shot his wad, now you're shooting yours. After those two cycles
> run their course, I can expect relative silence for a few months...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Oh, I'm sured that when we get bored of beating you with these
two-by-fours, there'll be plenty of other volunteers waiting to step in.
After all, in the almost-a-year that this silliness has been going on, you
have yet to make a single posting that didn't contain some statement so
ludicrous that it was guaranteed to be challenged by virtually everyone in
sight.
> >> Oh, and I never "stepped in on Mr. Gazit's side", either. My "side" is my
> >> own.
> >
> > Yeah, and your "front" and your "back"... Not to mention your peculiar
> > views on the Net in general, and alt.flame in particular.
>
> (Tell me, what "views" have I expressed on the Net besides in alt.flame? The
> only other newsgroups I post to are techie or semi-techie ones).
No, no, no, no, no! Not "on" in the sense of "by way of". "On" in the
sense of "regarding". For someone who has such a high regard of his own
abilities with the English language, you certainly aren't very fluent in
its use.
Oh, and by the way, "name flames" are the next-to-last gasp of a desperate
poster--right before nazi flames and right after dick-size flames.
Not that I expect you to do any better than that.
Kevin Darcy
>trashystone (n.) A unit of measure.
> One trashystone is the level of unrestrained self indulgence
> required to post, in one sitting, eleven (11) followups to one
> other person's articles, including four (4) consisting solely of
> the statement that the poster didn't read the article referenced.
> Average levels are measured in microtrashystones.
>
>Is there anyone else on the planet obsessed enough to troll through
>weeks worth of otherwise forgotten Kevin Darcy articles in one day,
>feverishly posting utterly pointless followups every few minutes?
>
>Astounding indeed.
Is *that* what's he's been up to? I -wondered- why my killfile started working
overtime!
Hell, I probably don't even remember POSTING the articles Mr. Trashy is
apparently so proud of "not reading".
What is his point, I wonder? Ah well, best not to ponder such things. Just
watch those article numbers fly by...
- Kevin
Dave Hill
> In article <1990Nov27....@gator.uucp> ke...@gator.uucp (Kevin
> Darcy) writes:
>
> > Dave Hill shot his wad, now you're shooting yours. After those two cycles
> > run their course, I can expect relative silence for a few months...
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I missed this one the first time around.
You gotta admit, it must be wonderful going through life
like little kebbin "The Twit".
Imagine:
Your very own universe to roam around in.
Believing what you want, regardless of fact,
regardless of reality.
Forgetting your errors, blaming others for your mistakes.
With your head up your ass and not a care in the world.
Kevin Darcy
>In article <1990Nov27....@gator.uucp> ke...@gator.uucp (Kevin
>Darcy) writes:
>> > ...it became apparent that trying to reason with you was
>> > less rewarding than discussing existentialism with a banana slug.
>>
>> That's absurd. :-)
>
>Exactly my point. (no "smiley")
WHOOSH!! Right over your pointy head.
Get Schwartz to explain that one to you. After all, he PRETENDS to know about
such things...
>> > Of course, I just _hit_. I don't recall _running_.
>>
>> I got the last word back then, and I'll get it now. Are you going to wait
>> another 3 months before you try again, Lefthand?
>
>I hate to have to be the one to point this out to you, but getting the
>last word counts for very little when you weren't saying anything to begin
>with.
And I hate to point this out to you, but "hitting" isn't very effective when
the subject is "your head" and the object "a brick wall".
>> Dave Hill shot his wad, now you're shooting yours. After those two cycles
>> run their course, I can expect relative silence for a few months...
>
>Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
(That's Swahili for "I can't think of anything to say").
>Oh, I'm sured that when we get bored of beating you with these
>two-by-fours, there'll be plenty of other volunteers waiting to step in.
>After all, in the almost-a-year...
[less than six months]
>...that this silliness has been going on, you
>have yet to make a single posting that didn't contain some statement so
>ludicrous that it was guaranteed to be challenged by virtually everyone in
>sight.
And you have yet to say anything at all worth serious attention.
So what?
>> >> Oh, and I never "stepped in on Mr. Gazit's side", either. My "side" is my
>> >> own.
>> >
>> > Yeah, and your "front" and your "back"... Not to mention your peculiar
>> > views on the Net in general, and alt.flame in particular.
>>
>> (Tell me, what "views" have I expressed on the Net besides in alt.flame? The
>> only other newsgroups I post to are techie or semi-techie ones).
>
>No, no, no, no, no! Not "on" in the sense of "by way of". "On" in the
>sense of "regarding". For someone who has such a high regard of his own
>abilities with the English language, you certainly aren't very fluent in
>its use.
Tell me, what happens when you feed "garbage in" to the finest supercomputer
on the continent?
Thought so...
>Oh, and by the way, "name flames" are the next-to-last gasp of a desperate
>poster--right before nazi flames and right after dick-size flames.
Is "Lefty" on your birth certificate, bozo? If not, then the normal reasons
which make name-flames so "lame" don't apply in your case.
- Kevin
James G Keegan Jr
-> Hell, I probably don't even remember POSTING the articles Mr. Trashy is
-> apparently so proud of "not reading".
no surprise here; your posts are not memorable. it's probably a good
idea for you to forget what you write.
--
--
Trashy
ri...@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama) tells Kevin Darcy:
]My dear, just because I find you boring and trite is no reason to think
]that I wouldn't be perfectly willing to play with certain other net.men
]in their private sandboxes.
Don't tell him that, Trisha. He might do something drastic.
That could be a drain on our medical-financial system.
Barry B. Schwartz
]>>> Newsgroups: misc.test.whine.kevin.whine <<
I haven't bothered with a Followup-To header, myself. What's the point?
Kevin has anybody who isn't either one of his attention grabbing,
Trisha circling ass kissers or Patricia O Tuama herself (the object of
Kevin's obsession) in a KILL file.
]>>Not at all, not even close. Writing a response is what "reduces" one
]>>to their level.
]>Wrong.
]
]No, Kevin, writing a response is what "reduces" one to their level.
Or at least writing a _serious_ response does that. If Kevin merely
used K*ld*s to create jokes it would be different. (K*ld*s does this
himself, after all.) Kevin doesn't do that, though, does he? He's
waiting for K*ld*s to get back on the net, so Kevin can unload his
slingshot.
Kevin Darcy
From article <1990Dec7.1...@world.std.com>, by ri...@world.std.com (Patricia O Tuama):
> In article <1990Dec1.0...@cfctech.cfc.com> ke...@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>> Newsgroups: misc.test.whine.kevin.whine <<
>
>>>Not at all, not even close. Writing a response is what "reduces" one
>>>to their level.
>>Wrong. Writing a response which makes them see the error of their ways would
>>definitely put one on the moral "higher ground", would it not? This is a
>>counter-example to what you just said.
>
> No, Kevin, writing a response is what "reduces" one to their level.
You haven't addressed my counter-example, Trish.
>>Come on, Trish, get real. If it's considered net.courtesy to ask people before
>>posting their private email, doesn't it follow that it is, at the very least,
>>a net.faux-pas to post it *without* permission, and certainly when one has
>>reason to believe that it is *against* their permission?
>
> Come on, Kevin, wake up. The net is an anarchy, some people believe it
> is wrong to post mail, other netters do not.
If it's truly an "anarchy", then there's no such thing as bona fide "email
abuse" AT ALL, so you can shut the fuck up about having been "harrassed"...
Oh, and you never addressed the extrapolation that I made.
>>Surely you're not serious. You've sent me email before without my "expressed
> [...]
>>You live in a strange world, O Tuama.
>
> Speak for yourself, dear, one of us lives in a world where "against" and
> "without" mean the same thing and it ain't me, hon.
Let's explore "strange" for a moment, then. If I were to send Trish 1000 copies
of /etc/termcap right now, this would not qualify as "email harrassment"
because I have never seen an "expressed wish" of hers specifically asking me
to not mail her 1000 copies of /etc/termcap, right?
Yes, I think I'm now getting a feel for what "strange" means...
> Email harrassment occurs when two things happen:
>
> a) A sends hate.mail to B who then bounces it back or otherwise
> indicates to A that he/she has no interest in continuing the
> discussion
>
> b) A refuses to respect the wishes of B and continues sending
> hate.mail
Ah, so anyone gets a "first shot" at sending email, but it qualifies as
harrassment only -after- you reply. In other words, as long as you don't reply,
people could send millions of hate.mail messages to you, and none of them
would count as "harrassment"???
Hey, guys, better bump that up to -ten- thousand copies of /etc/termcap...
You live in an even stranger world than I thought you did, O Tuama.
- Kevin
Lefty
> In article <83...@gollum.twg.com> le...@twg.com ("Lefty") writes:
> >In article <1990Nov27....@gator.uucp> ke...@gator.uucp (Kevin
> >Darcy) writes:
> >> > ...it became apparent that trying to reason with you was
> >> > less rewarding than discussing existentialism with a banana slug.
> >> That's absurd. :-)
> >Exactly my point. (no "smiley")
> WHOOSH!! Right over your pointy head.
Sorry. That "Whoosh" was my response going in one of your ears and right out
the other. I can see why it wouldn't want to stay: it's all dark and nasty in
there...
Kevin discover Jean-Paul Sartre. Film at 11.
> >I hate to have to be the one to point this out to you, but getting the
> >last word counts for very little when you weren't saying anything to begin
> >with.
> And I hate to point this out to you, but "hitting" isn't very effective when
> the subject is "your head" and the object "a brick wall".
I take it that you're speaking as the voice of experience here. After
all, you've been beating your head against this discussion (with extremely
limited results, I might add) for quite a while now.
> >Oh, and by the way, "name flames" are the next-to-last gasp of a desperate
> >poster--right before nazi flames and right after dick-size flames.
> Is "Lefty" on your birth certificate, bozo? If not, then the normal reasons
> which make name-flames so "lame" don't apply in your case.
Yes, as a matter of fact, "Lefty" _is_ on my birth certificate--it's a long
story. I went by "David" for a while, but it got tedious: every Tom, Dick and
Harry is named "David".
Joel B Levin
|>> Newsgroups: misc.test.whine.kevin.whine <<
|
|> is wrong to post mail, other netters do not.
|
|If it's truly an "anarchy", then there's no such thing as bona fide "email
|abuse" AT ALL, so you can shut the fuck up about having been "harrassed"...
If you know this little about the difference between usenet and e-mail
you are likely to get yourself into serious trouble some day.
Time to go spend a dime on some more clue.
John F. Woods
>In article <1990Dec8.2...@rotag.uucp> ke...@rotag.uucp (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>Time to go spend a dime on some more clue.
To paraphrase the Rev. Charles Dodgson, how can he have some MORE clue when
he hasn't GOT a fucking clue to start with?