BOTTOM 20 NEWSGROUPS IN ORDER BY PROPAGATION
Classic Trish
>>They of the dish-it-out-but-refuse-to-take-it sector
>>applaud your spinelessness.
>You accuse me of dishing out name-calling
>the way you do?
No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
But that's okay, some of us found your spirited defense of a
moderated newsgroup that receives one article every three weeks
rather entertaining.
Louis Blair
>They of the dish-it-out-but-refuse-to-take-it sector
>applaud your spinelessness.
I wrote:
>You accuse me of dishing out name-calling
>the way you do? As the saying goes,
>"Now you are getting nasty!" I don't suppose
>you would care to actually produce any examples
>from my previous notes.
Classic Trish writes:
>No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
But how did he arrive at this conclusion? One
quality of people who make a habit of name-
calling is that it is often hard to tell exactly
what they are saying. As best I can tell he
said I was spineless because he considers
me to be a member of the dish-it-out-but-
refuse-to-take-it sector. Can you see any
other interpretation of what Houghton posted?
I certainly agree that someone who dishes
out a certain style of criticism and can not
take it himself is defective in some way,
spineless if you like, but I'm sorry, you
simply will not find any Houghton-style comments
in MY notes.
Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
because I disapprove of name-calling. So be it.
I do prefer rational discussion, and I do not see
much role for name-calling. If you are trying to
convince people of the virtues of name-calling,
I am inclined to think that calling me spineless is
not going to win you many converts. What do you
think?
Classic Trish writes:
>But that's okay, some of us found your spirited
>defense of a moderated newsgroup that receives
>one article every three weeks rather entertaining.
Go back and look at my note again. I DID NOT
EVEN MENTION THE NEWSGROUP, much
less give a spirited defense of it. My note was
about name-calling and how it might effect people's
attitudes towards moderation. It's tempting to make
some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
I don't go in for that sort of thing. I think your
mistake was quite understandable and does not
reflect in any way on your reading ability.
Yours spinelessly,
Louis Blair
Patricia O Tuama
------------------------------
In article <Ua8eBDq00...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>But how did he arrive at this conclusion?
Oh, probably because of what you wrote. On the other hand, per-
haps you and he have clashed on some other issue in the past and
he has reason to call you spineless based on that.
>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>because I disapprove of name-calling.
No, that doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
>Go back and look at my note again. I DID NOT
>EVEN MENTION THE NEWSGROUP, much
>less give a spirited defense of it.
You're right -- you gave a spineless defense of it. Pardon me.
> It's tempting to make
>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>I don't go in for that sort of thing.
And I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous self-righteous little
twit but as I hope you realize by now, I don't go in for that sort
of thing either.
Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic
>[...] It's tempting to make
>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>I don't go in for that sort of thing.
Gee Louis, can you say "disingenuous"? Judging by your postings,
probably not, so I'll spell it out for you: D I S H O N E S T Y.
Louis, you're out of your depth...
Hamish
Louis Blair
>But how did he arrive at this conclusion?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Oh, probably because of
>what you wrote.
I hope you realize that that is not much of
an explanation.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>On the other hand, per-
>haps you and he have clashed on some other
>issue in the past and
>he has reason to call you spineless based on that.
As far as I know, we have not clashed in the past.
I wrote:
>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>because I disapprove of name-calling.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, that doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
>you gave a spineless defense of [the newsgroup].
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
I was defending the newsgroup? My note only
talked about name-calling.
I wrote:
>It's tempting to make
>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>I don't go in for that sort of thing. I think your
>mistake was quite understandable and does not
>reflect in any way on your reading ability.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>And I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit but as I hope you realize
>by now, I don't go in for that sort
>of thing either.
Hamish writes:
>Gee Louis, can you say "disingenuous"? Judging
>by your postings, probably not, so I'll spell it out
>for you: D I S H O N E S T Y.
I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
your attention. I clearly indicated my disapproval
of things like, "Why don't you learn how to read?",
by calling it a smart-ass remark. Also, I added
a second sentence to make sure it was absolutely
clear that I did NOT think the remark was appropriate.
I chose a remark that was on the surface so
obviously ridiculous that I hoped nobody would
seriously believe that I was trying to convince
anyone that it was true.
Yours spinelessly,
pompously,
self-righteously,
disingenuously,
and dishonestly
the little twit
Patricia O Tuama
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Nonsense, it's a perfectly adequate explanation.
>I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
>your attention.
No, Louis, we all understood what you were doing. Backtracking
like that is an old, old stupid.net.trick, it's in the same class
as spelling flames or PMS flames.
Dave Alexander
> I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch your
> attention. I clearly indicated my disapproval of things
> like, "Why don't you learn how to read?", by calling it a
> smart-ass remark. Also, I added a second sentence to make
> sure it was absolutely clear that I did NOT think the remark
> was appropriate.
Kid, are you really as dense as all this?
Let me try my hand at explaining to you just what the problem is:
When you say "I could insult you by saying 'such and such'
but I won't stoop to it," or words to that effect, you are
trying in an extremely pathetic and transparent way to do
both. You desperately want to deliver your precious insult
(how long did it take you to think that one up?) but at the
same time you want to show everyone just how far you are above
the level of 'smart-ass remarks.'
The catch, of course, is that you can never have both. If you
had *really* thought that the comment was out of line, you
wouldn't have included it at all. You wouldn't have had a
reason.
What you did instead, including a flame while saying that you
don't flame, shows that you are a incredible hypocrite.
The difficulty that you seem to be having in seeing that
hypocrisy, even after the attempts that have been made to
explain it to you, shows that you are a hopeless fool.
-- Dave Alexander
--
"If someone pukes watching one of my films, it's like
getting a standing ovation."
-- Pedro Almodovar
Louis Blair
>But how did he arrive at this conclusion?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Oh, probably because of
>what you wrote.
I wrote:
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Nonsense, it's a perfectly adequate explanation.
Come on! Wouldn't you say that it was rather
incomplete. Wouldn't it be appropriate to explain
how my spinelessness can be deduced from
what I wrote?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>we all understood what you were doing.
>Backtracking like that is an old, old stupid.net.trick,
>it's in the same class as spelling flames or PMS flames.
I gather you choose to believe that I really was trying
to convince people that Classic Trish needs to learn
how to read. Well, I don't know what makes you
think that you can see into my soul that way, but
here is a question or two that you might answer:
(1) Let us suppose, hypothetically that a person
wants to write a note complaining about name-
calling. Suppose that the person wants to show
the name-caller that he or she is him or herself
vulnerable to name-calling. Is it possible to do
this without being accused of "Backtracking"?
(2) Can you give ANY examples of name-calling
from ANY of my notes?
Is there any chance that you are going to
answer the question:
"How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
I was defending the newsgroup?"
Name-callers often seem to be desperate to believe
that everyone else is just as bad as they are. Also,
name-callers rarely answer questions. The usual
trick is act as though the answer is obvious. Will
this exchange be any different? It doesn't look
that way so far.
Eric Holeman
In article <Ea9F8Vy00...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
You flatter yourself.
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
And she flattered you, from what I can tell.
>Nor could she
>bring herself to say immediately afterward that the remark
>was obviously inappropriate as I did.
It was?
>I just wanted to come up with something
>that was obviously stupid.
No comment.
Louis Blair
>When you say "I could insult you by saying 'such and such'
>but I won't stoop to it," or words to that effect, you are
>trying in an extremely pathetic and transparent way to do
>both.
Except that I did not say, "I could insult you by saying 'such
and such' but I won't stoop to it". I clearly identified the
quoted statement as a "smart-ass remark". Did you notice
that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
self-righteous little twit" in a similar way. Nor could she
bring herself to say immediately afterward that the remark
was obviously inappropriate as I did. In her reproduction
of a portion of my note she chose to leave out the sentence,
where I said the smart-ass remark was inappropriate. You
are even less able to deal with what I actually wrote, insisting
on replacing it with something that comes closer to justifying
your views. There is nothing in YOUR quote to indicate
that the insult is clearly wrong.
Dave Alexander writes:
>You desperately want to deliver your precious insult
Exactly what method do you have for seeing into my
soul this way? Do you honestly believe that the insult
is "precious" to me? How do you know this?
Dave Alexander writes:
>how long did it take you to think that one up?
Not very long. I just wanted to come up with something
that was obviously stupid. It appears you feel that I
succeeded.
Dave Alexander writes:
>at the same time you want to show everyone just how
>far you are above the level of 'smart-ass remarks.'
I do think that smart-ass remarks such as
"Kid, are you really as dense as all this?"
are rather rare in my notes, and I am proud of
that, so I suppose that this portion of what you
say is true.
Dave Alexander writes:
>The catch, of course, is that you can never have both.
But I did not try to have both. I clearly identified the
remark as stupid and incorrect. (Something that you
can not bring yourself to do in your paraphrase.)
Dave Alexander writes:
>If you
>had *really* thought that the comment was out of line,
>you wouldn't have included it at all. You wouldn't have
>had a reason.
My reason was to try to make the original poster aware
of the difference between reasoned discussion and
insults by illustrative examples. Examples often make
things clearer.
Dave Alexander writes:
>What you did instead, including a flame while saying that you
>don't flame, shows that you are a incredible hypocrite.
I said EXACTLY what I meant and believe. You claim
to know the true meaning of my words, but it is interesting
to see how you need to rig the evidence in order to make
your case more plausible. I said that the insult was a
"smart-ass remark" which is EXACTLY what I believe,
and I also said that the remark was not true which is
also exactly what I believe. The only conflict is between
your version of what I said and what you think is in my
mind.
Dave Alexander writes:
>The difficulty that you seem to be having in seeing that
>hypocrisy, even after the attempts that have been made to
>explain it to you, shows that you are a hopeless fool.
I have no trouble understanding what you are saying.
I am just letting you know that you are basing your
remarks on a false assumption. I merely
wanted to illustrate the difference between sensible
discussion and senseless discussion.
By the way, I notice that you refrain from commenting
on the issue of whether or not I was really defending
the newsgroup. Too bad. This would be a good way to
let people see how objective you are.
Louis Blair
>Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt
>to imitate what I wrote,
Eric Holeman writes:
>You flatter yourself.
I suppose you do not see any similarity
between:
>It's tempting to make
>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>I don't go in for that sort of thing. I think your
>mistake was quite understandable and does not
>reflect in any way on your reading ability.
and
>I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit but as I hope you realize
>by now, I don't go in for that sort
>of thing either.
Anybody can see that she was trying to mirror
what I wrote, but she left out certain key elements
of the original. You don't really believe
that the matching phrases is a coincidence, do
you?
Eric Holeman writes:
>And she flattered you, from what I can tell.
Well, I guess I can hardly expect to be popular
with the fans of name-calling.
I wrote:
>Nor could she
>bring herself to say immediately afterward that the remark
>was obviously inappropriate as I did.
Eric Holeman writes:
>It was?
I guess you are saying that her remark was appropriate and
she meant it, which is exactly my point. Her note was
superficially like mine, but she could not make her note
exactly like mine because she MEANT her insult, and wanted
everyone to know that she meant it. The wording in my
note could not be used in full and still serve that purpose.
I point this out in the hope that you will realize that I did
not mean to convince people that Trish needed to learn
how to read. My wording does not serve that purpose.
I wrote:
>I just wanted to come up with something
>that was obviously stupid.
Eric Holeman writes:
>No comment.
Well, at least we apparently agree on something!
Christopher Davis
eh> Eric Holeman (sh...@milton.u.washington.edu)
rissa> Patricia O Tuama (ri...@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us)
lb> Did you notice that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I
lb> wrote,
eh> You flatter yourself.
lb> I suppose you do not see any similarity between:
lb> It's tempting to make some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't
lb> you learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now, I don't go in
lb> for that sort of thing. I think your mistake was quite understandable
lb> and does not reflect in any way on your reading ability.
lb> and
rissa> I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous self-righteous little twit
rissa> but as I hope you realize by now, I don't go in for that sort of
rissa> thing either.
Actually, I see one major difference:
You were being a hypocrite about it, and she wasn't.
She will admit it when she's flaming people. You seem to need to hide
behind "It's tempting to say something like..." Very simple.
lb> [...] she could not make her note exactly like mine because she MEANT
lb> her insult, and wanted everyone to know that she meant it. [...]
Ah, so you *do* see the difference!
--
Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <c...@bu-pub.bu.edu> <...!bu.edu!bu-pub!ckd>
"Dammit, we're all going to die, let's die doing something *useful*!"
--Hal Clement on comments that space exploration is dangerous
Dave Alexander
In article <0a9FQSO00...@andrew.cmu.edu>
lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
> Sorry. I really thought that this would be over by now.
> Foolish of me, I suppose. My responses to Classic Trish,
> Patricia O Tuama,
Classic Trish *and* Patricia O Tuama? You must feel special,
Louis, having so many people to flame you.
> Hamish, and anybody else who decides to get in on this will
> be confined to netnews.alt.flame. Perhaps they will behave
> similarly.
You mean you're afraid that people might not show you the
courtesy that you wouldn't extend to Trish when you responded
to <1990Apr11....@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>?
Well, folks, we have another gold medal performance by Louis
Blair in the Hypocrisy-Stupidity Biathlon here at the Usenet
Olympics. Once again we hear the CMU Alma Mater as Louis
ascends the stand to receive his medal...
Thomas I Hopkins
> D I S H O N E S T Y.
I forget who said double space caps were annoying, but they were right.
-Tom Hopkins <hop...@bu-pub.bu.edu>
I was tempted to make a useful comment, but why bother?
Patricia O Tuama
.>be over by now. Foolish of me, I
.>suppose. My responses to Classic
.>Trish, Patricia O Tuama, Hamish,
.>and anybody else who decides to
.>get in on this will be confined to
.>netnews.alt.flame. Perhaps they
.>will behave similarly.
You fucking little hypocrite. This discussion stayed in r.a.m
for as long as it did because -you- refused to move to alt.flame.
s
Patricia O Tuama
>I gather you choose to believe that I really was trying
>how to read.
No, dear, no one thought that you were trying to convince people
that I need to learn how to read. What everyone did think, how-
ever, is that you were attempting to flame me by implying this
and then backtracking in a hypocritical attempt to pretend that
you were above that sort of thing.
And you can kick and scream about this as much as you wish and
make up all this nonsense about examples and mirror postings but
nothing will change the fact that you got caught in the middle
of a stupid.net.trick with your pants down.
>(1) Let us suppose, hypothetically that a person
>wants to write a note complaining about name-
>calling. Suppose that the person wants to show
>the name-caller that he or she is him or herself
>vulnerable to name-calling. Is it possible to do
>this without being accused of "Backtracking"?
Sure. Write a posting saying you don't like name-calling. It's
the fact that you went a step further and decided to illustrate
your posting by doing the same thing to me that you were accusing
Blair Houghton of doing that makes you a hypocrite.
Now I have a question for you -- if you wanted to show the name-
caller (ie, Blair) that he is vulnerable to name-calling, then
why did you flame me? Wouldn't it have been more productive for
you to call Blair names and then pretend that you didn't mean it?
>Is there any chance that you are going to
>answer the question:
I already did.
>Name-callers often seem to be desperate to believe
>that everyone else is just as bad as they are.
Louis, what the fuck is it with you and name-calling? You write
flames and then jump up and down screaming that because you don't
call anyone names that you're somehow better than someone who does.
This is complete nonsense. You're not only a pompous, self-right-
eous little twit, you're a hypocritical, pompous, self-righteous
little twit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In article <Ea9F8Vy00...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>Except that I did not say, "I could insult you by saying 'such
>and such' but I won't stoop to it".
Yes, you did.
> Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
Well, why should I? I meant exactly what I said and, unlike,
you, I was willing to take responsibility for it. You, on the
other hand, backtracked all over your posting in a pathetic
attempt to make yourself look like you were above name-calling
and other insults.
>I said EXACTLY what I meant and believe. You claim
>to know the true meaning of my words, but it is interesting
>to see how you need to rig the evidence in order to make
>your case more plausible.
No one has rigged anything, Louis. You fucked up, hon.
Louis Blair
>Classic Trish *and* Patricia O Tuama?
>You must feel special,
>Louis, having so many people to flame you.
I gather that these two are the same person.
Thank you for calling this to my attention. I
must admit that I did not pay much attention
to this.
Dave Alexander writes:
>You mean you're afraid that people might
>not show you the courtesy that you wouldn't
>extend to Trish when you responded to
><1990Apr11....@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>?
If Trish wanted to take the discussion out of
rec.arts.movies, why did she keep on posting
notes there? The fact is that there was a
sequence of notes from both of us on rec.arts.movies
and I was the first one to call a halt by refraining
from posting a rec.arts.movies response to any
of her rec.arts.movies criticisms of me.
Dave Alexander writes:
>Well, folks, we have another gold medal
>performance by Louis Blair in the Hypocrisy-Stupidity
>Biathlon here at the Usenet Olympics. Once again we
>hear the CMU Alma Mater as Louis
>ascends the stand to receive his medal...
When you write this sort of thing, are you angry,
having a good time, or what? Just wondering.
Starcap'n Ra
> I wrote:
> Patricia O Tuama writes:
> I wrote:
> Patricia O Tuama writes:
> Patricia O Tuama writes:
Hon (it *is* hon, isn't it?), the ">" is for her quotes,
and the "> >" is for yours. There is no need to keep inserting
"I wrote" and "Patricia O Tuama writes" every other paragraph.
Please rest assured that we're all intelligent enough to
keep track of this, and that barring the not too remote
possiblility that you yourself need to post this way to keep
things straight in your own feeble mind, note that your use of
the normal Usenet notation in the future would serve to make
your postings much less tedious to wade through, with the
fringe benefit (to you) of making you appear a little less wet
behind the ears (although, admittedly, it's a little late bit
for that).
--Starcap'n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
csnet, arpa: ken...@asuvax.asu.edu
Louis Blair
>You fucking little hypocrite. This
>discussion stayed in r.a.m for as
>long as it did because -you- refused
>to move to alt.flame.
Like I said to Dave Alexander:
If you wanted to take the discussion
out of rec.arts.movies, why did you
keep on posting contributions to the
discussion over there? I was the one
to bring a halt to things by refraining
from posting a rec.arts.movies response
to your last batch of rec.arts.movies
criticisms of me. It appeared to me
that you were determined to have
the last word in rec.arts.movies about
your criticisms of me, and I decided
to let you rather than have the readers
of rec.arts.movies suffer any more.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, dear, no one thought that you were
>trying to convince people that I need to
>learn how to read. What everyone did
>think, how-ever, is that you were attempting
>to flame me by implying this
What is the point of implying something if
you do not want people to be convinced?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>and then
>backtracking in a hypocritical attempt to
>pretend that you were above that sort of thing.
>And you can kick and scream about this as much
>as you wish and make up all this nonsense about
>examples and mirror postings but nothing will
>change the fact that you got caught in the middle
>of a stupid.net.trick with your pants down.
Were you or were you not trying to say that
I was "a pompous self-righteous little twit"?
Were you or were you not trying to imitate
the style of my note?
Why did you leave out the part about a "smart-ass
remark"?
Why did you leave out anything analogous to the
sentence that clearly indicated that there was
nothing wrong with your ability to read?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Write a posting saying you don't like name-calling.
>It's the fact that you went a step further and decided
>to illustrate your posting by doing the same thing to
>me that you were accusing Blair Houghton of doing
>that makes you a hypocrite.
I gather that you are of the opinion that one can not
give an example of foolish name-calling without being
a foolish name-caller. This attitude precludes the
giving of examples. I hoped that by giving you an
example that could have been directed at you, it
would help you to realize the foolishness of such
things. Apparently you simply choose not to believe
this, believing instead that I really did want to "imply"
that you need to learn how to read. Although you
agree that I did not want to convince anyone. At
least that is some progress.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Now I have a question for you -- if you wanted to
>show the name-caller (ie, Blair) that he is vulnerable
>to name-calling, then why did you flame me? Wouldn't
>it have been more productive for you to call Blair names
>and then pretend that you didn't mean it?
I had the impression that you were expressing your
approval of Houghton's conclusion that I am spineless, and
therefore, that you were an enthusiastic name-caller
yourself. If you will publicly say that you had
no intention of indicating support for Houghton's conclusion,
then I will apologize for assuming that you did.
I wrote:
>Is there any chance that you are going to
>answer the question:
>
>"How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
>I was defending the newsgroup?"
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I already did.
At the end I will reproduce a copy of
portions of the note where I asked this
question and a complete
copy of your response. As you will quickly
see, you ignored the question.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Louis, what the fuck is it with you and
>name-calling?
It has various unpleasant consequences.
For example, it makes people want to
escape to a moderated newsgroup. I
agree with Mr. Houghton about many
of the undesirable aspects of moderation.
Name-calling makes it more likely that
people will feel that such an evil is
necessary.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You write flames
I write criticism based on reason.
>and then jump up and down screaming
I don't know how you came to this conclusion.
If someone looked objectively at all of our
notes, my guess is that I would not be chosen
as the person who is most likely to be jumping
up and down screaming.
>that because you don't
>call anyone names that you're somehow
>better than someone who does.
Absolutely false. I have never said that I
am better than anyone. I have never met
any of you, and I have no way of knowing
what you are like. I know from experience
that many of you are perfectly normal away
from the terminal. Why do some people indulge
in behavior here that they would never use
anywhere else? I DO think that name-calling
is a bad habit for reasons like the one above.
In a place like netnews.alt.flame where
apparently everyone is expecting that sort
of thing, I suppose that it does not matter,
but in a place like rec.arts.cinema where
people want to use reason, it would be
nice if people could be confident that
the urge to call names will be restrained.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>This is complete nonsense. You're not only
>a pompous, self-righteous little twit, you're a
>hypocritical, pompous, self-righteous little twit.
You have already notified me that you consider
me to be hypocritical. Thank you for the reminder.
12 Apr 90 16:15:40 GMT
(Excerpts from my note.)
I hope you realize that that is not much of
an explanation.
I wrote:
>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>because I disapprove of name-calling.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, that doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
>you gave a spineless defense of [the newsgroup].
How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
I was defending the newsgroup? My note only
talked about name-calling.
I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
your attention.
12 Apr 90 17:27:06 GMT
(Patricia O Tuama's complete response)
In article <oa9_ag600...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu
(Louis Blair) writes:
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Nonsense, it's a perfectly adequate explanation.
>I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
>your attention.
No, Louis, we all understood what you were doing. Backtracking
Louis Blair
I wrote:
>I suppose you do not see any similarity
>between:
>
>>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>>mistake was quite understandable and does not
>>reflect in any way on your reading ability.
>
>
>>I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous
>>by now, I don't go in for that sort
>
>Anybody can see that she was trying to mirror
>what I wrote
Christopher Davis writes:
>Actually, I see one major difference:
I also think that there is a major
difference. Eric Holeman seemed
to be saying that Patricia O Tuama
was not imitating me. I was claiming
that she DID imitate me with some
important differences. Are we
agreed on at least that? If so, it
might be a good idea for you to
tell Eric. I don't think that he will
listen to me.
Christopher Davis writes:
>You were being a hypocrite about it,
>and she wasn't. She will admit it
>when she's flaming people.
She DID write, "I don't go in for that sort of
thing either." That does not sound like much
of an admission to me.
Christopher Davis writes:
>You seem to need to hide
>behind "It's tempting to say something like..."
There is a difference between what I wrote
and what she wrote, but this is not it. SHE
was the one who wrote "I'm tempted to say...".
Like the others, you apparently can not bring
yourself to deal with what I actually wrote,
"It's tempting to make some sort of smart-ass
remark like...". This is completely honest.
I admit to the temptation and say what I think
of it in no uncertain terms.
>Very simple.
I agree.
>Ah, so you *do* see the difference!
I have said all along that there was a difference.
My original remark was:
>I clearly identified the
>quoted statement as a "smart-ass remark".
>Did you notice that Patricia O Tuama, in her
>attempt to imitate what I wrote, could not bring
>herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way. Nor
Blair P. Houghton
>>But how did he arrive at this conclusion?
>
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>Oh, probably because of
>>what you wrote.
>
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Here we have an example of irony in which our protagonist
meets the conflicting element and refuses to accept its
validity, even though it is that refusal which forms the
crux of the conflict. The director has foreshadowed this
scene with earlier shots of the protagonist's having his
head handed to him in an almost identical manner; however,
in that earlier scene it served merely as exposition; here,
because it is repeated, the irony appears.
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>On the other hand, per-
>>haps you and he have clashed on some other
>>issue in the past and
>>he has reason to call you spineless based on that.
>
>As far as I know, we have not clashed in the past.
Tabula rasa. We have no prejudices to cloud the issues.
This is intellectually directed evidence for our
conclusions that it is the protagonist who incited his own
conflicts in the earlier scenes. The director is
confirming expositorily what before we only felt
viscerally.
>I wrote:
>>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>>because I disapprove of name-calling.
>
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>No, that doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
>>you gave a spineless defense of [the newsgroup].
>
>How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
>I was defending the newsgroup? My note only
>talked about name-calling.
Here we have an anti-confessional speech; a lie so utterly
boldfaced as to make seasoned liars wince in embarrassment.
Yet, there is the rotting gristle of a shred of truth left
on this compromised bone, as our protagonist may actually
have forgotten his inciting remarks. Here we see the
raison d'cinema of the tabula rasa cleared for us earlier.
>I wrote:
>>It's tempting to make
>>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>>I don't go in for that sort of thing. I think your
>>mistake was quite understandable and does not
>>reflect in any way on your reading ability.
>
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>And I'm tempted to say that you're a pompous
>>self-righteous little twit but as I hope you realize
>>by now, I don't go in for that sort
>>of thing either.
>
>Hamish writes:
>>Gee Louis, can you say "disingenuous"? Judging
>>by your postings, probably not, so I'll spell it out
>>for you: D I S H O N E S T Y.
>
>I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
>your attention.
Irony again. Our protagonist's disingenuity chases its own
tail. We laugh. (Comedy and irony are similar, almost
twinned; while true, this is, apparently, digressive. But
like Dr. Miller always used to tell me: "never trust a mirror"
in a movie; it's too powerful a symbol and only the lowliest
story-illustrating director would use it irrelevantly.)
>I clearly indicated my disapproval
>of things like, "Why don't you learn how to read?",
>by calling it a smart-ass remark. Also, I added
>a second sentence to make sure it was absolutely
>clear that I did NOT think the remark was appropriate.
>I chose a remark that was on the surface so
>obviously ridiculous that I hoped nobody would
>seriously believe that I was trying to convince
>anyone that it was true.
>
> Yours spinelessly,
> pompously,
> self-righteously,
> disingenuously,
> and dishonestly
>
> the little twit
Reversal, confession, resolution: all is proven, all is
confirmed, all is closed, the principals live "happily ever
after." Our digressive feelings are given fruition and
reward. We do indeed have in this art a comedy. It is all
to unsettling that, like the drama in "The Thin Blue Line,"
this comedy is built entirely in a documentary ouvre.
--Blair
"You mispelled 'fin.'"
Louis Blair
>Hon (it *is* hon, isn't it?), the ">" is for her
>quotes, and the "> >" is for yours. There is
>no need to keep inserting "I wrote" and
>"Patricia O Tuama writes" every other
>paragraph.
I like to hold down the number of arrows.
Surely this is just a matter of taste. Let's
not make a big deal out of this, too.
Eric Holeman
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
In article <Qa9WOwC00...@andrew.cmu.edu> Louis writes:
>I also think that there is a major
>difference. Eric Holeman seemed
>to be saying that Patricia O Tuama
>was not imitating me.
No, I can't really imagine her being so desperate.
>(I said) that she DID imitate me with some
>important differences.
Not imitating, Louis; she was mocking you. Check it in your
Funk and Wagnalls.
>Are we
>agreed on at least that? If so, it
>might be a good idea for you to
>tell Eric. I don't think that he will
>listen to me.
Oh, sure I will. One never knows what patently obvious point you'll
miss next.
Starcap'n Ra
> Starcap'n Ra writes:
> >Hon (it *is* hon, isn't it?), the ">" is for her
> >quotes, and the "> >" is for yours. There is
> >no need to keep inserting "I wrote" and
> >"Patricia O Tuama writes" every other
> >paragraph.
>
> I like to hold down the number of arrows.
Why does your standing in alt.flame and saying that
remind me of General Custer standing at Little Big Horn?
> Surely this is just a matter of taste.
"Just" a matter of taste? My dear fellow, nothing
is "just" a matter of taste. I'm not even going to attempt
to explain to you all of the nuances of this concept; I'm
sure I would never get anywhere, and I'd just annoy you
besides.
> Let's not make a big deal out of this, too.
I already have. You just don't get it, do you, hon?
Everything in alt.flame is a big deal.
Asmodeus
not-Blair, the WhizzBoob) slobbers:
>I gather that these two are the same person.
>Thank you for calling this to my attention. I
>must admit that I did not pay much attention
>to this.
You didn't pay attention because you have
nothing with which to do it. You made an
ass of yourself, which any sixth-grader
could see, and you *insist* on your stupidity.
Why? Why? Why? Why? you babble incessantly
like a small child, and when the extremely
elementary answer is given you, you start
your why? why? why? why? babbling all over.
I thought surely John Paul Jones was the
stupidest moron I'd seen in some time. I
was wrong.
Hey you, yeah you, WhizzBoob, your neural
apparatus is so simple that it is incapable
of processing confusion. You are a drooling,
blathering moron.
And you whine too much.
>When you write this sort of thing, are you angry,
>having a good time, or what? Just wondering.
He's doing you a favor, WhizzBoob. He's giving
you something you've never experienced, he's
giving you some useful niche in the world by
making you a source of entertainment. Without
that, WhizzBoob, you'd be what you have always
been, a worthless slobbering mass of blubber
whose only salvation would be quick suicide.
Thank him. Lick his boots. You owe him your life.
--
"Ti soffoca il sangue? Muori, dannato! Muori! Muori!"
^------------More Philistine bait
Asmodeus
not-Blair, the WhizzBoob) continues to blather:
>Were you or were you not trying to say that
>I was "a pompous self-righteous little twit"?
Idiot.
>Were you or were you not trying to imitate
>the style of my note?
Idiot.
>Why did you leave out the part about a "smart-ass
>remark"?
Idiot.
>Why did you leave out anything analogous to the
>sentence that clearly indicated that there was
>nothing wrong with your ability to read?
Idiot.
>>Louis, what the fuck is it with you and
>>name-calling?
>It has various unpleasant consequences.
>For example, it makes people want to
>escape to a moderated newsgroup.
Wrong, WhizzBoob. It makes spineless, snivelling
little bozos want to "escape."
>Name-calling makes it more likely that
>people will feel that such an evil is
>necessary.
Wrong again, WhizzBoob. It makes it more likely
that spineless, snivelling little bozos will feel
that such an evil is necessary.
>Why do some people indulge
>in behavior here that they would never use
>anywhere else?
What the hell makes you think that we behave any
differently here than elsewhere, WhizzBoob?
>I DO think
Wrong, WhizzBoob. You are incapable of thought.
>You have already notified me that you consider
>me to be hypocritical. Thank you for the reminder.
You need more than a reminder, WhizzBoob. You need
a good, long ass whipping.
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
It makes little difference, WhizzBoob, as you cannot
process an explanation.
Whine, WhizzBoob, whine.
Louis Blair
>How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
>I was defending the newsgroup? My note only
>talked about name-calling.
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>Here we have an anti-confessional speech; a lie
>so utterly boldfaced as to make seasoned liars
>wince in embarrassment. Yet, there is the rotting
>gristle of a shred of truth left on this compromised
>bone, as our protagonist may actually have forgotten
>his inciting remarks.
Think how devastating it would be if you could quote
a single sentence from my note that backed up what
you say. Of course, I gather that you think I am
already devastated. Then why are you posting all
this stuff?
Eric Holeman writes:
>Louis; she was mocking you.
Okay, she was mocking me if you prefer.
It does not change the fact that her
mockery was not accurate.
Starcap'n Ra writes:
>Why does your standing in alt.flame and saying
>that remind me of General Custer standing at
>Little Big Horn?
An interesting comparison. People keep on
telling me that I have been caught with my
pants down, that my head has been handed to me,
etc. Yet, the Indians keep on attacking. Why
is that?
Starcap'n Ra writes:
>"Just" a matter of taste? My dear fellow, nothing
>is "just" a matter of taste. I'm not even going to
>attempt to explain to you all of the nuances of this
>concept; I'm sure I would never get anywhere, and
>I'd just annoy you besides.
There are always these rational arguments hiding in
the wings, too bashful to come out.
Starcap'n Ra writes:
>Everything in alt.flame is a big deal.
Not to me it isn't. I respectfully reject your suggestion
and as far as I am concerned that is that. By the way,
thank you for the concern about the appearance of my
ears, but I don't think there is anything to worry about.
I've been posting notes like this for years and nobody
has complained about the way I use ">" before you.
Asmodeus writes:
>He's doing you a favor, WhizzBoob. He's giving
>you something you've never experienced, he's
>giving you some useful niche in the world by
>making you a source of entertainment. Without
>that, WhizzBoob, you'd be what you have always
>been, a worthless slobbering mass of blubber
>whose only salvation would be quick suicide.
>Thank him. Lick his boots. You owe him your life.
Is that why all the attacks keep coming?
How touching!
Louis Blair
note.
I wrote:
>I did not say, "I could insult you by saying 'such
>and such' but I won't stoop to it".
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Yes, you did.
Fortunately, it is a matter of record that my original note
clearly identified the insult as smart-ass and incorrect,
details left out by Dave Alexander and you.
I wrote:
> Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Well, why should I? I meant exactly what I said
There it is. You are clearly admitting that the parts
about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
are things that you do not say if you "mean what
you say".
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>and, unlike,
>you, I was willing to take responsibility for it.
Then why did you say, "I don't go in for that sort
of thing either"?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You, on the
>other hand, backtracked all over your posting in
>a pathetic attempt to make yourself look like you
>were above name-calling and other insults.
While, in reality, according to you I was trying to
imply something without trying to convince anybody.
That makes a lot of sense.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No one has rigged anything, Louis. You fucked
>up, hon.
You think misquoting a person and quoting him out
of context is not rigging the evidence? I guess
you think that the omitted details don't change
anything, and yet it is a funny coincidence that
now THREE different people have tried to prove
the same point by leaving out the exact same
details. It sure looks as though some people
find those details to be awfully inconvenient.
Louis Blair
>Idiot.
>Idiot.
>Idiot.
>Idiot.
Thanks for all the informative
answers. Really I do understand
what you mean. Patricia O Tuama
put this comment in the middle of
her note:
>You're not only a pompous, self-right-
>eous little twit, you're a hypocritical,
>pompous, self-righteous little twit.
To me, that sounded like the conclusion
and I didn't notice the stuff that came
after it, dealing to some extent with
what was covered by my questions.
Now I have gone back and responded
to the rest of her note. Sorry about
the mix-up.
I wrote:
>[name-calling] makes people want to
>escape to a moderated newsgroup.
Asmodeus writes:
>Wrong, WhizzBoob. It makes spineless, snivelling
>little bozos want to "escape."
I wrote:
>Name-calling makes it more likely that
>people will feel that such an evil is
>necessary.
Asmodeus writes:
>Wrong again, WhizzBoob. It makes it more likely
>that spineless, snivelling little bozos will feel
>that such an evil is necessary.
This is the usual view that name-callers have
of non-name-callers. How do you feel about
the fact that the "snivelling little bozos" out-
voted the others on the question of moderation
for rec.arts.cinema?
Asmodeus writes:
>What the hell makes you think that we behave any
>differently here than elsewhere, WhizzBoob?
I've met a number of computer name-callers
who behave quite differently away
from the terminal.
Asmodeus writes:
>You are incapable of thought.
Why do you keep on addressing notes to
someone that you consider to be
"incapable of thought"? I mean, if I
can't think then how am I going to
understand what you say.
Asmodeus writes:
>You need a good, long ass whipping.
And what else would you like to do?
I wrote:
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Asmodeus writes:
>It makes little difference, WhizzBoob, as
>you cannot process an explanation.
Are you actually admitting that it wasn't
an explanation? If so, could you let
Patricia O Tuama know?
Asmodeus writes:
>Whine, WhizzBoob, whine.
Well okay. If you insist:
WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE.
Asmodeus
not-Blair, the WhizzBoob) blathers yet more:
>Think how devastating it would be if you could quote
>a single sentence from my note that backed up what
>you say. Of course, I gather that you think I am
>already devastated. Then why are you posting all
>this stuff?
Idiot.
>Okay, she was mocking me if you prefer.
Preference has nothing to do with it, WhizzBoob.
You, however, were the only one too stupid to
figure that out.
>It does not change the fact that her
>mockery was not accurate.
The Goddess Trish's mockery of you was not only
accurate, it was a gem of side-splitting humor.
Tell us, WhizzBoob, when you look in a mirror do
you snarl and growl at the other person looking
back at you and babble why? why? why? why? with
the drool frothing down your chin?
>An interesting comparison. People keep on
>telling me that I have been caught with my
>pants down, that my head has been handed to me,
>etc. Yet, the Indians keep on attacking. Why
>is that?
Because you are so damned brain-dead that not
only are you the only mammal (?) incapable of
seeing just how stupid you are, but you keep
coming back being stupider every time, BEGGING
for more.
Idiot.
And I tell you to whine, WhizzBoob, and you are
so fucking stupid that you do it:
>Asmodeus writes:
>How touching!
Touching? No, not touching. Such a level of
stupidity as you have sunk toward can only be
seen in two ways: as pathetic, or entertaining.
You tell us which you are, WhizzBoob. Entertain
us, keep begging us to kick your sory ass all over
alt.flame and back.
Beg, WhizzBoob, beg.
Classic Trish
>If you wanted to take the discussion
>out of rec.arts.movies, why did you
>keep on posting contributions to the
>discussion over there?
Because you refused to move. Louis, you escalated this exchange
to a flamefest when you attacked me with that nonsense about my
reading ability. There was nothing in my original posting that
even begins to justify your response. I suggested you move to
a.f when it became obvious that you were only interested in writ-
ing personal attacks but you refused to go.
Futhermore, despite all your self-righteous talk about moving this
discussion to a.f and out of rec.arts.movies, as of yesterday you
were -still- posting your flames to r.a.m (<Ma9aqz600WI_41yEZX@
andrew.cmu.edu>). You are such a hypocrite, Louis.
>Were you or were you not trying to imitate
No, of course not, it was a parody of your posting, a mockery of
what you wrote, imitation had nothing to do with it and contrary
to what you seem to think, I am not obligated to use the same
wording you did or to include everything you put in your posting.
Understand this now, Louis? Here, I'll go over it for you again
just to be sure: It was not an imitation and nowhere is it writ-
ten that I have to use your exact wording in order to parody what
you wrote. Have you got it now, dear?
Look, you cranked out one of the stupidest types of flame that
exists. I replied in kind on the theory that you might be bright
enough to figure out for yourself why this type of flame is always
a mistake. Clearly you are much too stupid to understand the con-
nection.
>I gather that you are of the opinion that one can not
>give an example of foolish namecalpling without being
>a foolish name-caller.
No, I am of the opinion that -you- are not intelligent enough to
accomplish this.
I hoped that by giving you an
>example that could have been directed at you, it
>would help you to realize the foolishness of such
>things.
Gee, and instead all you did was help me and thousands of other
netters realize what a complete and utter twit you are. Does
everything you post backfire on you as badly as this did?
And what's this shit about "could have been directed at me?"
Obviously it was directed at me, you were responding to my post-
ing. Or is this just another example of you trying to weasel
out of what you wrote?
>I had the impression that you were expressing your
>approval of Houghton's conclusion that I am spineless, and
I see, so you had the "impression" that I was expressing approval
despite the fact that I didn't actually write anything indicating
that. Ummm, what is it you say whenever anyone writes something
based on their impressions of you?
Oh, yes, I remember now: Louis, exactly what method do you have
that lets you see into my soul that way, hmmm?? You can take your
impressions and your assumptions and shove 'em, hon, not only have
you've gotten every single one of them wrong so far but it's hypo-
critical of you to rationalize your attack on me this way while you
flame Dave Alexander for doing the same thing to you.
>copy of your response. As you will quickly
>see, you ignored the question.
Nope, wrong again, Louis. I didn't ignore anything.
[namecalling....]
>It has various unpleasant consequences.
Sigh, as usual, you completely missed the point. I didn't ask you
why you think name-calling is wrong, I asked you why you think your
flames are somehow holier that those that engage in name-calling.
>I write criticism based on reason.
Really? And do you think you might post one of these enlightened
bits of reasoned criticism sometime soon so we can judge the qual-
ity of your writing for ourselves? Or do you prefer that we judge
you based on the garbage you've posted so far?
Classic Trish
>Fortunately, it is a matter of record that my original note
>clearly identified the insult as smart-ass and incorrect,
You're not really as stupid as you sound are you, Louis? I mean,
nobody is this dumb, right? Not even Jeff Daiell is this stupid.
Pay attention here, dear, and I'll explain it to you again: it's
precisely -because- you clearly identified the insult as smart-ass
and incorrect that makes what you did dishonest and hypocritical.
We are talking about a type of flame here, one in which the poster
writes something insulting and then backtracks over it in an effort
to pretend that it wasn't really a flame. Usually it's done by
someone such as yourself who wants to flame other people for writ-
ing flames but who also wants to pretend that he or she is above
that sort of thing. In your case, you wanted to fight with Blair
but since he hadn't yet responded to you and I had, you decided to
pull this trick on me instead.
You wrote the insult, you identified it as smart-ass and incorrect
and mumbled something about how you could have written that sort
of thing but as everyone should know, you aren't the type of per-
son who writes things like that. It was a classic example of back-
tracking, Louis, and as such it was dishonest and hypocritical.
>There it is. You are clearly admitting that the parts
>about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
>are things that you do not say if you "mean what
>you say".
No, I'm admitting this is true for -me-. Needles to say, I don't
even begin to think that it's true for you.
>Then why did you say, "I don't go in for that sort
>of thing either"?
Because it was a -parody- of your posting. Obviously.
>You think misquoting a person and quoting him out
>of context is not rigging the evidence?
Is that why you do so much of it yourself? And is this why you
have repeatedly drawn conclusions about me and my postings based
on your "impressions" and then flamed me for them? Because you
knew that unless you "rigged" the evidence that you didn't have
any justification whatsoever for all the things you've been writ-
ing here?
Just curious.
Classic Trish
>Okay, she was mocking me if you prefer.
>mockery was not accurate.
Yes, it was. It was right on target, hon. Now this is your cue to
start babbling that I didn't use your entire posting nor did I use
the exact same wording as you did. But I have a suggestion for you
instead: why don't you try doing a little research first -- if you
can find one, just one, written authority on the English language
that states that all parodies must be written exactly as the object
parodied, no sentences left out or words changed, then I will apolo-
gize and withdraw from this discussion. Think you're brave enough
to do this, Louis? Or is it more your habit to flail about like a
fish out of water, insisting that everyone else must be wrong, that
it can't possibly be you who has made a mistake?
>I've been posting notes like this for years and nobody
>has complained about the way I use ">" before you.
So? Your posting style is terrible, it's difficult to read and it
makes you look even more like an idiot than your words reveal you to
be. I strongly suggest you adapt current Usenet convention if for
no other reason than that you need all the help you can get, dear.
Classic Trish
>what you mean. Patricia O Tuama
>put this comment in the middle of
>her note:
>>You're not only a pompous, self-right-
>>eous little twit, you're a hypocritical,
>>pompous, self-righteous little twit.
>
>To me, that sounded like the conclusion
>and I didn't notice the stuff that came
>after it, dealing to some extent with
>what was covered by my questions.
This has got to be the most blatant example of net.stupidity I have
ever seen. You didn't bother to read the rest of my posting because
something I put in the middle "sounded like the conclusion"??? Louis,
how did you get into college?? How do you manage to stay there? Or
are you somebody's pet rat or AI program?
>This is the usual view that name-callers have
>of non-name-callers.
No, dear, this is the usual view intelligent, educated netters have
of persons such as yourself, who repeatedly demonstrate that they
have the sentient qualities of a paper bag.
> How do you feel about
>the fact that the "snivelling little bozos" out-
>voted the others on the question of moferation
>for rec.arts.cinma?
And how do yhou feel about the fact that in seven weeks this news.group
has produced exactly two articles that fit its charter?
>WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE.
Well, at least you're honest some of the time.
.
Christopher Davis
A whole bunch of stuff which might have
made perfectly good sense except for
the fact that he obviously uses a
Commodore 64 and therefore feels the
need to impress us all with his ability
to type in 40 columns like this.
Only half-wits use half-lines, and he's not even a half-wit.
Blair P. Houghton
>>How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
>>I was defending the newsgroup? My note only
>>talked about name-calling.
>
>Blair P. Houghton writes:
>>Here we have an anti-confessional speech; a lie
>>so utterly boldfaced as to make seasoned liars
>>wince in embarrassment. Yet, there is the rotting
>>gristle of a shred of truth left on this compromised
>>bone, as our protagonist may actually have forgotten
>>his inciting remarks.
>
>Think how devastating it would be if you could quote
>a single sentence from my note that backed up what
>you say. Of course, I gather that you think I am
>already devastated. Then why are you posting all
>this stuff?
Think how funny this would be were it not so sad. Our
"hero" (the antihero as icon; our director is developing a
genre before our eyes and there is little for us to do
about it) continues to deny the invalidity of his denials,
in this case by invoking cliche'-ancient argumentative
techniques that would require us, as viewers, to force the
projectionist to rewind the film in order to show us
something we all saw clearly in the first place. Bacteria
remove the last proteinous flesh from the bone. We cry,
the irony is so painful; thus irony and comedy do not equal.
--Blair
"Ob. r.a.m lowbrow: What do Rex Reed,
Raquel Welch, and Tom Selleck have
in common?"
Blair P. Houghton
>>You write flames
>
>I write criticism based on reason.
Apparently, the only reason you need is that someone
called someone else a "name."
First of all, where do you suppose one finds the right
"name" to call someone else? Do you think it's some sort
of scatological free-verse? You obviously don't see it
as a form of sapient criticism, nor as an accurate description.
So you insult my intelligence by assuming that I am simply
spouting epithets without concern for their validity.
Not only do you write flames, not only do you base them
on insufficient reason, but you do so poorly and with a
prodigious naivety. Your arguments are disingenuous and
irrelevant. Your aim is poor, your comprehension is worse.
The only gain from this spate of Louis-bashing is that you
may just become housetrained, you pathetic puppy.
--Blair
"A rose by any other name would
smell as sweet, but once you
shove it up Louis' ass, he's
allowed to call it a spade."
Blair P. Houghton
>>Idiot.
>
>Thanks for all the informative
>answers. Really I do understand
>what you mean. Patricia O Tuama
>put this comment in the middle of
>her note:
>>You're not only a pompous, self-right-
>>eous little twit, you're a hypocritical,
>>pompous, self-righteous little twit.
>
>To me, that sounded like the conclusion
>and I didn't notice the stuff that came
>after it, dealing to some extent with
>what was covered by my questions.
>Now I have gone back and responded
>to the rest of her note. Sorry about
>the mix-up.
Louis, can I ask you one question? Just one? I'll put it in
all caps so you can find it really easy later on:
JUST WHAT THE fuck ARE YOU DOING IN REC.ARTS.MOVIES AND,
OSTENSIBLY, REC.ARTS.CINEMA EVALUATING ARTISTIC EXPRESSION
WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF APTITUDE IN THE
AREAS OF COMPREHENSION, DEDUCTION, INDUCTION, OR CRITICISM?
The final clue comes from your admission that you didn't
even stay to see the end of Trish's posting.
I guess I never actually noticed it before because I haven't
seen most of the movies you've been writing about and I don't
read articles about movies I have yet to see.
But watching your efforts at comprehending the things other
people are saying about YOU, YOURSELF, merely incites, frames,
fills-in, and glazes (with a hardshell finish) my opinion that
you have more to say than you actually have to think.
I really begin to doubt that what others are taking for
hypocrisy is actually that. I think you're simply jumping
from reception to conclusion without the interposed bother
of comprehension that the rest of us seem to perform
without question. There's no word for that, but it can be
described as the "movie reviewer's syndrome," best contrasted
with the "film critic's talent." It's not really hypocrisy
so much as it's an ignorance of yourself and the things only
you think you're doing correctly.
--Blair
"Poor kid. Where do we
mail the postcards?"
Dave Alexander
In article <Aa9c4Kq00...@andrew.cmu.edu>
lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) wrote:
> In article <1990Apr13.1...@hayes.fai.alaska.edu>
ri...@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Patricia O Tuama) wrote:
>> In article <Ea9F8Vy00...@andrew.cmu.edu>
lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>>> I did not say, "I could insult you by saying 'such and
>>> such' but I won't stoop to it".
>> Yes, you did.
> Fortunately, it is a matter of record that my original note
> clearly identified the insult as smart-ass and incorrect,
> details left out by Dave Alexander and you.
Louis, you keep coming back again and again to this deleted
sentence of yours as if it was somehow going to make it clear
that you haven't done any of the boneheaded things that we've
seen you do (and which *just* *keep* *coming*). It won't.
That sentence couldn't possibly convince anyone who profited
from a sixth grade education that you didn't stand behind your
precious 'Learn to read.' It was quite plain that you meant
it all along. You loved that insult. You believed in that
insult. You whacked off fondling the staple in the navel of
that insult.
That sentence wasn't put there to reassure Trish that you
really do believe that she can read. All that that sentence
did was to show that, on top of all else, you delight in being
a condescending little shit. You aren't just stupid and
hypocritical. You are condescending, stupid, and hypocritical
and I find simultaneous stupidity and condescension to be a
particularly revolting combination.
I wouldn't keep bringing up that particular sentence if you
have any interest in damage control.
-- Dave Alexander
--
"If someone pukes watching one of my films, it's like
getting a standing ovation."
-- Pedro Almodovar
Louis Blair
>You are clearly admitting that the parts
>about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
>are things that you do not say if you "mean what
>you say".
Classic Trish writes:
>No, I'm admitting this is true for -me-. Needles to
>say, I don't even begin to think that it's true for you.
There it is, a clear double standard. If you use the
words, then they are sincere. If I use the words,
then they are not sincere. The only reason you
have for believing that my words were not
sincere is that that is what you want to believe.
I wrote:
>I gather that you are of the opinion that one can not
>give an example of foolish name-calling without being
>a foolish name-caller.
Classic Trish writes:
>No, I am of the opinion that -you- are not intelligent
>enough to accomplish this.
Judging from the way you write, if a note contains an
example of a foolish insult, no matter what else there
is, you can dismiss it as backtracking and insist that
the insult was genuinely intended.
I wrote:
>If you wanted to take the discussion
>out of rec.arts.movies, why did you
>keep on posting contributions to the
>discussion over there?
Classic Trish writes:
>Because you refused to move.
So, as long as I continued to post contributions
to the exchange on rec.arts.movies you were
determined to answer me on rec.arts.movies.
In other words, you wanted to have the last
word in rec.arts.movies, and because of the
way you decided to behave, the only way
for the discussion between you and me
to leave rec.arts.movies was for me to allow
you to have the last word by not responding
on rec.arts.movies to your last batch of
rec.arts.movies criticisms of me.
Classic Trish writes:
>I suggested you move to a.f when it became
>obvious that you were only interested in writ-
>ing personal attacks but you refused to go.
And would you have us believe that you were
not doing any personal attacking at the time
yourself?
Classic Trish writes:
>Louis, you escalated this exchange
>to a flamefest when you attacked me with
>that nonsense about my reading ability.
I suppose you think the spineless stuff had
nothing to do with it. How could I attack
you with something that you yourself have
admitted was not intended to convince
anyone? It appears to me that what
REALLY bothers you was that I caught
you making a mistake, saying that I was
defending rec.arts.movies when, in reality,
I was doing no such thing. Come on,
admit it. That's what really bothered
you, not my (as you yourself admit and
as I also said at the time) unconvincing
sample insult. Even now you can't bring
yourself to deal with that issue:
I wrote:
>Is there any chance that you are going to
>answer the question:
>
>"How exactly did you come to the conclusion that
>I was defending the newsgroup?"
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I already did.
And in your latest batch of notes you
continue to insist on this. Once again
I have included below a complete copy
of your note that responded to my note with
the above question. Do you claim that your
response is there? If not, where is it?
Classic Trish writes:
>There was nothing in my original posting that
>even begins to justify your response.
My response contained:
(1) A question.
(2) Some general comments about name-calling.
(3) A denial that I do the sort of name-calling
that Houghton does.
(4) A correction of your statement that I was
defending rec.arts.cinema.
(5) A sample insult that you agree was obviously
not intended to convince anyone.
How much justification do I need for such a note?
The tone was not friendly, but lets look at the
tone of the note that I was responding to.
Your first sentence was:
>No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
People have been addressing me as
"dear", "hon", etc. for awhile now, and it
is pretty obvious that this is not intended to
be friendly. This alone is a pretty good
indication of where your sympathies were.
Then you went on with:
>But that's okay,
Now what exactly does "that" refer to? The
obvious candidate is my so-called spinelessness.
Then you added:
>some of us found your spirited defense of a
>moderated newsgroup that receives one article
>every three weeks rather entertaining.
So it certainly appears that you were saying
that my spinelessness was okay since it
entertained you. That is pretty condescending
if you ask me. Typical name-caller stuff.
You dismiss my arguments as entertainment
(while incorrectly describing the purpose of
those arguments), and neglect to point out
anything wrong with them.
Classic Trish writes:
>I see, so you had the "impression" that I was
>expressing approval despite the fact that I didn't
>actually write anything indicating that. Ummm,
>what is it you say whenever anyone writes
>something based on their impressions of you?
>Oh, yes, I remember now: Louis, exactly what
>method do you have that lets you see into my
>soul that way, hmmm??
YOU do not talk about impressions. You talk as
though you somehow know for sure exactly what
was going on in my head. You say that I DID mean
this sentence, I did not mean that sentence, etc. It
appears that only I am willing to admit uncertainty.
If you will clearly and publicly indicate that your note
had no hostile intent then you will have my immediate
apology for over-reacting. Are you willing to
admit that YOU could have been wrong? Are
you willing to admit that you do NOT know what
I did and did not mean?
Classic Trish writes:
>it's hypocritical of you to rationalize your attack
>on me this way while you flame Dave Alexander
>for doing the same thing to you.
I criticized Dave Alexander for putting between
quotation marks something that was not a fair
description of what I had written. You may
argue, if you like, that Dave's quote really
was fair, but you will not be able to produce an
example where I have put an unfair description
of what you wrote between quotation marks.
I did say what my IMPRESSION of what you
wrote was, but I clearly admitted the possibility
of error. I can already guess what is coming
next. If the past is any indication, you will
say that my use of the word "impression"
was insincere, that my admission of possible
error was insincere, and that I was REALLY
saying beyond all doubt that you were calling
me spineless. Of course, if you insist on rewriting
my words this way, it will be clear that you can
arrive at any conclusion that you want.
Classic Trish writes:
>nowhere is it written that I have to use your
>exact wording in order to parody what
>you wrote.
But a parody
should be close to the original if you want
to be sure that the parody represents qualities
of the original and not qualities created by
the author of the parody. It appears that
you could not include certain aspects of
the original and still preserve the hypocritical
quality that you wanted to depict. Two others
seem to have had the same problem.
Classic Trish writes:
>I didn't ask you why you think name-calling
>is wrong, I asked you why you think your
>flames are somehow holier that those that
>engage in name-calling.
Either way, my answer is essentially the same,
except that I have to correct you on one point.
I do not think that my notes are "holier". I just
think it is better to do without name-calling for
the sorts of reasons that I have already described.
I wrote:
>I write criticism based on reason.
Classic Trish writes:
>Really? And do you think you might post one of
>these enlightened bits of reasoned criticism
>sometime soon so we can judge the qual-
>ity of your writing for ourselves? Or do you prefer
>that we judge you based on the garbage you've
>posted so far?
Of course, I don't expect you to agree that what
I say is reasonable, but I hope that you will at
least agree that I do my best to let you know
how I arrive at my conclusions. If I say something
about what you wrote, I am willing to provide
the exact quote of you that led me to my conclusion.
Name-callers often prefer to act as though the reasons
for their statements are obvious.
Classic Trish writes:
>how do yhou feel about the fact that in seven weeks
>this news.group has produced exactly two articles
>that fit its charter?
I don't have much feeling about that. As I keep on
telling you, I was not defending the newsgroup. I
think it is unfortunate that so many people felt that
moderation was necessary. You already know my
theory about why they felt that way.
Classic Trish writes:
>Blair's followup wasn't directed to alt.flame, it was
>directed to rec.arts.movies.
Then why did it appear in alt.flame?
Look at his message. It says:
>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,alt.flame
and it also says:
>Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Classic Trish writes:
>You, Louis Blair, added alt.flame to the News-
>groups: line, and therefore, you knew quite well that
>you were cross-posting to rec.arts.movies.
Houghton's note appeared in alt.flame. I gave
the reply command, wrote my response, and
gave the send command. With a note like
Houghton's, the system here will AUTOMATICALLY
send the response to both rec.arts.movies
and alt.flame. I did not anticipate this because
I had assumed that we were at least all agreed
to keep any further discussion of this subject
away from rec.arts.movies. It did not occur
to me that someone would not only send a
further comment to rec.arts.movies, but also
indicate that followup-ups should also go there.
I guess I should have anticipated that yet
another person would insist on having the
last word on the subject in rec.arts.movies.
Dave Alexander writes:
>It was quite plain that you meant it all along.
>You loved that insult. You believed in that
>insult. You whacked off fondling the staple in
>the navel of that insult.
How do you know this stuff? Divine inspiration
or what?
Dave Alexander writes:
>you delight in being a condescending little shit.
Did you see anything at all condescending in
Patricia O Tuama's note, the one that said,
"No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
But that's okay, some of us found your spirited
defense of a moderated newsgroup that receives
one article every three weeks rather entertaining."?
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>So you insult my intelligence by assuming that I
>am simply spouting epithets without concern for
>their validity.
I never said that (or assumed it). I have no doubt
that you choose what you believe to be valid names.
12 Apr 90 17:27:06 GMT
(Patricia O Tuama's complete response to the
note that asked how she came to the conclusion
that I was defending rec.arts.cinema.)
In article <oa9_ag600...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu
(Louis Blair) writes:
>I hope you realize that that is not much of
>an explanation.
Nonsense, it's a perfectly adequate explanation.
>I think a few aspects of what I wrote did not catch
>your attention.
No, Louis, we all understood what you were doing. Backtracking
Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic
>>>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>>>learn to read?", but as I hope you realize by now,
>
>>Gee Louis, can you say "disingenuous"? Judging
>>by your postings, probably not, so I'll spell it out
>>for you: D I S H O N E S T Y.
>
>of things like, "Why don't you learn how to read?",
Louis, *dearest*, no amount of pompous huffing and puffing or verbal
hand-waving is going to cover up the fact that you committed a rather
obvious, and very public, gaffe. You disingenuously ("who, *me*?")
tried to have it both ways - and got caught. Instead of digging
yourself deeper and deeper into this little hole, you might have the
grace to admit the mistake and get back to the original point. Not
bloody likely.
Now toddle off back to wherever you came from and spare us the
windiness.
Hamish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Reid Sybase Inc, 6475 Christie Ave, Emeryville CA 94608 USA
+1 415 596-3917 ham...@sybase.com ...!{mtxinu,sun}!sybase!hamish
Jeff Vogel
AI.bond -u LB -B spanking
In article <24...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> bo...@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Asmodeus) writes:
>Idiot.
>Idiot.
"Fred?"
"Yeah, Jeff?"
>Idiot.
>Idiot.
"The AI is looping again."
"I'll try to fix it."
>spineless, snivelling little bozos
>spineless, snivelling little bozos
"Fred?"
"Don't worry. It's a feature?"
"Didn't you use a bondage flag?"
>You need a good, long ass whipping.
"There we go."
>Whine, WhizzBoob, whine.
"That's funny. I don't remember putting 'whine' in the array."
"You don't like it? I'll take it out."
--
| Jeff Vogel, Harvey Mudd College, CA : jvo...@jarthur.claremont.edu |
Jeff Vogel
AI.bond -u LB
In article <24...@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> bo...@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Asmodeus) writes:
>Idiot.
>Idiot.
"Oh, bugger."
>Beg, WhizzBoob, beg.
"I think I preferred 'whine.'"
"Oh, make up your mind.
John Woods
> Asmodeus writes:
> >Idiot.
> >Idiot.
> >Idiot.
> >Idiot.
> Thanks for all the informative answers.
If only you were capable of being informed.
> I wrote:
> I wrote:
> I wrote:
You wrote and wrote and wrote and wrote and then your head exploded. Try
reading for comprehension instead of trying to make pretty pictures on
your screen with a crayon.
> Asmodeus writes:
> >You are incapable of thought.
>
> Why do you keep on addressing notes to someone ... "incapable of thought"?
Because torturing animals with a central nervous system is considered cruel.
You, on the other hand, don't qualify.
> Asmodeus writes:
> >You need a good, long ass whipping.
>
> And what else would you like to do?
>
Heh. Heh. And, I say, "Heh."
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, jo...@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, j...@eddie.mit.edu
"the chumps fully proved themselves to be completely without honor when they
neglected to pay me for my tire iron as they said they would." -T. Kaldis
John Woods
> I did not notice part of Patricia O Tuama's note.
Or much of anything else.
> Fortunately, it is a matter of record that my original note
> clearly identified the insult as smart-ass and incorrect,
> details left out by Dave Alexander and you.
>
No, bonehead, it is a matter of record that your original note included an
insult, which you attempted immediately to excuse with third-grade tactics.
"I could tell you to learn to read, but I'm too prissy to do it" is miles
apart from "I will not stoop to insults, it is not my style." You included
the insult, and denied it was there. All that you really denied was the
presense of neural-tissue in your misshapen, misbegotten skull.
Louis Blair
>Louis, *dearest*, no amount of pompous
>huffing and puffing or verbal hand-waving
>is going to cover up the fact that you committed
>a rather obvious, and very public, gaffe. You
>disingenuously ("who, *me*?") tried to have it
>both ways - and got caught.
It appears that you believe that if you repeat
something often enough, that will make it
true. Name-callers often like to use the word
"obvious" in order to cover up an absence of
compelling arguments.
>Instead of digging yourself deeper and deeper
>into this little hole, you might have the grace to
>admit the mistake and get back to the original point.
>Not bloody likely.
I've been trying to go back to my original points
for some time: (1) What do you think all this
name-calling accomplishes? (2) How did you
come to the conclusion that I was spineless?
(3) What makes you think that I was defending
rec.arts.cinema?
However, people will not cooperate. They seem
obsessed with the idea that I am claiming to be
a better person and that they have to establish
that I am just as much a name-caller as they
are.
Dave Hill
Bullshit.
It's annoying and very tedious.
Of course it does go well with what you've been posting,
which is also annoying and very tedious.
Dave
Elton Wildermuth
>
> [...] I didn't notice the stuff that came after it, dealing to some
>extent with what was covered by my questions. Now I have gone back and
>responded to the rest of her note. Sorry about the mix-up.
(Louis, sit down before you read this. I wouldn't want you to hurt your
head when you faint from shock.) There are people in the world who actually
read all the way to the end of an article before succumbing to the over-
powering urge to follow up. A limited subset of those people even go look
up the hard words, then read it again to make *sure* they know what they're
talking about before they wise up in wighteous wath. This cuts down
considerably on the time and effort they subsequently expend apologising.
Clay's(*) right: you really *are* an idiot. In fact, you truly may be
the one person I've ever encountered that could be replaced by a potted
petunia and a "out of order" sign.
(*) Oh -- excuse me ... that's "Asmodeus" to you.
Sort of like "Classic Trish". Versteht du?
Would I be out of line in supposing that you're going to school on an
athletic scholarship?
>Asmodeus writes:
>>Whine, WhizzBoob, whine.
>
>Well okay. If you insist:
>
>WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE.
[Aside to Clay: damn, you're good. If you can just whip the last of
that insubordinate streak out of him, let me know and I'll make you
an offer on him.]
-- Elton
Blair P. Houghton
>Hamish Reid writes:
>>Louis, *dearest*, no amount of pompous
>>huffing and puffing or verbal hand-waving
>>is going to cover up the fact that you committed
>>a rather obvious, and very public, gaffe. You
>>disingenuously ("who, *me*?") tried to have it
>>both ways - and got caught.
>
>It appears that you believe that if you repeat
>something often enough, that will make it
>true. Name-callers often like to use the word
>"obvious" in order to cover up an absence of
>compelling arguments.
Losers often try to spin the truth with pseudo-psychological
half-aphorisms in order to pretend that they're not involved
in whatever it is they've done, even though their red hands
are covered with cookie jar.
And, the word "obvious" has rather an obvious meaning,
which most people are quite aware of, and it is rather
rarely used as misinformation. Your use of the word
"often," however, is entirely suspect.
>>Instead of digging yourself deeper and deeper
>>into this little hole, you might have the grace to
>>admit the mistake and get back to the original point.
>>Not bloody likely.
>
>I've been trying to go back to my original points
>for some time: (1) What do you think all this
>name-calling accomplishes?
It often turns obvious twits like yourself into babbling hypocrites.
>(2) How did you
>come to the conclusion that I was spineless?
You won't stand up for truth, justice, and the American way,
preferring to be spared the "offensive" language of the angry.
You're the sort of spineless appeaser that brought us such
efficient organizations as The National Socialist Party and
the Moral Majority. It takes a malignant, toxic sort of
spinelessness to feel threatened by freedom of speech.
>(3) What makes you think that I was defending
>rec.arts.cinema?
Ibid, when applied to the topic in question.
>However, people will not cooperate.
You're the only one not admitting his transgressions of
sensibility, Louis.
>They seem
>obsessed with the idea that I am claiming to be
>a better person and that they have to establish
>that I am just as much a name-caller as they
>are.
Nobody gives a damn whether you call people names or not.
If you choose to eschew efficacious metaphor in favor of
being your verbose and disingenuous self, then that's your bag,
man. But don't expect us to laud you as the Dapper Gentleman
of the Net simply because you don't shit directly on your
food.
--Blair
"And I suspect the only reason you
don't shit directly on your food is
that you're only a wishful amateur."
Louis Blair
>(1) What do you think all this
>name-calling accomplishes?
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>It often turns obvious twits like yourself into
>babbling hypocrites.
I thought that according to you I've been
a babbling hypocrite all along. Anyway,
the real question is whether or not you
think that you have convinced any of those
who voted for moderation.
I wrote:
>(2) How did you
>come to the conclusion that I was spineless?
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>You won't stand up for truth, justice, and
>the American way, preferring to be spared
>the "offensive" language of the angry.
>You're the sort of spineless appeaser that
>brought us such efficient organizations as
>The National Socialist Party and the Moral
>Majority. It takes a malignant, toxic sort of
>spinelessness to feel threatened by freedom
>of speech.
Do you think it is a violation of freedom of
speech that you can not get whatever you
want published in the New York Times?
I wrote:
>(3) What makes you think that I was defending
>rec.arts.cinema?
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>Ibid, when applied to the topic in question.
But who said it should be applied to the topic
in question?
Patricia O Tuama
> Anyway,
>the real question is whether or not you
>think that you have convinced any of those
>who voted for moderation.
No, that's only part of the question -- the other half is whether -you-
managed to convince any of those who voted against moderation that they
made a mistake. And frankly I think the answer to both questions is no.
I am willing to bet, however, that -you- have managed to convince tens
of thousands of a.f readers that you are dishonest and hypocritical.
And don't give me any nonsense about how you can't expect to be popular
with the "name-callers." This has nothing to do with popularity.
>Do you think it is a violation of freedom of
>speech that you can not get whatever you
>want published in the New York Times?
Usenet is not a newspaper or a television station or a publishing house,
dear. This analogy has been tried many times in the past and it always
fails. Usenet was created for the purpose of free and independent cor-
respondence between individuals, you simply can't compare it to the New
York Times.
>But who said it should be applied to the topic
>in question?
Blair did. Obviously.
Classic BIFF
>>>>>> On 13 Apr 90 18:13:27 GMT, lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) said:
> A whole bunch of stuff which might have
> made perfectly good sense except for
> the fact that he obviously uses a
> Commodore 64 and therefore feels the
> need to impress us all with his ability
> to type in 40 columns like this.
> Only half-wits use half-lines, and he's not even a half-wit.
HI CHRISTOPHER!!! DO U KNOW A LOT ABOUT
COMMODORES??? I DO!!! I RUN A BBOARD
ON MINE!!! WHAT DO YOU DO ON YOURZ? DO
YOU KNOW THE IRON EMU??? I THINK 6502
ASEMBLER IS AWESOME. I CAN"T DO IT YET,
BUT I"M GONNA GET MY BROTHER TO TEACH
ME. IT"L BE NEET. HEY DO YOU THINK YOU
COULD GET YOR FREINDS ON THIS BBOARD TO
WRITE SHORTER LINES??? I LOSE ALL THE
STUFF AFTER COLUM 40 AND THAT SUCKS!!!
WELL BYE NOW!!! HEY CHECK OUT MY NEATO
SIGNATURE!!! IT"S GONNA CHANGE SOON.
I"M GETTING MY FRIEND THE BLUE ADEPT TO
HELP ME MAKE A NEW ONE. DO U KNOW
HIM,???
--
BI...@BIT.NET BI...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
BI...@BIFFVM.BIT.NET BI...@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
BI...@PSUVM.ANDREW.PORTAL.COM.XZ.US.RUTGERS.BITNET.EDU.UUCP
--
BI...@BIT.NET BI...@PSUVM.PSU.EDU
BI...@BIFFVM.BIT.NET BI...@ANDREW.CMU.EDU
BI...@PSUVM.ANDREW.PORTAL.COM.XZ.US.RUTGERS.BITNET.EDU.UUCP
Patricia O Tuama
>>No, I'm admitting this is true for -me-. Needles to
>>say, I don't even begin to think that it's true for you.
>There it is, a clear double standard. If you use the
>words, then they are sincere.
Louis, I was talking about the parody I wrote. Remember the parody?
Yes? Go back and reread the postings on this again.
>Judging from the way you write, if a note contains an
>example of a foolish insult, no matter what else there
>is, you can dismiss it as backtracking and insist that
>the insult was genuinely intended.
Judging from the -way- I write??? How about we judge from -what- I
write instead of you constantly ignoring what my words and substitu-
ting what you want to see? I said I don't think you are intelligent
enough to write a posting that gives examples of foolish insults and
is not in itself insulting. Try responding to my words for a change,
Louis, instead of rewriting them for me.
>So, as long as I continued to post contributions
>to the exchange on rec.arts.movies you were
>determined to answer me on rec.arts.movies.
You started this fight with me, I think it's only fair that you move
out of r.a.m first. Or do you non-name-callers think you have the
right to both start the fight and have the last word?
>And would you have us believe that you were
>not doing any personal attacking at the time
>yourself?
Yes, absolutely. There was nothing in my original posting in response
to your attack on Blair that justified your attacking me. Nothing.
>I suppose you think the spineless stuff had
>nothing to do with it.
What "spineless stuff"??? Blair said you were spineless, you posted
asking if he was accusing you of name-calling. I responded saying
no, I thought he was accusing you of being spineless. How can you
possibly interpret this as inflammatory?
> It appears to me that what
>REALLY bothers you was that I caught
>you making a mistake, saying that I was
>defending rec.arts.movies when, in reality,
In the first place, it was rec.arts.cinema, not rec.arts.movies and
secondly you made it quite clear that you were defending Thakur's
vision of this group when you attacked Blair. You also went on to
say that you would vote for r.a.c as a moderated group were the vote
held again citing your usual self-righteous nonsense about "name-
callers."
>>There was nothing in my original posting that
>>even begins to justify your response.
>How much justification do I need for such a note?
Considerably more than you had, that's for sure. But I guess it's just
typical non-name-caller stuff to attack other people because of things
you imagine they are saying about you.
>So it certainly appears that you were saying
>that my spinelessness was okay since it
>entertained you.
No, wrong again -- I said your spirited defense was entertaining. I
think your spinelessless is revolting.
>YOU do not talk about impressions. You talk as
>though you somehow know for sure exactly what
>was going on in my head.
So do you, Louis, you do it all the time. Here's a perfect example
taken from this very posting:
The only reason you
>have for believing that my words were not
>sincere is that that is what you want to believe.
>If you will clearly and publicly indicate that your note
>had no hostile intent then you will have my immediate
>apology for over-reacting.
Sure: I hereby clearly and publicly state that my note had no hostile
intent. But that's what I've been telling you for the past week, you
overreacted to what I said and then you attacked me because you were
angry with Blair.
>I criticized Dave Alexander for putting between
>quotation marks something that was not a fair
No no no, this isn't going to work, Louis. You're backtracking again.
Quotations have nothing to do with it.
>But a parody
>should be close to the original if you want
My parody was close to the original and it represented you perfectly.
There was nothing wrong with my parody, Louis. You're just pissed off
because it was so accurate.
>I do not think that my notes are "holier". I just
Yes, you do. You're saying that flames and insults such as the type
you write put you in a different class from netters who engage in
name-calling when the truth is that there isn't any difference between
what you write and what everyone else writes. Except that you're not
very good at it.
>Of course, I don't expect you to agree that what
>I say is reasonable, but I hope that you will at
>least agree that I do my best to let you know
>how I arrive at my conclusions.
So what? You can explain from now until the end of the year but that
won't transform anything you've posted here into reasonable discourse.
>If I say something
>about what you wrote, I am willing to provide
>the exact quote of you that led me to my conclusion.
And then you flame me for that conclusion, draw other conclusions based
upon the false one and flame me for those as well. Typical non-name-
caller strategy, no doubt.
>Houghton's, the system here will AUTOMATICALLY
>send the response to both rec.arts.movies
Ahhhhh, here it is, the most pathetic and feeble excuse of all! It
was the SOFTWARE's fault, mommy. Tell me something, dear, why didn't
you cancel your article when you realized you had made a mistake, hmmm?
Cancel it and repost it to alt.flame only? Or are non-name-callers too
stupid to cancel articles?
Blair P. Houghton
>Why?
I wrote:
>>It often turns obvious twits like yourself into
>>babbling hypocrites.
Louis Blair wrote:
>Why?
I wrote:
>>You won't stand up for truth, justice, and
>>the American way, preferring to be spared
>>the "offensive" language of the angry.
>>You're the sort of spineless appeaser that
>>brought us such efficient organizations as
>>The National Socialist Party and the Moral
>>Majority. It takes a malignant, toxic sort of
>>spinelessness to feel threatened by freedom
>>of speech.
Louis Blair wrote:
>Why?
>Blair P. Houghton writes:
>>Ibid, when applied to the topic in question.
Louis Blair wrote:
>But who said it should be applied to the topic
>in question?
Which is the same thing as "why?"
Louis, you're annoying. You're beyond annoying. You're
stultifying. If you want to go play in rec.arts.cinema,
then go play there. It's obvious to me that the level of
intellect that one can expect from that group is going to
be several notches below what it once promised. Please
stop cluttering alt.flame with your pathetic miscegenation
and off-purple prose. This group has much better things to
do than to wade through your strained peaches. Your mommy
is calling you. Here's a quarter:
O
go buy yourself a lollipop with it.
--Blair
"Beat it, kid."
John Woods
> I wrote:
> >You are clearly admitting that the parts about the smart-ass remark
> >and its incorrectness are things that you do not say if you "mean what
> >you say".
> Classic Trish writes:
> >No, I'm admitting this is true for -me-. Needles to
> >say, I don't even begin to think that it's true for you.
> There it is, a clear double standard.
You got it, needledick, there IS a double standard on alt.flame. Intelligent,
thinking posters, like Trish, get credit for there being thought behind their
writing, and spineless, brainless imbeciles get kicked around for hiding
behind third-grade tactics.
ONE MORE TIME, for the benefit of all the thinking impaired: You posted an
article filled with insults, complaining about other people being insulting,
and pretending that you were above it. Trish followed up, exposing your
hypocrisy with a carefully chosen example. It is no more an insult to
state the simple fact that you are a hypocrite than it is to state that
the Sun is hot.
Now, how can we tell the difference? When Trish wants to insult you, she
will do it, gleefully, skillfully, and will not hide behind "oh but I wouldn't
do that, now would I?" When you want to insult, you hide behind all the
"oh I'm so SUPERIOR" crap you can dig up.
> I wrote:
> >I gather that you are of the opinion that one can not
> >give an example of foolish name-calling without being
> >a foolish name-caller.
> Classic Trish writes:
> >No, I am of the opinion that -you- are not intelligent
> >enough to accomplish this.
>
> Judging from the way you write, if a note contains an
> example of a foolish insult, no matter what else there
> is, you can dismiss it as backtracking and insist that
> the insult was genuinely intended.
>
Your conclusion is obviously false. Now, how in the world was I able to
communicate that to the readers without including an example of a false
statement of my own?
Starcap'n Ra
> People keep on telling me that I have been caught with my pants
> down, that my head has been handed to me, etc. Yet, the Indians
> keep on attacking. Why is that?
Perhaps the perverse manner in which you've turned
your predicament into an opportunity for crude physical
self-gratification offends them.
> Starcap'n Ra writes:
> >"Just" a matter of taste? My dear fellow, nothing
> >is "just" a matter of taste. I'm not even going to
> >attempt to explain to you all of the nuances of this
> >concept; I'm sure I would never get anywhere, and
> >I'd just annoy you besides.
>
> There are always these rational arguments hiding in
> the wings, too bashful to come out.
Whoosh! And suddenly WhizzBoob has a crew cut.
> >Everything in alt.flame is a big deal.
>
> Not to me it isn't. I respectfully reject your suggestion
> and as far as I am concerned that is that.
Ah, Whizzy, if only it were that simple.
> By the way,
> thank you for the concern about the appearance of my
> ears, but I don't think there is anything to worry about.
> I've been posting notes like this for years
So your obtuse way of quoting postings is not due
to naivete, but is rather the result of years of
observation and thoughtful contemplation on your part.
Truly amazing, WhizzBoob.
--Starcap'n Ra {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
{allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
^---------------The Wrong Choice
csnet, arpa: ken...@asuvax.asu.edu
Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic
>It appears that you believe that if you repeat
>something often enough, that will make it
>true.
Stand back!! We're seeing the emergence of intentional irony from the
primordial CMU soup!! ... Umm, you do understand the concept of "irony",
don't you, Louis? Oh, sorry, forget it... go and ask Blair.
>Name-callers often like to use the word
>"obvious" in order to cover up an absence of
>compelling arguments.
A question for you:
* Have I ever called you any names other than "Louis"? (or
"dear[est]" :-)) *
If you can find one instance of my "name-calling" you, I'll eat my
non-existant hat.
If not, you've just committed *another* public gaffe. Mistaking me for
someone else, dear? (Just a *wee* bit mistaken?) Or worse...? Sure,
I've said what I think about your postings, but that's not name-calling?
Understand?
>I've been trying to go back to my original points
>for some time: (1) What do you think all this
>name-calling accomplishes?
Me? I don't know. It *has* had the benefit that we here in alt.flame
have learnt that a potential critic doesn't appear to understand or
appreciate irony, sarcasm, parody, or indeed rhetoric - something of a
handicap, no?
>(2) How did you
>come to the conclusion that I was spineless?
I didn't. How did you come to the conclusion that I *did*?
You can't *stop* making public mistakes, can you? Astonishing.
>(3) What makes you think that I was defending
>rec.arts.cinema?
I didn't. How did you come to the conclusion that I *did*?
You can't *stop* making public mistakes, can you? Astonishing.
(Note the repetition, Louis. Now work out *why* it's there....)
>However, people will not cooperate. They seem
>obsessed with the idea that I am claiming to be
>a better person and that they have to establish
>that I am just as much a name-caller as they
>are.
Louis, "obession"'s the word. And it don't smell like perfume....
John Woods
> It appears that you believe that if you repeat
> something often enough, that will make it
> true. Name-callers often like to use the word
> "obvious" in order to cover up an absence of
> compelling arguments.
>
uncalled-for insult, the kind of behavior that *I* will not stoop to.
In *this* article, anyway.
(Now, class, what have I accomplished which Louis Blair has not?)
--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, jo...@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, j...@eddie.mit.edu
Asmodeus
>To me, that sounded like the conclusion
>and I didn't notice the stuff that came
>after it, dealing to some extent with
Duh. WhizzBoob. Look at bottom of screen. See:
--MORE--(51%) then look up the word "more" in your
Dick and Jane Illustrated Dictionary, CMU edition.
What does that tell you, WhizzBoob? Eh?
>>What the hell makes you think that we behave any
>>differently here than elsewhere, WhizzBoob?
>I've met a number of computer name-callers
>who behave quite differently away
>from the terminal.
I've met a number of people who had a vocabulary
of more than 100 monosyllabic English words. Does
that mean we should assume you do also, WhizzBoob?
Fool.
>This is the usual view that name-callers have
>of non-name-callers.
This word you learned in Head Start last year,
"name-callers," is getting a bit dull, WhizzBoob.
Do you "go potty" too?
>How do you feel about
>the fact that the "snivelling little bozos" out-
>voted the others on the question of moderation
>for rec.arts.cinema?
The same way I feel about the majority of the US
being nutso-batso about Wonder Bread, WhizzBoob.
The Lowest Common Denominator. Spineless, snivel-
ling bozos, WhizzBoob.
>Why do you keep on addressing notes to
>someone that you consider to be
>"incapable of thought"?
Because it appeals to my sadistic sense of humor
to kick your stupid butt around, WhizzBoob. Why
do you think anyone here has addressed *anything*
to you, you dumb fuck?
>I mean, if I
>can't think then how am I going to
>understand what you say.
Of course you won't, but that has nothing to do
with it, does it now? You get stupider and stupider
every time you post. You don't have the comprehension
of a four-year old. You are a waste of carbon --
except that right now, you are serving as a kickball
for us.
That you haven't figured that out, WhizzBoob, makes
it all the more fun to kick you around.
>>You need a good, long ass whipping.
>
>And what else would you like to do?
Rest assured, WhizzBoob, you will be the *last* to
find out.
>>Whine, WhizzBoob, whine.
>WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE.
Here, have a BoobBiscuit.
--
"Ti soffoca il sangue? Muori, dannato! Muori! Muori!"
^------------More Philistine bait
Asmodeus
writes:
>Versteht du?
Oh, Elton, that's cruel ... hehehe ...
>Would I be out of line in supposing that you're going to school on an
>athletic scholarship?
I somehow imagine that he's (it's?) one of the
experimental subjects from the neuroscience lab.
What they use when they need something with wetware
less complex than a sea slug's.
>[Aside to Clay: damn, you're good. If you can just whip the last of
> that insubordinate streak out of him, let me know and I'll make you
> an offer on him.]
Elton, I would think the petunia would be more pleasant
to look at, not to mention more functional.
Jeff Dalton
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>They of the dish-it-out-but-refuse-to-take-it sector
>>applaud your spinelessness.
>I wrote:
>>You accuse me of dishing out name-calling
>>the way you do?
>Classic Trish writes:
>>No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
>But how did he arrive at this conclusion?
>[...] As best I can tell he
>said I was spineless because he considers
>me to be a member of the dish-it-out-but-
>refuse-to-take-it sector. Can you see any
>other interpretation of what Houghton posted?
It's amazing that this could go on for so long. Why not
interpret it like this: Someone does some name-calling.
Blair does some back. You (a third person) complain.
Blair says a certain group applaud your spinelessness.
So he's accusing you of spinelessness. But not just that,
spinelessness that a certain group would applaud. Indeed,
those who indulge in name-calling but don't like to get
any directed back at them. This is not a claim that you
are a member of that group, just that they applaud what
you did. You may not like _that_ accusation either (I
wouldn't), but it's a different accusation.
>I certainly agree that someone who dishes
>out a certain style of criticism and can not
>take it himself is defective in some way,
>spineless if you like, but I'm sorry, you
>simply will not find any Houghton-style comments
>in MY notes.
But no one said you had engaged in name-calling at all.
>Perhaps you (or he) considers me to be spineless
>because I disapprove of name-calling. So be it.
I suspect what set Blair off is that you're complaining
about the 2nd name-caller (ie, Blair) but not the first
one.
Elton Wildermuth
>In article <91...@sybase.sybase.com> el...@fnord.sybase.com (Elton Wildermuth)
> writes:
>>Versteht du?
>Oh, Elton, that's cruel ... hehehe ...
Yeah, and misspelt, too. Yesterday, I received my very first foreign-language
grammar flame, pointing out that I was addressing the not-Blair in the third
person ("versteht"). Und er ermangelt der Austand in Publikum zusagen, so
wie ich ihn fuer ihner Frechheit beschimpfen gekonnt. (Which I doubtless also
mangled, and will hear about in some detail. Damn good thing I don't claim to
speak German.)
Of course, the author ignored the English mistake in the same post (an honest
typo, that one), so I guess I'm not alone in my "attempt to be superior",
nicht wahr? (Pardon me? "Attempt" to be superior? Who has to "attempt"
the inevitable?)
>>[ [...] If you can just whip the last of that insubordinate streak out of
>>him, let me know and I'll make you an offer on him.]
>Elton, I would think the petunia would be more pleasant
>to look at, not to mention more functional.
Perhaps; but I was planning to make a gift of him to my wife. Don't you
think he'd look good as a lady's maid? And, pleasant appearance aside,
it's difficult to teach a petunia to change the bed linens.
-- Elton
+++
N.b. On my way home from Germany in '76, I shared the trip with a quite
outspoken German woman who told me she speaks three languages: down her
nose, about the neighbors, and German. The difference between her and me
is that I don't speak German.
Blair P. Houghton
>
>Perhaps; but I was planning to make a gift of him to my wife. Don't you
>think he'd look good as a lady's maid? And, pleasant appearance aside,
>it's difficult to teach a petunia to change the bed linens.
Hey, Trish!
Weren't you needing a new toilet-licker yourself?
--Blair
"I know where you can get him
a great deal on one of those
little lacy black-and-white
french-maid's uniforms."
Trashy
Louis Blair P. Houghton.
What a thought.
--
Trashy tras...@alzabo.uucp (cross your fingers)
Asmodeus
>Hey, Trish!
>
>Weren't you needing a new toilet-licker yourself?
Hey, speaking of ...
Where's vajk?
--
"Sex work is saying every gay man not only has a right to have a hard cock,
but that every gay man has the responsibility to have a hard cock at every
opportunity."
-- Mark I. Chester
Asmodeus
> And, pleasant appearance aside,
>it's difficult to teach a petunia to change the bed linens.
Perhaps, though no more difficult than it would
be to teach WhizzBoob, as they have about the same
intelligence level. But at least a petunia won't
whine "why? why? why? why? why?" all the time.
Louis Blair
>Anyway,
>the real question is whether or not you
>think that you have convinced any of those
>who voted for moderation.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, that's only part of the question -- the
>other half is whether -you-managed to
>convince any of those who voted against
>moderation that they made a mistake.
>And frankly I think the answer to both
>questions is no.
I was not trying "to convince any of those who
voted against moderation that they made a mistake."
I was just hoping to get Houghton to think about
whether or not his notes were helping his cause.
I don't know whether or not I succeeded, but at
least you agree with me that his notes were not
persuading anyone.
I wrote:
>How did you
>come to the conclusion that I was spineless?
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>You won't stand up for truth, justice, and
>the American way, preferring to be spared
>the "offensive" language of the angry.
>You're the sort of spineless appeaser that
>brought us such efficient organizations as
>The National Socialist Party and the Moral
>Majority. It takes a malignant, toxic sort of
>spinelessness to feel threatened by freedom
>of speech.
I wrote:
>Do you think it is a violation of freedom of
>speech that you can not get whatever you
>want published in the New York Times?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Usenet is not a newspaper or a television station
>or a publishing house, dear. This analogy has been
>tried many times in the past and it always fails.
My analogy was only intended to show that moderation
is not contrary to the American way. Moderated
institutions can exist without threatening freedom
of speech as Houghton seems to think.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Usenet was created for the purpose of free and
>independent correspondence between individuals,
>you simply can't compare it to the New York Times.
Is there any reason why Usenet can
not serve new purposes as well as its
original purpose?
I wrote:
>What makes you think that I was defending
>rec.arts.cinema?
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>Ibid, when applied to the topic in question.
I wrote:
>But who said it should be applied to the topic
>in question?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Blair did. Obviously.
To arrive at the conclusion that I was defending
rec.arts.cinema, you have to use things that I
said, not things that Houghton said.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>you made it quite clear that you were defending Thakur's
>vision of this group when you attacked Blair.
I never mentioned Thakur or his vision.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You also went on to
>say that you would vote for r.a.c as a moderated group
>were the vote held again
I never said anything about how I would vote if a second
vote were held.
I wrote:
>Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>Well, why should I? I meant exactly what I said
I wrote:
>There it is. You are clearly admitting that the parts
>about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
>are things that you do not say if you "mean what
>you say".
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>No, I'm admitting this is true for -me-. Needles to
>say, I don't even begin to think that it's true for you.
I wrote:
>There it is, a clear double standard. If you use the
>words, then they are sincere. If I use the words,
>then they are not sincere.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Louis, I was talking about the parody I wrote.
>Remember the parody? Yes? Go back and reread
>the postings on this again.
It is all right here. You say that you did not identify
"you're a pompous self-righteous little twit" as a
smart-ass remark or otherwise contradict it because
you really meant that I was a pompous self-righteous
little twit. For you, the smart-ass characterization
and the other contradiction are incompatible with really
intending your insult, but you will not accept that this
could be true for me as well.
I wrote:
>Judging from the way you write, if a note contains an
>example of a foolish insult, no matter what else there
>is, you can dismiss it as backtracking and insist that
>the insult was genuinely intended.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Judging from the -way- I write??? How about we judge
>from -what- I write instead of you constantly ignoring
>what my words and substituting what you want to see?
>I said I don't think you are intelligent enough to write a
>posting that gives examples of foolish insults and is not
>in itself insulting. Try responding to my words for a change,
>Louis, instead of rewriting them for me.
I am not rewriting any of your words. I am just writing
what seems to me to be a logical consequence of your
words. Look at the way you talk about my note. You
insist that the insult was sincerely intended and dismiss
everything else as backtracking. It seems to me that
this method could be applied to any note with an example
of an insult. One could say that the insult was real and
that everything else was backtracking.
I wrote:
>I criticized Dave Alexander for putting between
>quotation marks something that was not a fair
>description of what I had written.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No no no, this isn't going to work, Louis. You're
>backtracking again. Quotations have nothing to
>do with it.
They may not have anything to do with your complaints
about me, but they have a lot to do with my complaints.
I wrote:
>But a parody
>should be close to the original if you want
>to be sure that the parody represents qualities
>of the original and not qualities created by
>the author of the parody.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>My parody was close to the original and it
>represented you perfectly.
Of course I think you needed to leave out
certain important parts of my note in order
to make your parody work, but we have
already been through that.
I wrote:
>Let's look at [your note].
>Your first sentence was:
>>No, dear, he's accusing you of spinelessness.
>
>People have been addressing me as
>"dear", "hon", etc. for awhile now, and it
>is pretty obvious that this is not intended to
>be friendly. This alone is a pretty good
>indication of where your sympathies were.
>Then you went on with:
>>But that's okay,
>
>Now what exactly does "that" refer to? The
>obvious candidate is my so-called spinelessness.
>Then you added:
>>some of us found your spirited defense of a
>>moderated newsgroup that receives one article
>>every three weeks rather entertaining.
>
>So it certainly appears that you were saying
>that my spinelessness was okay since it
>entertained you. That is pretty condescending
>if you ask me. Typical name-caller stuff.
>You dismiss my arguments as entertainment
>(while incorrectly describing the purpose of
>those arguments), and neglect to point out
>anything wrong with them.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, wrong again -- I said your spirited defense
>was entertaining.
But what does "that" refer to? What were you
saying was "okay"?
I wrote:
>If you will clearly and publicly indicate that your note
>had no hostile intent then you will have my immediate
>apology for over-reacting.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Sure: I hereby clearly and publicly state that my note
>had no hostile intent.
If your note had absolutely no hostile intent, then I
certainly responded inappropriately and I hereby
apologize.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>But that's what I've been telling
>you for the past week,
You have been saying that I overreacted, but you
have also been saying that I was trying to imply
that you needed to learn how to read. It seemed
possible to me that you classified your note as
slightly hostile and mine as extremely hostile. Only
if your note was not intended as hostile at all would
I agree that my note was an overreaction.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>you overreacted to what I said
>and then you attacked me because you were angry
>with Blair.
I responded to you in what I considered to be only
a slightly hostile way because I thought that your
note was hostile. I hope that you will at least grant
me that my interpretation of your note was under-
standable, if not correct. Isn't it understandable
that when you said, "But that's okay", I thought
you were saying that my "spinelessness" was
okay? Isn't it understandable that I thought
you were expressing ridicule for my seriously
intended comments when you said that they
were entertaining?
I wrote:
>YOU do not talk about impressions. You talk as
>though you somehow know for sure exactly what
>was going on in my head.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>So do you, Louis, you do it all the time. Here's a
>perfect example taken from this very posting:
> The only reason you
> >have for believing that my words were not
> >sincere is that that is what you want to believe.
If the question comes up, I am willing to admit that
I am just guessing, and that I have no real way of
knowing why you have chosen to believe that my
words were not sincere. Are you willing to admit
that you have no way of knowing that my words
were not sincere?
I wrote:
>I do not think that my notes are "holier".
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Yes, you do. You're saying that flames and insults
>such as the type you write put you in a different
>class from netters who engage in name-calling
I have never said anything about being in a different
class.
I wrote:
>Of course, I don't expect you to agree that what
>I say is reasonable, but I hope that you will at
>least agree that I do my best to let you know
>how I arrive at my conclusions.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>So what?
Progress in a discussion is then possible. If I
give my reasons, then people can point out the
mistakes. If a person just calls somebody else
spineless, then there is not really much opportunity
for intelligent discussion.
I wrote:
>If I say something
>about what you wrote, I am willing to provide
>the exact quote of you that led me to my conclusion.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>And then you flame me for that conclusion, draw
>other conclusions based upon the false one and
>flame me for those as well. Typical non-name-
>caller strategy, no doubt.
Again, the point is that I try to be open about my
reasoning. If I have misunderstood a quote, everyone
can see it easily and, if they choose, point out my
mistakes.
I wrote:
>With a note like
>Houghton's, the system here will AUTOMATICALLY
>send the response to both rec.arts.movies
>and alt.flame.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Ahhhhh, here it is, the most pathetic and feeble excuse
>of all! It was the SOFTWARE's fault, mommy. Tell me
>something, dear, why didn't you cancel your article when
>you realized you had made a mistake, hmmm? Cancel it
>and repost it to alt.flame only? Or are non-name-callers too
>stupid to cancel articles?
I must admit that I was unaware that it was possible to
cancel a posting.
I wrote:
>as long as I continued to post contributions
>to the exchange on rec.arts.movies you were
>determined to answer me on rec.arts.movies.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You started this fight with me, I think it's only fair that you
>move out of r.a.m first.
As a matter of practicality, it seems to me that it is a bad
idea to base proper procedure on the question of who
started the fight. If, as in this case, each side believes
that the other started the fight then the discussion can
go on for quite a while before things get sorted out. It
seems to me that the best way to move a discussion over
to alt.flame is to post a note that simply says that the
discussion will be continued there, WITHOUT making
any further contribution to the discussion at that time.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Or do you non-name-callers think
>you have the right to both start the fight and have the last
>word?
It's pretty obvious that having the last word in rec.arts.movies
is not important to me. You, Houghton, Asmodeus, Garret
Toomey, Jeff Dalton, and Diane Holt have all made
contributions to this exchange on rec.arts.movies without
getting any response from me on rec.arts.movies.
John Woods writes:
>you hide behind all the
>"oh I'm so SUPERIOR" crap you can dig up.
Another person who seems to feel the need to put
words into my mouth in order to make his case.
I wrote:
>I gather that you are of the opinion that one can not
>give an example of foolish name-calling without being
>a foolish name-caller.
Classic Trish wrote:
>No, I am of the opinion that -you- are not intelligent
>enough to accomplish this.
I wrote:
>Judging from the way you write, if a note contains an
>example of a foolish insult, no matter what else there
>is, you can dismiss it as backtracking and insist that
>the insult was genuinely intended.
John Woods writes:
>Your conclusion is obviously false. Now, how in the
>world was I able to communicate that to the readers
>without including an example of a false statement of
>my own?
The question was: How CAN a person include an example
of an insult without being accused of really intending the
insult? (And by the way, I was talking about an example
that could be directed at a specific person. The idea is this:
"I could talk to you one way or I could talk to you another
way. Which do you prefer?")
Hamish Reid writes:
>* Have I ever called you any names other than "Louis"? (or
>"dear[est]" :-)) *
You did post:
>Gee Louis, can you say "disingenuous"? Judging by your
>postings, probably not, so I'll spell it out for you:
>D I S H O N E S T Y.
>Louis, you're out of your depth...
and:
>pompous huffing and puffing
and:
>Now toddle off back to wherever you came from and spare
>us the windiness.
Looks like typical name-caller stuff to me.
Hamish Reid writes:
>Sure,
>I've said what I think about your postings,
>but that's not name-calling?
>Understand?
If I have got this right, you think it is name-calling
if a person says that someone is dishonest, pompous,
etc. but you think it is not name-calling if the person says
the same things about his postings. Well, if you want to
be picky this way, I can play the same game. I didn't
say that you were a name-caller, I indicated that you
wrote like a name-caller, and indeed you did, writing
that your conclusions were "obvious" without giving
reasons, etc.
I wrote:
>I've been trying to go back to my original points
>for some time: (1) What do you think all this
>name-calling accomplishes? (2) How did you
>come to the conclusion that I was spineless?
>(3) What makes you think that I was defending
>rec.arts.cinema?
Hamish Reid writes:
>I didn't. How did you come to the conclusion that
>I *did*? You can't *stop* making public mistakes,
>can you? Astonishing.
I was just giving a summary of my original points.
Everyone who has been following this discussion
knows who those questions were for. (Even
Houghton. Look at his note.) What's your problem?
I wrote:
>How do you feel about
>the fact that the "snivelling little bozos" out-
>voted the others on the question of moderation
>for rec.arts.cinema?
Asmodeus writes:
>The same way I feel about the majority of the US
>being nutso-batso about Wonder Bread, WhizzBoob.
>The Lowest Common Denominator. Spineless, snivel-
>ling bozos, WhizzBoob.
And people complain about ME claiming to be "so
SUPERIOR"!
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>They of the dish-it-out-but-refuse-to-take-it sector
>applaud your spinelessness.
Jeff Dalton writes:
>Why not
>interpret it like this: Someone does some name-calling.
>Blair does some back.
Except that it sure looks to me as though Houghton started
the hostilities with:
>I'm sooooooooo glad this was done Moderated. then only the
>PROfesssionals were tasked with creating and maintaining it.
Jeff Dalton writes:
>You (a third person) complain.
>Blair says a certain group applaud your spinelessness.
>So he's accusing you of spinelessness. But not just that,
>spinelessness that a certain group would applaud.
But here is the problem with your theory. Why should
my spinelessness appeal to the dish-it-out-but-refuse-to-take-it
sector? I was talking about one advantage of moderation:
that NOBODY can call names. (At least if it is done properly.)
There is no reason for this to appeal to the described
"sector". Moderation means nobody can dish it out. It
is far more reasonable to assume that Houghton was
saying the "sector" would applaud me because he thought
I was a good example of their type. Name-callers
sometimes phrase their comments in a way that makes
it possible to deny that they were really calling-names.
A lot of this sort of thing went on in the fifties. You know
what I mean: the-communists-applaud-your-spinelessness.
With comments like this a person has to deny the hint,
and then the name-caller can later say that, of course,
he never meant to suggest that the person REALLY
was a communist.
Jeff Dalton writes:
>I suspect what set Blair off is that you're complaining
>about the 2nd name-caller (ie, Blair) but not the first
>one.
As I said before, it sure looks to me as though Houghton
started hostilities if anybody did. More important, I
believed that Houghton's name-calling was actually
helping to persuade people that moderation was a
good idea, and I thought that he might agree with
this after thinking about it.
Patricia O Tuama
>Why don't you just shut the hell up? I've never seen an article in
>alt.flame >500 lines. I highly doubt anyone here cares to hear you whine
>and whine some more. This wasn't even interesting, creative, informative,
>or vitriolic enough for ANY newsgroup, much less alt.flame. Take it to
>E-mail where I'm sure the recipients would summarily toss it in the
>bit-bucket where it belongs.
Hey, just a minute there, junior. Louis has the right to be just
as uninteresting, uncreative, uninformative and unvitriolic in alt.
flame as he chooses. Put him in your killfile or kill the subject
line if you don't want to read this exchange.
And Louis, don't you even think about sending me email.
Patricia O Tuama
>I was not trying "to convince any of those who
>voted against moderation that they made a mistake."
So?? Blair wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything either, it was you
who decided that must be the reason for his posting. Or are you saying that
it's fine for you to apply this interpretation to Blair's comments but wrong
for me to do the same thing to yours??
>I was just hoping to get Houghton to think about
>whether or not his notes were helping his cause.
And I was just hoping to get you to think about whether or not your "notes"
were helping your cause, dear, although since your cause seems to be to per-
suade as many people as possible that you have the intelligence of a radish,
you hardly need my help.
>I don't know whether or not I succeeded, but at
>least you agree with me that his notes were not persuading anyone.
I didn't say that his postings were not persuading anyone, I said I did
not think -either one of you- had changed anyone's mind. This is another
example of your misinterpreting what I wrote in order to make your case.
>My analogy was only intended to show that moderation
It doesn't make any difference what you intended. You're comparing apples
to oranges, your analogy is incorrect. Certainly censorship can and does
exist in all sorts of American institutions, prisons, for instance. But
that's no excuse for accepting censorship of a rec.* group of all things.
>Is there any reason why Usenet can
>not serve new purposes as well as its original purpose?
Not if it means increased censorship and control by a tiny minority, no.
>To arrive at the conclusion that I was defending
>rec.arts.cinema, you have to use things that I
>said, not things that Houghton said.
No, you are absolutely wrong. I need to use what both of you said.
>I never said anything about how I would vote if a second vote were held.
You said you hadn't voted on group creation but that if it were held again
you would probably vote yes, apparently because you want to teach Blair a
lesson rather than because you actually support moderation. Stupid reason,
but hey, that's your perogative.
>intending your insult, but you will not accept that this
>could be true for me as well.
Not on this, no. Sorry, hon, you destroyed your credibility on this issue
a long time ago.
>I am not rewriting any of your words. I am just writing
>what seems to me to be a logical consequence of your words.
But your "logical" consequence is always based on incomplete information
and is always wrong. And then you compound your error by flaming me for
your false conclusions.
>They may not have anything to do with your complaints
>about me, but they have a lot to do with my complaints.
I'm sure they do. But that does not erase the fact that what you're doing
is backtracking.
>Of course I think you needed to leave out
>certain important parts of my note in order
>to make your parody work, but we have already been through that.
No, it didn't make any difference whether I included those parts or not and
despite what you think, I did not omit them because they contradicted what
I wrote, I left them out because they were superfluous. The idea was to
give you a dose of your own medicine. Had I known then that you suffer from
such extreme anal retentiveness, I would have written it exactly as you did.
I thought you were intelligent enough to understand what I was doing but in-
stead of paying attention to what I was saying, all you did was count words.
>But what does "that" refer to? What were you saying was "okay"?
Your spinelessness, obviously. But hey, you're entitled to be just as spine-
less as you wish, dear.
>If your note had absolutely no hostile intent, then I
>certainly responded inappropriately and I hereby apologize.
Excellent, thank you, Louis, let us hope that in the future you learn to
respond to what people write instead of what you think the "logical" conse-
quence of their words might just happen to be.
>possible to me that you classified your note as
>slightly hostile and mine as extremely hostile.
No, I thought your posting was slightly hostile and extremely stupid. I
thought mine was rather bemused and quite mild.
>I have never said anything about being in a different class.
Louis, don't play semantics games with me, it just makes you look even stu-
pider than you really are. You clearly make a distinction between name-call-
ers and non-name-callers, placing yourself in the latter category as though
you are somehow better than anyone else. And if that's not what you are do-
ing, then why do you insist on this form of name-calling yourself?
>If the question comes up, I am willing to admit that I am just guessing.
Good, because the question has quite definitely come up.
>Progress in a discussion is then possible. If I
>give my reasons, then people can point out the mistakes.
In the first place, you've just admitted that your "reasons" are really
guesses and secondly, you don't just give your guesses, you misinterpret
what someone says (sometimes ignoring virtually everything they wrote)
and then flame the person for your misinterpretation .
>Again, the point is that I try to be open about my reasoning.
This is true. The problem is that you take it a step further -- instead of
just stating what your guesses are and allowing the other person to disagree
with them, you flame the person for the mistakes you have made in misinter-
preting what they said.
>As a matter of practicality, it seems to me that it is a bad
>idea to base proper procedure on the question of who started the fight.
I don't care what you think is proper procedure, hon. If you start a fight
with me in r.a.m it will be me who has the last word there.
>Another person who seems to feel the need to put
>words into my mouth in order to make his case.
But you do it all the time, Louis. How can you bitch at John for doing this
when you do it all the fucking time?
>But here is the problem with your theory. Why should
>my spinelessness appeal to the dish-it-out-but-refuse-to-take-it sector?
Well, why not? Birds of a feather, etc.
>With comments like this a person has to deny the hint,
>and then the name-caller can later say that, of course,
>he never meant to suggest that the person REALLY was a communist.
No, it's you "non-name-callers" who do this. Just like you did when you
first trotted out that nonsense about reading ability. You wrote an insult
directed at me and then you backtracked and said that you never meant to sug-
gest that I REALLY couldn't read. And then you went a step further and made
up a lot of garbage about teaching me some sort of lesson about the folly of
calling people names despite the fact that I hadn't called you any names at
all. "Name-callers" as a rule, have no problem admitting that they're writ-
ing flames; it's you hypocritical non-name-callers who backtrack.
Dave Hill
524 FUCKING LINES?!?! YOU GETTING PAID BY THE WORD, OR WHAT?
Or did someone put sand in your vaseline ... again?
Jumpin' hoppin horny toads NOTHING is worth 524 lines
of GOOD writing, let alone 524 lines of your crap.
Yes I know a lot of it was included text; that just makes
it even more inexcusable.
This is alt.flame. Keep it short and sweet. Like this:
Shut the fuck up you long winded hose-bag.
Dave
Marc C. Poulin
Why don't you just shut the hell up? I've never seen an article in
alt.flame >500 lines. I highly doubt anyone here cares to hear you whine
and whine some more. This wasn't even interesting, creative, informative,
or vitriolic enough for ANY newsgroup, much less alt.flame. Take it to
E-mail where I'm sure the recipients would summarily toss it in the
bit-bucket where it belongs.
Marc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc C. Poulin | uunet!acsu.buffalo.edu!poulin | v069...@ubvms.bitnet
"There is no sin except stupidity" - Wilde | v069...@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blair P. Houghton
>Louis Blair P. Houghton.
>What a thought.
One that, no doubt, took you the better part of your
undergraduate education to connive.
>Trashy tras...@alzabo.uucp (cross your fingers)
--Blair
"And stick them up your ass
so your head don't be so lone-ly."
Blair P. Houghton
>is not contrary to the American way. Moderated
>institutions can exist without threatening freedom
>of speech as Houghton seems to think.
Not anywhere that's asking for votes they can't.
>Is there any reason why Usenet can
>not serve new purposes as well as its
>original purpose?
Oh, sure, like for instance ever since you started posting
I've been using it to wrap fish and wipe my ass.
>To arrive at the conclusion that I was defending
>rec.arts.cinema, you have to use things that I
>said, not things that Houghton said.
Who the fuck are you, the law librarian? You sit there and
pretend that we didn't SEE the things you said. Louis, louis,
oh, baby; me gotta go. But while I'm gone, think about this.
Flaming you is not a research paper, it's not a discourse
in human endeavor, it's neither a tort nor a brief nor an exemplary
template for a sub-lease. It's a fucking HOBBY, you cretin.
The point is, either you defend what you have said by
saying it again and explaining it, or you look like a fetid
asshole, ivied with the dingleberries of your forgotten
mental hygiene. I have no responsibility for cataloging
your messages and reproducing them. You said what you said,
we all saw it, and simply claiming you never said it
is not going to convince anybody. In fact, around here it
obviously labels you as a cheese-chasing pinhead, lacking
in the simplest of argumentative ability, only desiring
to back out of the kitchen just as fast as your six spindly
legs can skitter.
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>you made it quite clear that you were defending Thakur's
>>vision of this group when you attacked Blair.
>
>I never mentioned Thakur or his vision.
You never mentioned enjoying his penis in your throat, either,
but we aren't discussing that part of your life; primarily because
it actually GAINS you points with about half of the people on the
net...
(Note to alt.flame: I take "three days" in the "Guess when Louis
comes Out Of The Closet in order to collect that support" pool...)
(Note #2: I take "eleven months and three days" in the "Guess
when Louis realizes This Is A Joke" pool...)
>I never said anything about how I would vote if a second
>vote were held.
You worm. You clearly indicated support for moderation.
Now you stand here and split hairs (your own hairs, balding one)
and play infantile semantic games. Were you by any chance an
only child in a one-parent family in the desert? I mean,
you are so thoroughly devoid of any apparent social experience
it's a wonder you know your keyboard from your lunch.
>>Louis, I was talking about the parody I wrote.
>>Remember the parody? Yes? Go back and reread
>>the postings on this again.
>
>It is all right here. You say that you did not identify
>"you're a pompous self-righteous little twit" as a
>smart-ass remark or otherwise contradict it because
>you really meant that I was a pompous self-righteous
>little twit. For you, the smart-ass characterization
>and the other contradiction are incompatible with really
>intending your insult, but you will not accept that this
>could be true for me as well.
Louis, get a clue. I'll give it to you for free.
Look in the dictionary. Under "Parody." Tell me what you
see. Don't tell me it's the snot you just wiped there.
I don't appreciate smart-ass remarks as much as some
others do; or as little as you do. Although the problem
with you isn't a matter of appreciation, it's more that
the existence of expressive modes on the net just blows
your tiny mind.
>I am not rewriting any of your words. I am just writing
>what seems to me to be a logical consequence of your
>words.
Louis, you wouldn't know the logical consequence of the
simple syllogism "disingenuous little backsliders are
assholes; Louis Blair is a disingenuous little backslider."
Of course, it's just such a piece of ignorance that
got you into this mess in the first place.
>Look at the way you talk about my note. You
>insist that the insult was sincerely intended and dismiss
>everything else as backtracking. It seems to me that
>this method could be applied to any note with an example
>of an insult. One could say that the insult was real and
>that everything else was backtracking.
Except for one thing, Louis: you are the only person
around here who applies argumentative techniques at
random. Everyone else uses them in the proper manner to
concisely convey the fallacies and deficiencies in your
statements. Surely you see that a big screwdriver could
be used as a hammer, chisel, or crowbar, but it seems you
are the only one who does so, while the rest of us keep
them in both slotted and crosspoint styles, and in
different sizes, and we use them carefully to adjust the
fasteners on your mental manacles. Tres plus! You've
also noted its analophallic properties and shoved it clean
up to your prostate! Does it feel _real_ good, Louis?
In the interest of disk space and other indicators of network
bandwidth, I've deleted the remaining 368 lines of your
letter. It's getting pretty tedious thwacking you over
the head with my ball-peen hammer, slicing your nose off
with my coping saw, crimping your ears with my dovetail jig,
and cutting you in half with my 72" logging-camp chain-saw.
I really enjoy puttering about in the workshop on a rainy
day in the spring. It's so exhilirating when a really
meaty project comes along; one where I can see great chunks
of material that need excising; with lots of intricate parts
to mold and fasten together.
Next week on This Old Souse, you get painted black and I
stick you in my front yard. I may even install a nice
carriage-house-lamp in your head.
--Blair
"First sign of a light over
that boy's noggin in years."
Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic
[**** *500* lines of "He says / She says" omnibus edition Louis Blair ****]
Loius, I take one thing back - you *do* understand parody - *self parody*,
that is....
Hamish
D. J. McCarthy
>You got it, needledick, there IS a double standard on alt.flame. Intelligent,
>thinking posters, like Trish, get credit for there being thought behind their
>writing,
Gosh, John, what tanning salon do you go to to get your nose
such a deep, dark, shiny brown?
Oh, that's not *tan*, is it. Never mind.
_____
D. J. McCarthy Q: "Kaufen Sie diese Blume?"
dmc...@swtec1.intel.com A: "Ich bin NICHT Herr Berger!!"
...!intelca!mipos3!swtec1!dmccart
Chris Faehl CIRT
and did what and did mean and didn't mean, Louis Blair again pisses me off
with more than *30K* of absolutely WORTHLESS RHETORIC, none of which is
worth including here.
Louis, stop fighting the battle. You're digging your grave deeper and deeper
and deeper. And as was mentioned before, your writing style has got to be
one of the most annoying I've ever seen - worse than Weekly World News.
STOP WASTING BANDWIDTH. It was moldly old three weeks ago.
Chris Faehl
Alex Katz
(Chris Faehl CIRT) writes:
>Louis, stop fighting the battle. You're digging your grave deeper and deeper
>and deeper.
No, it's geting wider and wider and wider.
>STOP WASTING BANDWIDTH.
See what I mean?
--
Alex Katz ak...@mizar.usc.edu
Louis Blair
>Moderated
>institutions can exist without threatening freedom
>of speech as Houghton seems to think.
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>Not anywhere that's asking for votes they can't.
Does the New York Times threaten freedom?
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>The point is, either you defend what you have said by
>saying it again and explaining it, or you look like a fetid
>asshole, ivied with the dingleberries of your forgotten
>mental hygiene. I have no responsibility for cataloging
>your messages and reproducing them.
I do not know for sure what portion of my note leads
you to the conclusion that I was defending rec.arts.cinema,
so I will email you a copy of the whole thing and you
can identify the defense of rec.arts.cinema yourself.
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>You clearly indicated support for moderation.
Well, at least this is somewhere near the truth.
I indicated that I had become aware of an
advantage to moderation that I had not previously
thought about.
By the way, does "support for moderation" mean
"defense of rec.arts.cinema" to you? Suppose I
said that Moscow had a good sewage system.
Would that mean that I was defending Communism?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Blair wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything
>either, it was you who decided that must be the reason
>for his posting.
I did not say that I "wasn't trying to convince anyone of
anything". I said that "I was not trying to convince any of
those who voted against moderation that they made a
mistake." I WAS trying to convince Houghton that
his name-calling was not a good idea.
Houghton had been posting notes for awhile, talking
about how some people may have voted for moderation
without knowing what it was, etc. What do YOU think
he was trying to do? Whether he was really trying or
not doesn't matter. I thought it was quite likely that
his notes were increasing sympathy for moderation,
and I wanted to point this out to him.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Or are you saying that it's fine for you to apply this
>interpretation to Blair's comments but wrong
>for me to do the same thing to yours??
You should base your interpretation on what I
wrote and what Houghton wrote. I talked about
the consequences of all his name-calling. He
talked about technical problems with moderation,
misinformed voters, etc.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>censorship can and does
>exist in all sorts of American institutions, prisons,
>for instance.
MODERATION exists in newspapers, magazines,
books, television, radio, ...
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>But
>that's no excuse for accepting censorship of a rec.*
>group of all things.
I agree. Whether or not moderation is appropriate
should certainly not be decided on the basis of
a superficial analogy. Comparing moderation
of rec.arts.cinema to censorship in prisons is
just such a superficial analogy.
I wrote:
>Is there any reason why Usenet can
>not serve new purposes as well as its original purpose?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Not if it means increased censorship and control by a
>tiny minority, no.
You would not object to a new newspaper. Why do
you object to a new moderated newsgroup? You
keep on saying that the analogy is bad, but what
is the essential difference? Why is "control by a
tiny minority" okay in one, but not in the other?
I could understand if someone was trying to turn
rec.arts.movies into a moderated newsgroup.
Believe me, I would be very strongly opposed to
that myself. But nobody is trying to take over
unmoderated groups. What is the problem?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You said you hadn't voted on group creation
False. I said that I had voted against moderation.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>but
>that if it were held again you would probably vote
>yes,
I said absolutely nothing about a vote being held
again.
I wrote:
>For you, the smart-ass characterization
>and the other contradiction are incompatible with really
>intending your insult, but you will not accept that this
>could be true for me as well.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Not on this, no. Sorry, hon, you destroyed your credibility
>on this issue a long time ago.
You say that I am a liar because I lied, and you say that
you know I lied because I am a liar. That is circular
reasoning.
I wrote:
>Of course I think you needed to leave out
>certain important parts of my note in order
>to make your parody work, but we have already been
>through that.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, it didn't make any difference whether I included those
>parts or not and despite what you think, I did not omit them
>because they contradicted what I wrote, I left them out
>because they were superfluous.
But earlier, when I said:
>Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
Patricia O Tuama responded with:
>Well, why should I? I meant exactly what I said
And as I said before:
>There it is. You are clearly admitting that the parts
>about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
>are things that you do not say if you "mean what
>you say".
I wrote:
>But what does "that" refer to? What were you saying was
>"okay"?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Your spinelessness, obviously.
That is exactly what I thought you meant by "that".
You were saying that my spinelessness was okay.
Isn't calling someone spineless (whether okay or
not) a hostile thing to do?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You clearly make a distinction between name-call-
>ers and non-name-callers, placing yourself in the
>latter category as though you are somehow better
>than anyone else.
The last nine words are from you, not me.
I wrote:
>YOU do not talk about impressions. You talk as
>though you somehow know for sure exactly what
>was going on in my head.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>So do you, Louis, you do it all the time. Here's a
>perfect example taken from this very posting:
> The only reason you
> >have for believing that my words were not
> >sincere is that that is what you want to believe.
I wrote:
>If the question comes up, I am willing to admit that
>I am just guessing, and that I have no real way of
>knowing why you have chosen to believe that my
>words were not sincere. Are you willing to admit
>that you have no way of knowing that my words
>were not sincere?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Good, because the question has quite definitely
>come up.
This is not some essential point. For all I know,
you might believe that I really meant the insult
because that is what a ouija board told you. The
important point is that you have no way of knowing
what I meant. Is there any chance that you will
admit this?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>If you start a fight with me in r.a.m it will be me
>who has the last word there.
And if two people, each feel this way and believe
that the fight was started by the other, then the
fight will stay in r.a.m. indefinitely. Doesn't
this bother you at all?
In response to my criticism of John for putting words
in my mouth Patricia O Tuama writes:
>How can you bitch at John for doing this when
>you do it all the fucking time?
When I quote somebody, I use their exact words.
I wrote:
>But here is the problem with your theory. Why should
>my spinelessness appeal to the dish-it-out-but-refuse-
>to-take-it sector?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Well, why not? Birds of a feather, etc.
This is another example of the sort of thing that was
used a lot in the fifties. A politician would say that
some person and communists were birds of a feather
and be in a position to later deny that he was literally
calling the person a communist.
I wrote:
>With comments like this a person has to deny the hint,
>and then the name-caller can later say that, of course,
>he never meant to suggest that the person REALLY
>was a communist.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, it's you "non-name-callers" who do this. Just like
>you did when you first trotted out that nonsense about
>reading ability. You wrote an insult directed at me and
>then you backtracked and said that you never meant to
>suggest that I REALLY couldn't read.
Among other things, you missed the word, "later". AT
THE TIME I MENTIONED THE INSULT I clearly
indicated that the insult was not appropriate for you.
The sort of person who makes ambiguous hints leaves
clarifications for later.
>And then you went a step further and made up a lot of
>garbage about teaching me some sort of lesson about the
>folly of calling people names despite the fact that I hadn't
>called you any names at all.
"Spinelessness" seems like name-calling to me.
Jonathan D.
You Write:
> "Spinelessness" seems like name-calling to me.
I write:
>So, you're calling someone a name-caller? That sounds like
>name-calling to me.
Someone writes:
>So whenever someone disagrees with me, I find it necessary to
>circumvent the normal method of responding to someone and so I write a
>quick summary of everyone's responses that's only 200 lines long and
>repeat myself over and over and over and over and over again and then
>repeat it and then say that everyone has misunderstood what I wrote
>originally and then I'll call everyone else a name-caller and declare
>proudly and fervently that "Oh God I've never insulted anyone in my
>entire life, and if you only checked what I wrote even though it's
>probably expired from your news system I don't care - check it anyway
>'cause I save everything I post so you can have a copy if you ask me
>nicely without ever thinking of calling me a name-caller or else I'll
>stamp my size 9-1/2 feet until you understand that I didn't say
>anything nasty about name-calling or moderation or rec.arts.cimena so
>if you would only read what I wrote and besides you're the name caller
>so there why don't you believe me at all why don't you just read what
>I wrote so you can understand that I never called anyone anything so
>I'm not a name-caller why don't you understand that" just because you
>don't seem to understand what I originally wrote so just reread it
>again ok?
Blair P. Houghton
>When I quote somebody, I use their exact words.
And interpret them exactly wrong.
--Blair
"How'd you enjoy your vacation?"
Patricia O Tuama
Do the words "non sequitur" mean anything to you, Louis? Usenet is not
the New York Times, end of discussion.
>I did not say that I "wasn't trying to convince anyone of
>anything". I said that "I was not trying to convince any of
>those who voted against moderation that they made a mistake."
So? Blair wasn't doing what you have accused him of either but that
didn't stop you from attacking him with this nonsense about "increasing
sympathy for moderation."
>Houghton had been posting notes for awhile, talking
>about how some people may have voted for moderation
>without knowing what it was, etc. What do YOU think
>he was trying to do?
I -know- what he was trying to do, dear, he was drawing attention to the
fact that r.a.c is dead in the water, it's been around for two months and
it's received four articles, of which two fit it's charter. It's a joke.
>not doesn't matter. I thought it was quite likely that
>his notes were increasing sympathy for moderation,
>and I wanted to point this out to him.
Why? The vote was over and done with last February. What possible rele-
vance could your comments have now?
>>Or are you saying that it's fine for you to apply this
>>interpretation to Blair's comments but wrong
>>for me to do the same thing to yours??
>You should base your interpretation on what I
>wrote and what Houghton wrote.
I did. Now, do you think you might answer my question or can I assume
that you agree that you are applying a double standard?
> I talked about the consequences of all his name-calling.
What consequences??? The vote was over two months ago. There are no
"consequences" here, you just wanted to bitch at Blair so you made up
this nonsense about "consequences" and "increasing sympathy for modera-
tion" in an attempt to coerce him into doing what you wanted him to do.
Except your "consequences" don't exist.
>MODERATION exists in newspapers, magazines, books, television, radio, ...
Once again, Usenet is not a newspaper, a magazine, a publishing house,
a television station or a radio station. Your analogy is wrong, Louis,
you cannot apply the policies, procedures, standards and regulations of
these kinds of media to the net. You're comparing apples to oranges.
>I agree. Whether or not moderation is appropriate
>should certainly not be decided on the basis of a superficial analogy.
Is that why you insist on doing it then? Comparing Usenet to the New
York Times or to any print/broadcasting media is quite superficial.
>You would not object to a new newspaper. Why do
>you object to a new moderated newsgroup?
When did I say that I do??? You're guessing again, Louis -- I have sup-
ported and voted for a number of moderated groups including rec.* ones.
>keep on saying that the analogy is bad, but what
>is the essential difference?
Newspapers are profit-making publications owned, for the most part, by
large corporations. They are subject to numerous industry standards and
government regulations. They have editorial boards that govern what is
printed and they can sue and be sued for copyright infringement and for
various other civil and criminal causes. Usenet is a collection of com-
puter systems linked together for the purpose of passing information be-
tween individuals. It is not governed by the rules and regulations that
govern the publishing or broadcasting industries, it is not profit-mak-
ing, it has no responsibility to the general public, it has no concrete
rules, it is anarchist in nature and the laws covering copyright and li-
bel do not apply here. Only someone like you, Louis, who knows nothing
about newspapers would be foolish enough to compare Usenet to one.
>False. I said that I had voted against moderation.
>I said absolutely nothing about a vote being held again.
Sorry, I don't believe you, hon, you'll have to provide some proof.
>>Not on this, no. Sorry, hon, you destroyed your credibility
>>on this issue a long time ago.
>You say that I am a liar because I lied, and you say that
>you know I lied because I am a liar.
No, I said you destroyed your credibility -- read the sentence again,
dear, I didn't say anything about lying. But thank you for providing yet
another example of the way you continually distort what I say.
>And as I said before:
>>There it is. You are clearly admitting that the parts
No, Louis, this is just wishful thinking on your part. You wrote a flame
of me and then you backtracked over it. I wrote a parody of your posting.
You're trying to use my article to prove that you didn't write a flame of
me and that won't work, hon.
>Isn't calling someone spineless (whether okay or
>not) a hostile thing to do?
I don't think so, no. I don't even think your flame in response to my
article was particularily hostile. But this reminds me, you said that you
would apologize for over-reacting if I admitted that there was no hostile
intent in my posting. So where's your apology?
>>You clearly make a distinction between name-call-
>>ers and non-name-callers, placing yourself in the
>>latter category as though you are somehow better
>>than anyone else.
>The last nine words are from you, not me.
Yes, I know, you're not honest enough to admit it yourself. But tell me
something, are you willing to admit that you do make this distinction be-
tween name-callers and non-name-callers? Can you do that at least? And if
so, into which category do you put yourself?
>>If the question comes up, I am willing to admit that
>>>I am just guessing, and that I have no real way of
>>>knowing why you have chosen to believe that my
>>>words were not sincere. Are you willing to admit
>>Good, because the question has quite definitely
>>come up.
>This is not some essential point.
Yes, it is. This was the first time that you openly admitted much of what
you have written here is based on guesses. Let us hope that you will soon
be able to admit that the rest of it is based on your distorting what the
other person has said and your tendency to over-react.
>important point is that you have no way of knowing
>what I meant. Is there any chance that you will admit this?
Only if you'll admit that you are incoherent and virtually incapable of
expressing yourself in the English language.
>And if two people, each feel this way and believe
>that the fight was started by the other, then the
But that isn't what happened, Louis. You attacked me first just as you
attacked Blair first.
>When I quote somebody, I use their exact words.
And then you completely spoil the effect by misinterpreting and distorting
what the other person has said. You did it again in this very posting,
the section on credibility. Sure you included my words but then you dis-
torted what I wrote in order to accuse me of circular reasoning. You can't
make your case based on what I've said so you deliberately distort what I
have written.
>THE TIME I MENTIONED THE INSULT I clearly
>indicated that the insult was not appropriate for you.
Bullshit. You didn't "mention" the insult -- you clearly directed it at
me, you were responding to my posting. And secondly, you did not indicate
that it wasn't "appropriate" for me. You wrote a flame and then you tried
to retract it. If you hadn't meant to insult me then you wouldn't have
posted that rubbish.
Diane Holt
>> Louis? Shut the fuck up.
>In article <waCHr3O00...@andrew.cmu.edu> (Louis "The Wonder Bozo" Blair):
> [ Writes 263 lines of "I said, you said, he said, she said". ]
Obviously, my art of persuasion just ain't what it used to be.
Shit -- I didn't even get quoted!
>What is the problem?
The problem is: you won't shut the fuck up.
>"Spinelessness" seems like name-calling to me.
Why, yes, yes it does. How terribly clever of you to have discerned that.
_Now_ will you shut the fuck up?
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.Binky.COM)
"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out."
Louis Blair
>Moderated
>institutions can exist without threatening freedom
>of speech as Houghton seems to think.
Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>Not anywhere that's asking for votes they can't.
I wrote:
>Does the New York Times threaten freedom?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Do the words "non sequitur" mean anything to you,
>Louis? Usenet is not the New York Times, end of
>discussion.
The discussion (at least this part of it) was about
whether or not moderated institutions can exist
"anywhere that's asking for votes" without threatening
freedom of speech. The New York Times is a
moderated institution that exists in the United States
where votes are requested quite frequently. It does
not threaten freedom of speech. As you say, end of
discussion.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Blair wasn't doing what you have accused him of
I did not accuse him of anything except posting lots
of name-calling that would increase sympathy for
moderation.
I wrote:
>Houghton had been posting notes for awhile, talking
>about how some people may have voted for moderation
>without knowing what it was, etc. What do YOU think
>he was trying to do?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I -know- what he was trying to do, dear, he was drawing
>attention to the fact that r.a.c is dead in the water, it's been
>around for two months and it's received four articles, of
>which two fit it's charter. It's a joke.
And did he blame anything in particular for contributing
to this situation?
I wrote:
>I thought it was quite likely that
>his notes were increasing sympathy for moderation,
>and I wanted to point this out to him.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Why? The vote was over and done with last February.
>What possible relevance could your comments have now?
I hoped that the thought that he might be increasing
sympathy for moderation might move him to stop
the name-calling.
I wrote:
>I was not trying "to convince any of those who
>voted against moderation that they made a mistake."
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>So?? Blair wasn't trying to convince anyone of
>anything either, it was you who decided that must
>be the reason for his posting. Or are you saying that
>it's fine for you to apply this interpretation to Blair's
>comments but wrong for me to do the same thing to
>yours??
I wrote:
>Whether he was really trying or
>not doesn't matter. I thought it was quite likely that
>his notes were increasing sympathy for moderation,
>and I wanted to point this out to him. You should
>base your interpretation on what I wrote and what
>Houghton wrote.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I did. Now, do you think you might answer my
>question or can I assume that you agree that you are
>applying a double standard?
In the first place, I did not decide that "trying to convince
anyone" "must be the reason for his posting." As I said
above, it does not matter whether he was trying or not.
The only things that mattered to me were that he was
posting lots of name-calling and that he was opposed to
moderation. I hoped that the thought that he wasn't
changing anyone's mind and that he might actually be
increasing sympathy for moderation might persuade him
to stop the name-calling.
It is, of course, wrong to assume that I was trying "to
convince any of those who voted against moderation
that they made a mistake" because there is nothing in
my note to justify that assumption.
I wrote:
>I talked about the consequences of all his name-calling.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>What consequences??? The vote was over two months
>ago. There are no "consequences" here, you just wanted
>to bitch at Blair so you made up this nonsense about
>"consequences" and "increasing sympathy for modera-
>tion" in an attempt to coerce him into doing what you
>wanted him to do. Except your "consequences" don't
>exist.
Do you think the question of moderation might ever arise
again?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Usenet is not a newspaper, a magazine, a publishing house,
>a television station or a radio station. Your analogy is wrong,
>Louis, you cannot apply the policies, procedures, standards
>and regulations of these kinds of media to the net.
I am not trying to apply the policies, procedures, standards
and regulations of these kinds of media to the net. I am
merely trying to establish that the creation of a moderated
institution does not automatically threaten freedom. It remains
for you to explain why you think it threatens freedom in the
case of rec.arts.cinema.
I wrote:
>Whether or not moderation is appropriate
>should certainly not be decided on the basis of a superficial analogy.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Is that why you insist on doing it then?
I do not do it. I only claim that it is nonsense to say that
moderation is in conflict with "truth, justice, and the American way".
That still leaves open the question of whether or not moderation is
appropriate on any specific occasion.
I wrote:
>You would not object to a new newspaper. Why do
>you object to a new moderated newsgroup?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>When did I say that I do???
When I asked (referring to moderated newsgroups), "Is there any
reason why Usenet can not serve new purposes as well as its original
purpose?", your response was, "Not if it means increased censorship
and control by a tiny minority, no." That sounds like an objection to
me. How DO you feel about the moderation of rec.arts.cinema? How
did you vote?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Newspapers are profit-making publications owned, for the most part,
>by large corporations. They are subject to numerous industry standards
>and government regulations. They have editorial boards that govern
>what is printed and they can sue and be sued for copyright infringement
>and for various other civil and criminal causes. Usenet is a collection
>of computer systems linked together for the purpose of passing information
>between individuals. It is not governed by the rules and regulations that
>govern the publishing or broadcasting industries, it is not profit-mak-
>ing, it has no responsibility to the general public, it has no concrete
>rules,
None of this gives any reason for believing that the creation of a
moderated rec.arts.cinema is a threat to freedom of speech.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>it is anarchist in nature
There can be just as much anarchy as before in all the unmoderated
newsgroups.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>You said you hadn't voted on group creation
I wrote:
>False. I said that I had voted against moderation.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>but
>that if it were held again you would probably vote
>yes,
I wrote:
>I said absolutely nothing about a vote being held
>again.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Sorry, I don't believe you, hon, you'll have to provide
>some proof.
Of course, there is no question of YOU providing proof.
I've been asking you for almost a month to indicate how
you came to the conclusion that I was defending
rec.arts.cinema and you just kept on saying things like,
"I already did." Now that my original note has disappeared
from many sites, you finally start making claims about what
was in it. Fortunately, it has not disappeared everywhere.
Anyone at Carnegie-Mellon can still see the original
and perhaps others can as well. I have sent copies to you
and Houghton and he has already confirmed that it was
the note that I posted earlier. You can get confirmation
from anyone at CMU as well. The message ID is
<8a7ETNy00...@andrew.cmu.edu> and the
date is 6 Apr 90 21:19:21 GMT. A copy of the complete
text is included at the end of this note.
I wrote:
>For you, the smart-ass characterization
>and the other contradiction are incompatible with really
>intending your insult, but you will not accept that this
>could be true for me as well.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Not on this, no. Sorry, hon, you destroyed your credibility
>on this issue a long time ago.
I wrote:
>You say that I am a liar because I lied, and you say that
>you know I lied because I am a liar. That is circular
>reasoning.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, I said you destroyed your credibility -- read the sentence
>again, dear, I didn't say anything about lying. But thank you
>for providing yet another example of the way you continually
>distort what I say.
I reproduce your exact words and do the best I can to interpret
them. You are always around to correct me with enthusiasm
whenever I err. The usual method for destroying one's credibility
is by telling a lie. What method DO you think that I used?
I wrote:
>Did you notice
>that Patricia O Tuama, in her attempt to imitate what I wrote,
>could not bring herself to characterize "you're a pompous
>self-righteous little twit" in a similar way.
Patricia O Tuama responded with:
>Well, why should I? I meant exactly what I said
And I pointed out:
>There it is. You are clearly admitting that the parts
>about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
>are things that you do not say if you "mean what
>you say".
Patricia O Tuama now responds with:
>No, Louis, this is just wishful thinking on your part.
But her earlier response included the words
>I'm admitting this is true for -me-
So which is it? True for you, or wishful thinking?
I wrote:
>Isn't calling someone spineless (whether okay or
>not) a hostile thing to do?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I don't think so, no.
This is very interesting. Let's go back a bit.
When I wrote:
>would you have us believe that you were
>not doing any personal attacking at the time
>yourself?
Patricia O Tuama responded with:
>Yes, absolutely. There was nothing in my
>original posting in response to your attack
>on Blair that justified your attacking me.
>Nothing.
Patricia O Tuama has also written:
>Louis, you escalated this exchange
>to a flamefest when you attacked me with
>that nonsense about my reading ability.
I responded with:
>I suppose you think the spineless stuff had
>nothing to do with it.
Patricia O Tuama's response was:
>What "spineless stuff"???
Now you know what spineless stuff.
Patricia O Tuama went on to say:
>Blair said you were spineless, you posted
>asking if he was accusing you of name-calling.
>I responded saying no, I thought he was accusing
>you of being spineless. How can you
>possibly interpret this as inflammatory?
And I now answer: By looking at some of the things
you left out of your description of your note. You,
yourself, "obviously" referred to my "spinelessness",
saying that it was okay and adding that I had entertained
you with my defense of the newsgroup. Do you really
claim that this is not hostile? If so, why did you leave
all this out of your description of your note above?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>you said that you would apologize for over-reacting
>if I admitted that there was no hostile intent in my
>posting. So where's your apology?
Re-run:
>I wrote:
>>If you will clearly and publicly indicate that your note
>>had no hostile intent then you will have my immediate
>>apology for over-reacting.
>
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>Sure: I hereby clearly and publicly state that my note
>>had no hostile intent.
>
>If your note had absolutely no hostile intent, then I
>certainly responded inappropriately and I hereby
>apologize.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>are you willing to admit that you do make this
>distinction between name-callers and non-name-
>callers?
It's not as simple as that. Everybody slips up occasionally.
The more name-calling a person does, the more of a name-
caller he is. Extreme cases tend to have the other
characteristics that I have mentioned: using the word
"obviously" a lot, etc.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>into which category do you put yourself?
These aren't categories. It is more like a scale. I think
that Houghton is closer to one end of the scale and I am
closer to the other.
I wrote:
>If the question comes up, I am willing to admit that
>I am just guessing, and that I have no real way of
>knowing why you have chosen to believe that my
>words were not sincere.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Good, because the question has quite definitely
>come up.
I wrote:
>This is not some essential point.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Yes, it is. This was the first time that you openly admitted
>much of what you have written here is based on guesses.
I said nothing about "much of what [I] have written". I only
said that I was guessing about your reason for believing
that I meant the insult. (I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.)
Nothing else I have said is based on the accuracy of this guess.
It does not matter what moved you to decide that I really meant
the insult. The important point is that you have no way of
knowing this.
I wrote:
>you have no way of knowing
>what I meant. Is there any chance that you will admit this?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Only if you'll admit that you are incoherent and virtually
>incapable of expressing yourself in the English language.
You are avoiding the question. Do you have a way of
knowing that I really meant the insult (contrary to what
my words said) or don't you?
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>If you start a fight with me in r.a.m it will be me
>who has the last word there.
I wrote:
>And if two people, each feel this way and believe
>that the fight was started by the other, then the
>fight will stay in r.a.m. indefinitely. Doesn't
>this bother you at all?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>But that isn't what happened, Louis.
You are avoiding a question again. It is a perfectly
plausible situation. With your philosophy, what happens?
I wrote:
>At THE TIME I MENTIONED THE INSULT I clearly
>indicated that the insult was not appropriate for you.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Bullshit. You didn't "mention" the insult -- you clearly
>directed it at me, you were responding to my posting.
I said:
>It's tempting to make
>some sort of smart-ass remark like, "Why don't you
>learn to read?"
thus mentioning an insult.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>And secondly, you did not indicate that it wasn't
>"appropriate" for me.
I said:
>I think your
>mistake was quite understandable and does not
>reflect in any way on your reading ability.
thus indicating that the insult was not appropriate
for you.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You wrote a flame and then you tried
>to retract it. If you hadn't meant to insult me then
>you wouldn't have posted that rubbish.
As I said before, I was trying to provide you with
examples, in the hope of getting you to think about
how it might be desirable to do without ridiculous
insults.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>And then you went a step further and made up a lot of
>garbage about teaching me some sort of lesson about the
>folly of calling people names despite the fact that I hadn't
>called you any names at all.
I wrote:
>"Spinelessness" seems like name-calling to me.
but Patricia O Tuama ignored this. How about it?
Is "spinelessness" name-calling or isn't it? (Even
Diane Holt agrees with me.)
Jonathan D. writes:
>So, you're calling someone a name-caller? That sounds
>like name-calling to me.
The main characteristic of name-calling is that it is
criticism presented without supporting evidence.
Another common characteristic is that the criticism
is often so vague that it is nearly impossible to discuss
it intelligently. I give my evidence (although, of course,
you may disagree with its validity), and name-calling
is a pretty specific charge. Criticism and name-calling
are not the same.
Diane Holt writes:
>Louis? Shut the fuck up.
Diane Holt writes:
>Shit -- I didn't even get quoted!
I'm sorry if you felt left out. I hope that you are
happy now.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>Louis has the right to be just
>as uninteresting, uncreative, uninformative and unvitriolic
>in alt.flame as he chooses. Put him in your killfile or kill
>the subject line if you don't want to read this exchange.
And here is my so-called defense of rec.arts.cinema:
Blair P. Houghton writes:
>Manavendra, ... you're making
>an obsequious fool of yourself
>Chuq's incompetent and lazy.
>The louder you yell about it
>the stupider you look
>you're full of crap.
>little creeps like you
Dear Mr. Houghton,
Do you think that you convince anyone
of anything with this sort of talk? What do
you think you're accomplishing?
I used to be against moderation. I voted
against it, for the obvious reasons: free speech,
technical problems, etc. However, since
then your notes have helped to make me aware
of something. It can be a real blessing if certain
sorts of notes do not appear.
Congratulations! You have changed the mind
of one person. No doubt, if you keep on posting
notes of this sort, there will be more converts.
Louis Blair
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <kaEI_mq00...@andrew.cmu.edu> lb...@andrew.cmu.edu (Louis Blair) writes:
>
>> Now that my original note has disappeared
>> from many sites, you finally start making claims about what
>> was in it. Fortunately, it has not disappeared everywhere.
>> Anyone at Carnegie-Mellon can still see the original
>> and perhaps others can as well. I have sent copies to you
>> and Houghton and he has already confirmed that it was
>> the note that I posted earlier.
Louis, you fucking moron, I didn't confirm shit. I called
you a simpering pustule, a litigable transgression, an abortion
with the wrong-sized hanger, for sending that thing to me _again_.
Go off in a corner and suck your knees until you die of dehydration,
you pantographic enlargement of an Ayn Rand bronchial cast.
>> The main characteristic of name-calling is that it is
>> criticism presented without supporting evidence.
>> Another common characteristic is that the criticism
>> is often so vague that it is nearly impossible to discuss
>> it intelligently.
Louis, there is nothing vague about the words I use.
They are well-chosen, connotive linguistic elements
arranged so as to evoke emotional and intellectual
responses somewhat beyond that available solely from
their syntax and definitions. You're just too fucking
stupid to figure it out, you prosody-absent moron.
>> I used to be against moderation. I voted
>> against it, for the obvious reasons: free speech,
>> technical problems, etc. However, since
>> then your notes have helped to make me aware
>> of something. It can be a real blessing if certain
>> sorts of notes do not appear.
>
>Yes, especially ones that are 509 fucking lines long that don't
>present a clear CONCISE arguement about something!
A-fucking-men.
Louis, you're a hypocrite. Go eat a bug.
--Blair
"Here, have a tartar-sauce lollipop:
---%% "
Asmodeus
>responses somewhat beyond that available solely from
>their syntax and definitions. You're just too fucking
>stupid to figure it out, you prosody-absent moron.
WhizzBoob is possibly the only native speaker of a
context-free language in existence.
Goddamn, what a dissertation.
--
"Sex work is being a gay man doing gay work in a gay city and being unable to
get your gay work published in the gay media because the work is too expli-
citly gay."
-- Mark I. Chester
Classic Trish
>WhizzBoob is possibly the only native speaker of a
>context-free language in existence.
Say, this reminds me of something you and I were talking about a couple
of weeks ago, Clay. Louis, what is your native language? And is Eng-
lish your second or third language?
Louis Blair
>the New York Times is not a
>"moderated institution." It's a newspaper.
Can you post anything you
want in the letters section of
a newspaper?
Talking about Houghton, I wrote:
>I did not accuse him of anything except posting lots
>of name-calling that would increase sympathy for moderation.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You were reading things into his posting that were completely
>absurd, ie that his comments might increase sympathy for
>moderation of r.a.c
In the first place, this is not an example of "reading things into
his posting". I was predicting how people might react to Houghton's
posting. This says nothing about what Houghton was thinking
or trying to accomplish.
Also, its amusing to see the way you insert "of r.a.c." That
is YOUR addition to my words. They are right there above.
You quoted them yourself. I said, "increase sympathy for
moderation." That's all.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>when in fact the
>issue of moderating r.a.c is a moot point.
Then why are YOU bringing it up?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I want to know why you think it's
>okay for you to do this to Blair but wrong
>for me to do the same thing to you.
I made a prediction about how people would
react to Houghton's note, and it is certainly
okay for you to predict how people will
react to my notes. You have already done
so on several occasions.
I wrote:
>I hoped that the thought that he might be increasing
>sympathy for moderation might move him to stop the
>name-calling.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>This is irrational, Louis. The newsgroup exists and it is
>definitedly moderated. You do understand that, right?
>The vote is over.
There you go again. My sentence says nothing about
rec.arts.cinema. Moderation is an issue that will not
go away. You even agreed with me about this. When
I asked:
>Do you think the question of moderation might ever arise
>again?
you responded:
>For rec.arts.cinema? No. For the net as a whole?
>Undoubtedly.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>there is nothing in Blair's "note" to justify your assumptions.
What assumptions? I noted that he was doing a lot
of name-calling. You don't deny this, do you? I hoped
that the thought that he might be increasing sympathy
for moderation might convince him to stop. That's all.
I wrote:
>I am not trying to apply the policies, procedures,
>standards and regulations of these kinds of media to the net.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Yes, you are -- you keep babbling about newspapers and
>moderation.
But I don't "babble" about "policies, procedures, standards
and regulations".
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>You have
>repeatedly attempted to equate moderation of a newsgroup
>with the editorial policies of a newspaper.
I have said that they are equivalent with respect to how much
they threaten freedom of speech and how much they conflict
with "the American way". That is all.
I wrote:
>Whether or not moderation is appropriate should certainly not be
>decided on the basis of a superficial analogy.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>Is that why you insist on doing it then?
I wrote:
>I do not do it. I only claim that it is nonsense to say that
>moderation is in conflict with "truth, justice, and the American
>way". That still leaves open the question of whether or not
>moderation is appropriate on any specific occasion.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Yes, you did. Newspapers and moderated newsgroups. It
>wasn't until I explained to you why the two are not analogous
>and you realized I was right that you started insisting that
>wasn't what you meant.
Time for more history:
In a note dated 2 May 90 00:52:11 GMT, Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>Newspapers are profit-making publications owned, for the
>most part, by large corporations. They are subject to numerous
>industry standards and government regulations. They have
In a note dated 23 Apr 90 12:09:29 GMT, I wrote:
>My analogy was only intended to show that moderation
>is not contrary to the American way.
Would you tell us which was first?
I wrote:
>When I asked (referring to moderated newsgroups), "Is there any
>reason why Usenet can not serve new purposes as well as its original
>purpose?", your response was, "Not if it means increased censorship
>and control by a tiny minority, no."
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Read it again, dear. You said "new purposes." Newsgroup moderation
>is not a "new purpose." I don't object to moderation under certain
>circumstances and you would know that if you had bothered to keep
>up with the discussion that preceded the CfV for r.a.c. What I object
>to is Thakur's intention to subvert the power he has as moderator to a
>"new purpose."
Good grief, it's time for history again:
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>Usenet was created for the purpose of free and
>independent correspondence between individuals
I responded:
>Is there any reason why Usenet can
>not serve new purposes as well as its
>original purpose?
and Patricia O Tuama answered:
>Not if it means increased censorship and control by a
>tiny minority, no.
By "new purposes", I meant purposes that did not
involve "free and independent correspondence between
individuals". Providing an opportunity for a moderated
newsgroup is an example of such a purpose. Patricia
O Tuama's response does not say anything about Thakur.
It sounds like an objection that would apply to any
moderator who could be regarded as a "censor" and
"a tiny minority". Moreover, I had already stated that
I was only claiming that moderation was not in conflict
with "the American way". This view does not conflict
with someone who thinks that moderation is okay on
some occasions, but not on others.
However, perhaps we have an honest misunderstanding
here. If Patricia O Tuama meant only that moderation
by Thakur would be censorship and control by a tiny
minority, while moderation on some other occasion
would not deserve to be characterized in this way,
then we have no quarrel on this point at this time. I
know almost nothing about Thakur. As I have been
saying since the beginning, I am not talking about
rec.arts.cinema.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>moderation threatens free speech because it
>allows one person to sit in judgment of what everyone
>else writes.
You keep on saying that newspapers and magazines
are different from a moderated newsgroup. Of course
there are lots of differences, but when it comes to saying
how moderation threatens free speech, you say things
that would apply equally well to any of these.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Sometimes it is justified but in this case
>it is not.
I have the disturbing feeling that we really agree on this
issue and we are just disputing semantics. I am just saying
that freedom of speech and the American way are not the
things that one looks at to decide whether or not moderation
is appropriate. After the creation of a new moderated
newsgroup, people have all the outlets for self-expression
that they had before. Of course, in the moderated newsgroup
itself, speech is not free, but this is true in any moderated
newsgroup (or any newspaper, magazine, etc.) and does
not determine which moderated newsgroups are good
ideas and which are not.
I wrote:
>For you, the smart-ass characterization
>and the other contradiction are incompatible with really
>intending your insult, but you will not accept that this
>could be true for me as well.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>Not on this, no. Sorry, hon, you destroyed your credibility
>on this issue a long time ago.
I wrote:
>The usual method for destroying one's credibility
>is by telling a lie. What method DO you think that I used?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Oh, denial, deceit, hypocrisy, backtracking and plain old
>stupidity.
This still seems like circular reasoning to me. You say that you
will not believe that I really meant the smart-ass characterization
and the other contradiction because I destroyed my credibility.
You say that I destroyed my credibility by backtracking,
hypocrisy, etc. But how did I become convicted of these
things? As far as I can tell it is because you will not believe
that the smart-ass characterization and the other contradiction
were sincere.
In response to:
>You are clearly admitting that the parts
>about the smart-ass remark and its incorrectness
>are things that you do not say if you "mean what
>you say".
Patricia O Tuama now writes:
>Louis, this is just wishful thinking on your part
Then why did you previously respond with:
>I'm admitting this is true for -me-
I wrote:
>Let's go back a bit.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, let's not. I don't think anyone's use of the word "spineless"
>in this discussion was particularily hostile.
"Particularly hostile"! You seem to have trouble bringing
yourself to say that it was not hostile.
You seem uncomfortable with looking at your own previous
words. Here they are again:
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>Louis, you escalated this exchange
>to a flamefest when you attacked me with
>that nonsense about my reading ability.
I responded with:
>I suppose you think the spineless stuff had
>nothing to do with it.
Patricia O Tuama's response was:
>What "spineless stuff"???
Now why did you say that?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I repeat: so where's your apology, Louis?
I'm not going to run it a third time. Instead,
I'll just re-run part of your response:
>Excellent, thank you, Louis
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>what kind of value judgment do you place
>your postings and his?
I would not make a judgment about Houghton's postings
in general. Many of them I have never read.
I can only say that I see little of value in the
name-calling that he posted in rec.arts.movies.
After saying:
>you openly admitted
>much of what you have written here is based on
>guesses.
Patricia O Tuama now writes:
>you're not honest enough to admit that you "guess"
>about nearly everything you write.
Well at least you no longer say that I admitted it
openly. That is the sort of mistake that I make
from time to time. You correct me and we move
on. None of my main arguments depends on
any of these misinterpretations.
I wrote:
>you have no way of knowing
>what I meant. Is there any chance that you will admit this?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Only if you'll admit that you are incoherent and virtually
>incapable of expressing yourself in the English language.
I wrote:
>You are avoiding the question. Do you have a way of
>knowing that I really meant the insult (contrary to what
>my words said) or don't you?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>No, I'm not. These are my conditions. Take it or leave
>it, hon.
This is one of the familiar ways that a person uses to
avoid a question that he or she finds uncomfortable. Now,
of course I do not know whether or not Patricia O Tuama
finds this particular question uncomfortable or not. For all
I know, she may have some devastating response that she
is holding back for some reason. As long as she refrains
from posting an answer we will never know. She has
been refraining from answering a lot of questions lately.
Patricia O Tuama wrote:
>If you start a fight with me in r.a.m it will be me
>who has the last word there.
I wrote:
>And if two people, each feel this way and believe
>that the fight was started by the other, then the
>fight will stay in r.a.m. indefinitely. Doesn't
>this bother you at all?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>The issue here is not what if
This is another familiar method that is often used by
people who want to avoid an uncomfortable question.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>When you phrase something
>this way the insult doesn't disappear, it's still there.
Only as an example.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>All you've done is compound the situation by not
>having the guts to admit that it's a flame.
I have no trouble admitting that it is an example of
a flame. (Which I clearly identified as stupid and
inappropriate.)
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>If you hadn't meant to be insulting you
>wouldn't have posted it.
I've already given you the reason (which has nothing
to do with meaning the insult) several times. I was
hoping to get you to think about the foolishness of
such insults.
I wrote:
>Is "spinelessness" name-calling or isn't it?
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>I won't let you control the discussion
which is, of course, yet another standard way to
avoid an uncomfortable question.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Sure looks like support of r.a.c moderated to me,
>hon.
thus modifying her original claim that I was defending
rec.arts.cinema and bringing it a little closer to the
truth. My note did not even mention rec.arts.cinema,
but it did talk about moderation. Why can't you
stand by your original claim? How about those other
claims:
Did I clearly defend Thakur's vision of rec.arts.cinema?
Did I say that I would vote for r.a.c as a moderated group
were the vote held again?
Did I say that I hadn't voted on group creation?
Jonathan D. writes:
>No one has a clue about anything you are attempting to
>say.
He quotes me as saying:
>Now that my original note has disappeared
>from many sites, you finally start making claims about what
>was in it. Fortunately, it has not disappeared everywhere.
>Anyone at Carnegie-Mellon can still see the original
>and perhaps others can as well. I have sent copies to you
>and Houghton
and then says:
>I knew you saved everything you posted!
thus demonstrating that I have indeed failed to communicate
with him.
By the way, Jonathan, pinhead is not really specific.
Patricia O Tuama writes:
>Louis, what is your native language?
English.
Jonathan D.
> Jonathan D. writes:
> >I knew you saved everything you posted!
> thus demonstrating that I have indeed failed to communicate
> with him.
Is that all you have to say about my posting? I'm ashamed of you,
Louis. Or, perhaps I misunderstand your intent. Do you read the
responses posted to you and respond to them only as it fits whatever
your "point" is? It is rapidly becoming obvious that whatever "point"
you are trying to make (which you have yet to define clearly and
succinctly) will never be made. Why are you wasting our time?
Have you mistaken your keyboard for your dick?
> By the way, Jonathan, pinhead is not really specific.
Louis? How more specific can I be? Do you really want me to expand
on the idea that you're a pinhead? Or, is it that you can't
understand something unless it is hashed out in some diatribe that
rambles on for at least 100 screen lines and lacks of a theme?
Make your point, and (in the words of Diane) shut the fuck up!
Diane Holt
>
>Patricia O Tuama writes:
>>into which category do you put yourself?
>
>These aren't categories. It is more like a scale. I think
>that Houghton is closer to one end of the scale and I am
>closer to the other.
Right. Blair is near the top of the scale, and you're near the butt.
You're a butt-head, Louis. Get it?
>Do you have a way of knowing that I really meant the insult [...]
There you have it -- Louis has admitted to the insult.
Butt-head.
>How about it? Is "spinelessness" name-calling or isn't it?
YES -- IT ISSSSSSSSS!
**NOW** will you - shut - the - fuck - UP?!?
Butt-head.
(Louis? Do you think "butt-head" is "name-calling"? I certainly
hope so. I'd hate to think we'd need a 500-line dissertation on
the subject.)
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.Binky.COM)
"Butt-head."
Asmodeus
>Say, this reminds me of something you and I were talking about a couple
>of weeks ago, Clay. Louis, what is your native language? And is Eng-
>lish your second or third language?
It would appear that the issue is not really the
identification of WhizzBoob's NL. That is not
really the interesting question, IMHO.
WhizzBoob can only parse and generate a proper
subset of natural language, that subset which
can be generated by a set of CF-PSRs (Gazdar,
Pullum, Shieber and Sag, have you seen any of
WhizzBoob's babblings?) WhizzBoob has demon-
strated that he can neither parse nor generate
context-dependent linguistic strings.
The interesting question, then, would be:
Does WhizzBoob *have* a NL?
Patricia O Tuama
> Gosh, John, what tanning salon do you go to to get your nose
>such a deep, dark, shiny brown?
> Oh, that's not *tan*, is it. Never mind.
And to think I thought for sure you were going to accuse John Woods
and me of being a net.item like you did with Berryhill (oooh! look
out! another scathing flame from deej!) and from there proceed to
calling us children in your usual inept fashion. Instead you stu-
pidly opted for the kind of insult junior high students think is
pretty fucking devastating thus proving once again that it is im-
possible to underestimate the level of deej intelligence.
at that point trish, vastly amused
Elton Wildermuth
>
> [...] deej intelligence.
Oxymoron. (Like a regular moron, but with air where its brain ought to be.)
-- Elton