vow?
zenworm
wrote:
> You do realise this thread branch is indistinguishable from random posturing
> in other newsgroup hierarchies? Take out the obsessive religious claptrap
> and playing to the gallery and there's nothing worth reading. And, no. I
> don't want to hear more shit about the fucking brain, smarmy fortune
> cookies, anal philosophical hairsplitting, or who did or didn't fuck my
> mother in reply.
>
> FU trimmed to alt.zen
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
What helps?
What helps you?
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
liaM
>
> What helps?
> What helps you?
>
what is it about adjectives that soothes
what is it about verbs that induces stress
let green be the color of the morning's light
as it filters in the thoughts of the assembled sangha
Appledog
wrote:
>
> You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
> intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped getting
> caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks you'd
> get further.
Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi is
actually greater than four.
Yes, we have been misled all our lives and here is the proof.
We all know pi to be equal to the circumference of a circle divided by
it's diameter.
So then let us derive pi using this simple formula to understand the
truth.
Step one, draw a circle around the earth and measure it's
circumference. A measurement of acceptable precision is a fraction
over 40,075 km, as defined by the IAU (International Astronomical
Union) in 1976.
We also know the radius of this circle; In 1791, the French Academy of
Sciences defined the metre to be one ten-millionth of the length of
the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the
Equator to the North Pole. This distance is therefore exactly
10,000km.
Therefore pi is clearly C / r, or 40,075 / divided by 10,000 or.. wait
for it...
4.0075.
Greater than four.
We have been lied to our entire lives by the establishment and this is
your wake up call.
But don't take my word for it. Do the math for yourself.
-
Tralfamadore
The earth is elliptical, not a perfect circle.
Do your math again.
daletx
Excellent work! You seem to have proved that 1/4 the circumference of
the earth is almost exactly equal to the circumference of the earth,
divided by 4...
DT
Lee
"daletx" <dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote in message
news:hglp5...@news1.newsguy.com...
he's such a clever goi
Déjà Flu
In flatland, all spheres look like circles...
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
porkypine
<oliver....@gmail.com> wrote:
The earth is not a circle, its an ellipse.
I took math.
Déjà Flu
<burp!>
> The earth is not a circle, its an ellipse.
> I took math.
Don't do that meth shit, d00d! It leads to strange
pool tables!
Appledog
Yes, the circumference of the circle is indeed divided by the diameter
of said circle, the north or south poles being the only equidistant
points.
It is strange, is it not, that this was never taught us in schools..
In it's place a lie of such magnitude... We must all work together to
tell the world, to do what is right. We must be men of science!
-
Appledog
In our world, all hypercubes look like cubes.
-
Nobody in Particular
I can't tell if this guy is serious or not.
On the one hand, I don't remember him ever posting any satire of this
kind before; I don't think he is capable of satire.
On the other hand, equating the length of a meridian along a quadrant
with the diameter is just so monstrously wrong, especially since he
claims to be a teacher...
I just don't know.
If he IS serious, that is really scary. He's teaching children.
Greendistantstar
The strategy is as follows;
1) Propagate an egregiously silly post with a straight face, no emoticons to denote satire etc
2) Wait until someone writes "Are you fucking serious?"
3) Reply "You must be really dumb to believe my really dumb post."
4) Engage in an on-going flame-war until thoroughly bitch-slapped.
5) Rinse and repeat.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Appledog
wrote:
What the hell are you guys talking about?
Take a hula hoop 20 ft in diameter and put it on the ground.
Measure it's circumference. Divide that number by 20, and you will NOT
get pi. You won't even get an approximation of it. Don't say I didn't
warn you. Go ahead, if you don't believe me, do the math for yourself.
Do the experiment.
But don't come crying to me when you realize you have been lied to all
your life.
-
Greendistantstar
A 20 ft diameter hula hoop? WTF???
> Measure it's circumference. Divide that number by 20, and you will NOT
> get pi. You won't even get an approximation of it. Don't say I didn't
> warn you. Go ahead, if you don't believe me, do the math for yourself.
> Do the experiment.
<slaps head>
> But don't come crying to me when you realize you have been lied to all
> your life.
Champagne trolling, to be sure.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
DharmaTroll
Well, you can do a cool math trick with a strange pool table, of
course. If you construct an elliptical pool table, and make a single
pocket where there is a focus, and the place the other ball where the
other focus is, you can then shoot the ball in any direction you'd
like, and you're guaranteed to get the ball into the pocket, provided
that you don't put any English on the ball. Heh.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Not really, unless you project it from 4d space into 3d space. But
they look like a stack of cubes when they are unfolded. Just as a cube
looks like a flat Christian cross when unfolded and flattened, a
hypercube, when unfolded and flattened into 3-space will look like a
Christian cross, except fatter, four cubes high, with a cube on the
left and right of the second-highest cube, plus two more cubes, one
each on the front and back of the second-highest cube. See:
http://www.fleischfilm.com/html/texts.htm
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
hemispheres?
Déjà Flu
Divide and conquer?
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 20, 3:59 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
pi works on a 2D flat euclidean surface, but it doesn't
apply on a 2D surface projected in three dimensions
such as the surface of the earth. On a flat surface, the
sum of the angles of a triangle always is 180 degrees.
But on a positively curved surface, all triangles will
have more than 180 degrees, and that sum will differ
with the size of the triangle. (To a theoretical maximum
of 90+90+359.999... = 539.999... degrees.)
If the pole is the center of a circle, and the radius is
a line perpendicular to a circle on the earth, the radius
(or diameter) will have no established ratio to any circle.
From north pole to the equator, the ratio will increase.
But from north pole to south of the equator, the radius
will increase as the circle gets smaller.
zenworm
very nice mmmmmm disolving
some words arise:
10k shades of green
a jungle full of beauty
stillness in orange stripes...
Appledog
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:46:19 -0800 (PST), Appledog <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
Congradulations. In Feynmann's classic "Curved Space" lecture, he
proposes the 'hula hoop' method as a reliable way to tell if the earth
is flat or a sphere (i.e. if the space is curved) and then he extends
the example into three dimensional space and explains how to use a
sphere to tell if space around you is curved. It was fascinating.
> If the pole is the center of a circle, and the radius is
> a line perpendicular to a circle on the earth, the radius
> (or diameter) will have no established ratio to any circle.
> From north pole to the equator, the ratio will increase.
> But from north pole to south of the equator, the radius
> will increase as the circle gets smaller.
That's true. I am sure primitive men would have known the earth was a
sphere precisely due to calculations like this. Anyways I'm a little
disappointed that we didn't speak of flatlanders more - which IIRC
came from the feynmann lecture in the first place ;0)
-
zenworm
Greendistantstar
Where exactly did Feynman say that the Euclidean specification of pi was a lie?
Mixing a little, confused understanding with some baloney - the Richman recipe for trolling.
Kudos.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 20, 8:10 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
"Eratosthenes of Cyrene (Greek ???????????; c. 276 BC[1] – c. 195 BC[2]) was a
Greek mathematician, elegiac poet, athlete, geographer, and astronomer. He made
several discoveries and inventions including a system of latitude and longitude.
He was the first Greek to calculate the circumference of the earth (with
remarkable accuracy), and the tilt of the earth's axis (also with remarkable
accuracy); he may also have accurately calculated the distance from the earth to
the sun and invented the leap day."
Appledog
wrote:
I suppose my post came several hundred years late. The fundamental
error here was assuming the earth was flat. Which was actually taught
in schools. Any proper definition for pi, as you state yourself out of
a natural kinship with science and logic, will include the space must
be euclidean; for example "π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical
constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its
diameter in Euclidean space;" from wikipedia. Therefore, we were bound
to discover the earth was a sphere sooner or later.
-
Nobody in Particular
Since you use 40,075 km as the circumference, you assume a circle at
the equator. (Over the poles it would be 40,007 km)
Why do you use the arc from the equator to the pole along the surface
of the earth and call it the radius?
Besides, pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference to the
*diameter*, not the radius of a circle. The diameter of the earth at
the equator is defined by the IAU as 12,756 km (from one point on the
equator to the point exactly half-way around that circle). Divide
40,075 by 12,756 and you get ........
Greendistantstar
Uh, no.
> The fundamental
> error here was assuming the earth was flat. Which was actually taught
> in schools. Any proper definition for pi, as you state yourself out of
> a natural kinship with science and logic, will include the space must
> be euclidean; for example "π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical
> constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its
> diameter in Euclidean space;" from wikipedia. Therefore, we were bound
> to discover the earth was a sphere sooner or later.
Pi isn't 4. If you knew even a little about topology, you'd know that the curvatures that create
triangles with angle sums > 180 also 'stretch' all the *other* gradients, so the *ratios* remain
constant. Same with a circle, thought you might have worked that one out for yourself.
But it's a nice little troll you got goin' on here; do carry on.....
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Appledog
Not so fast, N.I.P. You cannot draw a circle (let's just say at the
equator) with radius r from some arbitrary point on the earth (let's
just say the north pole) then take some arbitrary OTHER distance as
the radius of the circle, such as the point p at the center of the
earth. We didn't draw a circle with radius r from the center of the
earth, we drew a circle with radius r from the north pole. This radius
is 10,000km. Not the 12,756 distance you conveniently substituted, a
distance which has nothing to do with drawing a circle from an
equidistant point on the earth, in this case from the north pole.
Anyways you're right I made a mistake. We need to divide the 40,075km
circumference by 2*radius, or in this case 20,000km. My mistake; pi is
exactly 2. Doh. Well at least my error was within an order of
magnitude.
-
Appledog
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:46:58 -0800 (PST), Appledog <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
What does that have to do with flatlanders? Anyways...
-
Julian
Get real! It's not even Asti Spumante...
You are someone who has obviously never tasted flat, rancid, cider.
Lucky man(?)
Julian
It can be four in a row with one extra off the side at one end
and one on the opposite side at the other end... in fact there are at
least 3 options, funnily enough.
DharmaTroll
There are 23 options, as far as I know, actually. See:
http://unfolding.apperceptual.com/
--DharmaTroll
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> "Charles E Hardwidge" wrote:
> >
> > You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
> > intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped getting
> > caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks you'd
> > get further.
>
> Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi is
> actually greater than four.
This is a technique that Tang very misleadingly calls "flipping".
Whenever 'dork is well and truly nailed to the wall, he just changes
the subject to some new enormity, hoping people will chase after
it and forget about the just-previous piece of idiocy.
People, of course, *like* to chase after the new idiocy, because
it's fun to whack the idiot again.
And so it goes, on and on -- everybody's happy.
> Yes, we have been misled all our lives and here is the proof.
>
> We all know pi to be equal to the circumference of a circle divided by
> it's diameter.
>
> So then let us derive pi using this simple formula to understand the
> truth.
>
> Step one, draw a circle around the earth and measure it's
> circumference. A measurement of acceptable precision is a fraction
> over 40,075 km, as defined by the IAU (International Astronomical
> Union) in 1976.
>
> We also know the radius of this circle; In 1791, the French Academy of
> Sciences defined the metre to be one ten-millionth of the length of
> the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the
> Equator to the North Pole. This distance is therefore exactly
> 10,000km.
>
> Therefore pi is clearly C / r, or 40,075 / divided by 10,000 or.. wait
> for it...
>
> 4.0075.
>
> Greater than four.
>
> We have been lied to our entire lives by the establishment and this is
> your wake up call.
>
> But don't take my word for it. Do the math for yourself.
What a maroon.
--
hz
herbzet
daletx wrote:
> Appledog wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 3:59 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
> >> intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped getting
> >> caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks you'd
> >> get further.
> >
> > Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi is
> > actually greater than four.
> >
> > Yes, we have been misled all our lives and here is the proof.
> >
> > We all know pi to be equal to the circumference of a circle divided by
> > it's diameter.
> >
> > So then let us derive pi using this simple formula to understand the
> > truth.
> >
> > Step one, draw a circle around the earth and measure it's
> > circumference. A measurement of acceptable precision is a fraction
> > over 40,075 km, as defined by the IAU (International Astronomical
> > Union) in 1976.
> >
> > We also know the radius of this circle; In 1791, the French Academy of
> > Sciences defined the metre to be one ten-millionth of the length of
> > the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the
> > Equator to the North Pole. This distance is therefore exactly
> > 10,000km.
> >
> > Therefore pi is clearly C / r, or 40,075 / divided by 10,000 or.. wait
> > for it...
> >
> > 4.0075.
> >
> > Greater than four.
> >
> > We have been lied to our entire lives by the establishment and this is
> > your wake up call.
> >
> > But don't take my word for it. Do the math for yourself.
>
> Excellent work! You seem to have proved that 1/4 the circumference of
> the earth is almost exactly equal to the circumference of the earth,
> divided by 4...
LOL!
You can't make this shit up.
Shall I cross-post Appledork's discovery to sci.math?
They need to be informed of this startling development.
--
hz
AdvocatusDiablo
"herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4B2FF219...@gmail.com...
>
>
> Appledog wrote:
>> "Charles E Hardwidge" wrote:
>> >
>> > You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
>> > intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped
>> > getting
>> > caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks
>> > you'd
>> > get further.
>>
>> Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi is
>> actually greater than four.
>
> This is a technique that Tang very misleadingly calls "flipping".
>
> Whenever 'dork is well and truly nailed to the wall, he just changes
> the subject to some new enormity, hoping people will chase after
> it and forget about the just-previous piece of idiocy.
>
> People, of course, *like* to chase after the new idiocy, because
> it's fun to whack the idiot again.
>
> And so it goes, on and on -- everybody's happy.
at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so called,
'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
are you happy....now?
herbzet
And beating them, which is a little scarier.
--
hz
Lee Rudolph
>at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so called,
>'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
>
>are you happy....now?
So, Mr. Imus, which would you rather be--happy now, or a nappy ho?
Lee Rudolph
AdvocatusDiablo
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hgouop$hr2$2...@reader1.panix.com...
Mr.. Rudolph, you're nose is glowing so
lead the way!
herbzet
porkypine wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:46:19 -0800 (PST), Appledog
> The earth is not a circle, its an ellipse.
> I took math.
Obate spheroid. Sorta.
--
hz
DharmaTroll
I'd be happy just taking a nap with a ho!
--DharmaTroll
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> Anyways I'm a little
> disappointed that we didn't speak of flatlanders more - which IIRC
> came from the feynmann lecture in the first place ;0)
Not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
--
hz
Appledog
Sorry herbzet, flaming you doesn't count.
In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
beating children on usenet. Once.
-
Appledog
Oh ok. So he merely used the novel in his lecture. Cool lecture either
way :)
-
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> On a flat surface, the
> sum of the angles of a triangle always is 180 degrees.
> But on a positively curved surface, all triangles will
> have more than 180 degrees, and that sum will differ
> with the size of the triangle. (To a theoretical maximum
> of 90+90+359.999... = 539.999... degrees.)
This, btw, is called the spherical excess of the triangle.
--
hz
herbzet
Link, please.
> are you happy....now?
No.
--
hz
AdvocatusDiablo
>
>
> AdvocatusDiablo wrote:
>>
>> "herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B2FF219...@gmail.com...
>> >
>> > it's fun to whack the idiot again.
>> >
>> > And so it goes, on and on -- everybody's happy.
>>
>> at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so
>> called,
>> 'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
>
> Link, please.
Appledog wrote:
"I suppose my post came several hundred years late. The fundamental
error here was assuming the earth was flat. Which was actually taught
in schools. Any proper definition for pi, as you state yourself out of
a natural kinship with science and logic, will include the space must
be euclidean; for example "? (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical
constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its
diameter in Euclidean space;" from wikipedia. Therefore, we were bound
to discover the earth was a sphere sooner or later."
--------
this is an admission of mistake...given the benefit of doubt, since appledog
just now discovered that we live on a sphere.....
>
>> are you happy....now?
>
> No.
have a wonderful evening!
>
> --
> hz
herbzet
Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
and
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
I'm only lying if you are.
P.S. -- Suck my hairy white ass, bitch.
--
hz
herbzet
AdvocatusDiablo wrote:
>
> "herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4B300982...@gmail.com...
> >
> >
> > AdvocatusDiablo wrote:
> >>
> >> "herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4B2FF219...@gmail.com...
> >> >
>
> >> > it's fun to whack the idiot again.
> >> >
> >> > And so it goes, on and on -- everybody's happy.
> >>
> >> at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so
> >> called,
> >> 'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
> >
> > Link, please.
>
> Appledog wrote:
> "I suppose my post came several hundred years late. The fundamental
> error here was assuming the earth was flat. Which was actually taught
> in schools. Any proper definition for pi, as you state yourself out of
> a natural kinship with science and logic, will include the space must
> be euclidean; for example "? (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical
> constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its
> diameter in Euclidean space;" from wikipedia. Therefore, we were bound
> to discover the earth was a sphere sooner or later."
> --------
>
> this is an admission of mistake...given the benefit of doubt, since appledog
> just now discovered that we live on a sphere.....
No, this is an admission of idiocy ... by a CHILDBEATER.
herbzet
Oops -- "oblate".
--
hz
AdvocatusDiablo
must be important for all concerned.
Appledog
>
> > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > beating children on usenet. Once.
>
> Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
punishment."
> and
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
> I'm only lying if you are.
No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
> P.S. -- Suck my hairy white ass, bitch.
See, that's fine - You can ask me to suck your hairy white ass and
call me a bitch all you like. That isn't the problem.
-
Greendistantstar
> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
FFS, can you REALLY be this dense?
You proudly boast that your name isn't Oliver Richman, so please explain how anyone can libel a
fictional character.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
halfawake
beautiful page.
robert
= = = =
Appledog
wrote:
Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point. At any
rate I won't get into this online. There are reasons you don't run
around making claims people are child beaters (or worse).
-
zenworm
somehow paradox is symetrical
do you find this?
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
Shuurai
> > I'm only lying if you are.
>
> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
He cannot libel a fictional persona; and since you've already
established that none of the names you post under are legitimate, that
applies to you.
> > P.S. -- Suck my hairy white ass, bitch.
>
> See, that's fine - You can ask me to suck your hairy white ass and
> call me a bitch all you like. That isn't the problem.
He can also call you a liar who beats children; and there ain't
nothing you can do about it except whine.
Shuurai
> > Excellent work! You seem to have proved that 1/4 the circumference of
> > the earth is almost exactly equal to the circumference of the earth,
> > divided by 4...
>
> LOL!
>
> You can't make this shit up.
>
> Shall I cross-post Appledork's discovery to sci.math?
>
> They need to be informed of this startling development.
NO! We at the Illuminati have spent CENTURIES trying to keep the real
value of Pi hidden! We will NOT stand for it being revealed to the
masses now!
DharmaTroll
Only if the ducks are twins.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
even one (KWAK!) echos
can two dive deeper than One?
trav...@aol.com
> established that none of the names you post under are legitimate, that
> applies to you.
Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. However,
defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
because of the use of a pseudonym.
> He can also call you a liar who beats children; and there ain't
> nothing you can do about it except whine.
Is beating children wrong?
Trav
trav...@aol.com
If they are fists in your wife's snatch, in all probability, yes
Trav
Shuurai
> > He cannot libel a fictional persona; and since you've already
> > established that none of the names you post under are legitimate, that
> > applies to you.
>
> Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. However,
> defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
> because of the use of a pseudonym.
Permissible or not, he's going to have a hell of a time convincing a
court that his anonymous persona has been defamed; especially when the
defamer is also anonymous and in a different country. Good luck with
that one.
Besides, in this case the claimant is incapable of further defamation.
> > He can also call you a liar who beats children; and there ain't
> > nothing you can do about it except whine.
>
> Is beating children wrong?
Are they asking for it?
Appledog
wrote:
> > He cannot libel a fictional persona; and since you've already
> > established that none of the names you post under are legitimate, that
> > applies to you.
>
> Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. However,
> defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
> because of the use of a pseudonym.
Don't bother trav, shuurai and gds are just trolling for info hoping I
will reveal something.
Sorry guys, it won't be discussed online.
> > He can also call you a liar who beats children; and there ain't
> > nothing you can do about it except whine.
>
> Is beating children wrong?
Depends what you mean; in the sense that you can call someone a "child-
beater" it has negative connotations. If you slap their wrist that's
hardly beating but you could still use the word. Doubtless if it ever
came that far the slimey fuck would use whatever lying defense he
could get his hands on, of course, of course. But yes, it's wrong to
beat children, at least in 30 states.
Especially in schools. Following is the law of the state of Virginia,
as an example of course :)
(Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it sure sounds to me as if it is against
the law in Virginia for teachers to beat schoolchildren. Therefore
repetitively stating that I beat children is a crime in and of itself.
I'm sure you're more familiar with law than I am, being a lawyer, so
feel free to comment on this as much as you like, I won't be doing
so..)
State of Virginia:
� 22.1-279.1. Corporal punishment prohibited.
A. No teacher, principal or other person employed by a school board or
employed in a school operated by the Commonwealth shall subject a
student to corporal punishment. This prohibition of corporal
punishment shall not be deemed to prevent (i) the use of incidental,
minor or reasonable physical contact or other actions designed to
maintain order and control; (ii) the use of reasonable and necessary
force to quell a disturbance or remove a student from the scene of a
disturbance which threatens physical injury to persons or damage to
property; (iii) the use of reasonable and necessary force to prevent a
student from inflicting physical harm on himself; (iv) the use of
reasonable and necessary force for self-defense or the defense of
others; or (v) the use of reasonable and necessary force to obtain
possession of weapons or other dangerous objects or controlled
substances or paraphernalia which are upon the person of the student
or within his control.
B. In determining whether a person was acting within the exceptions
provided in this section, due deference shall be given to reasonable
judgments at the time of the event which were made by a teacher,
principal or other person employed by a school board or employed in a
school operated by the Commonwealth.
C. For the purposes of this section, "corporal punishment" means the
infliction of, or causing the infliction of, physical pain on a
student as a means of discipline.
This definition shall not include physical pain, injury or discomfort
caused by the use of incidental, minor or reasonable physical contact
or other actions designed to maintain order and control as permitted
in subdivision (i) of subsection A of this section or the use of
reasonable and necessary force as permitted by subdivisions (ii),
(iii), (iv), and (v) of subsection A of this section, or by
participation in practice or competition in an interscholastic sport,
or participation in physical education or an extracurricular activity.
(1989, c. 287; 1995, c. 681.)
-
Julian
It was only revenge.
Give the poor sod a break.
AdvocatusDiablo
"zenworm" <zens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa849148-8010-4bcc...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
somehow paradox is symetrical
do you find this?
-----------------
zenwormfood, you couldn't find a symetrical parodox if it was in your
enigmass.
zenworm
wrote:
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
there is no such thing as a "symetrical paradox"
(that is your grasping mind's objectification)
yet somehow paradox is symetrical
AdvocatusDiablo
do you find this?
effo-----------------------
zenwormfood, your right ass cheek wouldn't know that your left ass cheek
existed if it wasn't for your asshole splitting the difference.
halfawake
> "AdvocatusDiablo" <instant...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so called,
>>'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
>>
>>are you happy....now?
>
>
> So, Mr. Imus, which would you rather be--happy now, or a nappy ho?
>
> Lee Rudolph
that's not much of a reversal, Lee. It should be "Nappy How" which has
much greater philosophical ramifications.
Cherry Mistmuff!
Robert
= = = = = = =
halfawake
>
> porkypine wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:46:19 -0800 (PST), Appledog
>>The earth is not a circle, its an ellipse.
>>I took math.
>
>
> Obate spheroid. Sorta.
>
> --
> hz
bumpy rock?
halfawake
> On Dec 21, 6:01 pm, Lee Rudolph <lrudo...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>"AdvocatusDiablo" <instantkarma...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so called,
>>>'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
>>
>>>are you happy....now?
>>
>>So, Mr. Imus, which would you rather be--happy now, or a nappy ho?
>>
>>Lee Rudolph
>
>
> I'd be happy just taking a nap with a ho!
>
> --DharmaTroll
you wouldn't be napping, your wood'd be snappin'!
Robert
= = = = = = = =
halfawake
I appreciate the intention, but could have done without the description.
:)
Shuurai
> > Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. However,
> > defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
> > because of the use of a pseudonym.
>
> Don't bother trav, shuurai and gds are just trolling for info hoping I
> will reveal something.
No; I'm just pointing out that your routine about suing people for
libel is ridiculous nonsense. You go back to this bullshit every
couple of months, and it's always the same old thing.
Nobody wants you to "reveal" anything. We already know everything
there is to know about you.
> Sorry guys, it won't be discussed online.
Yeah; I don't blame you. I wouldn't want it discussed publicly
either, especially given your (claimed) profession.
hal
<shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. =A0However=
>,
>> > defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
>> > because of the use of a pseudonym.
>>
>> Don't bother trav, shuurai and gds are just trolling for info hoping I
>> will reveal something.
>
>No; I'm just pointing out that your routine about suing people for
>libel is ridiculous nonsense. You go back to this bullshit every
>couple of months, and it's always the same old thing.
>
>Nobody wants you to "reveal" anything. We already know everything
>there is to know about you.
>
>> Sorry guys, it won't be discussed online.
>
>Yeah; I don't blame you. I wouldn't want it discussed publicly
>either, especially given your (claimed) profession.
the only thing more pathetic than Ollie's cries for attention is your
obsession with humiliating him. I know you aren't capable of grasping
it, but you're far more pathetic than he is.
herbzet
Well, ok. But the cat's out of the bag already.
You can send the ninjas to the 'dorks address. I'll
forward it to you as soon as he files his lawsuit.
--
hz
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 11:54 am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > > beating children on usenet. Once.
> >
> > Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
>
> Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
> punishment."
>
> > and
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
>
> Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
>
> > I'm only lying if you are.
>
> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
Make my day, you gutless, childbeating bitch.
--
hz
Appledog
So now you're planning to publicize my address? Do you really think
all of this is wise, herb?
-
Appledog
You don't want this to go to court, herbzet. I really don't want it to
come to that either. Just stop, and I'll let this go.
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Appledog wrote:
> > > herbzet wrote:
> >
> > > > > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > > > > beating children on usenet. Once.
> >
> > > > Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
> >
> > > Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
> > > punishment."
> >
> > > > and
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
> >
> > > Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
> >
> > > > I'm only lying if you are.
> >
> > > No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> > > it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> > > even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> > > form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
> >
> > Make my day, you gutless, childbeating bitch.
>
> You don't want this to go to court, herbzet. I really don't want it to
> come to that either. Just stop, and I'll let this go.
"In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
beating children on usenet. Once."
LOL.
--
hz
Greendistantstar
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Lee Rudolph
>On Dec 24, 7:21=A0am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Appledog wrote:
...
>> > No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
>> > it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
>> > even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
>> > form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
>>
>> Make my day, you gutless, childbeating bitch.
>
>You don't want this to go to court, herbzet. I really don't want it to
>come to that either. Just stop, and I'll let this go.
Hey, this isn't just between the two of you, you know. Those of us
in the cheap seats are waiting for action!
Lee Rudolph
herbzet
Oh, did I forget to mention you can suck may ass, childbeater?
--
hz
Jerry B. Altzman
> Appledog<oliver....@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Make my day, you gutless, childbeating bitch.
>> You don't want this to go to court, herbzet. I really don't want it to
>> come to that either. Just stop, and I'll let this go.
> Hey, this isn't just between the two of you, you know. Those of us
> in the cheap seats are waiting for action!
I do believe it's time that someone quoted the R.M-A deathmatch FAQ at
this point:
http://alliancemartialarts.com/deathmatch.htm
(that's the first reference I could find; maybe there's a newer version?)
Please note that Oliver / Fu Ren Li / Appledog / Mary Poppins already
has his/her/its own line in the FAQ:
> 4b) Tune in, Turn On, Weasel Out
>
> Emin Boztepe & Royce Gracie
>
> Tim & Gi
>
> Fu/Ollie & Gi
>
> Disappear, wait for the heat to die down, hope nobody remembers it when you start posting again. An alternate version is to try and exit the mess by saying you will never, ever, ever post to Rec-MA again, at least until next week. Common.
Good reading.
> Lee Rudolph
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman jba...@altzman.com www.jbaltz.com
thank you for contributing to the heat death of the universe.
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> >
> > > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > > beating children on usenet. Once.
> >
> > Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
>
> Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
> punishment."
>
> > and
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
>
> Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
>
> > I'm only lying if you are.
>
> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
You know ... I thought you were darkly hinting that
you'd jump on a plane and come over here and kick my ass.
Now it turns out you're threatening to sic the court system on me.
"Look out, or I'll send in my suit!"
What a miserable child-beating pussy.
Just fuck off, wuss-bag.
--
hz
Appledog
That was before it became a better idea to remind you every so often
that I want you to stop slandering me online. As long as you keep
doing it and I tell you not to do it, that's my end of the bargain for
now.
-
Appledog
> Appledog wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
>
> > > > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > > > beating children on usenet. Once.
>
> > > Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
>
> > Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
> > punishment."
>
> > > and
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
>
> > Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
>
> > > I'm only lying if you are.
>
> > No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> > it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> > even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> > form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
>
> You know ... I thought you were darkly hinting that
> you'd jump on a plane and come over here and kick my ass.
Naw. With me, you will find, I don't make threats, and if I am going
to do something, I say so - unless of course I've been advised not to,
say by a lawyer. At any rate you can rest assured I won't be jumping
on a plane and going over there to kick your ass any time soon.
After all, I know Tai Chi. And we move very slowly.
> Now it turns out you're threatening to sic the court system on me.
> "Look out, or I'll send in my suit!"
>
> What a miserable child-beating pussy.
>
> Just fuck off, wuss-bag.
Although it isn't illegal to tell me to fuck off and call me a
miserable, gutless wuss-bag, it is probably not a good idea for you to
run around accusing people of committing crimes.
The key point here is when it can be reasonably assumed that you are
fully aware of what you are doing, that it is intentional, and so
forth. Hopefully never, because you won't mention it again.
-
herbzet
I see. So instead of following through on your "just once" promise,
you've decided to be a legal weasel to bolster your non-existent case.
Well, ok, I won't lie about you. I won't even tell the truth about you.
I'll just let you speak for yourself:
"Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect for me and
I quickly lose control of the class. I have a great command of body
language and voice and an eagle's focus; I will often be able to
control a student via those methods spectacularly; but in some cases I
am forced to discipline them by hand. Regardless of this, the students
have come to understand several levels of punishment and have so far
learned what I require in order that they not be hit."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
Happy happy? :)
--
hz
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Appledog wrote:
> > > herbzet wrote:
> >
> > > > > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > > > > beating children on usenet. Once.
> >
> > > > Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
> >
> > > Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
> > > punishment."
> >
> > > > and
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
> >
> > > Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
> >
> > > > I'm only lying if you are.
> >
> > > No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> > > it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> > > even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> > > form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
> >
> > You know ... I thought you were darkly hinting that
> > you'd jump on a plane and come over here and kick my ass.
>
> Naw. With me, you will find, I don't make threats, and if I am going
> to do something, I say so
Gee, I thought a threat *consisted* of saying that you were
going to do something.
So -- you don't make threats. Unless you do. Got it.
The usual yes-but-no.
> - unless of course I've been advised not to,
> say by a lawyer. At any rate you can rest assured I won't be jumping
> on a plane and going over there to kick your ass any time soon.
>
> After all, I know Tai Chi. And we move very slowly.
Sounds like another veiled threat to me.
> > Now it turns out you're threatening to sic the court system on me.
> > "Look out, or I'll send in my suit!"
> >
> > What a miserable child-beating pussy.
> >
> > Just fuck off, wuss-bag.
>
> Although it isn't illegal to tell me to fuck off and call me a
> miserable, gutless wuss-bag, it is probably not a good idea for you to
> run around accusing people of committing crimes.
Oh? Is it a crime in your jurisdiction to beat your students?
Is this something like me accusing an Arab sheik with several wives
of being a polygamist? That's a slander, according to you?
Lol -- who's giving you legal advice?
> The key point here is when it can be reasonably assumed that you are
> fully aware of what you are doing, that it is intentional, and so
> forth. Hopefully never, because you won't mention it again.
I don't need to -- I can just allude to the subtle wisdom of
Oliver Richman, master of the classroom:
"Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect
for me and I quickly lose control of the class."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
--
hz
herbzet
Thanks -- the Gichoke/Renli match threads are hilarious reading!
--
hz
Appledog
>
> > Naw. With me, you will find, I don't make threats, and if I am going
> > to do something, I say so
>
> Gee, I thought a threat *consisted* of saying that you were
> going to do something.
>
> So -- you don't make threats. Unless you do. Got it.
>
> The usual yes-but-no.
No, you're just being your usual idiotic self again. I don't make
threats, and if I am going to do something I say it (which means, it
wouldn't be a threat). You have nothing to worry about from me.
> > - unless of course I've been advised not to,
> > say by a lawyer. At any rate you can rest assured I won't be jumping
> > on a plane and going over there to kick your ass any time soon.
>
> > After all, I know Tai Chi. And we move very slowly.
>
> Sounds like another veiled threat to me.
That's because you don't get it.
Suggesting that I would jump on a plane and go kick your ass has got
to be one of the dumbest things you could have ever said. As everyone
on R.M-A knows, I practice Tai Chi.
> > > What a miserable child-beating pussy.
>
> > > Just fuck off, wuss-bag.
>
> > Although it isn't illegal to tell me to fuck off and call me a
> > miserable, gutless wuss-bag, it is probably not a good idea for you to
> > run around accusing people of committing crimes.
>
> Oh? Is it a crime in your jurisdiction to beat your students?
I don't know - it's frowned upon, and you will get fired for doing it,
but many turn a blind eye to it. But I don't know if it's illegal.
It is however a crime in many US states.
> Is this something like me accusing an Arab sheik with several wives
> of being a polygamist? That's a slander, according to you?
No, because he has several wives. In that case, accusing him of a
crime isn't slander or libel.
However, if you were lying, it would be a crime on your part.
> > The key point here is when it can be reasonably assumed that you are
> > fully aware of what you are doing, that it is intentional, and so
> > forth. Hopefully never, because you won't mention it again.
>
> I don't need to -- I can just allude to the subtle wisdom of
> Oliver Richman, master of the classroom:
>
> "Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect
> for me and I quickly lose control of the class."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
So you took an if, and assumed it meant a 100% certanity? Looks like
Herbert Zetlin, master of stupidity, is dumber than he looks.
I think, the more you post your idiotic quotes, the more I will refute
them, and you will gain the reputation of being a stupid asshole. You
are so eager to prove I am a child beater, you can't see that the
"evidence" actually shows I am not a child beater at all. You did read
that post, didn't you? The one you linked to?
Did you miss these quotes?
"Today before my English Class, the students were to be punished."
The first line of the post, which indicates the punishment occurred
before my class.
"I watched the punishment."
Indicating I did not perform the punishment.
"It was so heartbreaking that I went to buy several frozen bottles of
water, ... Due to the number of other students begging me for the
bottles, which were only about 20 cents each, I only let the girls who
were crying hold the bottles."
Indicating that I not only was sad at what happened but I took action
and helped the students.
"Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
punishment."
Further indicating it was not myself who beat them.
I will even include your quote:
"if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect for me and I
quickly lose control of the class."
This means just what it says; if I don't hit them, the kids don't
respect me as much as they do their Asian teachers who do hit them,
because they know I won't punish them. Do you not understand what is
being said?
"This is hitting without hitting, like cutting the cat into one."
Further showing that I don't actually hit students at all.
Now now, herbzet. You have not yet answered the question. Go ahead,
you gutless poser:
"Do you really know what it means to teach? At the very least, did you
get permission from your teacher to instruct others? I'm just
curious."
-
Appledog
>
> > That was before it became a better idea to remind you every so often
> > that I want you to stop slandering me online. As long as you keep
> > doing it and I tell you not to do it, that's my end of the bargain for
> > now.
>
> I see. So instead of following through on your "just once" promise,
> you've decided to be a legal weasel to bolster your non-existent case.
No you're still wrong. Decided isn't the right verb here, 'advised'
would be a better choice.
> Well, ok, I won't lie about you. I won't even tell the truth about you.
Yeah that's the problem, you don't tell the truth.
> I'll just let you speak for yourself:
>
> "Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect for me and
> I quickly lose control of the class. I have a great command of body
> language and voice and an eagle's focus; I will often be able to
> control a student via those methods spectacularly; but in some cases I
> am forced to discipline them by hand. Regardless of this, the students
> have come to understand several levels of punishment and have so far
> learned what I require in order that they not be hit."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
>
> Happy happy? :)
I think, the more you post your idiotic quotes, the more I will refute
them, and you will gain the reputation of being a stupid asshole. You
are so eager to prove I am a child beater, you can't see that the
"evidence" actually shows I am not a child beater at all. You did read
that post, didn't you? The one you linked to?
Did you miss these quotes?
"Today before my English Class, the students were to be punished."
The first line of the post, which indicates the punishment occurred
before my class.
"I watched the punishment."
Indicating I did not perform the punishment.
"It was so heartbreaking that I went to buy several frozen bottles of
water, ... Due to the number of other students begging me for the
bottles, which were only about 20 cents each, I only let the girls who
were crying hold the bottles." Indicating that I not only was sad at
what happened but I took action and helped the students.
"Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
punishment."
Further indicating it was not myself who beat them.
I will even include your quote:
"if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect for me and I
quickly lose control of the class."
This means just what it says; if I don't hit them, the kids don't
respect me as much as they do their Asian teachers who do hit them,
because they know I won't punish them. Do you not understand what is
being said?
"This is hitting without hitting, like cutting the cat into one."
Further showing that I don't actually hit students at all.
Now now, herbzet. You have not yet answered the question. Go ahead,
you gutless poser:
"Do you really know what it means to teach? At the very least, did you
get permission from your teacher to instruct others? I'm just
curious."
I mean seriously - what kind of a sick, fucked up asshole would try
and twist a post telling how I spent my own paycheque on medical
supplies for children to help ease their bruising, into a post where I
somehow admitted I beat children? You're what they call a fraud,
herbzet. You're intentionally lying in order to cause someone damages.
In this case, keep in mind, malicious libel that is.. damages are
assumed.
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > I'll just let you speak for yourself:
> >
> > "Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect for me and
> > I quickly lose control of the class. I have a great command of body
> > language and voice and an eagle's focus; I will often be able to
> > control a student via those methods spectacularly; but in some cases I
> > am forced to discipline them by hand. Regardless of this, the students
> > have come to understand several levels of punishment and have so far
> > learned what I require in order that they not be hit."
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
> > news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
> >
> > Happy happy? :)
>
> I think,
[snip drivel]
> You're intentionally lying in order to cause someone damages.
I'm directly quoting you, and providing context. Good luck
with establishing your contention in court.
> In this case, keep in mind, malicious libel that is.. damages are
> assumed.
It appears, then, that you have damaged yourself.
absfg removed from posting list, as they have no interest in
this crap.
Topic title restored.
Links unmangled.
--
hz
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
So -- you don't know whether beating your students is a crime in
your jurisdiction, yet you say of me, in writing, on the internet,
that I have accused you of committing a crime.
Interesting.
> It is however a crime in many US states.
>
> > Is this something like me accusing an Arab sheik with several wives
> > of being a polygamist? That's a slander, according to you?
>
> No, because he has several wives. In that case, accusing him of a
> crime isn't slander or libel.
>
> However, if you were lying, it would be a crime on your part.
>
> > > The key point here is when it can be reasonably assumed that you are
> > > fully aware of what you are doing, that it is intentional, and so
> > > forth. Hopefully never, because you won't mention it again.
> >
> > I don't need to -- I can just allude to the subtle wisdom of
> > Oliver Richman, master of the classroom:
> >
> > "Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect
> > for me and I quickly lose control of the class."
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
> > news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
[snip tedious attempts at perception management]
> Now now, herbzet. You have not yet answered the question. Go ahead,
> you gutless poser:
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to. What am I
supposed to be posing as?
> "Do you really know what it means to teach? At the very least, did you
> get permission from your teacher to instruct others? I'm just
> curious."
Good questions. Do you have any standing to pose them?
Have you received transmission? Who has given you permission
to instruct concerning zen buddhism?
--
hz
AdvocatusDiablo
"herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4B342DA3...@gmail.com...
a good teacher doesn't have to beat his pupils.
Greendistantstar
>> "Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect
>> for me and I quickly lose control of the class."
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
> So you took an if, and assumed it meant a 100% certanity? Looks like
> Herbert Zetlin, master of stupidity, is dumber than he looks.
Logically, only two alternatives are available; either your students have lost all respect for you
and you lose control of classes, or you beat them.
Which is it?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
herbzet
Oh, don't even bother.
Prima facie absurd.
--
hz
Appledog
> Appledog wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
> > > I'll just let you speak for yourself:
>
> > > "Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect for me and
> > > I quickly lose control of the class. I have a great command of body
> > > language and voice and an eagle's focus; I will often be able to
> > > control a student via those methods spectacularly; but in some cases I
> > > am forced to discipline them by hand. Regardless of this, the students
> > > have come to understand several levels of punishment and have so far
> > > learned what I require in order that they not be hit."
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
> > >news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
>
> > > Happy happy? :)
>
> > I think,
>
> [snip drivel]
>
> > You're intentionally lying in order to cause someone damages.
>
> I'm directly quoting you, and providing context. Good luck
> with establishing your contention in court.
I don't need to establish anything. All quotes are always provided out
of context so quoting assumes familiarity with context. Therefore you
are a liar.
> > In this case, keep in mind, malicious libel that is.. damages are
> > assumed.
>
> It appears, then, that you have damaged yourself.
Well, in the sense that you appear mentally retarded, I suppose you
wouldn't get prosecuted for malicious libel *per se*.
> absfg removed from posting list, as they have no interest in
> this crap.
Neither do I.
> Topic title restored.
You mean from when you changed it? Fixed.
> --
> hz
-
Appledog
>
I find it deliciously ironic how you said what you said above, then
failed to reply to the part where I said that it is a crime in many US
states. Are you aware that you appear mentally challenged?
> Interesting.
Not as much as it was yesterday. Now that you've come out and said 'I
am not interested in telling the truth about you,', and now that you
appear to be mentally retarded, you're right - suing you got a lot
harder. But again, suing you was never the prime goal of this little
conversation we are having - the goal is to get you to stop.
> > > Is this something like me accusing an Arab sheik with several wives
> > > of being a polygamist? That's a slander, according to you?
>
> > No, because he has several wives. In that case, accusing him of a
> > crime isn't slander or libel.
>
> > However, if you were lying, it would be a crime on your part.
I also notice how you failed to respond to this. Silence implies
consent, I suppose.
> > Now now, herbzet. You have not yet answered the question. Go ahead,
> > you gutless poser:
>
> I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to. What am I
> supposed to be posing as?
For example? Someone who has an interest in, hmm, say - buddhism or
zen?
> > "Do you really know what it means to teach? At the very least, did you
> > get permission from your teacher to instruct others? I'm just
> > curious."
>
> Good questions. Do you have any standing to pose them?
Yup.
> Have you received transmission? Who has given you permission
> to instruct concerning zen buddhism?
What kind of a sick fuck twists someone's message decrying beating in
the public school system and how they bought ice to help heal
children's bruises into an admission of child beating? You sir are a
liar and a fraud.
-
Appledog
wrote:
> Appledog wrote:
> >> "Now, if I do not beat these students, they lose all respect
> >> for me and I quickly lose control of the class."
>
> > So you took an if, and assumed it meant a 100% certanity? Looks like
> > Herbert Zetlin, master of stupidity, is dumber than he looks.
>
> Logically, only two alternatives are available; either your students have lost all respect for you
> and you lose control of classes, or you beat them.
>
> Which is it?
People change. Well, most people.
Keep in mind foreign teachers aren't allowed to beat students, or they
get fired. I've been working here for four years. It isn't much of a
leap.
-
Nobody in Particular
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3news:0bf3739f-66a8-4f5b-
b5c9-14c...@1g2000prd.googlegroups.com
This is not an accusation, but a request for clarification. The next
sentence which immediately follows the one quoted above is:
"I have a great command of body language and voice and an eagle's
focus; I will often be able to control a student via those methods
spectacularly; but in some cases I am forced to discipline them by
hand."
What did you mean by "discipline them by hand"?