>If such people would be, they would have to admit >that if you let ME choose one half dozen of MY best articles >in this group and let anyone who wanted to compete choose a >half-dozen of THEIR best--when an indepenedent panel had >read and rated the half-dozen articles of each nanam partic- >pant by traditional writing standards, I wouldn't come off >badly at all.
>>If such people would be, they would have to admit >>that if you let ME choose one half dozen of MY best articles >>in this group and let anyone who wanted to compete choose a >>half-dozen of THEIR best--when an indepenedent panel had >>read and rated the half-dozen articles of each nanam partic- >>pant by traditional writing standards, I wouldn't come off >>badly at all.
Plenty. I mentioned three articles in the post you are responding to.
Oh, and like your Web stuff has anything to do with the fact that you arrogantly knock the writings of serious USENET posters, when your own USENET articles are some- thing less than awesome, to be as generous as possible.
And like your Website could possibly justify in any way the sad reality that all you can do is cry "Kook" when someone tries to challenge "your" newsgroup with new ideas.
Anytime I meet someone like you who has to drag in his Website to prop up what he does or doesn't say in USENET I know I'm dealing with a very lowly specimen.
Basically, as far as the intellectual lion's share of USENET goes, you are what you post, my devious little Net bully.
And that reminds me, I've heard something about your supposedly being eighteen. Let me to tell you to your sleazy, lying little face--I could possibly give a shit if you are eighteen or eighty-eight: You are still a slimy little twit who crossed over the line and decided that it was better to be a repulsive Net tyrant than an honest facilitator--and nothing on your Web page (which I would NEVER consider wasting ten seconds with) would change that dismal fact one iota.
>>>If such people would be, they would have to admit >>>that if you let ME choose one half dozen of MY best articles >>>in this group and let anyone who wanted to compete choose a >>>half-dozen of THEIR best--when an indepenedent panel had >>>read and rated the half-dozen articles of each nanam partic- >>>pant by traditional writing standards, I wouldn't come off >>>badly at all.
>> What have you got, Bill? >Plenty. I mentioned three articles in the post you >are responding to.
I was never able to figure out the point of any of them, as is the case with most people I've heard from. They obviously weren't that great. But, if that's what you want to be judged on...
>Oh, and like your Web stuff has anything to do with the >fact that you arrogantly knock the writings of serious >USENET posters, when your own USENET articles are some- >thing less than awesome, to be as generous as possible.
Your postings suck, Bill. But on that web page are a few archives of some of _my_ better posts -- not the best ones, not by any means, but those ones are pretty good.
If you want a competition...well, find yourself some impartial judges, get your half-dozen (or seven; that's how many are currently on that page, though the ahbou one isn't that great IMO) posts ready, and we'll see who's better.
And you don't even have to see the actual web page stuff if you don't want to.
On 1 Mar 1996 22:07:04 GMT, wilh...@ix.netcom.com (Bill Palmer ) wrote:
-In <DnK0L5....@world.std.com> dd...@world.std.com (Daniel P Dern) -writes: -> ->Bill, IMNSHO, if folks like Tim Skirvin, Dave Ratcliff, ->Russ Alberry and so on "do a Spaf" (cease to participate ->significantly in Usenet), what you will see is a rapid, ->continuous rise in the level of garbage and noise. - -I disagree. Others could control the "garbage and noise" -without resorting to bullying those whose ideas they find -upsetting. Skirvin and Ratcliffe have crossed over the -line between sincere facilitators of dialogue, to petty -Net tyrants.
Oh goddy. I always wanted to be a Net Tyrant. Do I get a scepter to carry and a long flowing cape? I think Tim is more interested in the Zapper 4000 Cattle Prod and a black leather jacket.
->Seriously, if there was thought.control of the sort you claim, ->would you have been allowed to make that claim? - -Attempted thought control is certainly an issue. I have been -subjected to some incredibly vicious attacks for speaking my -mind in "The Crosspost Commissar", "Judge Ratcliffe on Malicious -Reposting" and "Instant Public Domain?" and other articles.
Sonny, if you call my comments "vicious attacks" then you have led an incredibly sheltered life. As it is it looks like whatever life you've led up to this point has produced an extremely self-absorbed, verbose, horribly distorted imitation of Cliff Klavin (sp?) with a paranoia complex bordering on the obscene.
But hey, look on the bright side. Where else can you go from here but up?
-- Dave Ratcliffe d...@frackit.com Cabal #Za35CFK Level 2 There IS no Cabal [tm] Email to this account may be posted to the net
> >>If such people would be, they would have to admit > >>that if you let ME choose one half dozen of MY best articles > >>in this group and let anyone who wanted to compete choose a > >>half-dozen of THEIR best--when an indepenedent panel had > >>read and rated the half-dozen articles of each nanam partic- > >>pant by traditional writing standards, I wouldn't come off > >>badly at all.
> Plenty. I mentioned three articles in the post you > are responding to.
> Oh, and like your Web stuff has anything to do with the > fact that you arrogantly knock the writings of serious > USENET posters, when your own USENET articles are some- > thing less than awesome, to be as generous as possible.
Bill?
> And like your Website could possibly justify in any way > the sad reality that all you can do is cry "Kook" when > someone tries to challenge "your" newsgroup with new > ideas.
> Anytime I meet someone like you who has to drag in his > Website to prop up what he does or doesn't say in USENET > I know I'm dealing with a very lowly specimen.
Uh, Bill...
> Basically, as far as the intellectual lion's share of > USENET goes, you are what you post, my devious little > Net bully.
> And that reminds me, I've heard something about your > supposedly being eighteen. Let me to tell you to your > sleazy, lying little face--I could possibly give a shit > if you are eighteen or eighty-eight: You are still a > slimy little twit who crossed over the line and decided > that it was better to be a repulsive Net tyrant than > an honest facilitator--and nothing on your Web page (which > I would NEVER consider wasting ten seconds with) would > change that dismal fact one iota.
Oh, I see now. You never even bothered to look at his web page?
If you had, you would have noted that he has archived what he considers to be his best posts there. You have been asking and asking for someone to put up their best posts to compete with yours; Skirvin just did; he told you where you could find them. Where are yours?
Sorry to see that you've wasted a perfectly good flame. -- "You know when I get in the mashed potatoes with my doorknob, all she do is cry and cry cause the little volleyball don't have no liver or lungs..." Geek Code 3.1: GCM/L d-(++)pu s: a- C++++$ U? P+? L !E---- W+>$ N+++>++++$ !o K-? !w--- !O- M++>$ !V PS+@ !PE Y+@ !PGP- t@ !5->$ X+ !R tv+>$ b++++>$ DI++(++++) D++(+++)>$ G? e(+)? h--->$ r+++ y+++* msh+++++
On Sun, 3 Mar 1996 23:41:20 GMT, kjf...@midway.uchicago.edu (Kenneth Fair) wrote: -In article <4h9p3h$...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tskir...@uiuc.edu wrote: - -> Check. Your move, Bill. - -Unfortunately, Bill is playing checkers.
I thought it was more like Bill is playing poker, but without the benefit of a full deck.... so to speak.
-- Dave Ratcliffe d...@frackit.com Harrisburg, Pa. Email to this account may be posted to the net
|
