Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG > | What counts as abusive?
> Repetitive hostile "questions" like yours which continue to have > absolutely _nothing_ to do with this forum, but only with your need to > harrass me, along with the other whining morons here. Quit it, OK?
Yeah, you are the injured party. Poor Erik, getting all this harassment. It's so unfair, since you are the very soul of propriety, kindness, and decorum.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG > | I assumed you were able to use basic information tools to locate the > | information you need. I'll give you a head start. You want the > | Department of Philosophy at UC Irvine.
> I want you to provide the name and address of the people you want to > implicate. If you are too much of a coward to name them, you are only > doing more of your immensely stupid and abusive tactics.
Implicate them? No, I want to implicate *you* in libel, that's all.
> Why are you so retarded that you challenge the neighborhood bully all the > time when you are the only party that suffers?
I'm not suffering--like I told you before, I'm enjoying it. Which is the thing that *really* got you pissed.
> What I will do is inform your superiors of your need to use them as a > shield and guarantors of your ability to think. I just need their names > and addresses, because you have started this challenge. Asking me to > figure out which people _you_ want to implicate is simply idiotic.
Huh? Of course I didn't say that...I said that if you want to blather about my inability to think and my defective moral character, you should do it in print, where you can be held fiscally liable for your slanders.
> You remain a brainless idiot, Thomas Bushnell. Have you _no_ friends who > can tell you how stupid you are behaving? Or worse, do you have some > "friends" who enjoy that you make a spectacle of yourself?
Actually, one person sent me email and said you didn't really mean what you say when you call people idiots, morons and the like. He also said you were always right--*always*--on this newsgroup.
Other than that one fan of yours, several people have sent me email saying they appreciated what I said.
Not that this proves anything, but I do wonder (and lament for) the pleasant Erik Naggum that used to be around. Maybe he'll come back, though a look through groups.google.com for your name shows that he has been gone for a long time.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Yeah, you are the injured party.
Yes, in fact. Just because you feel injured, too, does not give you the "right" to go after and hurt others on purpose, and that is precisely what you do.
If _you_ were injured, you would seek a way to cause less injury, not cause more of it. Thus, you are not injured, but you are hateful and vengeful. I have tried to make you stop, but you keep going with more and more evil. People observe this and draw their solid conclusions. But I am actually happy to see you self-destruct. I just wish it would happen a _lot_ fastesr.
| Poor Erik, getting all this harassment. It's so unfair, since you are | the very soul of propriety, kindness, and decorum.
Was that the University of California at Irvine _Kindergarten_ graduate program?
It is getting pretty obvious that you are _thoroughly_ evil, Thomas Bushnell, and that you defend your evil by attacking someone that you think is "bad" and therefore not "deserving" of good behavior. What if you were wrong? What if _you_ are the bad guy and _you_ get what you deserve? People like you never ask that question, because you think all you need is good intention. But where does the road lead that is paved with good intentions? They are waiting for you.
Why are you nutjobs so unable to behave such that people might _want_ to treat you better or even nicely? What happend to the other cheeK? What is your ethics worth if you use it to hurt people you hate? Is this the whole Middle East in some kind of miniature?
Cease and desist, Thomas Bushnell. Fight your deamons privately.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Implicate them? No, I want to implicate *you* in libel, that's all.
Well, that seems to imply that it is _not_ libel to call you an evil and non-thinking idiot here because I have grounds for that, including your own effort to prove that you are clinically insane. "Libel" is not dependent on medium, however, you illteraite moron. so if you had a case, you would already have made it. You do not have a case, and you know it, so you are grasping for straws, but you are just too goddamn stupid to figure out that _you_ have figured out.
I appreciate your admission of guilt by publishing the need to trasnport this to an "innocent" forum in order to become the "victim" you are not, but think you are. Instead you prove that I am in my _right_ to label you a moron. You are just so ridiculously _childish_.
| I'm not suffering--like I told you before, I'm enjoying it.
So you _enjoy_ taunting and hurting people? Just how quickly do you want to go to Hell? Do you not hear the Pearly Gates clam shut when you post?
People who _enjoy_ hurting others on purpose are sociopaths. I merely enjoy that you progress ever faster towards self-destruction -- and I do not have do anything at all. _You_ are doing all the attacking, now. That is something I take some pride in, actually. You are self-propelled in your evil, just like every other evil bastard who has visited us. Such destructiveness is seriously pathological.
| Which is the thing that *really* got you pissed.
You wish. No, I kind of regard your hypocrisy with curiosity. I wonder what Thomas Busnhell imploding in his own evil will sound like. I would _really_ like to be there when you have a flash of insight into your own personality.
| Huh? Of course I didn't say that...I said that if you want to blather | about my inability to think and my defective moral character, you should | do it in print, where you can be held fiscally liable for your slanders.
I marvel at the magnitude your insanity. You obviously do not regard this forum as sufficiently important to take seriously, which is _why_ you keep attacking me, too. Your lack of ability to accept responsiblity for your own actions has produced all this evil. When you eventually grasp that you _were_ responsible for all you have done, it should be quite a spectacle.
However, if you would please take this forum seriously and stop using it to vent your hatred for people who have figured you out, that would really be highly appreciated. Not that you can do this, of course. You have gone too far on the evil path to turn back without a _momentous_ backlash at your own personality. This is what I appreciate about seeing morons self-destruct.
| Actually, one person sent me email and said you didn't really mean what | you say when you call people idiots, morons and the like.
I speak about their behavior. Some people figure out that they are able to change their behavior and thus change the outcome of the criticism. You are not smart enough to figure out. Or just too evil to figure out that criticism is directed at specific actions, so _you_ believe it is personal and react in what _you_ think is "in kind", but you really are responsible for your own evil. There is nobody to blame, and some day you will understand this. Please note: I do not forgive people like you, I do not accept apologies from your kind. You _are_ bad to the core, Thomas Bushnell, and you keep proving it,
| He also said you were always right--*always*--on this newsgroup.
That you something is merely a counter-indication.
| Other than that one fan of yours, several people have sent me email | saying they appreciated what I said.
Of course they do! People like you always work in gangs. But if you think you can be forgiven for what you have done, please think again.
| Not that this proves anything, but I do wonder (and lament for) the | pleasant Erik Naggum that used to be around.
WHy do you then keep your hostilities going? Just behave well, and I have no need to respond to _your_ attacks. But this just tells me that you are out of control -- your evil has taken control over you. _You_ would be seriously hurt if you were nice to me, which is why you have to keep this going. All those _cheering_ friends of yours would turn on you if you did not continue attacking me. In fact, the more you continue, the harder it is for you to stop. It is the opposite with me. I have no reason to attack you _apart from_ your actions. No actions, no response. You, onthe other hand, are on a mission from God to hurt me. That is the crucial difference between us. My signature _should_ have told you something. Yet it does not. You must be _phenomenally_ stupid.
| Maybe he'll come back, though a look through groups.google.com for your | name shows that he has been gone for a long time.
You google to find out about me? How long do you think it will take any other person to find _your_ articles? Who _cares_ what you can come up with in the "he made me do it" category of excuses when they read what you have written? I actually look forward to the day when you get hurt by what you have done, and figure that you wearing a fucking _halo_ does not make you less evil.
But don't you have some repenting to do? Someone told me that you were a monk or apprentice or something in some Christian religious order, and that this "BCG" thing is a mark of your moral elevation in your order or whatever. Perhaps those who think you are a good person need to have _their_ views revised before the advisors at the kindergarten graduate program? Do the people you "help" in that food bank know that you _enjoy_ hurting people? Do you hide your hoof and the pointy tail?
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
In article <87sn6en05s....@becket.becket.net>, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes:
>> Why are you so retarded that you challenge the neighborhood bully all the >> time when you are the only party that suffers?
> I'm not suffering--like I told you before, I'm enjoying it. Which is > the thing that *really* got you pissed.
No; it only proves that you are nothing but an ordinary troll.
>> What I will do is inform your superiors of your need to use them as a >> shield and guarantors of your ability to think. I just need their names >> and addresses, because you have started this challenge. Asking me to >> figure out which people _you_ want to implicate is simply idiotic.
> Huh? Of course I didn't say that...I said that if you want to blather > about my inability to think and my defective moral character, you > should do it in print, where you can be held fiscally liable for your > slanders.
Don't know about the US, but in Germany you certainly won't win a trial against someone who called you an idiot or anything else on Usenet. I would be very surprised if that were different in the US.
>> You remain a brainless idiot, Thomas Bushnell. Have you _no_ friends who >> can tell you how stupid you are behaving? Or worse, do you have some >> "friends" who enjoy that you make a spectacle of yourself?
> Actually, one person sent me email and said you didn't really mean > what you say when you call people idiots, morons and the like. He > also said you were always right--*always*--on this newsgroup.
If you are referring to me as that ``one person'', then thanks for reminding me that I should keep copies of mails I send to the likes of you. All I am wondering about is if you really didn't understand what I wrote or just chose to misunderstand it on purpose. I also note that you forgot to mention that it was you who contacted me by Email, not the other way around. From what I've heard, you generally like writing harrassing Emails to everybody you disagree with, too.
Ironically, all this is more confirmation for what I was telling you: If I, myself, had been smart enough to listen to people with more experience than myself, I would have known that trying to explain something to you and expecting you to learn anything from it is a total waste of time. I will remember that in the future.
Regards, -- Nils Goesche "Don't ask for whom the <CTRL-G> tolls."
In article <3226726438704...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote:
> People observe this and draw their solid conclusions.
Yup. But I'm not entirely sure the conclusions they (at least me) draw correspond to your expectations.
Before continuing, let me say that I've really enjoued (and hopefully learned from) the ongoing technical discussions that have lately been in this group. Both you and Tom have contributed things that have given me lots to think about, as I have a lot to learn. I appreciate it and thank you both.
In article <3226726438704...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote:
>* Thomas Bushnell, BSG >| Yeah, you are the injured party.
> Yes, in fact. Just because you feel injured, too, does not give you the > "right" to go after and hurt others on purpose, and that is precisely > what you do.
The thing that's so ironic about this is that this is _exactly_ what it looks like you have a long history of doing yourself. Hell, it goes back 11 years, to this post from 1991:
>You little fuckhead. If all you can argue against are where people >are posting from, you're even more of a sniveling little ratface than >I imagined. Get a clue, moron.
If that's not trying to go after and hurt somebody on purpose, what is? How do you logically justify not following your own advice?
> If _you_ were injured, you would seek a way to cause less injury, not > cause more of it. Thus, you are not injured, but you are hateful and > vengeful.
Indeed. I wholly agree with this. Once again, do you really?
Going back to something you apparantly mailed someone in 2000:
How is that not hateful and vengeful? I understand you were 'provoked' in that incident by a private mail, but isn't that your central thesis: that "if you were injured, you would seek a way to cause less injury"?
> It is getting pretty obvious that you are _thoroughly_ evil, Thomas > Bushnell, and that you defend your evil by attacking someone that you > think is "bad" and therefore not "deserving" of good behavior. What if > you were wrong? What if _you_ are the bad guy and _you_ get what you > deserve? People like you never ask that question, because you think all > you need is good intention.
Please, read this yourself.
> What happend to the other cheeK?
Again, why does that not apply to you? You seem to have (I don't know for sure) this expectation that you can verbally pound somebody into turning the other cheek. If this is truly your intent, here's some advice: calling people morons, fuckfaces, psychotics, evildoers, and idiots, does _not_ do what you intend. You've spoken some of the fact that people seem to be out to get you. Speaking as the third party you referred to in your post, you seem to be out to get _them_. Even worse, you're hiding behind philosophies (Turn the other cheek) you don't seem to be willing to apply to yourself.
It's really sad that it comes to this, particularly in this group, as it's bad publicity for a programming language that really deserves all the good breaks it can get.
Again, thanks for the positive posts you both make. Like I said, I've learned a lot. After your off topic statement about the perception of 3rd parties, I figured I'd go even more off topic and post my 3rd party perception. I apologize to the newsgroup, in general, for the off topic post.
* msch...@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) | Again, why does that not apply to you?
I do not pretend to be concerned with "good behavior".
| You seem to have (I don't know for sure) this expectation that you can | verbally pound somebody into turning the other cheek.
Only those who attack me because they want me to behave better. I thus demonstrate that what they try does not work on them, either.
| Speaking as the third party you referred to in your post, you seem to be | out to get _them_.
I criticize _and correct_ people's mistakes. Some nutjobs go ballistic and turn everything into a personal vendetta at this point. If you are the kind who cannot read criticism of your actions without taking it personally, you will not see any difference. If you are the kind who cannot understand things in context, no amount of clarification will ever change your mind about what you think you see. But go back through this thread and see when Thomas Bushnell decides to attack me.
Nice of you to speak for all third parties, though.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Nils Goesche <car...@cartan.de> writes: > Don't know about the US, but in Germany you certainly won't win a > trial against someone who called you an idiot or anything else on > Usenet. I would be very surprised if that were different in the > US.
Erik just said the opposite. He said that Usenet is covered by the libel statutes. Well, I think Erik is wrong here, at least, I know some things that *are* covered under libelous defamation, and so does Erik, so he blusters and avoids actually doing anything that might actually force him to defend his lies and defamations.
Nils Goesche <car...@cartan.de> writes: > Don't know about the US, but in Germany you certainly won't win a > trial against someone who called you an idiot or anything else on > Usenet. I would be very surprised if that were different in the > US.
Right. It's not Usenet per se, it's calling someone an idiot. Unless I'm passing myself off as a psychologist, and I'm claiming to have diagnosed someone as severely mentally retarded, you don't have a case; even then, it would be hard to win. All of this happening on Usenet, as opposed to in a journal, just makes it even harder to show that the "libelous" party thought that people would believe his opinions as fact, not opinion. Glad I'm not in Britain / love me some 1st Amendment.
[ Mmmm, I'm drinking Freedom of Speech coffee right now. Seriously. What, you think I'm kidding? Look at my e-mail address! ]
-- /|_ .-----------------------. ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war | ,--' _,' | Wage class war! | / / `-----------------------' ( -. | | ) | (`-. '--.) `. )----'
In article <3226757305589...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote:
>* msch...@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) >| Speaking as the third party you referred to in your post, you seem to be >| out to get _them_.
> Nice of you to speak for all third parties, though.
I agree my intention was unclear in the text you quoted. Later on in the message, I say the following. The emphasis (underscores) is new to this quote, but even in the original post, the wording (my specific usage of the singular 'my' and plural 'parties') was meant to indicate that I wasn't intending to speak for anyone other than myself.
>>After your off topic statement about the perception of 3rd >>parties, I figured I'd go even more off topic and post _my_ 3rd party >>perception. > I criticize _and correct_ people's mistakes.
Fair enough. Most of the technical corrections you (and others) make, particularly in the recent Unicode discussions, are among the more educational posts in the forum, for me, at least.
Other than that, it's the posts that aggressively criticize the people behind the posts that got me to make my first post in this thread. I know that Usenet isn't supposed to be some kind of newbie-friendly love-fest, but posts calling people morons and psychotic? My personal gut instinct, if you decide to respond to me in that manner, would be to respond in kind, "turn the other cheek" be damned. It's pretty easy to see how that could spiral into something pretty terrible, even if the underlying intention is to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of that form of discussion.
Personal issues aside, the image it presents for Lisp is pretty horrible, when presented in a public forum. As a Lisp newbie, seeing posts damning people as moronic, psychotic idiots isn't exactly an attraction to the forum or the language. It obviously isn't stopping me posting, since I like the language, but it would certainly make me think twice about suggesting this group as reading material to a tentative manager (or any individual, for that matter) wanting to know more about the language.
> But go back through this > thread and see when Thomas Bushnell decides to attack me.
You guys were antagonistic to each other before that, in other threads.
I don't really think I'm contributing enough to justify more posts along these lines either. :-( In the process of rereading some of this thread and others, I re-read a few messages from Kent Pitman, including this one from which I quote:
> This is not a forum in which one can coerce the behavior of another. > It is foolish on all sides to try. Anyone, however well meaning > (including myself here), who even tries is contributing to the > problem."
* msch...@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) | Fair enough. Most of the technical corrections you (and others) make, | particularly in the recent Unicode discussions, are among the more | educational posts in the forum, for me, at least.
This provides a certain balance to your view, but not sufficiently so.
| Other than that, it's the posts that aggressively criticize the people | behind the posts that got me to make my first post in this thread.
Please take a closer look at what I respond to and precisely what it is that I criticize. Some people refuse to do this because they have already made up their mind due to the "word count syndrome", but this is a peculiarity of the judgmental character that gets into trouble in the first place.
| I know that Usenet isn't supposed to be some kind of newbie-friendly | love-fest, but posts calling people morons and psychotic?
USENET is not text, it is context.
| My personal gut instinct, if you decide to respond to me in that manner, | would be to respond in kind, "turn the other cheek" be damned.
Then you _really_ need to look at how these things start.
| Personal issues aside, the image it presents for Lisp is pretty horrible, | when presented in a public forum. As a Lisp newbie, seeing posts damning | people as moronic, psychotic idiots isn't exactly an attraction to the | forum or the language.
If you are the kind of person who has no regard for context and are therefore unable to deal with pain in context, I fail to see how any public forum or, indeed, reality, could possibly lead to anything but severe depression and shizophrenic withdrawal. Some people (my empirical evidence indicates about 5%) go nuts when they are exposed to unexpected pain (like thinking it is "unfair" or that the universe somehow owes them less pain) and the rest cope with it just fine or even learn faster from slightly unwelcome experiences than being cuddled simply because they switch to learning mode when reality does something unexpected instead of judgment mode to teach reality a lesson. When the world is just as expected, generally no cognitive processes are involved. Coping with cognitive dissonance is perhaps the most basic of an intelligent person's set of mental skills. Failure to do so means that a person is much more interested in preserving his current perception of the world than to maintain a productively useful perception of the world.
| It obviously isn't stopping me posting, since I like the language, but it | would certainly make me think twice about suggesting this group as | reading material to a tentative manager (or any individual, for that | matter) wanting to know more about the language.
I think a person who is unable to read news is dangerous anywhere on USENET. comp.lang.lisp is not the exception some of you guys want to make it out to be. All newsgroups have to deal with trolls and idiots. Overall, we have far fewer of them, and even if trolls and idiots are not known to be bright, most of them figure out that there is a connection between what they do and how they are treated. The few morons who just have to oppose every "authority" they encouter are a problem everywhere, but when they suffer from delusions of moral superiority and think they can do worse things than somebody else and still remain innocent victims, they become truly evil. This, however, is a localized phenomeon, and if you can figure out how to read threads, you will notice that a long exchnage between two people is very unlikely to be useful for a newbie, regardless of who they are talking about or how.
| Was this the initial post you're talking about?
No.
| You guys were antagonistic to each other before that, in other threads.
Thomas does not understand that he gets a new chance to behave well. To him, like most other idiots in most newsgroups, things are personal and he has a deep-seated personal need to be vindicated and not come out the bad guy. This alone makes him a bad guy, because if you cannot be the bad guy, somebody else has to be, and it leads to such useless things as only one party regarded as "injured". This is extremely unproductive.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Erik just said the opposite. He said that Usenet is covered by the libel | statutes. Well, I think Erik is wrong here, at least, I know some things | that *are* covered under libelous defamation, and so does Erik, so he | blusters and avoids actually doing anything that might actually force him | to defend his lies and defamations.
Where are the names of the people you want to implicate? You keep making these idle and empty threats, yet refuse to do anything yourself that would show us _your_ courage of conviction. What was that concern of yours about "hypocrisy", again? Please provide the names of the people you want to implicate in this and who would constitute the proper target audience for what _you_ believe would be libelous defamation. Quit playing your stupid chickenshit games, Thomas Bushnell, _especially_ if you make such a ruckus about how other people refuse to play with you.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
In article <3226766197997...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote:
>* msch...@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) >| Fair enough. Most of the technical corrections you (and others) make, >| particularly in the recent Unicode discussions, are among the more >| educational posts in the forum, for me, at least.
> This provides a certain balance to your view, but not sufficiently so.
I've tried to be balanced in the posts I've made. I apologize if you don't think it's sufficient.
>| I know that Usenet isn't supposed to be some kind of newbie-friendly >| love-fest, but posts calling people morons and psychotic?
> USENET is not text, it is context.
Agreed. Despite my differing opinion, I _have_ tried to understand more of the context in which it was said. To make that context easily available from my own posts, I've posted links to Google so that others reading them might read them to make their own judgement.
As far as my own understanding of context and Usenet, maybe it's my lack of understanding of your use of language. It's trivially easy to find posts on google in which you write of ripping people's throats [1, 2] out, people that need to be committed or are fit to die. Maybe it's hyperbole, but that's much more severe hyperbole than I'm accustomed to seeing in a number of years online. Even in cases like this, where Brouillet so deliberately provoked you.
>| My personal gut instinct, if you decide to respond to me in that manner, >| would be to respond in kind, "turn the other cheek" be damned.
> Then you _really_ need to look at how these things start.
I did _not_ say that I _would_ respond in that manner. I just said it would be my gut instinct. I'd like to think I'd catch it before it escaped. :-)
At any rate, I appreciate your responses to my posts. If I'm going to avoid becoming any more hypocritical than I already am, I should probably stop my contributions to this thread.
* msch...@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) | I've tried to be balanced in the posts I've made. I apologize if you don't | think it's sufficient.
I think you blame me for Thomas Bushnell's behavior, and question only my role, not his. This is not particularly smart.
| Agreed. Despite my differing opinion, I _have_ tried to understand more | of the context in which it was said. To make that context easily | available from my own posts, I've posted links to Google so that others | reading them might read them to make their own judgement.
Google is not news. Despite the usefulness of this tool, a Google search tells me that somebody generally fails to understand that news is dynamic -- it is interaction -- things on USENET are generally only _responses_.
| As far as my own understanding of context and Usenet, maybe it's my lack | of understanding of your use of language. It's trivially easy to find | posts on google in which you write of ripping people's throats [1, 2] | out, people that need to be committed or are fit to die.
But what have I responded to? How much abuse should _I_ take? Why do you blame the victim? Why am I _not_ the victim of the abuse of Thomas Bushnell? This is your lack of balance, and it colors your entire approach to your reasoning.
| I did _not_ say that I _would_ respond in that manner. I just said it | would be my gut instinct. I'd like to think I'd catch it before it | escaped. :-)
Look, perhaps you are wrong? Perhaps I am the one who _responds_ to abuse from morons who cannot take criticism professionally? Just go back and look at things with that _possible_ perspective. Perhaps what we have here is a general consensus that it is OK to respond with rabidly insane hostilities towards _me_ if I point out a technical mistake someone has made, and that somebody has the intelligence and prejudicial disposition of a racist, and therefore believes he is mistreated because of said consensus instead of reading the actual article? Perhaps evil morons like Thomas Bushnell are _only_ after making me a villain so he can escape judgment of his character, which I have exposed?
Also, let me know what you think about such phenomena as S Campion/ Adam Tissa/Israel Ray Thomas. What do you think makes these lunatics tick?
| At any rate, I appreciate your responses to my posts. If I'm going to | avoid becoming any more hypocritical than I already am, I should probably | stop my contributions to this thread.
I fail to see the hypocrisy.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
>> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG >> | What counts as abusive?
>> Repetitive hostile "questions" like yours which continue to have >> absolutely _nothing_ to do with this forum, but only with your need to >> harrass me, along with the other whining morons here. Quit it, OK?
>Yeah, you are the injured party. Poor Erik, getting all this >harassment. It's so unfair, since you are the very soul of propriety, >kindness, and decorum.
In article <3226804606378...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote:
>* msch...@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) >| I've tried to be balanced in the posts I've made. I apologize if you don't >| think it's sufficient.
> I think you blame me for Thomas Bushnell's behavior, and question only my > role, not his. This is not particularly smart.
Well, you're right. Part of the thing that was so eye catching about your posts was the force of the langage, not to mention the length, or the fact you were trying to advocate a better standard of conduct. I haven't seen many people put as much effort into such things. I've seen people as persistant, but never that... 'energetic'.
> Google is not news. Despite the usefulness of this tool, a Google search > tells me that somebody generally fails to understand that news is dynamic > -- it is interaction -- things on USENET are generally only _responses_.
Google does at least allow the entire thread to be read.
> But what have I responded to? How much abuse should _I_ take? Why do > you blame the victim? Why am I _not_ the victim of the abuse of Thomas > Bushnell?
Okay, I'll agree with this. It does seem mutual, and there is another side to it. But to what extent should you or anybody else dish out abuse to avoid receiving it? What if it is counterproductive to the extent that it incites other people to respond?
> Look, perhaps you are wrong? Perhaps I am the one who _responds_ to > abuse from morons who cannot take criticism professionally?
Again, it's the force with which you respond that got me thinking about this at all. I wholeheartedly agree with the need for professionalism, but some of the things you've written here (and others, too) would get people fired or arrested if spoken aloud in any of the professional environments I've been in. Am I just totally misunderstanding your definition of professionalism? Or are you saying it doesn't matter, in the context of the thread?
> Just go back and look at things with that _possible_ perspective.
That's partly why I'm reconsidering my point of view. There have been a number of occasions that I've been reading posts of yours that seem pretty damned extreme on the surface. Generally, you've been provoked pretty harshly. I don't know how I'd react if someone posted a thread on silencing me down. It's actually pretty amazing you have the patience to stick around here at all.
> Also, let me know what you think about such phenomena as S Campion/ Adam > Tissa/Israel Ray Thomas. What do you think makes these lunatics tick?
* msch...@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) | I wholeheartedly agree with the need for professionalism, but some of the | things you've written here (and others, too) would get people fired or | arrested if spoken aloud in any of the professional environments I've | been in.
In isolation, sure. But in context? No danger at all.
| Am I just totally misunderstanding your definition of professionalism?
Probably not.
| Or are you saying it doesn't matter, in the context of the thread?
Basically, yes, but not the whole thread: in the context of the specific interaction at that point.
| That's partly why I'm reconsidering my point of view. There have been a | number of occasions that I've been reading posts of yours that seem | pretty damned extreme on the surface.
Reasonable people already have or manage to grow a clue long before it gets to that intensity, and figure out that it says: "Do not reply".
| Generally, you've been provoked pretty harshly.
It seems to take a considerably amount of both effort and objectivity to see that, and I appreciate that you do. I have hoped to communicate that it is a really bad idea to attack me. Some people just do not get it.
| I don't know how I'd react if someone posted a thread on silencing me | down. It's actually pretty amazing you have the patience to stick around | here at all.
Well, my patience is probably one of my least explored potentials.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > Look, perhaps you are wrong? Perhaps I am the one who _responds_ to > abuse from morons who cannot take criticism professionally? Just go back > and look at things with that _possible_ perspective.
Well, your first attack on me was to call me an "idiot" and a "snotty bastard", in Message-ID: <3224602690894...@naggum.net>.
This was in reply to my saying "And since the popular operating systems *do* have those memory protection features, it's not possible for a creep to get in and destroy a system, right?"
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | This was in reply to my saying "And since the popular operating | systems *do* have those memory protection features, it's not | possible for a creep to get in and destroy a system, right?"
This is why I keep telling you guys that news is context, not text. Anyone who reads that innocuous-looking question by itself does not see that in context it is a supreme example of your dishonest practices of passive aggressiveness and asking people fantastically stupid rhetorical questions. Your halo does not shine, any more.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Actually, they do. For example the Latin edition of the new Catechism (Editio Typica, Imprimi Potest Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) was introduced in 1997.
