* Ray Blaak <bl...@telus.net> | I think that poisonous bile is wrong. I don't do that.
Great! Do I get to determine whether what I write is poisonous bile, too?
A truly large number of you judgmental assholes who attack me out of the blue and have nothing whatsoever to contribute to this forum make the very same crucial mistake: You think your emotions tell you what exists in the real world. Just because you feel bad means there must be something really terrible out there. Just because you feel that something is "poisonous bile" means that this is an objective fact. You are generally so incapable of realizing that /you/ bring both attitude and interpretation to the scene. When you call what I write "poisonous bile" that is not, amazingly, poisonous bile. When some holier-than-thou dipshit like Ray Blaak behaves like an asshole, spending all his time attacking someone who has not attacked him, that is /not/ poisonous bile. Oh, no. That is Ray Blaak posting facts.
What makes me quite certain that I do not actually do anything wrong is that each and every one of my attackers are stark raving mad. Just like the fucks that attack me and my person when I criticize something they have posted in a public forum where critical response must be expected, mental cases like Ray Blaak have nothing whatsoever to offer other than their opiniated moralism.
Do you think I find your behavior offensive? Sure as hell I do! People who are so immature and so emotionally dysfunctional that they have to attack me just because I do not stroke their ego or please them sufficiently are the root cause of the noise here. Instead of trying to do something about it, /all/ of you sociopaths make it your task to blame me for everything that people of your own kind do. There is very little evidence that those who attack me out of the blue even understand that this is wrong. They believe that they are defending some "right" that is being abrigded and eroded.
That "right" is the "right" of ignorant assholes to post stupidities without being criticized for it. For some bizarre reason, that somebody does not agree with you retarded children is cause for you to attack them. For some even more bizarre reason, you have to attack people who express their opinion of something. Your egos must be so /fragile/ and /brittle/ that it can break simply by reading someone who does not approve of you. What do you guys /expect/ from any professional interaction, or social for that matter?
I have come to believe that those who cannot deal with public discussion seek approval and validation of their failure to function in private, as well. When someone does not give them that approval and validation, they are offended and feel disrespected and rejected as human beings. If they were complete /before/ they went out in public and posted, they would not require other people to give them so much emotional support, and could deal with critical responses to what they have done in public, which is /not/ their entire person. They would /know/ that if they have shown other people was not to their liking, they could try with something else. Reasonably mature people do this all the time, feeling secure in themselves and not needing the approval of strangers. But you retarded children are unable to cope with being told that you have done something wrong and just have to oppose all that looks like authorities to you. Nobody shall tell you what to do. I /do/ wonder what is wrong with you people.
| I just disagree that "poisonous bile" has its place and function in this | instance.
You are even so self-righteous that you think there can be no disagreement on your judgment of other people. This is what makes you the most offensive.
That you do not understand that you pour poisonous bile into the forum is indicative of a serious personality disorder. Such arrogance is pathological.
| "Attack" my ass. Criticism? Chiding? Pointing out a percieved inconsistent | position?
Let me get this straight: You are the only person in the entire universe who gets to make judgments of how things are to be seen. Only you get to decide what is attacks and what is poisonous bile. Of course, being such a moron as you have to be to hold this retarded view of anything, you decided that what you do is harmless. Such is the offensiveness of your hypocritical position that you have to defend yourself against realizing what kind of person you are. That is why you guys hate me so much: I have zero compunctions about telling people like you exactly how I see you. I am very seldom wrong, and you guys go out of your way to prove it each and every time.
| I you think my words constitute an attack you need to get a much thicker | skin.
Is yours for sale?
| Certainly responding and disagreeing with my criticisms are fair game, but | Jesus, you've got to lighten up.
How did this advice work for you?
| I act consistently with what I preach.
Self-righteous to the last. Disgusting creep. Call the God you are on a mission from and ask if he really intended for you to sacrifice yourself and portray yourself as such a moralistic dipshit that you have no value to any human being whatsoever.
My God, you cretins annoy me. Get a life. Seek help to get over the traumatic lack of approval and validation of your pathetic worthless self.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > [...ranting...]
Here we go.
> When some holier-than-thou dipshit like Ray Blaak behaves like an > asshole, spending all his time attacking someone who has not attacked him, > that is /not/ poisonous bile. Oh, no. That is Ray Blaak posting facts.
Well, the "fact" part is right.
You just don't take criticism well, do you?
Your behaviour in general is at least consistent (be a moron, get flamed), can be viewed as fair (don't be a moron, don't get flamed) and even benficial (reduce the moron traffic in c.l.l).
The problem is that it is not consistent with your little "public speaking" manifesto. Your tantrums are most definitely personal, and in any professional workplace I have encountered would be grounds for being fired, or at least a reprimand.
Here's some advice, unsolicited of course: if you must be an asshole, be so honestly. Hell, it's not even criminal. Just don't pretend that you act in such a impersonal, professional manner when you so often so clearly don't.
> Just because you feel that something is "poisonous bile" means that this > is an objective fact.
Now what, epistemological debates? Are you trying to tell me that you have some special ability to access objective facts without using your judgement?
Yeah, you got me: I think it, thus I argue it.
> Let me get this straight: You are the only person in the entire universe > who gets to make judgments of how things are to be seen. Only you get to > decide what is attacks and what is poisonous bile.
Now whatever gave you that idea? I mean *really*?
We all make the judgements about what is good and bad, always, and talk and bicker about it. Can it be otherwise?
I spotted what I judged to be an inconsistency in your stated position. I called you on it. Freak out as you will.
-- Cheers, The Rhythm is around me, The Rhythm has control. Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me, bl...@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
No, we don't. Your only intent is to piss me off personally. If you have such unsatisfied personal needs that this is a good thing for you to do, please consult a mental health professional and do not use Usenet as your personal pissing ground. Thank you for playing.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <3242408304912...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote: > What makes me quite certain that I do not actually do anything wrong is that > each and every one of my attackers are stark raving mad.
Just because someone is stark raving mad doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
> My God, you cretins annoy me.
No doubt. And you annoy us cretins. The rules of civilized behavior were invented so that petty annoyances do not degenerate into wars.
* Erann Gat | Just because someone is stark raving mad doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
No, it does not, but here's a simple test: If I challenge the criticism and want to learn if they are able to engage in dialogue instead of accepting it, will they turn mad with rage and rant and rave about irrelevant issues or are they able to understand that their perspective may not be universally acceptable? If they cannot understand that just because they feel something, it is not necessarily so, their criticism is completely worthless for the simple reason that it is a criticism of their own feelings, not of anything I have done.
Another important test is to see whether there is any way to make the criticism go away. For the stark raving mad, it is not something I do that I can change that is at issue, it is me as a person they dislike and have to attack in public. Such morons are clearly irrelevant for me.
| The rules of civilized behavior were invented so that petty annoyances do | not degenerate into wars.
Then why do you only require that /others/ be civilized and not yourself? Why do you believe that if you /think/ someone is uncivilized, you have the right to attack them viciously and prolongedly without end in sight? If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it is worth less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere.
So far, the cretins have behaved much worse than I ever have. I do not go after people. I criticize their /statements/ and /specifics/. They attack my /person/ and /generalities/. This distinction is lost on the cretins because they do not know the difference, so they /believe/ their person is attacked and that the criticism is general. If they had had the mental wherewithall to /ask/ instead of /assume/ and would want to /understand/ before they /defended/ themselves, they would both feel much less bad and they would not be cretins in the first place. What makes the cretins cretins is precisely that they assume too much and then are manifestly unwilling to listen to correction to how they /feel/. How could one possibly deal with people like this. In their disturbed view, they are both infallible and righteous and beyond the reach of reason because they do not even have sufficient respect for the person they feel have hurt them (active intention) because they feel hurt (passive effect) to be able to listen to counterviews. This is also impossible after they have lashed out with their personal attacks, because it is such a goddamn stupid thing to do that they /must/ defend this stupidity lest they accept to /be/ morons, not just occasionally behave like one. This is, again because they think people /are/ the worst they do, and in fact attack me on that basis, so if I point out that they have done something moronic and behave /like/ morons in that respect, they feel they /are/ morons. This massive failure to deal with their own failures and their abject rejection of reason as their guide to self-esteem leads them to both feel hurt and actively seek to hurt others. In brief, cretins are out of control when they have any negative emotions at all, and blithely, stupidly assume others are, too. They are the people who think it is somebody else's problem that they feel offended and would invent political correctness if it had not already been invented by other cretins who have to blame someone for their own coping problems.
If it is civilized behavior you want, try reacting civilized when you feel hurt. That is when it counts. If you cannot react civilized to what /you/ believe is uncivilized behavior, you are both manifestly unjust as well as unethical, judgmental, and uncivilized. In brief, a cretin. You seem to think all this are good things, however, and that you should not feel ashamed for talking about the civilized behavior of others with our record. As far as civilized behavior goes, I am /miles/ ahead of you, and regard your criticism of me as extremely immature, like a child who has memorized but not understood some rules from a book and fail to understand that it is /not/ civilized to run around and accuse people of not being civilized according to your stupid rule-book.
Speaking of books, I gave you a hint once. You replied only with your typical stupid indignation. Perhaps you should read it. Let me give a few references that may help you understand my view of you and of what /real/ civilized public conduct is about and why chastising you childish cretins is /not/ a violation of it:
DDC 158.1; ISBN 0-517-59798-5; LCCN 93044654; 1994 Dave Marinaccio All I really need to know I learned from watching Star Trek On the societal values exemplified by Star Trek
DDC 179.9; ISBN 0-674-80861-4; LCCN 72083468; 1971, 1972 Lionel Trilling Sincerity and Authenticity On the development of these concepts in literature
DDC 309; ISBN 0-393-30879-0; LCCN 76025131; 1974, 1976 Richard Sennett The Fall of Public Man On the loss of separation of private from public persona
DDC 395; ISBN 0-312-28118-8; LCCN 2001048651; 2002 P. M. Forni Choosing Civility On the purpose and method of being civil
DDC 323.196073; ISBN 1-893554-44-9; LCCN 2001040833; 2002 David Horowitz Uncivil Wars (the controversy over reparations for slavery) On the willingness to hurt those who "offend" with truth
DDC 812.52; ISBN 0-374-52799-7; LCCN 99087875; 2000 Lionel Trilling The moral obligation to be intelligent: select essays On literary criticism from an ethical vantage point
All of these books should be read with focus on some pointed questions: "Is it my responsibility how I feel or somebody else's?" and "Do others have a duty to make me feel good and can I punish them if they don't?"
/Children/ should not be hurt, should even be protected from harm, and should if possible be made to feel good because they are neither expected to have the mental apparatus to deal with criticism nor expected to cope with their emotions. /Adults/ should never be treated like children nor should they demand to be treated like children. Growing up means gaining control over your emotions and your behavior in public. However, hurt even adults enough and they turn violent. I, for instance, get /really/ pissed at the retarded children who have never developed beyond the stage in their lives where they think taunting, harrassing, disrespecting, and mistreating those who are not exactly like themselves is proper behavior. Childish and lower primate behavior like that should be confined to zoos. And typically, they think Usenet is a kindergarten/zoo because they think life in general is. There is only one thing to do: Yell at these retards that they grow the hell up.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > So far, the cretins have behaved much worse than I ever have. I do not > go after people. I criticize their /statements/ and /specifics/. They > attack my /person/ and /generalities/.
Can you please explain how telling someone to suck your dick is criticizing their statements and specifics?
I submit that it is indeed attacking their person.
-- Cheers, The Rhythm is around me, The Rhythm has control. Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me, bl...@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
Ray Blaak wrote: > Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes:
>> So far, the cretins have behaved much worse than I ever have. I do not >> go after people. I criticize their /statements/ and /specifics/. They >> attack my /person/ and /generalities/.
> Can you please explain how telling someone to suck your dick is criticizing > their statements and specifics?
> I submit that it is indeed attacking their person.
please.
simplify the case.
he it is:
a) completely confused, maybe due to the excessive study of literature, which has leaded to an uncontrolable association-flow, so he really don't know sometimes what he talks.
b) he is aware that he talks and behave sometimes very unfair, but he's not able to apologize for that.
c) he is playing. yes, simply playing and enjoying your reactions.
In article <3242496349746...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote: > * Erann Gat > | Just because someone is stark raving mad doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
> No, it does not, but here's a simple test: If I challenge the criticism > and want to learn if they are able to engage in dialogue instead of > accepting it, will they turn mad with rage and rant and rave about > irrelevant issues or are they able to understand that their perspective > may not be universally acceptable? If they cannot understand that just > because they feel something, it is not necessarily so, their criticism is > completely worthless for the simple reason that it is a criticism of > their own feelings, not of anything I have done.
Except that you use deliberately inflammatory language so you can't know whether they are responding emotionally to your challenge or to your language. Responding emotionally to four-letter words is not a slam-dunk indication of insanity. It's more likely simply an indication of being human.
> | The rules of civilized behavior were invented so that petty annoyances do > | not degenerate into wars.
> Then why do you only require that /others/ be civilized and not yourself?
Why do you ask have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet questions?
> Why do you believe that if you /think/ someone is uncivilized, you have > the right to attack them viciously and prolongedly without end in sight?
I have not attacked you in a very, very long time. I know that you perceive some of the things I've said to you recently as attacks, but you are mistaken.
> If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it is worth > less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere.
* Erann Gat | Except that you use deliberately inflammatory language so you can't know | whether they are responding emotionally to your challenge or to your | language. Responding emotionally to four-letter words is not a slam-dunk | indication of insanity. It's more likely simply an indication of being | human.
Contrary to what people who have yet to evolve enough to develop the concept of context believe, I do /not/ initiate these fights. The idiocy you keep clamoring about would apply if the "victim" had done nothing wrong. That is simply not the case. You are so judgmental in your moralism that you cannot even /want/ to know how someone else thinks. When I see that in a person, I know he has nothing whatsoever to share with me. It is all about how you feel, and you are so staggeringly dumb as to believe that other people should adjust to it but not you to theirs.
| > Then why do you only require that /others/ be civilized and not yourself? | | Why do you ask have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet questions?
I don't. Please answer the question. It is a legitimate question, it has an answer, and I actually want to know why you are so unable to behave well and go on to accuse me of your very own behavior.
| I know that you perceive some of the things I've said to you recently as | attacks, but you are mistaken.
When did you ever grant me the freedom to tell you that you are mistaken in /your/ conclusions? Just like that little fuck Ray Blaak, you are so monumentally stupid that you actually believe your view is the Truth.
| > If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it is worth | > less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere. | | That didn't parse.
Take a remedial course in English grammer. Pay particular attention when the word "subjunctive" comes up. Goddamn ignorant.
Let me know the answer to a couple questions I keep thinking of: Why do you think this forum is an appropriate place to discuss your wildly misguided notions about me? Why do you force yourself upon me?
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
In article <3242504571185...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote: > * Erann Gat > | Except that you use deliberately inflammatory language so you can't know > | whether they are responding emotionally to your challenge or to your > | language. Responding emotionally to four-letter words is not a slam-dunk > | indication of insanity. It's more likely simply an indication of being > | human.
> Contrary to what people who have yet to evolve enough to develop the > concept of context believe, I do /not/ initiate these fights.
Yes, you do. You're doing it right now:
> you are so staggeringly dumb
...
> | > Then why do you only require that /others/ be civilized and not yourself? > | > | Why do you ask have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife-yet questions?
> I don't. Please answer the question. It is a legitimate question, it > has an answer,
No, it is not a legitimate question because it is based on a false premise. It is no more a legitimate question than asking why the square root of two is an integer.
I do *not* require others be civilized and not myself. I do not *require* anything of anyone (at least not on usenet). I believe that the world (and this newsgroup) would be a better place if everyone did conduct themselves civilly, and I do my best to conduct myself civilly. I do not always succeed, but I do try.
> | I know that you perceive some of the things I've said to you recently as > | attacks, but you are mistaken.
> When did you ever grant me the freedom to tell you that you are mistaken > in /your/ conclusions?
When did you ever need my permission to tell me that I am mistaken?
> | > If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it is worth > | > less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere. > | > | That didn't parse.
> Take a remedial course in English grammer. Pay particular attention when > the word "subjunctive" comes up. Goddamn ignorant.
I suggest that before you accuse me of being ignorant of English grammar that you look up the conjugation of the verb "apply".
> Let me know the answer to a couple questions I keep thinking of: Why do > you think this forum is an appropriate place to discuss your wildly > misguided notions about me?
Well, because you keep bringing it up for one thing. And, at the risk of stating the obvious, because I don't think my notions are so wildly misguided.
> Why do you force yourself upon me?
I don't. How could I possibly force myself upon you? Surely you are aware of how to use a killfile?
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> writes: > * Ray Blaak > | Can you please explain how telling someone to suck your dick is > | criticizing their statements and specifics?
> Could you please explain why what he did to me is acceptable to you?
Where did I say that I agreed with his posts? Where did I say I did not? It is not relevant to the issue of you being inconsistent with your stated position.
> | I submit that it is indeed attacking their person.
> Have you developed the concept of "context" yet? Please try that.
Ah, yes. The context. Talking about cocksucking, were we? [googling] I think not. That juicy tidbit came from you. I did make a mistake, though: you weren't asking Jeremy to suck your dick, you were asking if you did a good job at sucking his. I apologize.
So let's see if you will answer the question, without deflecting with irrelevant counter questions, without platitudes about my feelings or my beliefs of objective knowledge and absolute truth:
Do you think that talking about sucking someone's dick is an impersonal act? Appropriate for a pubic forum? Professional? Criticizing their /statements/ and /specifics/?
If not, then you're right! In my humble opinion, of course. But then you are not acting according to your stated beliefs of appropriate public speaking.
If yes, then at least you are being consistent. However you are then living in your own universe.
-- Cheers, The Rhythm is around me, The Rhythm has control. Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me, bl...@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
g...@jpl.nasa.gov (Erann Gat) wrote in message <news:gat-0110021827590001@k-137-79-50-101.jpl.nasa.gov>... > In article <3242504571185...@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no> wrote: > > | > If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it > is worth > > | > less than nothing -- it is a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere. > > | > > | That didn't parse.
> > Take a remedial course in English grammer. Pay particular attention when > > the word "subjunctive" comes up. Goddamn ignorant.
> I suggest that before you accuse me of being ignorant of English grammar > that you look up the conjugation of the verb "apply".
Actually, Erik's usage is a grammatically correct, if archaic subjunctive conjugation.
For example:
Modern usage: "If Erann came to supper, we wouldn't have enough food." Archaic usage: "If Erann come to supper, we have not enough food."
That said, it's unusual, and a bit confusing, to mix modern and Elizabethan usage in the same sentence. If Erik had written
"If your "civilized behavior" only apply to people you /like/, it be worth less than nothing -- it be a /threat/ to civilized behavior everywhere,"
it would have been more clear that this was a neo-Shakespearean rant, and not his usual modern style.
Oh, and BTW, I believe it should be "Goddamn ignoramus," not "Goddamn ignorant," (i.e., ignorant is an adjective, not a noun).
In the larger scheme of things, Erik's english is excellent - far, far better than my norwegian will ever be. The fact that he even knows this archaic subjunctive usage speaks volumes about the depth of his knowlege.
Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward dealing with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more welcoming forum. But then, some people may not want it to be more inviting to newcomers. Oh, well...
> Oh, and BTW, I believe it should be "Goddamn ignoramus," not "Goddamn > ignorant," (i.e., ignorant is an adjective, not a noun).
Now I have always thought phrases like this should really be "God damned ignoramus" and the common sounding as "God damn" was just a spoken affectation. From a functional grammar point of view, it only makes sense as "damned" ie "you damned-by-God ignoramus". I can't parse it the other way.
> In the larger scheme of things, Erik's english is excellent - far, far > better than my norwegian will ever be. The fact that he even knows > this archaic subjunctive usage speaks volumes about the depth of his > knowlege.
I like Erik's use of english too, it is often surprising in its structure but almost always eloquent. But he makes alot of typos, I just took "only apply to people like you" as one of them and read "only applies to people like you"
* Raffael Cavallaro | Now if only he would turn one tenth part of his intellect toward dealing | with people with a civil tongue, c.l.l might be a more welcoming forum. | But then, some people may not want it to be more inviting to newcomers.
You could do your part and be more civil towards me and stop harrassing me at every juncture. For some reason that only you know, this is not only impossible to you, you appear to believe that it is my duty to be civil to you first, and in the meantime you should harrass me. But when I am civil and friendly to people, your kind never say a word. Perhaps you should be a little more willing to do what you demand of others? Perhaps you should see a psychiatrist and tell him that you are so unable to deal with another person rationally that you just /have/ to post your hateful irrationality and ask him for help because this has become a serious problem in your life? Would you do that, for the sake of better civility in this forum? Or could you just /quit/ posting your poisonous bile about me all the time? That would be /so/ welcome.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > Oh, and BTW, I believe it should be "Goddamn ignoramus," not "Goddamn > ignorant," (i.e., ignorant is an adjective, not a noun).
In this context (Elizabethan english) I find it suprising that the phrase God damn used. I could find no reference to the contraction Goddamn at all.
As an example of this form of english, Shakespeare in the many hundreds of thousands of words, makes only one reference to "God damn":
The Commedy of Errors. Act IV. Scene III. A Public Place Ant. S. Satan, avoid! I charge thee tempt me not! Dro. S. Master, is this Mistress Satan? Ant. S. It is the devil. Dro. S. Nay, she is worse, she is the devil’s dam, and here she comes in the habit of a light wench: and thereof comes that the wenches say, ‘God damn me;’ that’s as much as to say, ‘God make me a light wench.’ It is written, they appear to men like angels of light: light is an effect of fire, and fire will burn; ergo, light wenches will burn. Come not near her.
I would suggest that at this time "God damn" was very serious insult and would lead to a short, but not mercifully short, and rather unpleasant comubustion related end.
* Coby Beck | Now I have always thought phrases like this should really be "God damned | ignoramus" and the common sounding as "God damn" was just a spoken | affectation.
It is the same subjunctive as in "God bless you".
| From a functional grammar point of view, it only makes sense as "damned" | ie "you damned-by-God ignoramus". I can't parse it the other way.
You don't learn about the subjunctive in the wonderful American educational system anymore, do you?
| I like Erik's use of english too, it is often surprising in its structure | but almost always eloquent.
Thanks, I appreciate this.
| But he makes alot of typos
Yeah, it is an unfortunate side-effect of my trying to cut down on my news time.
-- Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway
Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder. Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.
