[tholen] Hi Dave (was Re: Bennett digest, volume 2451342)
Eric Bennett
The original article has expired on my news server... this copy of Tholen's post was retrieved via DejaNews:
In article <7jt024$8...@news.Hawaii.Edu>, Dave Tholen (tholena...@hawaii.edu) wrote:
>
> Well, Eric Bennett has gotten defensive, and is struggling to try and
> rationalize his forgery.
It's not a forgery, Dave, it's a character set translation.
> Why lie, Eric?
Sorry, DejaNews must have croaked, because I used it to check my claim before my post. It said there were no er...@pobox.com articles in its database for that newsgroup. Whatever the reason, it was wrong, and I was wrong.
> You are engaging in the equivalent of forgery, Eric.
Incorrect. I am engaging in the equivalent of translation.
> Rationalization. Does Cornell endorse this allegedly "standard"
> etiquette?
Irrelevant.
> 4> > I wonder what Cornell University will have to say about that? 4>
> 4> Go ahead and ask them. Your material is sufficiently obnoxious to 4>
> justify the common usenet practice of using ROT-13 encoding.
>
> More rationalization.
Irrelevant.
> There are laws against forgery, Eric. Cornell doesn't need to repeat
> them.
Irrelevant, since nobody here has any evidence of forgery.
> 4> Also, in case you missed it in the other thread, I'll be out of town
> 4> until about June 20,
>
> How convenient.
I do not cancel vacations planned weeks in advance just so I can respond to your balderdash in a timely manner, Dave.
> 4> Signing off for now,
>
> It might be longer than you think, Eric.
Apparently not. You had a whole week to complain about me, Dave. And I wasn't even here to defend myself. But apparently you did nothing. Why not?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have several thousand usenet articles and a few hundred email messages to catch up on.
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
David Sutherland
wrote:
[snip]
>> There are laws against forgery, Eric. Cornell doesn't need to repeat
>> them.
>
[snip]
Is Tholen seriously threatening to report you to Cornell? HA HA HA.
<wipes eyes>
Tholen got into some shit with his university a while back over some
comments he made on usenet - if he wants to start a pissing match just
forward some of his posts to his Dean. I suspect that *any* usenet
related mail on the subject of Dave Tholen arriving in that particular
mail box will cause some serious fireworks. Sheesh, Dave seems
hell-bent on ensuring his own destruction.
Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
Eric Bennett
> Is Tholen seriously threatening to report you to Cornell? HA HA HA.
I'm not sure Tholen is capable of being serious. He wants to *look*
threatening.
I already told him that if he accuses me of harassing him and asks me to
stop replying to him and I don't stop responding, then he *might* have
the beginnings of a complaint to Cornell. But he didn't bite on that,
and he keeps tossing unfounded accusations at me, so I guess he doesn't
want me to stop replying.
> Tholen got into some shit with his university a while back over some
> comments he made on usenet - if he wants to start a pissing match just
> forward some of his posts to his Dean. I suspect that *any* usenet
> related mail on the subject of Dave Tholen arriving in that particular
> mail box will cause some serious fireworks. Sheesh, Dave seems
> hell-bent on ensuring his own destruction.
Yes; I assume if Dave were to "report" my behavior to Cornell, a few
choice samples of his own material would demonstrate the hypocrisy of
his complaint.
--
Eric Bennett ( er...@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )
Field of Biochemistry, Cornell University
Dave Tholen
1> Message-ID: <ericb-20069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
1>
1> It's not a forgery, Dave, it's a character set translation.
I did not do any translation, Eric, yet you attributed the text to me.
1> Sorry, DejaNews must have croaked, because I used it to check my
1> claim before my post.
I suspect "user error".
1> It said there were no er...@pobox.com articles in its database
1> for that newsgroup.
I had no trouble finding evidence of your posting there, Eric.
1> Whatever the reason, it was wrong, and I was wrong.
But posting here is "not wrong"?
1> Incorrect. I am engaging in the equivalent of translation.
And then falsely attributing the text to me.
1> Irrelevant.
On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that you are posting
there.
1> Irrelevant.
On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that you are posting
there.
1> Irrelevant, since nobody here has any evidence of forgery.
I have evidence here, Eric.
1> I do not cancel vacations planned weeks in advance just so I can
1> respond to your balderdash in a timely manner, Dave.
Odd. Your behavior here suggests that posting forgeries is more
important than something like a vacation.
1> Apparently not. You had a whole week to complain about me, Dave.
1> And I wasn't even here to defend myself. But apparently you did
1> nothing. Why not?
How would you know, Eric? You just finished stating that you have
a few hundred email messages to catch up on. Maybe you'll find
something in your email.
1> Now, if you'll excuse me, I have several thousand usenet articles
1> and a few hundred email messages to catch up on.
As I suspected, posting forgeries is more important tham your
email.
2> Message-ID: <ericb-20069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
2>
2> > Urer'f gbqnl'f Gvzoby qvtrfg:
2>
2> Evidence, please.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Veeryrinag, Zvxr, tvira gung zl erfgbengvba bs gung arjftebhc gb gur
2> > qvfgevohgvba qbrfa'g vaibyir ragregnvazrag.
2>
2> Poppycock.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Vyybtvpny, tvira gung V qvq abg vaqvpngr nal ernfba onfrq ba
2> > crefba-eryngrq zngrevny, Zvxr.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Nccneragyl lbh'er univat zber fubeg-grez zrzbel ceboyrzf, Zvxr. Erpnyy
2> > gung p.f.z.n jnf nyernql n cneg bs gur guernq. V erfgberq gung juvpu
2> > unq orra qryrgrq. Va pbagenfg, Wnfba F. nqqrq gjb *arj* naq haeryngrq
2> > arjftebhcf; ur jnf abg erfgbevat gurz. Qb lbh frr nal qvssrerapr ng
2> > nyy, Zvxr?
2>
2> Balderdash
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Orpnhfr (n) V qvqa'g nqq n arjftebhc sbe ragregnvazrag checbfrf, (o) V
2> > qvqa'g nqq n arjftebhc orpnhfr bs crefba-eryngrq zngrevny, naq (p) V qvqa'g
2> > nqq n arjftebhc gung unqa'g nyernql orra cerivbhfyl cneg bs gur guernq.
2>
2> What alleged "guernq", Dave?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Onyqreqnfu, Zvxr. Jurer unir lbh frra n erfcbafr ol zr gb n cbfgvat bs
2> > Wbr Znyybl'f va gur ynfg lrne, Zvxr? Be Wrss Tyngg, Zvxr?
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Lbh'er pbagenqvpgvat lbhefrys, Zvxr. V abgrq gung V unira'g orra
2> > erfcbaqvat gb gubfr crbcyr, naq lbh pnyyrq vg n yvr. Abj lbh'er
2> > pbasvezvat jung V fnvq.
2>
2> On what basis do you make this claim?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Veeryrinag gb gur vffhr bs lbhe fhttrfgvba gung V qba'g erfcbaq gb
2> > nagntbavfgf, Zvxr.
2>
2> Incorrect.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Nccneragyl lbh qba'g ernyvmr gung srjre bs lbhe bja cbfgf gb ernq jbhyq
2> > or "n tbbq guvat", Zvxr.
2>
2> Incorrect.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Nobir lbh pnyyrq vg n yvr jura V fnvq gung V unira'g orra erfcbaqvat gb
2> > gurz, Zvxr. Qb znxr hc lbhe zvaq.
2>
2> Non sequitur.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > V unir nccyvrq zl qvtrfg "gnpgvp" gb gurz, Zvxr.
2>
2> Taking posting lessons from David Sutherland again, Dave?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > V'ir orra fnlvat sbe fbzr gvzr gung lbh qba'g haqrefgnaq gur pbaprcg bs
2> > n qvtrfg, naq lbh whfg ervasbeprq gung.
2>
2> Typical invective.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Lrc, Wnfba F. fubjrq hc gurer jvgu uvf pnzcnvta. Bs pbhefr, guvatf
2> > ner abj pnyz gurer.
2>
2> Evidence, please.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Lrc, Wnfba F. fubjrq hc gurer jvgu uvf pnzcnvta. Bs pbhefr, ur jnf
2> > ebhaqyl pevgvpvmrq naq qvfnccrnerq va n uheel. Abj guvatf ner pnyz
2> > ntnva.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Jurer jr unir gur yvxrf bs Wrerzl Ervzre, Wnfba F., Rqjva Gubear,
2> > Puevf Cbgg, Gur Ybeq Bs Yrzzvatf, Wrss Tyngg, Wbr Znyybl, Qnivq
2> > Fhgureynaq, Wvz Fghlpx, naq fb ba.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Lrc, Wnfba F. fubjrq hc gurer jvgu uvf pnzcnvta. Bs pbhefr, guvatf
2> > ner abj pnyz gurer.
2>
2> Illogical.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Wnfba F. Bs pbhefr, nabgure pbzzba ryrzrag vf lbhe pbagvahvat vyybtvp,
2> > tvira gung va abar bs gubfr arjftebhcf vf gurer pheeragyl gur fbeg bs
2> > nagntbavfz gung vf gnxvat cynpr urer.
2>
2> On what basis do you make this claim?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Vyybtvpny, tvira gung lbh bzvggrq frireny bs gur arjftebhcf V
2> > cnegvpvcngr va gung qba'g unir gurfr ceboyrzf. Vaqrrq, gur bgure
2> > arjftebhcf lbh qvq zragvba nera'g pheeragyl univat gurfr ceboyrzf.
2> > (Abgr gung "bgure" vf zrnag gb fcrpvsvpnyyl rkpyhqr guvf arjftebhc.)
2>
2> Illogical.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Lrc; Wnfba F. znqr n pbzcnevfba orgjrra zr naq fbzrbar ryfr va p.f.z.n
2> > naq gura fgnegrq pebff-cbfgvat orpnhfr bs "Gubyra-eryngrq zngrevny".
2> > Gung oebhtug hf Wrerzl Ervzre naq frireny bguref.
2>
2> What "Wnfba F.", Dave?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Ol Wnfba F. Ohg bgure arjftebhcf trg rkcbfrq gb zl cbfgf nf jryy,
2> > naq guvatf pna fgnl pnyz. Lbh'ir pnershyyl vtaberq gung snpg,
2> > orpnhfr vg qrfgeblf lbhe "pbzzba qrabzvangbe" nethzrag.
2>
2> What "Wnfba F.", Dave?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Gura jul unira'g lbh nccyvrq nal ybtvp gb gur fvghngvba, Zvxr?
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Vapbeerpg. Vg'f abg ybtvpny ng nyy, tvira gur ahzrebhf bgure
2> > arjftebhcf V cnegvpvcngr va gung qba'g unir gurfr ceboyrzf.
2>
2> Incorrect.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Ba gur pbagenel, vg'f dhvgr ybtvpny, Zvxr. Nagntbavfgf ner nagntbavfgf.
2> > Ybbx ng juvpu crbcyr ner ohfl jvgu Gvz Znegva naq Obo B. Qb lbh frr
2> > znal bs gur fnzr anzrf?
2>
2> Ask your mentor, grasshopper.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Vyybtvpny, Zvxr. Lbh'er gur glcr bs crefba jub bhtug gb xabj gung
2> > gur serrjnl jnf zrnag sbe zbgbe iruvpyrf jvgu n zvavzhz ubefrcbjre
2> > ohg qevirf lbhe ovplpyr ba vg naljnl sbe ragregnvazrag checbfrf,
2> > pbzcynvavat nobhg qeviref jub "pnyy lbh ba gur pnecrg" sbe lbhe
2> > npgvbaf, gelvat gb oynzr gurz sbe gur ceboyrzf pnhfrq ol lbh naq
2> > bgure ovplpyvfgf jub qevir ba gur serrjnl.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Vyybtvpny, tvira gung V qba'g fgneg guernqf (lbhe frznagvp nethzrag
2> > abgjvgufgnaqvat). V npghnyyl hfr BF/2, Zvxr. Qb lbh?
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Ba gur pbagenel, vg'f dhvgr npphengr, Zvxr.
2>
2> Incorrect.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Naq ybbx ng jub fgnegrq vg: Fghlpx.
2>
2> Incorrect.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Lrf.
2>
2> On what basis do you make this claim?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Vapbeerpg. Ivn Ibvpr ynpxrq anivtngvba pncnovyvgl ng gur gvzr bs gur
2> > qvfphffvba, Zvxr. Gung'f abg "sne nurnq". Gung'f oruvaq.
2>
2> Balderdash.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Cbvagvat bhg gur ynpx bs gur anivtngvba pncnovyvgl juvpu gur BF/2 ibvpr
2> > cebqhpg unf.
2>
2> Balderdash.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > V qvqa'g cbfg gur SHQ, Zvxr.
2>
2> Evidence, please.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Ba gur pbagenel, vg'f dhvgr npphengr, Zvxr. Lbh whfg cebivqrq na rknzcyr.
2>
2> What alleged "Zvxr", Dave?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Nf V abgrq, crbcyr gel gb fcernq gurve SHQ urer, naq ernpg jvgu crefbany
2> > nggnpxf. Lbh'ir qbar fb lbhefrys, Zvxr. Qba'g lbh frr n cnggrea
2> > vaibyivat crbcyr gung qba'g hfr BF/2, lrg cbfg urer? Lbh, sbe rknzcyr.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Lbh unir sbyybjrq gur cnggrea bs aba-BF/2 hfre cbfgvat SHQ va na BF/2
2> > sbehz, Zvxr.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Ba jung onfvf qb lbh pynvz "abezny orunivbe" sbe fbzrbar jub qbrfa'g hfr
2> > BF/2 gb npgviryl cbfg va na BF/2 sbehz, Zvxr?
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Naq V'ir fubja gung gurl pbagvahr jvgu gurve nagntbavfz qrfcvgr gur
2> > fvyrapr, juvpu qrzbafgengrf n cbvag V znqr gb pregnva crbcyr.
2>
2> Why?
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Gur nagntbavfgf pbhyq, vs gurl pubbfr, abg nagntbavmr. Gur aba-BF/2
2> > hfref pbhyq, vs gurl pubbfr, abg cbfg gb gur BF/2 sbehz. Gung vapyhqrf
2> > lbh, Zvxr, ohg V shyyl rkcrpg lbh gb vtaber guvf vagrerfgvat cnenyyry.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Jvgu tbbq ernfba.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Orpnhfr fbzr crbcyr unir na rzbgvbany arrq gb nagntbavmr, Zvxr. Lbh'er
2> > bar bs gurz. Lbh'ir gevrq gb rkcynva lbhe arrq nf "ragregnvazrag".
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> Irrelevant.
You're responding to something Timbol wrote, Eric.
2> > Lbh pubbfr gb nagntbavmr, Zvxr.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Boivbhfyl abg. Lbh'er univat zber ceboyrzf npprcgvat lbhe bja ulcbpevfl.
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Nccneragyl lbh'er univat zber fubeg-grez zrzbel ceboyrzf, Zvxr. Erpnyy
2> > gung p.f.z.n jnf nyernql n cneg bs gur guernq. V erfgberq gung juvpu
2> > unq orra qryrgrq. Zrnajuvyr, Wnfba F. nqqrq gjb arjftebhcf; ur jnf abg
2> > erfgbevat gurz. Qb lbh frr nal qvssrerapr ng nyy, Zvxr?
2>
2> Irrelevant.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Boivbhfyl abg. Jurer unir lbh npgviryl gevrq gb trg Wnfba F., Wrerzl
2> > Ervzre, Wbr Znyybl, Wrss Tyngg, Rqjva Gubear, Puevf Cbgg, Wvz Fghlpx,
2> > be gur bguref gb dhvg gurve nagntbavfz? Jurer unir lbh npgviryl gevrq
2> > gb fgbc lbhe bja nagntbavfz, Zvxr?
2>
2> Ask your mentor, grasshopper.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> > Ernq gur arjftebhc, Zvxr.
2>
2> On what basis do you make this request?
I didn't write that, Eric. How many more times do I need to warn you
about your actions?
3> Message-ID: <ericb-20069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
3>
3> > Gur Ybeq Bs Yrzzvatf jevgrf:
3>
3> Typical invective.
I didn't write that, Eric.
3> > Naq abj n Gvzobyrfdhr frznagvp nethzrag.
3>
3> On what basis do you make this claim?
I didn't write that, Eric.
3> > Glcvpny vairpgvir.
3>
3> Evidence, please.
I didn't write that, Eric. How many more times do I need to warn you
about your actions?
4> Message-ID: <ericb-20069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
4>
4> But he might be extracting tidbits he sees in other posts that were
4> replies to yours.
What I might be doing is irrelevant.
4> I have more confidence that he is reading my posts than I have
4> that he is reading yours
I'm obviously reading yours, given the existence of my responses.
5> Message-ID: <ericb-20069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
5>
5> I like being in the digest club because I can be sure he's still
5> reading my taunts. ;-)
I wonder if Cornell considers "taunts" to be harassment?
6> Message-ID: <376E9D4E...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
6>
6> I'm not sure Tholen is capable of being serious.
Illogical.
6> He wants to *look* threatening.
"Threats are irrelevant, and payment is usually expensive."
--Sarek, "Journey to Babel"
6> I already told him that if he accuses me of harassing him and asks me
6> to stop replying to him and I don't stop responding, then he *might*
6> have the beginnings of a complaint to Cornell.
I have already told you multiple times that you are falsely
attributing garbled text to me. You are being given the
opportunity to stop.
6> But he didn't bite on that,
On what basis do you make that claim?
6> and he keeps tossing unfounded accusations at me,
What alleged unfounded accusations, Eric?
6> so I guess he doesn't want me to stop replying.
I want to you stop attributing text to me that I did not write, Eric.
6> Yes;
There was no "shit" here, contrary to Sutherland's claim. He has
seriously overestimated his effectiveness, and if you believe that
an email to the dean will result in some "serious fireworks", you
are seriously overestimating your own effectiveness.
6> I assume if Dave were to "report" my behavior to Cornell, a few
6> choice samples of his own material would demonstrate the hypocrisy
6> of his complaint.
I've not falsely attributed any garbled text to you, Eric. I've not
claimed that I'm posting to taunt you, Eric. There is no hypocrisy
on my part.
7> Message-ID: <ericb-22069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
7>
7> Illogical. If the comet melted before impact, why would it have
7> created a "devastating" impact?
Ever hear of an atmospheric shock wave, Eric?
Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
Dave Tholen wrote in message <7knhp5$h...@news.Hawaii.Edu>...
>Here's today's Bennett digest:
>
>1> Message-ID: <ericb-20069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
>1>
>1> It's not a forgery, Dave, it's a character set translation.
>
>I did not do any translation, Eric, yet you attributed the text to me.
SNIP (A lot of meaningless stuff)
Mr. Tholen, do you have anything to say?
I can't recall you doing anything else but getting into meaningless
discussions with no substance.
K.S. Brønnick
Eric Bennett
> Here's today's Bennett digest:
>
> 1> Message-ID: <ericb-20069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
> 1>
> 1> It's not a forgery, Dave, it's a character set translation.
>
> I did not do any translation, Eric, yet you attributed the text to me.
I already told you I did the translation, and I have given you two
possible reasons for me to do the translation.
> 1> Sorry, DejaNews must have croaked, because I used it to check my
> 1> claim before my post.
>
> I suspect "user error".
Yet you did not suspect user error when I told you that DejaNews claimed
you had written 160,000 usenet articles.
> 1> It said there were no er...@pobox.com articles in its database
> 1> for that newsgroup.
>
> I had no trouble finding evidence of your posting there, Eric.
Nor do I, currently. Perhaps DejaNews' database was out of sync or
behind. Still, I did not actively choose to post there, I simply forgot
to check the crossposted groups on the original message.
> 1> Whatever the reason, it was wrong, and I was wrong.
>
> But posting here is "not wrong"?
Where is "here"?
> 1> Incorrect. I am engaging in the equivalent of translation.
>
> And then falsely attributing the text to me.
Incorrect.
> 1> Irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that you are posting
> there.
Taken out of context. How typical.
> 1> Irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that you are posting
> there.
Taken out of context. How typical.
> 1> Irrelevant, since nobody here has any evidence of forgery.
>
> I have evidence here, Eric.
Incorrect. There is no evidence to have.
> 1> I do not cancel vacations planned weeks in advance just so I can
> 1> respond to your balderdash in a timely manner, Dave.
>
> Odd. Your behavior here suggests that posting forgeries is more
> important than something like a vacation.
If that were true I would have been posting forgeries instead of going on
vacation. But I did go on vacation and I did not post any forgeries.
> 1> Apparently not. You had a whole week to complain about me, Dave.
> 1> And I wasn't even here to defend myself. But apparently you did
> 1> nothing. Why not?
>
> How would you know, Eric? You just finished stating that you have
> a few hundred email messages to catch up on. Maybe you'll find
> something in your email.
Not unless I was going to find something on one of the mailing lists I
read, which would have been illogical.
> 1> Now, if you'll excuse me, I have several thousand usenet articles
> 1> and a few hundred email messages to catch up on.
>
> As I suspected, posting forgeries is more important tham your
> email.
I read the email first, Dave.
Most of the rest of your material here is all irrelevant as we have
covered those issues before:
Yes, but in that case the damage would not be due to "impact" of the
object on the earth's surface.
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could
produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the
Internet, we know this is not true.
- Robert Wilensky, University of California
Dave Tholen
> SNIP (A lot of meaningless stuff)
On the contrary, what I wrote has plenty of meaning.
> Mr. Tholen, do you have anything to say?
An illogical question, given that I've had plenty to say.
> I can't recall you doing anything else but getting into meaningless
> discussions with no substance.
What you can recall is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
BobO
(David Sutherland) said:
|On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 20:26:30 -0400, er...@pobox.com (Eric Bennett)
|wrote:
|
|[snip]
|
|>> There are laws against forgery, Eric. Cornell doesn't need to repeat
|>> them.
|>
|
|[snip]
|
|Is Tholen seriously threatening to report you to Cornell? HA HA HA.
|<wipes eyes>
|
|Tholen got into some shit with his university a while back over some
|comments he made on usenet - if he wants to start a pissing match just
|forward some of his posts to his Dean. I suspect that *any* usenet
|related mail on the subject of Dave Tholen arriving in that particular
|mail box will cause some serious fireworks. Sheesh, Dave seems
|hell-bent on ensuring his own destruction.
|
|
|
|Regards,
|David Sutherland
|(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
May never happen David. There is a distinct possibility that there
isn't anybody else here who is as big of a prick as you are.
Chris Pott
<tholena...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
Be careful Kolbjørn, now you've initiated it.
--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com
Eric Bennett
<9413E0E910B4197B.A5C65C48...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
Pascal Haakmat
Eric Bennett wrote:
>> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>
>What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
--
The CSMA posting style test
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest/
Chris Pott
> In article
> <9413E0E910B4197B.A5C65C48...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
> Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>
> What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
I didn't write that, Eric. Forging posts again?
--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com
Eric Bennett
<F5C8A52A6C7F9320.373398FE...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric
> Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <9413E0E910B4197B.A5C65C48...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
> > Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Be careful KolbjÀrn, now you've initiated it.
> >
> > What alleged "KolbjÀrn", Chris?
>
> I didn't write that, Eric.
Incorrect.
> Forging posts again?
Typical invective.
Eric Bennett
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>,
> Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
> >
> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
>
> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
Pascal Haakmat
Eric Bennett wrote:
>> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>> >
>> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
>>
>> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>
>Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
What alleged discussion, Eric?
David T. Wang
: Eric Bennett wrote:
: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
: >> >
: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
: >>
: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
: >
: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
: What alleged discussion, Eric?
This one, Pascal.
--
It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
Internet, we know that this is not true.
Eric Bennett
> What alleged discussion, Eric?
What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Pascal Haakmat (p...@awacs.dhs.org) wrote:
> : Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> : >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
> : >> >
> : >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
> : >>
> : >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
> : >
> : >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
>
> : What alleged discussion, Eric?
>
> This one, Pascal.
Logic makes a cameo appearance.
Pascal Haakmat
wrote:
>> : >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>> : >> >
>> : >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
>> : >>
>> : >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>> : >
>> : >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
>>
>> : What alleged discussion, Eric?
>>
>> This one, Pascal.
>
>Logic makes a cameo appearance.
Non sequitur.
Pascal Haakmat
wrote:
>> What alleged discussion, Eric?
>
>What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
Pascal Haakmat
>: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>: >> >
>: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
>: >>
>: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>: >
>: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
>
>: What alleged discussion, Eric?
>
>This one, Pascal.
You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
David T. Wang
: In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
: wrote:
: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >
: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
What you can come up with is irrelevant. What you can prove, is.
Pascal Haakmat
>: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >
>: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
>
>: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
>
>What you can come up with is irrelevant.
Where did I come up with anything, David?
>What you can prove, is.
I have provided the evidence.
David T. Wang
: In article <7ku5lc$589$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, David T. Wang wrote:
: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
: >: >> >
: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
: >: >>
: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
: >: >
: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
: >
: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >
: >This one, Pascal.
: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
Typical invective.
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>: >: >> >
>: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
>: >: >>
>: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>: >: >
>: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
>: >
>: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >
>: >This one, Pascal.
>
>: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
>
>Typical invective.
See what I mean?
David T. Wang
: In article <7ku9tt$cg2$1...@hecate.umd.edu>, David T. Wang wrote:
: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >
: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
: >
: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
: >
: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
: Where did I come up with anything, David?
Allegation of evidence tampering.
: >What you can prove, is.
: I have provided the evidence.
What evidence, Pascal?
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >: >
>: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
>: >
>: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
>: >
>: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
>
>: Where did I come up with anything, David?
>
>Allegation of evidence tampering.
On the contrary, given that the evidence has been tampered with, David.
>: >What you can prove, is.
>
>: I have provided the evidence.
>
>What evidence, Pascal?
How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
has been tampered with.
David T. Wang
: >: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
: >: >: >> >
: >: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
: >: >: >>
: >: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
: >: >
: >: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >
: >: >This one, Pascal.
: >
: >: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
: >
: >Typical invective.
: See what I mean?
Non sequitur.
David T. Wang
: >: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
: >: >
: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
: >: >
: >: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
: >
: >: Where did I come up with anything, David?
: >
: >Allegation of evidence tampering.
: On the contrary, given that the evidence has been tampered with, David.
Where is your proof that the evidence has been tampered with, Pascal?
: >: >What you can prove, is.
: >
: >: I have provided the evidence.
: >
: >What evidence, Pascal?
: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
: has been tampered with.
Typical invective.
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
>: >: >
>: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
>: >: >
>: >: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
>: >
>: >: Where did I come up with anything, David?
>: >
>: >Allegation of evidence tampering.
>
>: On the contrary, given that the evidence has been tampered with, David.
>
>Where is your proof that the evidence has been tampered with, Pascal?
Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
>: >: >What you can prove, is.
>: >
>: >: I have provided the evidence.
>: >
>: >What evidence, Pascal?
>
>: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
>: has been tampered with.
>
>Typical invective.
Incorrect, as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
that the evidence has been tampered with.
--
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>: >: >: >> >
>: >: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
>: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
>: >: >
>: >: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >: >
>: >: >This one, Pascal.
>: >
>: >: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
>: >
>: >Typical invective.
>
>: See what I mean?
>
>Non sequitur.
On the contrary, you just fail to comprehend why it is sequitur.
Pascal Haakmat
wrote:
>> >> This one, Pascal.
>> >
>> >Logic makes a cameo appearance.
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>
>Jumping into our discussion again, Pascal?
How ironic, coming from someone who routinely jumps to conclusions.
Eric Bennett
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
> >
> >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
Typical unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective.
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
30 years of OS research as most of the rest of the computer world is
to any clues on user interface.
- Zalman Stern
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> What you can prove, is.
Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : I have provided the evidence.
>
> What evidence, Pascal?
Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
Eric Bennett
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> This one, Pascal.
> >
> >Logic makes a cameo appearance.
>
> Non sequitur.
Jumping into our discussion again, Pascal?
--
Pascal Haakmat
wrote:
>> >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
>> >
>> >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
>>
>> How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
>
>Typical unsubstantiated claim,
Incorrect.
>laced with invective.
Illogical.
Eric Bennett
> Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
Illogical, as I have not snipped any evidence.
> >: >: >What you can prove, is.
> >: >
> >: >: I have provided the evidence.
> >: >
> >: >What evidence, Pascal?
> >
> >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
> >: has been tampered with.
> >
> >Typical invective.
>
> Incorrect,
Prove it, if you think you can.
> as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
> that the evidence has been tampered with.
Typical invective. Taking posting lessons from Jason S. again, Pascal?
Pascal Haakmat
>> Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
>
>Illogical, as I have not snipped any evidence.
As I suspected, posting forgeries is more important than answering the
question.
>> >: >: >What you can prove, is.
>> >: >
>> >: >: I have provided the evidence.
>> >: >
>> >: >What evidence, Pascal?
>> >
>> >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
>> >: has been tampered with.
>> >
>> >Typical invective.
>>
>> Incorrect,
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.
Unnecessary.
>> as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
>> that the evidence has been tampered with.
>
>Typical invective.
Incorrect.
>Taking posting lessons from Jason S. again, Pascal?
On what basis do you make that claim?
Eric Bennett
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> >> This one, Pascal.
> >> >
> >> >Logic makes a cameo appearance.
> >>
> >> Non sequitur.
> >
> >Jumping into our discussion again, Pascal?
>
> How ironic,
What is "ironic" about it, Pascal?
> coming from someone who routinely jumps to conclusions.
What alleged "who", Pascal?
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
>
> : > : I have provided the evidence.
> : >
> : > What evidence, Pascal?
>
> : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
>
> What alleged discussion, Eric?
Don't you know, Dave?
Eric Bennett
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
> >> >
> >> >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
> >>
> >> How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
> >
> >Typical unsubstantiated claim,
>
> Incorrect.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> >laced with invective.
>
> Illogical.
Incorrect.
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
>
> : > What you can prove, is.
>
> : Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
>
> False, you cannot prove something which does not exist.
But you can prove its nonexistence. Of course, it takes decent logic
skills to realize that.
Eric Bennett
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
> >
> >Illogical, as I have not snipped any evidence.
>
> As I suspected, posting forgeries is more important than answering the
> question.
I answered the question: I have not snipped any evidence. It takes only
marginal reading comprehension skills to recognize this, yet you still
fail to do so. How typical.
> >> >: >: >What you can prove, is.
> >> >: >
> >> >: >: I have provided the evidence.
> >> >: >
> >> >: >What evidence, Pascal?
> >> >
> >> >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the
evidence
> >> >: has been tampered with.
> >> >
> >> >Typical invective.
> >>
> >> Incorrect,
> >
> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Unnecessary.
Incorrect. Proof is relevant and necessary when you make an
unsubstantiated claim such as your above statement, "Incorrect."
> >> as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
> >> that the evidence has been tampered with.
> >
> >Typical invective.
>
> Incorrect.
Taking posting lessons from Haakmat again, Pascal?
> >Taking posting lessons from Jason S. again, Pascal?
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?
On the basis of your typical invective and attempts to get a "rise" out of me.
Eric Bennett
> Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the tampering
> with the evidence.
So you admit to tampering with the evidence by snipping me? Common sense
makes a cameo appearance.
> >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
> >inability to prove it.
>
> Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
> which you choose to ignore.
Incorrect, given that no such forgeries exist.
Chris Pott
> In article
> <F5C8A52A6C7F9320.373398FE...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
> Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric
> > Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <9413E0E910B4197B.A5C65C48...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
> > > Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Be careful KolbjÀrn, now you've initiated it.
> > >
> > > What alleged "KolbjÀrn", Chris?
I didn't write that either, Eric. I wonder how Cornell would react to
the information that you have been forging posts again.
> > I didn't write that, Eric.
>
> Incorrect.
Typical unsubstantiated balderdash.
> > Forging posts again?
>
> Typical invective.
Incorrect.
--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com
Eric Bennett
<52359E558CC90E6F.20915B2D...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric
> Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <F5C8A52A6C7F9320.373398FE...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
> > Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric
> > > Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > >
<9413E0E910B4197B.A5C65C48...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
> > > > Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Be careful KolbjËrn, now you've initiated it.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged "KolbjËrn", Chris?
>
> I didn't write that either, Eric. I wonder how Cornell would react to
> the information that you have been forging posts again.
Of course you didn't write that, because you forged my material. I wonder
how Excite will react to this information, Chris.
> > > I didn't write that, Eric.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated balderdash.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > Forging posts again?
> >
> > Typical invective.
>
> Incorrect.
See what I mean?
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
Chris Pott
> In article
> <52359E558CC90E6F.20915B2D...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
> Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > > Be careful KolbjËrn, now you've initiated it.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged "KolbjËrn", Chris?
> >
> > I didn't write that either, Eric. I wonder how Cornell would react to
> > the information that you have been forging posts again.
>
> Of course you didn't write that, because you forged my material. I wonder
> how Excite will react to this information, Chris.
Typical paranoid invective.
> > Typical unsubstantiated balderdash.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Prove what, Eric?
> > > > Forging posts again?
> > >
> > > Typical invective.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> See what I mean?
Non sequitur. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere
to be seen!
--
Chris Pott
cp...@excite.com
David T. Wang
: >: >: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
: >: >
: >: >: Where did I come up with anything, David?
: >: >
: >: >Allegation of evidence tampering.
: >
: >: On the contrary, given that the evidence has been tampered with, David.
: >
: >Where is your proof that the evidence has been tampered with, Pascal?
: Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
Irrelevant. What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
inability to prove it.
: >: >: >What you can prove, is.
: >: >
: >: >: I have provided the evidence.
: >: >
: >: >What evidence, Pascal?
: >
: >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
: >: has been tampered with.
: >
: >Typical invective.
: Incorrect, as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
: that the evidence has been tampered with.
Untrue.
David T. Wang
: >: >: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
: >: >: >: >> >
: >: >: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >This one, Pascal.
: >: >
: >: >: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
: >: >
: >: >Typical invective.
: >
: >: See what I mean?
: >
: >Non sequitur.
: On the contrary, you just fail to comprehend why it is sequitur.
Prove it, if you think you can.
--
David T. Wang
: > >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
: > >
: > >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
: >
: > How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
: Typical unsubstantiated claim, laced with invective.
Logic makes a cameo appearance.
--
David T. Wang
: > What you can prove, is.
: Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
False, you cannot prove something which does not exist.
--
David T. Wang
: > : I have provided the evidence.
: >
: > What evidence, Pascal?
: Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
What alleged discussion, Eric?
--
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>: >: >: >: >> >
>: >: >: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
>: >: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >This one, Pascal.
>: >: >
>: >: >: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
>: >: >
>: >: >Typical invective.
>: >
>: >: See what I mean?
>: >
>: >Non sequitur.
>
>: On the contrary, you just fail to comprehend why it is sequitur.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.
See what I mean?
--
Pascal Haakmat
>: > : I have provided the evidence.
>: >
>: > What evidence, Pascal?
>
>: Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
>
>What alleged discussion, Eric?
Typical Wang.
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
>: >: >
>: >: >: Where did I come up with anything, David?
>: >: >
>: >: >Allegation of evidence tampering.
>: >
>: >: On the contrary, given that the evidence has been tampered with, David.
>: >
>: >Where is your proof that the evidence has been tampered with, Pascal?
>
>: Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
>
>Irrelevant.
Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the tampering
with the evidence.
>What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
>inability to prove it.
Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
which you choose to ignore.
>: >: >: >What you can prove, is.
>: >: >
>: >: >: I have provided the evidence.
>: >: >
>: >: >What evidence, Pascal?
>: >
>: >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
>: >: has been tampered with.
>: >
>: >Typical invective.
>
>: Incorrect, as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
>: that the evidence has been tampered with.
>
>Untrue.
Prove it, if you think you can.
--
David T. Wang
: >: >: >: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
: >: >: >: >: >> >
: >: >: >: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
: >: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
: >: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >This one, Pascal.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >Typical invective.
: >: >
: >: >: See what I mean?
: >: >
: >: >Non sequitur.
: >
: >: On the contrary, you just fail to comprehend why it is sequitur.
: >
: >Prove it, if you think you can.
: See what I mean?
Non sequitur.
--
David T. Wang
: >: > : I have provided the evidence.
: >: >
: >: > What evidence, Pascal?
: >
: >: Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
: >
: >What alleged discussion, Eric?
: Typical Wang.
Incorrect.
David T. Wang
: >: >: >: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: Where did I come up with anything, David?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >Allegation of evidence tampering.
: >: >
: >: >: On the contrary, given that the evidence has been tampered with, David.
: >: >
: >: >Where is your proof that the evidence has been tampered with, Pascal?
: >
: >: Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
: >
: >Irrelevant.
: Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the tampering
: with the evidence.
Prove it, if you think you can.
: >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
: >inability to prove it.
: Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
: which you choose to ignore.
Prove it, if you think you can.
: >: >: >: >What you can prove, is.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: I have provided the evidence.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >What evidence, Pascal?
: >: >
: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
: >: >: has been tampered with.
: >: >
: >: >Typical invective.
: >
: >: Incorrect, as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
: >: that the evidence has been tampered with.
: >
: >Untrue.
: Prove it, if you think you can.
Prove what, Pascal?
David T. Wang
: dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: >
: > : > What you can prove, is.
: >
: > : Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
: >
: > False, you cannot prove something which does not exist.
: But you can prove its nonexistence. Of course, it takes decent logic
: skills to realize that.
Illogical.
David T. Wang
: dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: >
: > : > : I have provided the evidence.
: > : >
: > : > What evidence, Pascal?
: >
: > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
: >
: > What alleged discussion, Eric?
: Don't you know, Dave?
What alleged discussion, Eric?
--
Dave Tholen
1> Message-ID: <ericb-22069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
1>
1> > Urer'f gbqnl'f Unnxzng qvtrfg:
1>
1> Evidence, please.
I didn't write that, Eric.
1> > Jvgu jung?
1>
1> Evidence, please.
I didn't write that, Eric.
1> > Glcvpny hafhofgnagvngrq pynvz.
1>
1> Evidence, please.
I didn't write that, Eric.
2> Message-ID: <ericb-22069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
2>
2> I already told you I did the translation,
Which means you are incorrectly attributing the text to me.
2> and I have given you two possible reasons for me to do the
2> translation.
Your rationalizations are irrelevant.
2> Yet you did not suspect user error when I told you that DejaNews
2> claimed you had written 160,000 usenet articles.
Did you bother to read my response to your claim?
2> Nor do I, currently.
Of course, now that I've provided the message ID for you.
2> Perhaps DejaNews' database was out of sync or behind.
Perhaps it was user error.
2> Still, I did not actively choose to post there, I simply forgot
2> to check the crossposted groups on the original message.
That's your problem.
2> Where is "here"?
Where we are.
2> Incorrect.
On the contrary, you are falsely attributing the text to me.
2> Taken out of context.
Incorrect.
2> How typical.
Your incorrect statements are becoming typical.
2> Taken out of context.
Incorrect.
2> How typical.
Your incorrect statements are becoming typical.
2> Incorrect. There is no evidence to have.
On the contrary, I have plenty of evidence.
2> If that were true I would have been posting forgeries instead of going
2> on vacation. But I did go on vacation and I did not post any forgeries.
Do you have any proof of your vacation?
2> Not unless I was going to find something on one of the mailing lists I
2> read, which would have been illogical.
On what basis do you claim it to be illogical?
2> I read the email first, Dave.
Incorrect, as you clearly stated in your posting that you had a few
hundred email messages to read:
EB] Now, if you'll excuse me, I have several thousand usenet articles
EB] and a few hundred email messages to catch up on.
One of your two claims is a lie. Either you read the email first, in
which case you did not have "a few hundred" email message to catch up
on, or you posted first, in which case you did not read the email first.
2> Most of the rest of your material here is all irrelevant as we have
2> covered those issues before:
Evidence of your forgery is not irrelevant, Eric.
2> Yes, but in that case the damage would not be due to "impact" of the
2> object on the earth's surface.
Nevertheless, the object did create the shock wave, thus your statement
is still incorrect.
3> Message-ID: <ericb-22069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
3>
3> Your Tholen emulator is using unapproved Tholen material.
There is no "approved material", Eric.
4> Message-ID: <ericb-22069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
4>
4> > nag...@lnubb.pbz (incbe) jevgrf:
4>
4> Strolling down irrelevancy lane again, Dave?
I didn't write that, Eric.
4> > Glcvpny vairpgvir.
4>
4> What is "Glcvpny" about it, Dave?
Pascal Haakmat
>> >> >> This one, Pascal.
>> >> >
>> >> >Logic makes a cameo appearance.
>> >>
>> >> Non sequitur.
>> >
>> >Jumping into our discussion again, Pascal?
>>
>> How ironic,
>
>What is "ironic" about it, Pascal?
Don't you see, Eric?
>> coming from someone who routinely jumps to conclusions.
>
>What alleged "who", Pascal?
Don't you see, Eric?
Pascal Haakmat
wrote:
>> >> >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
>> >> >
>> >> >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
>> >>
>> >> How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
>> >
>> >Typical unsubstantiated claim,
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.
Unnecessary.
>> >laced with invective.
>>
>> Illogical.
>
>Incorrect.
On the contrary.
Pascal Haakmat
wrote:
>> >> Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
>> >
>> >Illogical, as I have not snipped any evidence.
>>
>> As I suspected, posting forgeries is more important than answering the
>> question.
>
>I answered the question:
Where did you answer the question, Eric?
>I have not snipped any evidence.
Yet you did.
"Swiss cheese."
-- Hununnununuh
>It takes only marginal reading comprehension skills to recognize this,
On the contrary, as there is nothing to be recognized.
>yet you still fail to do so.
What alleged failure, Eric?
>How typical.
Incorrect.
>> >> >: >: >What you can prove, is.
>> >> >: >
>> >> >: >: I have provided the evidence.
>> >> >: >
>> >> >: >What evidence, Pascal?
>> >> >
>> >> >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the
>evidence
>> >> >: has been tampered with.
>> >> >
>> >> >Typical invective.
>> >>
>> >> Incorrect,
>> >
>> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>>
>> Unnecessary.
>
>Incorrect.
Incorrect.
>Proof is relevant and necessary when you make an
>unsubstantiated claim such as your above statement, "Incorrect."
Of course, it takes decent reading skills to recognize that my above
statement was duly substantiated previously.
>> >> as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
>> >> that the evidence has been tampered with.
>> >
>> >Typical invective.
>>
>> Incorrect.
>
>Taking posting lessons from Haakmat again, Pascal?
Non sequitur.
>> >Taking posting lessons from Jason S. again, Pascal?
>>
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
>
>On the basis of your typical invective and attempts to get a "rise" out of me.
Balderdash.
Pascal Haakmat
wrote:
>> Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the tampering
>> with the evidence.
>
>So you admit to tampering with the evidence by snipping me?
Where did I make such an admission, Eric?
>Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
Illogical.
>> >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
>> >inability to prove it.
>>
>> Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
>> which you choose to ignore.
>
>Incorrect, given that no such forgeries exist.
On the contrary.
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: > : I have provided the evidence.
>: >: >
>: >: > What evidence, Pascal?
>: >
>: >: Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
>: >
>: >What alleged discussion, Eric?
>
>: Typical Wang.
>
>Incorrect.
See what I mean?
--
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >: >: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
>: >: >: >: >: >> >
>: >: >: >: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
>: >: >: >: >: >>
>: >: >: >: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>: >: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
>: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: >This one, Pascal.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >Typical invective.
>: >: >
>: >: >: See what I mean?
>: >: >
>: >: >Non sequitur.
>: >
>: >: On the contrary, you just fail to comprehend why it is sequitur.
>: >
>: >Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>: See what I mean?
>
>Non sequitur.
Taking posting lessons from Tholen again, Dave?
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >: >: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
>: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
>: >: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: Where did I come up with anything, David?
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >Allegation of evidence tampering.
>: >: >
>: >: >: On the contrary, given that the evidence has been tampered with, David.
>: >: >
>: >: >Where is your proof that the evidence has been tampered with, Pascal?
>: >
>: >: Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
>: >
>: >Irrelevant.
>
>: Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the tampering
>: with the evidence.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.
Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
>: >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
>: >inability to prove it.
>
>: Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
>: which you choose to ignore.
>
>Prove it, if you think you can.
Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
>: >: >: >: >What you can prove, is.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >: I have provided the evidence.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: >What evidence, Pascal?
>: >: >
>: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the evidence
>: >: >: has been tampered with.
>: >: >
>: >: >Typical invective.
>: >
>: >: Incorrect, as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
>: >: that the evidence has been tampered with.
>: >
>: >Untrue.
>
>: Prove it, if you think you can.
>
>Prove what, Pascal?
Your ability to understand that the evidence has been tampered with.
David T. Wang
: >: >: > : I have provided the evidence.
: >: >: >
: >: >: > What evidence, Pascal?
: >: >
: >: >: Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
: >: >
: >: >What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >
: >: Typical Wang.
: >
: >Incorrect.
: See what I mean?
Illogical.
David T. Wang
: >: >: >: >: >: >> >> Be careful Kolbj¿rn, now you've initiated it.
: >: >: >: >: >: >> >
: >: >: >: >: >: >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
: >: >: >: >: >: >>
: >: >: >: >: >: >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
: >: >: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: >: >Jumping into discussions again, Pascal?
: >: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: >: What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: >This one, Pascal.
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: You are erroneously presupposing the existence of a discussion.
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >Typical invective.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: See what I mean?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >Non sequitur.
: >: >
: >: >: On the contrary, you just fail to comprehend why it is sequitur.
: >: >
: >: >Prove it, if you think you can.
: >
: >: See what I mean?
: >
: >Non sequitur.
: Taking posting lessons from Tholen again, Dave?
Illogical.
Pascal Haakmat
>: >: >: > : I have provided the evidence.
>: >: >: >
>: >: >: > What evidence, Pascal?
>: >: >
>: >: >: Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
>: >: >
>: >: >What alleged discussion, Eric?
>: >
>: >: Typical Wang.
>: >
>: >Incorrect.
>
>: See what I mean?
>
>Illogical.
Incorrect.
David T. Wang
: >: >: >: >: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
: >: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
: >: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: Where did I come up with anything, David?
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >Allegation of evidence tampering.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: On the contrary, given that Clinton has been with Eric.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >Where is your proof that Clinton has been with Eric, Pascal?
: >: >
: >: >: Why don't you ask Eric Bennett why he snipped the evidence?
: >: >
: >: >Irrelevant.
: >
: >: Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the tampering
: >: with the evidence.
: >
: >Prove it, if you think you can.
: Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
Typical invective.
: >: >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
: >: >inability to prove it.
: >
: >: Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
: >: which you choose to ignore.
: >
: >Prove it, if you think you can.
: Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
Typical invective.
: >: >: >: >: >What you can prove, is.
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >: I have provided the evidence.
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: >What evidence, Pascal?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that I
: >: >: >: have been tampered with.
: >: >: >
: >: >: >Typical invective.
: >: >
: >: >: Incorrect, as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
: >: >: that I have been tampered with.
: >: >
: >: >Untrue.
: >
: >: Prove it, if you think you can.
: >
: >Prove what, Pascal?
: Your ability to understand that the evidence has been tampered with.
What alleged evidence on what topic, Pascal?
David T. Wang
: >: >: >: > : I have provided the evidence.
: >: >: >: >
: >: >: >: > What evidence, Pascal?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >: Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
: >: >: >
: >: >: >What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >: >
: >: >: Typical Wang.
: >: >
: >: >Incorrect.
: >
: >: See what I mean?
: >
: >Illogical.
: Incorrect.
Taking posting lessons from Jason S. again?
Eric Bennett
>
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> with the evidence.
> >
>
> Where did I make such an admission, Eric?
When you wrote "the snipping of Eric Bennett", which was in reference to
your own posts. Comprehend context, Pascal.
> >Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>
> Illogical.
Incorrect.
> >> >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
> >> >inability to prove it.
> >>
> >> Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
> >> which you choose to ignore.
> >
> >Incorrect, given that no such forgeries exist.
>
> On the contrary.
On the contrary what, Pascal?
--
Eric Bennett ( er...@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )
Field of Biochemistry, Cornell University
If our products failed as often as Windows 95, we'd have been
out of business long ago.
- Howard Selland, President, Aeroquip Corporation
Eric Bennett
>
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> As I suspected, posting forgeries is more important than answering the
> >> question.
> >
> >I answered the question:
>
> Where did you answer the question, Eric?
In the material you snipped, in typical Pascal "Master of Deletion"
Haakmat fashion.
> >I have not snipped any evidence.
>
> Yet you did.
What evidence did I snip?
> "Swiss cheese."
> -- Hununnununuh
Illogical.
> >It takes only marginal reading comprehension skills to recognize this,
>
> On the contrary, as there is nothing to be recognized.
How ironic that you fail to recognize the existence of something to be
recognized.
> What alleged failure, Eric?
What alleged "alleged failure", Pascal?
> >How typical.
>
> Incorrect.
Taking posting lessons from David Wang again, Pascal?
> >> >> >: >: >What you can prove, is.
> >> >> >: >
> >> >> >: >: I have provided the evidence.
> >> >> >: >
> >> >> >: >What evidence, Pascal?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that the
> >evidence
> >> >> >: has been tampered with.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Typical invective.
> >> >>
> >> >> Incorrect,
> >> >
> >> >Prove it, if you think you can.
> >>
> >> Unnecessary.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Incorrect.
Incorrect.
> >Proof is relevant and necessary when you make an
> >unsubstantiated claim such as your above statement, "Incorrect."
>
> Of course, it takes decent reading skills to recognize that my above
> statement was duly substantiated previously.
Incorrect, as there was no substantiation.
> >> >> as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
> >> >> that the evidence has been tampered with.
> >> >
> >> >Typical invective.
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> >Taking posting lessons from Haakmat again, Pascal?
>
> Non sequitur.
See what I mean?
> >> >Taking posting lessons from Jason S. again, Pascal?
> >>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim?
> >
> >On the basis of your typical invective and attempts to get a "rise" out of me.
>
> Balderdash.
Still trying to get a "rise" out of me, Pascal? How typical.
Eric Bennett
>
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
> >> >>
> >> >> How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
> >> >
> >> >Typical unsubstantiated claim,
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
>
> Unnecessary.
Incorrect.
> >> >laced with invective.
> >>
> >> Illogical.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> On the contrary.
What alleged contrary, Pascal?
> --
> The CSMA posting style test
> http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest/
Irrelevant.
Eric Bennett
>
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Logic makes a cameo appearance.
> >> >>
> >> >> Non sequitur.
> >> >
> >> >Jumping into our discussion again, Pascal?
> >>
> >> How ironic,
> >
> >What is "ironic" about it, Pascal?
>
> Don't you see, Eric?
Typical invective. Meanwhile, where is your logical response to my
question? Why, nowhere to be seen!
> >> coming from someone who routinely jumps to conclusions.
> >
> >What alleged "who", Pascal?
>
> Don't you see, Eric?
Typical invective. Meanwhile, where is your logical response to my
question? Why, nowhere to be seen!
Eric Bennett
> I didn't write that, Eric.
You seem to be the only one who is having trouble comprehending what is
taking place here, Dave. Why is that?
If I post a translation of the works of Shakespeare in Spanish, it is
certainly proper to credit Shakespeare as the author. That is why I
credit you with being the author of your translated works.
> Your rationalizations are irrelevant.
Incorrect.
> 2> Yet you did not suspect user error when I told you that DejaNews
> 2> claimed you had written 160,000 usenet articles.
>
> Did you bother to read my response to your claim?
Yes. As I recall, your response was "DejaNews is wrong".
> 2> Perhaps DejaNews' database was out of sync or behind.
>
> Perhaps it was user error.
So what? "Perhaps" you are user error yourself.
> 2> Still, I did not actively choose to post there, I simply forgot
> 2> to check the crossposted groups on the original message.
>
> That's your problem.
Irrelevant.
> 2> Where is "here"?
>
> Where we are.
"Where we are" changes constantly, making it difficult to know which
location you are trying to discuss. Be more specific.
> 2> Incorrect.
>
> On the contrary, you are falsely attributing the text to me.
Incorrect.
> 2> Taken out of context.
>
> Incorrect.
Incorrect.
> 2> How typical.
>
> Your incorrect statements are becoming typical.
Irrelevant.
> 2> Taken out of context.
>
> Incorrect.
Incorrect.
> 2> How typical.
>
> Your incorrect statements are becoming typical.
Irrelevant.
> 2> Incorrect. There is no evidence to have.
>
> On the contrary, I have plenty of evidence.
Impossible, unless you have fabricated evidence, but even then it isn't
really evidence.
> 2> If that were true I would have been posting forgeries instead of going
> 2> on vacation. But I did go on vacation and I did not post any forgeries.
>
> Do you have any proof of your vacation?
What sort of proof would you like? There was a dead jellyfish on the
beach. I should have saved it for you. I have some gas station
receipts from using my credit card to refuel. But you probably think I
forged them.
Oh, I guess I should warn you, before you get all uptight about it... I
will be out of town again in mid July, probably from the 11th to the
15th.
> 2> Not unless I was going to find something on one of the mailing lists I
> 2> read, which would have been illogical.
>
> On what basis do you claim it to be illogical?
Don't you know, Dave?
> 2> I read the email first, Dave.
>
> Incorrect, as you clearly stated in your posting that you had a few
> hundred email messages to read:
>
> EB] Now, if you'll excuse me, I have several thousand usenet articles
> EB] and a few hundred email messages to catch up on.
>
> One of your two claims is a lie. Either you read the email first, in
> which case you did not have "a few hundred" email message to catch up
> on, or you posted first, in which case you did not read the email first.
Incorrect, as you do not know which email messages were "the email" that
I read.
I read the email that would be relevant to possible actions taken by you
(email not from mailing lists) first. The mail from the mailing lists,
which would be an illogical way of contacting me about my personal
behavior, was still unread. Most of the mail was from mailing lists.
> 2> Most of the rest of your material here is all irrelevant as we have
> 2> covered those issues before:
>
> Evidence of your forgery is not irrelevant, Eric.
But you have not shown any evidence of forgery. What you have shown is
irrelevant material.
> 2> Yes, but in that case the damage would not be due to "impact" of the
> 2> object on the earth's surface.
>
> Nevertheless, the object did create the shock wave, thus your statement
> is still incorrect.
You have no proof of a shock wave, only evidence which leads you to
believe there may have been a shock wave; in any case, I did not say
there was no shock wave.
> 3> Message-ID: <ericb-22069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>
> 3>
> 3> Your Tholen emulator is using unapproved Tholen material.
>
> There is no "approved material", Eric.
How do you know, Dave?
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
>
> : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : >
> : > : > : I have provided the evidence.
> : > : >
> : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
> : >
> : > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
> : >
> : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
>
> : Don't you know, Dave?
>
> What alleged discussion, Eric?
See what I mean?
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
>
> : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : >
> : > : > What you can prove, is.
> : >
> : > : Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
> : >
> : > False, you cannot prove something which does not exist.
>
> : But you can prove its nonexistence. Of course, it takes decent logic
> : skills to realize that.
>
> Illogical.
Eric Bennett
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
> >> >>
> >> >> How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
> >> >
> >> >Typical unsubstantiated claim,
> >>
> >> Incorrect.
> >
> >Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Unnecessary.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> >> >laced with invective.
> >>
> >> Illogical.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> On the contrary.
Prove it, if you think you can.
--
Eric Bennett
<395900B2E1BA28DE.A14DB1E3...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric
> Bennett <er...@pobox.com> wrote:
Prove it, if you think you can.
> > In article
> > <52359E558CC90E6F.20915B2D...@lp.airnews.net>, Chris
> > Pott <cp...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Be careful Kolbjèrn, now you've initiated it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What alleged "Kolbjèrn", Chris?
> > >
> > > I didn't write that either, Eric. I wonder how Cornell would react to
> > > the information that you have been forging posts again.
> >
> > Of course you didn't write that, because you forged my material. I wonder
> > how Excite will react to this information, Chris.
>
> Typical paranoid invective.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> > > Typical unsubstantiated balderdash.
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Prove what, Eric?
Your typical unsubstantiated balderdash.
> > > > > Forging posts again?
> > > >
> > > > Typical invective.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Non sequitur. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere
> to be seen!
See what I mean?
--
Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
30 years of OS research as most of the rest of the computer world is
to any clues on user interface.
- Zalman Stern
David T. Wang
: dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: >
: > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : > : I have provided the evidence.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
: > : >
: > : > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
: > : >
: > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >
: > : Don't you know, Dave?
: >
: > What alleged discussion, Eric?
: See what I mean?
Non sequitur.
--
David T. Wang
: dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: >
: > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
: > : >
: > : > False, you cannot prove something which does not exist.
: >
: > : But you can prove its nonexistence. Of course, it takes decent logic
: > : skills to realize that.
: >
: > Illogical.
: See what I mean?
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
Evidence, please.
> : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
>
> : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : >
> : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : > : I have provided the evidence.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
> : > : >
> : > : > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
> : > : >
> : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> : >
> : > : Don't you know, Dave?
> : >
> : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
>
> : See what I mean?
>
> Non sequitur.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> --
> It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> Internet, we know that this is not true.
Typical invective.
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : >
> : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : > What you can prove, is.
> : > : >
> : > : > : Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
> : > : >
> : > : > False, you cannot prove something which does not exist.
> : >
> : > : But you can prove its nonexistence. Of course, it takes decent logic
> : > : skills to realize that.
> : >
> : > Illogical.
>
> : See what I mean?
>
> Non
Illogical.
> sequitur.
Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
--
David T. Wang
: dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: Evidence, please.
Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
: > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: >
: > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : > : I have provided the evidence.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
: > : >
: > : > : Don't you know, Dave?
: > : >
: > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
: >
: > : See what I mean?
: >
: > Non sequitur.
: Prove it, if you think you can.
Matters which are self evident need not be proven. Must we prove
that usenet exists?
: > --
: > It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
: > can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
: > Internet, we know that this is not true.
: Typical invective.
See what I mean?
: --
: Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
: Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
: 30 years of OS research as most of the rest of the computer world is
: to any clues on user interface.
: - Zalman Stern
Non sequitur.
David T. Wang
: dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > False, you cannot prove something which does not exist.
: > : >
: > : > : But you can prove its nonexistence. Of course, it takes decent logic
: > : > : skills to realize that.
: > : >
: > : > Illogical.
: >
: >
: > Non
: Illogical.
Incorrect.
: > sequitur.
: Common
Prove it, if you think you can.
: sense makes a cameo
Illogical.
: appearance.
Illogical.
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
>
> : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
>
> : Evidence, please.
>
> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
Taking posting lessons from Ho You Kong again, Dave?
> : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : >
> : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > : I have provided the evidence.
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> : > : >
> : > : > : Don't you know, Dave?
> : > : >
> : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> : >
> : > : See what I mean?
> : >
> : > Non sequitur.
>
> : Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Matters which are self evident need not be proven.
Evidence, please.
> Must we prove
> that usenet exists?
Yes.
> : > --
> : > It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> : > can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> : > Internet, we know that this is not true.
>
> : Typical invective.
>
> See what I mean?
Classic Wang.
> : --
> : Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
>
> : Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
> : 30 years of OS research as most of the rest of the computer world is
> : to any clues on user interface.
> : - Zalman Stern
>
> Non sequitur.
But still relevant.
> --
> It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> Internet, we know that this is not true.
Typical invective.
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > What you can prove, is.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : Illogical, as prove can be proof of nonexistence.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > False, you cannot prove something which does not exist.
> : > : >
> : > : > : But you can prove its nonexistence. Of course, it takes
decent logic
> : > : > : skills to realize that.
> : > : >
> : > : > Illogical.
> : >
> : > : See what I mean?
> : >
> : > Non
>
> : Illogical.
>
> Incorrect.
Non sequitur.
> : > sequitur.
>
> : Common
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Illogically taken out of context, in classic Wang fashion.
> : sense makes a cameo
>
> Illogical.
Because you took it out of context, in classic Wang fashion.
> : appearance.
>
> Illogical.
Because you took it out of context, in classic Wang fashion.
A D
> >> >
> >> >What alleged "Kolbj¿rn", Chris?
What the heck is a Kolbj¿rn? That's not ROT13, alright.
--epicman2627
A D
> >
> > >> Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the tampering
> > >> with the evidence.
> > >
> > >So you admit to tampering with the evidence by snipping me?
> >
> > Where did I make such an admission, Eric?
>
> When you wrote "the snipping of Eric Bennett", which was in reference to
> your own posts. Comprehend context, Pascal.
Quite the contrary. It appears that "the snipping of Eric Bennett" is in
reference to the snipping that _you_ have performed. Comprehend meaning,
Eric.
How typical. You deduct the meaning of something from what is near it,
not what it is.
> > >Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> Incorrect.
>
Give proof that it is incorrect, Eric.
> > >> >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
> > >> >inability to prove it.
> > >>
> > >> Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
> > >> which you choose to ignore.
> > >
> > >Incorrect, given that no such forgeries exist.
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> On the contrary what, Pascal?
On the contrary the forgeries _do_ exist.
--epicman2627
A D
>
> Pascal Haakmat (p...@awacs.dhs.org) wrote:
>
> : >: >: >: >: >: >> What alleged discussion, Eric?
> : >: >: >: >: >: >
> : >: >: >: >: >: >What alleged "alleged discussion," Pascal?
> : >: >: >: >: >
> : >: >: >: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who snipped the evidence.
> : >: >: >: >: >What you can come up with is irrelevant.
> : >: >: >: >
> : >: >: >: >: Where did I come up with anything, David?
> : >: >: >: >
> : >: >: >: >Allegation of evidence tampering.
> : >: >: >
> : >: >: >: On the contrary, given that Clinton has been with Eric.
> : >: >: >
> : >: >: >Where is your proof that Clinton has been with Eric, Pascal?
> : >: >
> : >: >
> : >: >Irrelevant.
> : >
> : >: Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the tampering
> : >: with the evidence.
> : >
> : >Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> : Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
>
> Typical invective.
On the contrary, a good point.
> : >: >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
> : >: >inability to prove it.
> : >
> : >: Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute the proof,
> : >: which you choose to ignore.
> : >
> : >Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> : Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
>
> Typical invective.
On the contrary, a good point.
> : >: >: >: >: >What you can prove, is.
> : >: >: >: >
> : >: >: >: >: I have provided the evidence.
> : >: >: >: >
> : >: >: >: >What evidence, Pascal?
> : >: >: >
> : >: >: >: How ironic, coming from someone who fails to understand that I
> : >: >: >: have been tampered with.
> : >: >: >
> : >: >: >Typical invective.
> : >: >
> : >: >: Incorrect, as you had already demonstrated your inability to understand
> : >: >: that I have been tampered with.
> : >: >
> : >: >Untrue.
> : >
> : >: Prove it, if you think you can.
> : >
> : >Prove what, Pascal?
>
> : Your ability to understand that the evidence has been tampered with.
>
> What alleged evidence on what topic, Pascal?
Reading comprehension problems, Dave?
A D
>
> In article <7l11ft$it0$2...@hecate.umd.edu>,
> dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
>
>
> > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> >
> > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> > : >
> > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> > : > : >
> > : > : > : >
> > : > : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
> > : > : >
> > : > : >
> > : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> > : >
> > : > : Don't you know, Dave?
> > : >
> > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> >
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Irrevelant.
> > --
> > It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> > can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> > Internet, we know that this is not true.
>
> Typical invective.
It's a signature, Eric. Novel idea, huh?
--epicman2627
Eric Bennett
dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
>
> : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : >
> : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : >
> : > : Evidence, please.
> : >
> : > Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>
> : Taking posting lessons from Ho You Kong again, Dave?
>
> Typical Invective, laced with Illogical argument. You don't see any
> "Muhaaaaaa" nor "pucking" in my posts, do you Eric?
Classic unsubstantiated Wangian claims, laced with invective. The
relevance of your arguments is highly similar to those of Ho You Kong,
hence my logical question.
> : > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang)
wrote:
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > : > : I have provided the evidence.
> : > : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : Don't you know, Dave?
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> : > : >
> : > : > : See what I mean?
> : > : >
> : > : > Non sequitur.
> : >
> : > : Prove it, if you think you can.
> : >
> : > Matters which are self evident need not be proven.
>
> : Evidence, please.
>
> I think,
Classic unsubstantiated claim.
> therefore I am.
Taking posting lessons from Rene "Master of Illogic" Descartes again, David?
> : > Must we prove
> : > that usenet exists?
>
> : Yes.
>
> If usenet does not exist, then you cannot be posting. Are you posting
> Eric?
Don't you know, Dave? Have you considered that you may be imagining this
discussion?
> : > : > It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> : > : > can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> : > : > Internet, we know that this is not true.
> : >
> : > : Typical invective.
> : >
> : > See what I mean?
>
> : Classic Wang.
>
> Illogical.
See what I mean? More classic Wang, laced with Timbol.
> : > : --
> : > : Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
> : >
> : > : Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
> : > : 30 years of OS research as most of the rest of the computer world is
> : > : to any clues on user interface.
> : > : - Zalman Stern
> : >
> : > Non sequitur.
>
> : But still relevant.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
The information you labeled "Non sequitur" deals with operating system
advocacy, which is on-topic in the newsgroups where I posted the message.
Thus, its relevance.
> : > --
> : > It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> : > can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> : > Internet, we know that this is not true.
>
> : Typical invective.
>
> Non sequitur.
Prove it, if you think you can.
> --
> It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> Internet, we know that this is not true.
More evidence of your inconsistency.
A D
>
> Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
>
> : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
>
> : Evidence, please.
>
> Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>
> : >
> : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > : I have provided the evidence.
> : > : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> : > : >
> : > : > : Don't you know, Dave?
> : > : >
> : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> : >
> : > : See what I mean?
> : >
> : > Non sequitur.
>
> : Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> that usenet exists?
Good point, Dave. Something that Eric hasn't figured out yet.
> : > --
> : > It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> : > can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> : > Internet, we know that this is not true.
>
> : Typical invective.
>
> See what I mean?
Good point, Dave. Eric, it's a signature.
> : --
> : Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
>
> : Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
> : 30 years of OS research as most of the rest of the computer world is
> : to any clues on user interface.
> : - Zalman Stern
>
> Non sequitur.
Good point, Eric. Dave, it's a signature.
--epicman2627
Eric Bennett
> Eric Bennett wrote:
> >
> > Pascal Haakmat wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <ericb-24069...@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu>, Eric Bennett
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Not at all, the snipping of Eric Bennett is very relevant to the
tampering
> > > >> with the evidence.
> > > >
> > > >So you admit to tampering with the evidence by snipping me?
> > >
> > > Where did I make such an admission, Eric?
> >
> > When you wrote "the snipping of Eric Bennett", which was in reference to
> > your own posts. Comprehend context, Pascal.
>
> Quite the contrary. It appears that "the snipping of Eric Bennett" is in
> reference to the snipping that _you_ have performed. Comprehend meaning,
> Eric.
> How typical.
What appears to you is not relevant. What you have prove is relevant.
> You deduct the meaning of something from what is near it,
> not what it is.
Typical improper usage of the language.
> > > >Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
> > >
> > > Illogical.
> >
> > Incorrect.
> >
> Give proof that it is incorrect, Eric.
The proof is self-evident.
> > > >> >What Eric may or may not have done is independant of your
> > > >> >inability to prove it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Illogical, given that the forgeries by Eric Bennett constitute
the proof,
> > > >> which you choose to ignore.
> > > >
> > > >Incorrect, given that no such forgeries exist.
> > >
> > > On the contrary.
> >
> > On the contrary what, Pascal?
> On the contrary the forgeries _do_ exist.
>
> --epicman2627
Taking posting lessons from Joseph Malloy again, epicman?
A D
>
> In article <7l13et$re1$1...@hecate.umd.edu>,
> dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> >
> > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> >
> > : Evidence, please.
> >
> > Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
>
Reading comprehension problems, Eric?
> > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> > : >
> > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> > : > : > : dave...@wam.umd.edu@club...@Glue.umd.edu (David T. Wang) wrote:
> > : > : >
> > : > : > : > Eric Bennett (er...@pobox.com) wrote:
> > : > : > : >
> > : > : > : > : > : I have provided the evidence.
> > : > : > : > : >
> > : > : > : > : > What evidence, Pascal?
> > : > : > : >
> > : > : > : > : Jumping into discussions again, Dave?
> > : > : > : >
> > : > : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> > : > : >
> > : > : > : Don't you know, Dave?
> > : > : >
> > : > : > What alleged discussion, Eric?
> > : >
> > : > : See what I mean?
> > : >
> > : > Non sequitur.
> >
> > : Prove it, if you think you can.
> >
> > Matters which are self evident need not be proven.
>
> Evidence, please.
Can't figure it out on your own, Eric?
> > Must we prove
> > that usenet exists?
>
> Yes.
Can't figure it out on your own, Eric?
> > : > --
> > : > It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> > : > can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> > : > Internet, we know that this is not true.
> >
> > : Typical invective.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Classic Wang.
On the contrary. The classic Wang does not often make a good point.
> > : --
> > : Eric Bennett (www.pobox.com/~ericb), Cornell University
> >
> > : Most of the Macintosh community is as remarkably immune to the last
> > : 30 years of OS research as most of the rest of the computer world is
> > : to any clues on user interface.
> > : - Zalman Stern
> >
> > Non sequitur.
It's a signature, Dave.
> But still relevant.
It's a signature, Eric.
> > --
> > It was once said that a million monkeys banging on a million keyboards
> > can reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
> > Internet, we know that this is not true.
>
> Typical invective.
It's a signature, Eric.
--epicman2627
Eric Bennett
It appears to be an ASCII-evolved version of the Scandavian name of
someone who posted a message here.