boi
gekko
Well, sumbitch. Learn something new, etc.
The urban/slang diccie indicates that "boi" is used by the gay/lesbian
community to refer to androgynous females, young submissive gay males,
and also just generically as a young male without the "gay" references.
Now, being a MIG in the gay/lesbian/black community, I, of course, knew
that and could not have picked up the term from where it was being used
(like, say, in misc.writing and in the blogs I read) generically to
refer to males who are behaving like pre-adolescent peckerwoods.
Shamey shamey on me.
--
gekko
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name. - Unknown
Pies de Arcilla
> (like, say, in misc.writing and in the blogs I read) generically to
> refer to males who are behaving like pre-adolescent peckerwoods.
pre?
gekko
better off reading something other than misc.writing, where Pies de
Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com> said, in apparent response to Count
Olaf:
When my daughter was young, she reported one of the neighborhood
boys -- they were about 8 or 9, I recall -- "scaring" them by taking
his weenie out of his pants and running toward them waggling it.
That this behavior continues into adolescence, post-adolescence, and
even into the dementiascence and obsolescense of malehood is
irrelevant.
--
gekko
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas
Adams (1952-)
Stan (the Man)
> If you are interested in stories with happy endings, you would be
> better off reading something other than misc.writing, where Pies de
> Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com> said, in apparent response to Count
> Olaf:
>
>> On Jun 17, 11:45 am, gekko <g...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>> (like, say, in misc.writing and in the blogs I read) generically
>>> to refer to males who are behaving like pre-adolescent
>>> peckerwoods.
>> pre?
>>
>
> When my daughter was young, she reported one of the neighborhood
> boys -- they were about 8 or 9, I recall -- "scaring" them by taking
> his weenie out of his pants and running toward them waggling it.
>
> That this behavior continues into adolescence, post-adolescence, and
> even into the dementiascence and obsolescense of malehood is
> irrelevant.
"Obsolescence?" Pffft! Dreamer.
--
Stan
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>
>Well, sumbitch. Learn something new, etc.
>
>The urban/slang diccie indicates that "boi" is used by the gay/lesbian
>community to refer to androgynous females, young submissive gay males,
>and also just generically as a young male without the "gay" references.
>
>Now, being a MIG in the gay/lesbian/black community, I, of course, knew
>that and could not have picked up the term from where it was being used
>(like, say, in misc.writing and in the blogs I read) generically to
>refer to males who are behaving like pre-adolescent peckerwoods.
>
>Shamey shamey on me.
Thank you, Gekko. Let me state in turn that I didn't know that you
didn't like people here to use your real life oh wait I did. But I
take it back, anyway. It was a direct response to what I had
erroneously assumed was an intentional gay lame and possibly worse,
and the tenor of my response was based in part on an assessment of
your intent that was largely based on that apparent lame.
--
Josh
"Paranoia results from a proper perception
of the food chain." - Boots
gekko
i read misc.writing, where i found Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com>
saying:
> It was a direct response to what I had
> erroneously assumed was an intentional gay lame and possibly worse,
> and the tenor of my response was based in part on an assessment of
> your intent that was largely based on that apparent lame.
_That_ is what I was saying when you first burst out with your
"cunt" remark, Josh.
You never once considered the possibility that you were fucking
_wrong_. You went to lengths to deny that you were _wrong_. You
insisted that my comparison of Stan's behavior in the newsgroup to
that of a bully in a barroom had some fucking thing to do with you
being gay or black or whatever the fuck set you off.
If you're having personal difficulties that caused you to just flat
out see something where nothing existed, I can understand that, but
you just went off the deep end for NO discernable reason.
And you do that ALL the time.
ALL the fucking time, Josh.
Let this be a lesson, Josh. Write 100 times on the blackboard that
you, Josh, can be _wrong_ and you, Josh, are an ass.
I'm quite miffed.
--
gekko
Jury: Twelve people who determine which client has the better
attorney.
Josh Hill
Part of the problem is that I'm gay lamed here constantly, Gekko. Your
original post -- the one that led to my "explosion" -- seemed to me an
extension of Stan's "half man" lames and his claim that I was
compensating for my "tortured sexuality," for not being a "real man."
And then Boots, who I like and respect and who has a wonderfully
refreshing and sometimes challenging honesty about him, seemed to have
accepted Stan's lies. And then you came along with IIRC the piping
voice in a dress thing, and other accusations.
In fact, I'm not in the least bit effeminate or gay-acting in everyday
life, and I suffer from the same testosterone-fueled stupidity as
everyone of the male persuasion. So I felt that I was being
stereotyped, and, more to the point, reacted as any straight and not a
few gay guys would if accused of wearing a dress, that is to say, I
wasn't pleased.
Furthermore, I was frustrated by the fact that some seemed unable to
distinguish between chest-thumping biker dude posing and genuine
strength, between bullying and the much harder job of standing up to
bullies, and supposing that the reason I was criticizing Stan's
bullying was because I was whining rather than pointing to something I
and most people don't think particularly noble. And that some didn't
catch the deep motivations in others that I did, motivations that are
well known to psychologists. Or accept the fact that I pulled my
punches for moral reasons, even though I've said that from the start
and many here do know it. And so forth.
So I think this had all been building up. And then we got into a great
groove for a few days, it was like old times at their best. And then
suddenly I thought the rug had been pulled out from under my
tentacles. Well, really, over a couple of posts IIRC, but it really
hit with the one I responded to. It wouldn't have mattered if it had
come from Fundoc and Maugham and Atilla the Hun and Hannibal's
elephants and a killer rabbit beside. But, well, it came from you. And
/that/ hurt, as only something that comes from someone you care about
ever does.
OK, so then, when I went back a couple of days later and looked at it,
it didn't seem so bad. And you went on about my getting emotional, and
obviously I was, and had to consider whether I should end the
experiment and leave the group again, since I'm so obviously at odds
with the philosophy of the flamers and feel embarrassed and childish
when I respond in kind, because there's nothing much else here
anymore, and because it has some kind of perverse magnetic attraction
for me that isn't good because it keeps me from doing the things I
really should be.
Oh, and sorry. <g>
Arjayem
"Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kjsb73tg26psq24sf...@4ax.com...
> Part of the problem is that I'm gay lamed here constantly, Gekko.
Bwaaah! Or should I say Boo Hoo! Cherubchops,
speaking as one who has been gay lamed, most recently
by you, since the day I swanned into MW, that you're
not in much of a position to defend your honour. Actually
I didn't know you were a friend of . . . I mean queer.
Some of my best friends are bent as butchers hooks and
you don't sound like any of them, pet. You sound like
a man in pain. Still, now that I know you're a poofter, I'll
try not mention it again. You will, though, won't you.
Arjayem
"Arjayem" <scrat...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:KAsdi.717$vA3...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
[edit]
" . . . that you're not etc"? Should that read "I think you're
not" etc.? I think so. Don't want Joshers to misunderstand,
do I? Spoils the ragged right, mind. Oh well. Carry on.
boots
Silly fellow, pointing out the nature of your flopping around doesn't
imply that everything Stan implies is Truth with a capital tee, just
that you don't handle what he dishes out worth a damn.
If you're part black, I'd like to know which part. Are we talking
like, a leg here? An arm? Which one? Past the elbow?
See, I gotta know, I might want to roll my cud around and call you a
sema-niggah or somethin', you know, just to be insulting, 'cause I'm
too fucking stoopid to insult somebody without playing the race card
or the sex card ('jew say you was gay, or was that somebuddy else sed
that?) or any of those other usualames. Oh, and if I call you "boah"
you gots to understan' it's the Foghorn Leghorn accent making me spell
all floopy y'know?
You people. You people make me wonder why more of the world doesn't
consist of booger-eating morons who are your ancestors' git. 'The
fuck is this anyway, an online convention for those who can type
without thinking?
--
The sane answer to insanity is madness.
Josh Hill
wrote:
>
>"Arjayem" <scrat...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:KAsdi.717$vA3...@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Josh Hill" <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kjsb73tg26psq24sf...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Part of the problem is that I'm gay lamed here constantly, Gekko.
>>
>> Bwaaah! Or should I say Boo Hoo! Cherubchops,
>> speaking as one who has been gay lamed, most recently
>> by you, since the day I swanned into MW, that you're
>> not in much of a position to defend your honour.
Just the thing I was saying to my unacknowledged half-black daughter
as the came in by the back door on the eve of my Senatorial
re-election campaign.
>> Actually
>> I didn't know you were a friend of . . . I mean queer.
>> Some of my best friends are bent as butchers hooks and
>> you don't sound like any of them, pet. You sound like
>> a man in pain. Still, now that I know you're a poofter, I'll
>> try not mention it again. You will, though, won't you.
Why not? It's endlessly amusing, unless I get pissed, in which case it
isn't. Word of advice: never take what I say too seriously unless it's
the sort of thing you should take seriously, in which case you're
seriously fucked if you don't. I was kind of adventurous as a kid, and
more than a little bit perverse, and it paid. Now I'm merely perverse.
More than that, I don't think you really want to know.
Josh Hill
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Silly fellow, pointing out the nature of your flopping around doesn't
>imply that everything Stan implies is Truth with a capital tee, just
>that you don't handle what he dishes out worth a damn.
Perhaps not. But then, how does one do that without becoming him?
>If you're part black, I'd like to know which part. Are we talking
>like, a leg here? An arm? Which one? Past the elbow?
Try my gun hand, honky.
>See, I gotta know, I might want to roll my cud around and call you a
>sema-niggah or somethin', you know, just to be insulting, 'cause I'm
>too fucking stoopid to insult somebody without playing the race card
>or the sex card ('jew say you was gay, or was that somebuddy else sed
>that?) or any of those other usualames. Oh, and if I call you "boah"
>you gots to understan' it's the Foghorn Leghorn accent making me spell
>all floopy y'know?
>
>You people. You people make me wonder why more of the world doesn't
>consist of booger-eating morons who are your ancestors' git. 'The
>fuck is this anyway, an online convention for those who can type
>without thinking?
You're catching on.
What this group needs is more trolls.
gekko
Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote misc.writing saying:
Piping dress in a voice thing?
Piping what in a who thing?
Listen: stop calling what Stan does "lies" and you'll be 99.9%
better off. Either that, or acknowledge that your stuff is lies. And
everyone else's. I mean ... c'mon. People have formed opinions and
are voicing them.
>
> In fact, I'm not in the least bit effeminate or gay-acting in
> everyday life, and I suffer from the same testosterone-fueled
> stupidity as everyone of the male persuasion. So I felt that I was
> being stereotyped, and, more to the point, reacted as any straight
> and not a few gay guys would if accused of wearing a dress, that
> is to say, I wasn't pleased.
Over the years, I have been accused of sucking off half the men in
the group, of being a fat frumpy housewife, of being stupid, yadda
yadda. The fact of it is that I've only sucked off a quarter of the
men in the newsgroup and three quarters of the women, I am not in the
slightest frumpy and I'm much smarterer than Ray so I'm not all that
bad.
I guess my point is that if you're going to put up the presumably
brave front of revealing all your hurt places (gawd knows why anyone
wants to do that; this isn't a confessional fucksake), your gayness
and your heritage, then stand ready to take on all comers when anyone
whaps you with it. *Especially* when you use your circumstances to
shore up some argument or other. That's called "wearing your
<whatever> on your sleeve" and it makes it fair game to be used
against you. Be strong, not weepy. Let it slide off of you.
>
> Furthermore, I was frustrated by the fact that some seemed unable
> to distinguish between chest-thumping biker dude posing and
> genuine strength,
This is a newsgroup. The situations where "genuine strength" is
either called for or displayed are rare. And, when it's been needed,
it's been there in force.
The rest of it? Chest-thumping biker dude posing is what is
required.
> between bullying and the much harder job of
> standing up to bullies, and supposing that the reason I was
> criticizing Stan's bullying was because I was whining rather than
> pointing to something I and most people don't think particularly
> noble.
Hon, you been there, done that, like, way too much and no one much
cares other than you. Everyone's a bully; even you. So going on
about it for the umpteenth time comes off as whining.
> And that some didn't catch the deep motivations in others
> that I did, motivations that are well known to psychologists. Or
> accept the fact that I pulled my punches for moral reasons, even
> though I've said that from the start and many here do know it. And
> so forth.
Umph umph umph umph. Honeybunches of sugar plum pie, lordy my lordy
lord.
Joshers, I went off the deep end a while back because you were going
on about this kind of stuff and called off our wedding because you
just seem truly insane with this.
Fact: you don't have a clue about any "deep motivations". Or, if
you do, then everyone else has caught on to your own except for you,
apparently.
And another fact: you're the only one who cares about the punch
pulling, really. It makes you happy, so go with it, but why would
anyone else find it morally wonderful?
>
> So I think this had all been building up. And then we got into a
> great groove for a few days, it was like old times at their best.
> And then suddenly I thought the rug had been pulled out from under
> my tentacles. Well, really, over a couple of posts IIRC, but it
> really hit with the one I responded to. It wouldn't have mattered
> if it had come from Fundoc and Maugham and Atilla the Hun and
> Hannibal's elephants and a killer rabbit beside. But, well, it
> came from you. And /that/ hurt, as only something that comes from
> someone you care about ever does.
'k, but you know what I'm like. This is me, Josh. I argue this way,
and you _take_ things the -wrong- way. I use examples and colorful
language and you read personal attack where none existed because of
that heart on a sleeve thinger.
>
> OK, so then, when I went back a couple of days later and looked at
> it, it didn't seem so bad. And you went on about my getting
> emotional, and obviously I was, and had to consider whether I
> should end the experiment and leave the group again, since I'm so
> obviously at odds with the philosophy of the flamers and feel
> embarrassed and childish when I respond in kind, because there's
> nothing much else here anymore, and because it has some kind of
> perverse magnetic attraction for me that isn't good because it
> keeps me from doing the things I really should be.
>
> Oh, and sorry. <g>
>
You're nuts. You are. But I accept your apology.
--
gekko
Time is what keeps things from happening all at once
boots
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:28:40 -0600, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Silly fellow, pointing out the nature of your flopping around doesn't
>>imply that everything Stan implies is Truth with a capital tee, just
>>that you don't handle what he dishes out worth a damn.
>
>Perhaps not. But then, how does one do that without becoming him?
Imagine the queen o'england wiping mud off 'er face with some dignity.
Or pretend you're wiping your butt and don't get any on you.
You'll figure out your own method, you're a smart feller.
>>If you're part black, I'd like to know which part. Are we talking
>>like, a leg here? An arm? Which one? Past the elbow?
>
>Try my gun hand, honky.
You left or right handed? Are you Islamic by any chance? They have
some roolz about hands and wiping and stuff, frum whut I hear.
>>See, I gotta know, I might want to roll my cud around and call you a
>>sema-niggah or somethin', you know, just to be insulting, 'cause I'm
>>too fucking stoopid to insult somebody without playing the race card
>>or the sex card ('jew say you was gay, or was that somebuddy else sed
>>that?) or any of those other usualames. Oh, and if I call you "boah"
>>you gots to understan' it's the Foghorn Leghorn accent making me spell
>>all floopy y'know?
>>
>>You people. You people make me wonder why more of the world doesn't
>>consist of booger-eating morons who are your ancestors' git. 'The
>>fuck is this anyway, an online convention for those who can type
>>without thinking?
>
>You're catching on.
>
>What this group needs is more trolls.
Pfffft.
Josh Hill
<ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>Here are some of the interesting bits and selected pieces of what
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote misc.writing saying:
>Piping dress in a voice thing?
>
>Piping what in a who thing?
>
>
>Listen: stop calling what Stan does "lies" and you'll be 99.9%
>better off. Either that, or acknowledge that your stuff is lies. And
>everyone else's. I mean ... c'mon. People have formed opinions and
>are voicing them.
Short form answer: Stan kept accusing me of lying, so I started
accusing him back. He stopped. Heh.
Long form answer: There's a big difference between an honestly
expressed opinion, even wrong, and what Stan does here. I mean, when
you go out of your way to put the worst possible construction on
everything, when you make claims things that are out and out false and
for which you have no evidence and refuse to acknowledge the evidence
that says they're false, what would you call it? Flames, sure, or
trolls, or weaseling, or smearing. But, essentially, falsehoods.
You say that I call 99.9% of what Stan says lies, and allowing for
rhetorical exaggeration, you're right. But that's because Stan's goal
is to devise insults and baseless accusations. I'm dumb. I'm an idiot.
I use every opportunity to go on about how smart I am. I'm
pretentious. I'm a liar. I didn't actually plonk him. I'm a coward.
I'm a half man. My political opinions are idiotic. I'm tortured about
my sexuality. I claimed I was half black. I'm not actually Hispanic.
I'm uninformed. I want to climb into the bathtub and slit my wrists.
And so on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
When I counter something, he simply ignores the evidence. For example,
when I debunked his assertion that I had claimed to be half black, he
claimed in return that I had /implied/ that I was half black, despite
the fact that the passage was in front of him and that there was
nothing in it that could possibly be construed as implying such a
thing. Just trying to get my goat, of course, but a lie nonetheless.
Dishonest.
But -- suppose we ignore the exaggeration of the flames and address
his genuine beliefs?
What exactly are they? Stan says he doesn't believe anything Ray says
because Ray has sometimes lied. How then am I to know what Stan
genuinely believes?
But -- let's make an educated guess. What do we arrive at then? What
we arrive at, I think, is someone whose hurt and misplaced envy became
dislike. And the dislike poisons his view of me, making him place the
worst possible construction on everything I say and do. Every
statement becomes, in his mind, a lie. Every action becomes
hypocritical. And the things he says then are lies too, lies of a
different sort, the sort we tell ourselves because they fill an
emotional need.
Bottom line: most of what Stan says about me is false, and I'm no
longer naive enough to seek accommodation nor patient enough to
quibble about gradations of falsity.
>> In fact, I'm not in the least bit effeminate or gay-acting in
>> everyday life, and I suffer from the same testosterone-fueled
>> stupidity as everyone of the male persuasion. So I felt that I was
>> being stereotyped, and, more to the point, reacted as any straight
>> and not a few gay guys would if accused of wearing a dress, that
>> is to say, I wasn't pleased.
>
>Over the years, I have been accused of sucking off half the men in
>the group, of being a fat frumpy housewife, of being stupid, yadda
>yadda. The fact of it is that I've only sucked off a quarter of the
>men in the newsgroup and three quarters of the women, I am not in the
>slightest frumpy and I'm much smarterer than Ray so I'm not all that
>bad.
>
>I guess my point is that if you're going to put up the presumably
>brave front of revealing all your hurt places (gawd knows why anyone
>wants to do that; this isn't a confessional fucksake)
Just so you'd know what happened, as best I could remember. Sorta cut
through all the misunderstandings and bullshit even if it meant saying
some things that one ordinarily doesn't online and facing a lame or
two.
>, your gayness
>and your heritage, then stand ready to take on all comers when anyone
>whaps you with it. *Especially* when you use your circumstances to
>shore up some argument or other. That's called "wearing your
><whatever> on your sleeve" and it makes it fair game to be used
>against you. Be strong, not weepy. Let it slide off of you.
Pretty much what I try to do, since once you've said you're this or
that it's hard to express moral outrage without people thinking you're
merely defending yourself. And many or most of the lames don't really
bother all that much, in part because you grow up with them, face
things that are much worse. Still, when someone uses a lame as a
weapon, not in a locker-room fashion but in a clear attempt to take
advantage, I do get angry. And when I don't express my feelings,
pressure can build over a long period of time. Then something
seemingly minor may trigger it, and there's an earthquake.
A parallel -- Donna's attempt to tattle to Alan. Despicable in no more
than a junior high school way and couldn't do any harm, since I'd told
the truth about what he'd said, but from an emotional perspective, it
carried all the gangfuck crap that I took here a couple of years back,
so I reacted more vociferously than I normally do.
All of which is neither here nor there, and I do agree with your
point. But -- I did want to note that one of the reasons I've objected
so much to the half this half that thing is that despite what some
think and say, in many cases I first mentioned these things on the
Internet only very reluctantly and at personal cost and/or as a matter
of principle rather than as a matter of convenience.
I made my choices, and I don't expect anything in return. But it does
bother me when people claim that I did so because I was being shallow
and self-serving or, worse, dishonest. I mentioned my Hispanic
grandfather because it was a convenient means of deflecting your
accusation, but in no other case of which I'm aware was I being even
faintly self-serving -- quite the contrary. So when people claim I was
it rankles.
>> Furthermore, I was frustrated by the fact that some seemed unable
>> to distinguish between chest-thumping biker dude posing and
>> genuine strength,
>
>This is a newsgroup. The situations where "genuine strength" is
>either called for or displayed are rare. And, when it's been needed,
>it's been there in force.
>
>The rest of it? Chest-thumping biker dude posing is what is
>required.
>> between bullying and the much harder job of
>> standing up to bullies, and supposing that the reason I was
>> criticizing Stan's bullying was because I was whining rather than
>> pointing to something I and most people don't think particularly
>> noble.
>
>Hon, you been there, done that, like, way too much and no one much
>cares other than you. Everyone's a bully; even you. So going on
>about it for the umpteenth time comes off as whining.
None of us is perfect, but really, not everyone is a bully, or
anything like.
>> And that some didn't catch the deep motivations in others
>> that I did, motivations that are well known to psychologists. Or
>> accept the fact that I pulled my punches for moral reasons, even
>> though I've said that from the start and many here do know it. And
>> so forth.
>
>Umph umph umph umph. Honeybunches of sugar plum pie, lordy my lordy
>lord.
>
>Joshers, I went off the deep end a while back because you were going
>on about this kind of stuff and called off our wedding because you
>just seem truly insane with this.
>
>Fact: you don't have a clue about any "deep motivations".
That's far from true, Gekko.
>Or, if
>you do, then everyone else has caught on to your own except for you,
>apparently.
And similarly, almost bizarrely far from true; the characterizations
of my motivations here are usually shallow, naive, and dead nuts
wrong. There have been a few exceptions. Donna had an excellent
insight the other day, though she ruined it by making unfounded
assumptions. You did a couple years back, and I am so not telling you
what it was, heh. But my great frustration here from the beginning has
been that people have so often gotten me so wrong. I undoubtedly
deserve part of the blame for that, since forex people sometimes
misinterpret a certain humor of mine as serious in intent. But I think
a lot of it is just that I'm an outlier, someone who is very far off
the norm (and that's a good example of how misinterpretations arise,
because some might read that as a brag when in fact I'm talking about
unusual qualities that are good, bad, and indifferent), and that the
printed word lacks all sorts of cues that help us understand behavior
-- like that doofy smile in my photo.
>And another fact: you're the only one who cares about the punch
>pulling, really. It makes you happy, so go with it, but why would
>anyone else find it morally wonderful?
I'm not asking anyone to find it morally wonderful, although yes, many
do think it the right thing to do, and find the behavior of flamers on
these groups downright psychotic. I'm merely bothered by the fact that
some people equate being civil or considerate with being weak. Was
Martin Luther King weak? Gandhi? Einstein? From what I've seen, the
civil ones are frequently the strongest, the ones who stand up for
what's right rather than what's convenient.
>> So I think this had all been building up. And then we got into a
>> great groove for a few days, it was like old times at their best.
>> And then suddenly I thought the rug had been pulled out from under
>> my tentacles. Well, really, over a couple of posts IIRC, but it
>> really hit with the one I responded to. It wouldn't have mattered
>> if it had come from Fundoc and Maugham and Atilla the Hun and
>> Hannibal's elephants and a killer rabbit beside. But, well, it
>> came from you. And /that/ hurt, as only something that comes from
>> someone you care about ever does.
>
>'k, but you know what I'm like. This is me, Josh. I argue this way,
>and you _take_ things the -wrong- way. I use examples and colorful
>language and you read personal attack where none existed because of
>that heart on a sleeve thinger.
Sure. I tend to take flames seriously when they aren't intended that
way. And there are all sorts of cultural differences, differences of
expectation. My background is one that's characterized by politeness
and consideration. Others grew up, as a friend said of his childhood,
expecting to have to fight every day on the way to school.
>> OK, so then, when I went back a couple of days later and looked at
>> it, it didn't seem so bad. And you went on about my getting
>> emotional, and obviously I was, and had to consider whether I
>> should end the experiment and leave the group again, since I'm so
>> obviously at odds with the philosophy of the flamers and feel
>> embarrassed and childish when I respond in kind, because there's
>> nothing much else here anymore, and because it has some kind of
>> perverse magnetic attraction for me that isn't good because it
>> keeps me from doing the things I really should be.
>>
>> Oh, and sorry. <g>
>>
>
>You're nuts. You are. But I accept your apology.
Nuts, yes. But then, so is the entire species . . .
--
Josh
"Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want
to rush to Redmond, Washington and rip somebody's liver out."
- Stephen Manes
Stan (the Man)
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:15:54 GMT, gekko
> <ge...@lutz.kicks-ass.org.INVALID> wrote:
>
>>Here are some of the interesting bits and selected pieces of what
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote misc.writing saying:
>
>>Piping dress in a voice thing?
>>
>>Piping what in a who thing?
>>
>>
>>Listen: stop calling what Stan does "lies" and you'll be 99.9%
>>better off. Either that, or acknowledge that your stuff is lies. And
>>everyone else's. I mean ... c'mon. People have formed opinions and
>>are voicing them.
>
> Short form answer: Stan kept accusing me of lying, so I started
> accusing him back. He stopped. Heh.
No he didn't. You're a liar. Heh.
> Long form answer: There's a big difference between an honestly
> expressed opinion, even wrong, and what Stan does here. I mean, when
> you go out of your way to put the worst possible construction on
> everything, when you make claims things that are out and out false and
> for which you have no evidence and refuse to acknowledge the evidence
> that says they're false, what would you call it? Flames, sure, or
> trolls, or weaseling, or smearing. But, essentially, falsehoods.
Or, in your case, lies.
> You say that I call 99.9% of what Stan says lies, and allowing for
> rhetorical exaggeration, you're right. But that's because Stan's goal
> is to devise insults and baseless accusations. I'm dumb. I'm an idiot.
> I use every opportunity to go on about how smart I am. I'm
> pretentious. I'm a liar. I didn't actually plonk him. I'm a coward.
> I'm a half man. My political opinions are idiotic. I'm tortured about
> my sexuality. I claimed I was half black. I'm not actually Hispanic.
> I'm uninformed. I want to climb into the bathtub and slit my wrists.
> And so on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
And, all true.
> When I counter something, he simply ignores the evidence. For example,
> when I debunked his assertion that I had claimed to be half black, he
> claimed in return that I had /implied/ that I was half black, despite
> the fact that the passage was in front of him and that there was
> nothing in it that could possibly be construed as implying such a
> thing. Just trying to get my goat, of course, but a lie nonetheless.
> Dishonest.
Absolute truth. You have implied it at every opportunity.
> But -- suppose we ignore the exaggeration of the flames and address
> his genuine beliefs?
Suppose you just try something completely different: truth.
> What exactly are they? Stan says he doesn't believe anything Ray says
> because Ray has sometimes lied. How then am I to know what Stan
> genuinely believes?
I've said it is best to assume Ray's lying until proven otherwise. I
know Ray to be a liar. I believe you are a liar based on, among other
things, your own admission that you're a liar. That help?
<snip yet another, albeit more long-winded than most, of Josh's please-
understand-oh-poor-me attempts to paint himself as a victim>
--
Stan
$Zero
(was: Re: boi)
On Jun 21, 8:14?am, "Stan (the Man)" <newsNOS...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM>
wrote:
> Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote innews:r1dk735hsl2s923k0...@4ax.com:
[...]
> > What exactly are they? Stan says he doesn't believe anything Ray says
> > because Ray has sometimes lied. How then am I to know what Stan
> > genuinely believes?
>
> I've said it is best to assume Ray's lying until proven otherwise. I
> know Ray to be a liar. I believe you are a liar based on, among other
> things, your own admission that you're a liar. That help?
here's irrefutable proof that Josh is a liar:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5587eda95cc95415
-$Zero...
things idiots like moi notice -- M, E, W, 3
http://groups.google.com/group/megablog/msg/4b1043928c4f8afb
"Convergent production is the deductive generation
of the best single answer to a set problem, usually
where there is a compelling inference. For example,
find answers to the question What is the sum of the
internal angles of a triangle?
Divergent production is the creative generation of
multiple answers to a set problem. For example, find
uses for 1 metre lengths of black cotton."
Josh Hill
<newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:r1dk735hsl2s923k0...@4ax.com:
>
>> You say that I call 99.9% of what Stan says lies, and allowing for
>> rhetorical exaggeration, you're right. But that's because Stan's goal
>> is to devise insults and baseless accusations. I'm dumb. I'm an idiot.
>> I use every opportunity to go on about how smart I am. I'm
>> pretentious. I'm a liar. I didn't actually plonk him. I'm a coward.
>> I'm a half man. My political opinions are idiotic. I'm tortured about
>> my sexuality. I claimed I was half black. I'm not actually Hispanic.
>> I'm uninformed. I want to climb into the bathtub and slit my wrists.
>> And so on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
>
>And, all true.
Note to Gekko: see?
Stan (the Man)
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:14:29 GMT, "Stan (the Man)"
> <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:r1dk735hsl2s923k0...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> You say that I call 99.9% of what Stan says lies, and allowing for
>>> rhetorical exaggeration, you're right. But that's because Stan's
>>> goal is to devise insults and baseless accusations. I'm dumb. I'm an
>>> idiot. I use every opportunity to go on about how smart I am. I'm
>>> pretentious. I'm a liar. I didn't actually plonk him. I'm a coward.
>>> I'm a half man. My political opinions are idiotic. I'm tortured
>>> about my sexuality. I claimed I was half black. I'm not actually
>>> Hispanic. I'm uninformed. I want to climb into the bathtub and slit
>>> my wrists. And so on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
>>
>>And, all true.
>
> Note to Gekko: see?
Note to, um, whomever: note Josh's inability to refute any of the
accusations, including the "rhetorical exaggeration" that he's claimed
to be half-black.
Like Ray, and in light of your own admission that you're a liar, I now
find it best to assume you're lying until proven otherwise.
Oh, and I forgot to note that your statement that my goal "is to devise
insults and baseless accusations" rates as one of the most laughably
hypocritical statements ever posted in mw.
But, I wish you no ill, so put down the razor and move away from the
tub. And, for God's sake, *stop whining!* Just keep attempting to vent
your deep pain by mentioning my name in threads I'm not participating in
and, while you'll continue looking like the pissy little putz you are,
you'll feel better.
--
Stan
Josh Hill
<newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:efgl739ulagn7mi3k...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:14:29 GMT, "Stan (the Man)"
>> <newsN...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
>>
>>>Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:r1dk735hsl2s923k0...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> You say that I call 99.9% of what Stan says lies, and allowing for
>>>> rhetorical exaggeration, you're right. But that's because Stan's
>>>> goal is to devise insults and baseless accusations. I'm dumb. I'm an
>>>> idiot. I use every opportunity to go on about how smart I am. I'm
>>>> pretentious. I'm a liar. I didn't actually plonk him. I'm a coward.
>>>> I'm a half man. My political opinions are idiotic. I'm tortured
>>>> about my sexuality. I claimed I was half black. I'm not actually
>>>> Hispanic. I'm uninformed. I want to climb into the bathtub and slit
>>>> my wrists. And so on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
>>>
>>>And, all true.
>>
>> Note to Gekko: see?
>
>Note to, um, whomever: note Josh's inability to refute any of the
>accusations, including the "rhetorical exaggeration" that he's claimed
>to be half-black.
>
>Like Ray, and in light of your own admission that you're a liar, I now
>find it best to assume you're lying until proven otherwise.
Who the fuck cares.
$Zero
(was: Re: boi)
On Jun 21, 4:06?pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> "Stan (the Man)" wrote:
> >>> Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> You say that I call 99.9% of what Stan says lies, and allowing for
> >>>> rhetorical exaggeration, you're right. But that's because Stan's
> >>>> goal is to devise insults and baseless accusations. I'm dumb. I'm an
> >>>> idiot. I use every opportunity to go on about how smart I am. I'm
> >>>> pretentious. I'm a liar. I didn't actually plonk him. I'm a coward.
> >>>> I'm a half man. My political opinions are idiotic. I'm tortured
> >>>> about my sexuality. I claimed I was half black. I'm not actually
> >>>> Hispanic. I'm uninformed. I want to climb into the bathtub and slit
> >>>> my wrists. And so on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
>
> >>>And, all true.
>
> >> Note to Gekko: see?
>
> >Note to, um, whomever: note Josh's inability to refute any of the
> >accusations, including the "rhetorical exaggeration" that he's claimed
> >to be half-black.
>
> >Like Ray, and in light of your own admission that you're a liar, I now
> >find it best to assume you're lying until proven otherwise.
>
> Who the fuck cares.
not you or Ray, obviously.
just ask Bob Sloan about Ray's groveling email plea:
"Don't do that e-mail thing to me this time.
I really don't want another feud with you
and I'd really like your help with a sort
of related issue.
Personal favor, Bob. For a shipmate."
-- Ray (The Circus Master Troll!)
[sending Bob Sloan yet another unwanted emai]
or ask Ray (or yourself):
[about an in-person "non-request" Ray made to Josh]
"The only thing I said to him was that
he should probably just continue along
as he always has, not making any issue of
or reference to our meeting, IN ORDER TO
keep from any further harassment [sic]
from the likes of you, Xero. "
-- Ray (the nice guy terrorist) Haddad
or read all about it firsthand:
[irrefutable proof that Josh is a liar]
">Josh, are you claiming that you don't know what that means?
What what means? You have me totally confused."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/5587eda95cc95415
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?&q=irrefutable
you certaqinlyu don't need to consult Scottland Yard to figure out:
"Who the fuck cares."
-- Josh Hill
$Zero
> how to prove a lie
>
> (was: Re: boi)
>
> "Stan (the Man)" <newsNOS...@rvckids.us.NOSPAM> wrote:
> > Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> [...]
>
> > > What exactly are they? Stan says he doesn't believe anything Ray says
> > > because Ray has sometimes lied. How then am I to know what Stan
> > > genuinely believes?
>
> > I've said it is best to assume Ray's lying until proven otherwise. I
> > know Ray to be a liar. I believe you are a liar based on, among other
> > things, your own admission that you're a liar. That help?
>
> here's irrefutable proof that Josh is a liar:
[...remainder snipped unread...]
$Zero
Sylvia
Josh Hill <usere...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
> Stan's
> his
> Stan's
> Stan's
<performing 1960's, Twist-esque kinda dance and singing>
"Do the Stan Thing! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Baby, Baby, everyone's doin' the Stan Thing!
I am Stan as you are Stan as they are Stan
And we are all together Stan (the) Man
When we're doin' the Stan Thing!
Bay-ay-bee! Do the Stan Thing!
Koo-koo-kachoo! Do the Stan Thing!
Hey, hey, hey! I'm doin' the Stan Thing!"
--
Sylvia (The more things change, the more IAAS, innit. )