WARNING: DO NOT READ RUMORS OR LISTEN TO LIES.
Paul Derbyshire
After a year and a half of observing the lies' relentless spread, like an
infectious plague, odd refusal to dilute or die-down in a year and a half,
and ability to affect even the most open-minded of my friends (hi Amy)
with paranoia, hatred, and closed-mindedness, I am forced to conclude the
lies being told about me are more than ordinary vicious rumors. A mere
rumor cannot spread this way, infect people like Amy who start out
actually defending me from them, or convince people somehow to read
everything I do in the most hostile possible slant. The only explanation,
after much reading and studying of certain aspects of psychology to figure
this thing out, is that it is more akin to a subliminal message.
Something in the rumors burrows into the subconscious, and once there,
weakens someone's mental defences until it begins to alter their
perceptions. Thereonafter, they believe every lying word of the rumors and
begin to perceive my most innocent acts as hostile.
Case history: Amy. Started out apalled at how people were treating me.
Defended mepublically against some of the lies. But slowly became
quieter,then began to not speak to me, now does not even log on anymore.
SOmeone who hates this kind of vicious rumor spreading, taken in by them?
Surely not. Unless it is a subliminal message.
I have deduced the nature of the subliminal undercurrent in the lying
rumors. It must consist of three parts. One convinces people to believe
every word of the rumors. One causes their perceptions of me to slant
toward a hostile interprwetation on everything. One implores them to pass
it on, thus making this message self-replicating, like a computer virus.
I implore anyone reading this to take the following precautions to avoid
infection.
1. DO NOT read any postings in this newsgroup that you suspect contain
rumors or unpleasant stories about me. They contain the virus.
2. If someone begins to regale you with tales of me in IRC, use /squelch.
3. If someone does the same with OLMs, tell them to shut up. If it
persists, turn permissions off for a while.
4. Any e-mails you receive whose subject is me, and which are attacks on me,
delete unread.
5. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THIS THING. Amy underestimated it and
paid the price. You might think you're open-minded, not the rumor
believing type, and so forth, and can read and ignore the content to
defend me. THINK LIKE THAT AND YOU WILL SURELY BE TURNED! It is
subliminal, and burrows into the subconscious somehow. If you read
three words of something and it looks like a rumorabout me don't read the
fourth...delete!
This is like an epidemic for which there is no known cure. The only hope
is containment. You must not become infected. You must take all
precautions outlined above. The people spreading the rumors must be put in
a no-holds-barred quarantine. Treat them as incommunicado. This is MY
only hope!
--
.*. Friendship, companionship, love, and having fun are the reasons for
-() < life. All else; sex, money, fame, etc.; are just to get/express these.
`*' Send any and all mail with attachments to the hotmail address please.
Paul Derbyshire ao...@freenet.carleton.ca pg...@hotmail.com
Brika Steinberg
Paul, please grow up.
You assume, based on your own psychological theory, of which you have no
real background to understand, that you are being persecuted by a rumour
disease of some kind.
If you're looking for empirical evidence of some kind (which I'm not
sure you are unless it fits your personal agenda), look at the fact that
*many* open-minded people have become frustrated with the way you
communicate with other people.
You assume that we are all weak minds that will fall prey to this
imaginary disease. This I find very insulting. My opinions of other
people have always been based on personal experience. I assume people
are good unless proven otherwise. I am one of those people who has
found you frustrating at times, but has tried not to dwell on it.
I get the sense from you that you believe your personality is perfect
and that anyone who disagrees with you is therefore being influenced by
some conspiracy.
Maturity means accepting some constructive criticism like the rest of
the world.
Brika. :)
There is no cabal.
There is no Freenet Mafia.
There is no psychological rumour epidemic against you.
--
bste...@chat.carleton.ca http://wabakimi.carleton.ca/~bsteinbe
<---------------------------------------------------------------+
"A day can shift into a profound place by the reading of |
a single perfect sentence at the perfect time." (SARK) <----+
Peter D. Boddy
Paul, you do not seriously believe this, do you? Look back over your
posts. You make it terribly hard to defend you. You let things build up,
and boil over. What I mean is, you are quiet, polite, and humourous for a
time. Then, something will wierd happens, someone stops talking to you for
whatever reason, or IRC doesn't behave in the way you think it should.
You post something in a newsgroup (much like the post I am replying to),
with conclusions you have jumped to without looking at all the facts closely.
If someone posts something even slightly critical (even constructive
critism), you jump all over them. You then post just enough to keep them
frothing. In essence, you are trolling for attention, at least, that is
how it looks.
You've made denial an art form, going as far as to deny events that people
have personally witnessed. How can people take your side if you deny
everything? How can people help you, if no one believes you any more?
Pete
--
"And remember, a pat on the back is a couple inches away from a kick in the
bx...@freenet.carleton.ca | Merry Christmas | ass..."
pdb...@chat.carleton.ca | Happy New Year |--------------------
pdb...@prince.carleton.ca | Seasons Greetings | -=[Wheeeeeee]=-
Paul Derbyshire
Peter D. Boddy (bx...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Paul, you do not seriously believe this, do you? Look back over your
> posts. You make it terribly hard to defend you. You let things build up,
> and boil over. What I mean is, you are quiet, polite, and humourous for a
> time. Then, something will wierd happens, someone stops talking to you for
> whatever reason, or IRC doesn't behave in the way you think it should.
> You post something in a newsgroup (much like the post I am replying to),
> with conclusions you have jumped to without looking at all the facts closely.
I have looked quite closely at all the facts.
Fact: The average case of someone spreading vicious rumors about someone
else dies down in under six months.
Fact: Rumors normally die down unless someone is actively spreading them.
Fact: The cabal has long since disappeared, but the rumors persist, and
*new varieties are being invented* 18 months later.
Fact: Amy was not the type to listen to rumors.
Fact: She defended me against them for a time.
Fact: She became one of them eventually. Slower than most but eventually.
Fact: People I never even spoke to in my life, turn out to hate my guts on
my first saying hi to them.
Fact: People I have done nothing to offend suddenly go from being friends
to hating my guts, in under 2 hours of time, after joining certain IRC
channels.
Fact: I have never done anything to offend Dawn. During the GT, I never
did anything to offend her; indeed was friendly towards her.
Fact: She sent me an incredible shitogram yesterday that is utterly
without provocation, and consists in large part of her reiterating at me
the content of some of the most recent and most vicious lies.
Conclusion: This is not a normal rumor-mongering incident. The people that
started this are long gone from the scene, but it persists, a
whole year and a half later. People normally not the type to
listen to rumors, are seduced by this thing. This thing spreads
and spreads and spreads and shows no sign of ever stopping,
whereas a normal rumor spreads so far and dies away of its own
accord.
Conclusion: Because normal rumors spread like a gas and dilute with
distance, but this spreads more like an epidemic, undiluted by
space or time, it seems more a kind of subliminal virus.
Conclusion: Because string-minded, strong-willed individuals who HATE
people that spread rumors and dismiss rumors out of hand are STILL
affected, this thing bypasses the conscious straight to the
subconscious. It must be a subliminal message.
If you can point out a flaw in this logic, kindly point it out.
(This is NOT an invitation to simply spout rumors, lies, or claptrap and
then say it must be wrong because I'm the Antichrist, or some such rot.
Nor is it an invitation to reiterate the lies, then claim they are truth
and spread like they do because they're true. They are lies.)
> If someone posts something even slightly critical (even constructive
> critism), you jump all over them.
I do not.
If someone posts a lying rumor, I jump all over them with hobnail boots
quite gleefully.
If someone has constructive criticism, I will gladly listen to it.
> In essence, you are trolling for attention, at least, that is how it looks.
I am trolling for nothing. Ian Clysedale was infected. At or near the time
of the GT he infected Dawn who sent the shitogram. Subsequently, Ian and
then Greg posted articles in this newsgroup consisting in large part of
the more recent mutant varieties of the Anti-Paul rumor. Because I had
deduced the insidious nature of this beast at the time of the Dawn
incident after a review of the facts of the situation, I realized how
dangerous these postings are. Read them too many times, and you will start
to hate me as your perceptions slowly warp, making everything I do and say
seem to you to be inimically hostile, even if it is merely the act of
posting a "Hi there" to a newbie or something equally innocuous. This is
why I took it upon myself to warn everyone NOT to read those 2 articles,
if they value their friendships with me, or even their free will.
> You've made denial an art form, going as far as to deny events that people
> have personally witnessed.
Just what are you implying with this remark? You seem to be trying to
claim the rumors are true.
They are all LIES.
Greg's friends who tell him stuff I supposedly do, are lying to him, or he
is lying. He may not be the type to lie, but if he has been infected, he
simply cannot help himself.
> How can people take your side if you deny everything? How can people
> help you, if no one believes you any more?
I deny nothing except that the rumors are true. All of them are lies.
They are complete inventions, total fabrications. If you believe
otherwise, you are either a fool, or already yourself in the early stages
of infection. If the latter proves to be the case you must leave this
newsgroup or lurk. Posting anything concerning me will be forbidden, as
you will endanger the minds of everyone in this group.
Paul Derbyshire
[REPOST: Eaten. If I were paranoid I'd be tempted to think somebody
doesn't want me to follow up these articles in an attempt to quarantine
this thing. It is far more likely to be typical NCF incompetence in
keeping their news software running.]
Brika Steinberg (ac...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
> If you're looking for empirical evidence of some kind (which I'm not
> sure you are unless it fits your personal agenda), look at the fact that
> *many* open-minded people have become frustrated with the way you
> communicate with other people.
Excuse me? I communicate exactly the way everybody does. Just what are you
referring to here?
> You assume that we are all weak minds that will fall prey to this
> imaginary disease. This I find very insulting. My opinions of other
> people have always been based on personal experience.
It's some sort of subliminal message. As I said in the article above,
people who form their opinions the way you do STILL come down with this
thing. It doesn't matter if you're not weak-minded, it isn't a matter of
conscious choice. That is how this thing differs from normal rumormongering.
> ...found you frustrating at times, but has tried not to dwell on it.
What the hell are you talking about? The only thing frustrating around
here is this thing going around about me, and my seeming powerlessness to
do anything about it or even warn people!
> I get the sense from you that you believe your personality is perfect
> and that anyone who disagrees with you is therefore being influenced by
> some conspiracy.
I don't think for a minute I'm in any way "perfect". I do KNOW though that
the stuff being told about me and the rumors being spread are all lies.
I also know that while I may not be perfect, I have certainly done nothing
to deserve what is being done to me as my collection of friends and
acquaintances is whittled away by this thing.
The fact that people seem to believe the lies anyways, and that it even
seems to influence people that are normally immune to mere rumors and
propaganda, shows that something is insidious about it. Hence the
subliminal message hypothesis.
> Maturity means accepting some constructive criticism like the rest of
> the world.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. There are lies and vicious
rumors going about, none of which are at all "constructive criticism"; they
are all attempts to destroy my life. You seem to be taking what I said in
the article about this stuff, and applying it out of context to something
else (though what that is, I do not know; the last piece of constructive
criticism I recall hearing was Mal suggesting I ignore the rumormongers,
to which I responded that I'd already tried that and half a hundred other
things to no avail).
> There is no cabal.
> There is no Freenet Mafia.
> There is no psychological rumour epidemic against you.
There are lies being told about me, some quite blatantly in this newsgroup
a few short hours ago!, and these seem to be having an effect on you
despite what you just said yourself about not listening to mere hearsay.
The problem is simple. People are telling lies and rumors. Other people
are believing them and then passing it on further.
People that are not even the type to listen to the word on the street, are
still falling prey to it, as described in the case of my former friend Amy.
How the hell do you explain these events, considering that I don't myself do
anything to annoy these people. I never did anything to offend Amy, for
example. The other day, someone I used to chat with on IRC a lot yelled my
head off about something I supposedly did and put me on ignore; I'd never
said or done anything to provoke such a reaction. The rumors got another one.
I have never done anything to offend Dawn Wintour, but she not only
perpetrated a most unpleasant prank the night of the GT, but subsequently
sent me a scathing e-mail laced in large part with fragments of some of
the latest rumors that have been going around; rumors she seems to have
absorbed prior to the GT and which she seems to take as Gospel now.
At no time during, or before the GT, did I ever, ever do anything to
provoke such a thing.
Peter D. Boddy
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> I have looked quite closely at all the facts.
And chosen to blow everything out of proportion.
> Fact: The average case of someone spreading vicious rumors about someone
> else dies down in under six months.
And how did you come to this conclusion? When you say "someone else" do
you mean everyone else, or just limited to the freenet?
> Fact: Rumors normally die down unless someone is actively spreading them.
Yes rumours do. But you still do stuff, right? You still post articles,
and you go to GTs right? People do observe what others do, you make an
impression on everyone, each time you are in contact with them. Act like
a jerk in a newsgroup, and people will think you a jerk. They will tell
their friends. If you act like a jerk in public, then those observing you
will think you a jerk. Same goes if you act like an angel, people think
you an angel. So, if someone reads a post of yours, and thinks, "Gee,
this guy's a real jerk", what do you think he will tell his friends, if
you come up as a topic of conversation?
> Fact: The cabal has long since disappeared, but the rumors persist, and
> *new varieties are being invented* 18 months later.
Paul, this is a point which makes you hard to defend. You continue to
think the cabal existed, and exists still. People continually tell you
that it didn't and does not exist. When you want to add someone new to
your shitlist, you say they are part of the cabal, or have been affected
by cabal lies (which is essentially what you are say here in your most
recent posts).
> Fact: Amy was not the type to listen to rumors.
> Fact: She defended me against them for a time.
> Fact: She became one of them eventually. Slower than most but eventually.
I cannot speak for Amy, so I will not try. Suffice it to say that people
change. Is it so far from the realm of possibility that she does not like
you anymore?
> Fact: People I never even spoke to in my life, turn out to hate my guts on
> my first saying hi to them.
Paul, people can see what posts you have made, and perhaps have seen you
in school somewhere. Maybe they remember you from highschool, or
gradeschool. Yes it's true that quite a few may listen to the "rumours",
and decide to believe them. Also, your propensity to message total
strangers while on IRC may scare some people, or piss them off.
> Fact: People I have done nothing to offend suddenly go from being friends
> to hating my guts, in under 2 hours of time, after joining certain IRC
> channels.
Could it be from the things you do and say? Again, you tend to
over-react, and try to over compensate for things.
> Fact: I have never done anything to offend Dawn. During the GT, I never
> did anything to offend her; indeed was friendly towards her.
> Fact: She sent me an incredible shitogram yesterday that is utterly
> without provocation, and consists in large part of her reiterating
> at me the content of some of the most recent and most vicious lies.
Again, I cannot speak for Dawn, nor will I try to. Do you really know if
you've never offended her? Perhaps you pissed off one of her friends?
> Conclusion: This is not a normal rumor-mongering incident. The people that
> started this are long gone from the scene, but it persists, a
> whole year and a half later. People normally not the type to
> listen to rumors, are seduced by this thing. This thing spreads
> and spreads and spreads and shows no sign of ever stopping,
> whereas a normal rumor spreads so far and dies away of its own
> accord.
There are rumours that have lasted hundreds of years. Who can say how
long a rumour will last in people minds, and thus have the ability to be
spread at a later date.
You have not done much to slow these rumours, other than call people
liars. Your vitriolic flamefests that you have had in the past do nothing
to improve people's opinions of you (and they are only opinions, which can
change over time, positively and negatively). Your behaviour towards
people in public varies widely, from polite to downright rude and
obnoxious. You can say I am spreading rumours, but I have seen you quite
often in Carleton, and I have been in several of your classes.
> Conclusion: Because normal rumors spread like a gas and dilute with
> distance, but this spreads more like an epidemic, undiluted by
> space or time, it seems more a kind of subliminal virus.
Again, who can say how long such lies, and truths, will last. While
rumours can be outright lies, it is true that rumours have some basis in
fact.
> Conclusion: Because string-minded, strong-willed individuals who HATE
> people that spread rumors and dismiss rumors out of hand are
> STILL affected, this thing bypasses the conscious straight to
> the subconscious. It must be a subliminal message.
Are you saying that we're all weak-willed individuals?
> If you can point out a flaw in this logic, kindly point it out.
> (This is NOT an invitation to simply spout rumors, lies, or claptrap and
> then say it must be wrong because I'm the Antichrist, or some such rot.
> Nor is it an invitation to reiterate the lies, then claim they are truth
> and spread like they do because they're true. They are lies.)
I believe you have made this into more than it should have been. You are
saying that we're all weak willed. Paul, we can make our own decisions,
thank you very much. You cannot tell us what to believe, or what not to
believe. In essence, you are saying that everything you say is right,
and that whatever anyone else says in wrong. The only thing you can do is
to try and improve people preceptions of you.
> I do not. If someone posts a lying rumor, I jump all over them with
> hobnail boots quite gleefully. If someone has constructive criticism, I
> will gladly listen to it.
Then listen to what the others have said, Ian for one. They are still
trying to defend you, and help you at the same time. Look past the end of
your nose, and see this.
> I am trolling for nothing. Ian Clysedale was infected. At or near the time
> of the GT he infected Dawn who sent the shitogram. Subsequently, Ian and
> then Greg posted articles in this newsgroup consisting in large part of
> the more recent mutant varieties of the Anti-Paul rumor. Because I had
> deduced the insidious nature of this beast at the time of the Dawn
> incident after a review of the facts of the situation, I realized how
> dangerous these postings are. Read them too many times, and you will start
> to hate me as your perceptions slowly warp, making everything I do and say
> seem to you to be inimically hostile, even if it is merely the act of
> posting a "Hi there" to a newbie or something equally innocuous. This is
> why I took it upon myself to warn everyone NOT to read those 2 articles,
> if they value their friendships with me, or even their free will.
Here again you assume that we're weak willed, unable to decide for
ourselves, and become puppets of some manical mad-person. You are going a
bit over the edge here, don't you think? You've gone past a "cabal", and
now you seem to be saying that there is some kind of mass
hypnosis/subliminal message scheme running.
> Just what are you implying with this remark? You seem to be trying to
> claim the rumors are true.
> They are all LIES.
Which are the lies, and which ones are true, Paul?
> Greg's friends who tell him stuff I supposedly do, are lying to him, or he
> is lying. He may not be the type to lie, but if he has been infected, he
> simply cannot help himself.
Paul, I think now it will be almost impossible for people to defend you.
You've gone beyond the bounds...
> I deny nothing except that the rumors are true. All of them are lies.
> They are complete inventions, total fabrications. If you believe
> otherwise, you are either a fool, or already yourself in the early stages
> of infection. If the latter proves to be the case you must leave this
> newsgroup or lurk. Posting anything concerning me will be forbidden, as
> you will endanger the minds of everyone in this group.
Not only do you try to tell us what to read, you try to tell us what to
write? I endanger no one with my writings. Nor am I infected, or a fool.
Mark Mielke
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Case history: Amy. Started out apalled at how people were treating me.
> Defended mepublically against some of the lies. But slowly became
> quieter,then began to not speak to me, now does not even log on anymore.
> SOmeone who hates this kind of vicious rumor spreading, taken in by them?
> Surely not. Unless it is a subliminal message.
Guess what Paul? If you keep any of your e-mail back like a year or so you
will find that I too defended you publically... then grew quiet... then
grew ANGRY. You are the biggest fucking back stabber i have ever met. I
treated you nice and then you began to put down some of my friends. I told
you to stop and that nobody cared and you said "You're just like everyone
else".
Perhaps this should tell you something? It's not just a single person.
It's the common denominator, namely YOU. Either say publicly that Amy
(someone i've never communicated with b4) and I could both independantly
come to the same conclusion, and we are therefore weak willed, or just
shut the hell up with your crap? Perhaps your paranoia should be directed at
yourself?
> I have deduced the nature of the subliminal undercurrent in the lying
> rumors. It must consist of three parts. One convinces people to believe
> every word of the rumors. One causes their perceptions of me to slant
> toward a hostile interprwetation on everything. One implores them to pass
> it on, thus making this message self-replicating, like a computer virus.
More like mutual agreement after open-minded observation. (NOTE: This
mutual agreement is made WITHOUT communication between the parties... it's
you Paul dammit... i don't get why you think you are TOTALLY innocent. If
you make a mistake on NCF... it's a bug in the system... if you see a
sghost session lying around you somehow deduce that people have hacked
into your account and that they are spreading lies on irc... you've seen
one to many freakin' x-files... did you know that the x-files conspiracies
are 100% fake?)
> I implore anyone reading this to take the following precautions to avoid
> infection.
>
> 1. DO NOT read any postings in this newsgroup that you suspect contain
> rumors or unpleasant stories about me. They contain the virus.
What makes you so much more special than everybody else? If someone says
something bad about me i take it to heart and sometimes defend myself when
i find it necessary. When it comes to you i find myself defending
EVEYRBODY ELSE against you.
> 2. If someone begins to regale you with tales of me in IRC, use /squelch.
Perhaps there would be no "tales" if there were no truth.
> 3. If someone does the same with OLMs, tell them to shut up. If it
> persists, turn permissions off for a while.
> 4. Any e-mails you receive whose subject is me, and which are attacks on me,
> delete unread.
Guess what Paul? NOBODY E-MAILS ABOUT YOU. You're not worth anybodies
time. Why the hell would somehow say "People let's get together and hate
Paul". NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT YOU.
> 5. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THIS THING. Amy underestimated it and
> paid the price. You might think you're open-minded, not the rumor
> believing type, and so forth, and can read and ignore the content to
> defend me. THINK LIKE THAT AND YOU WILL SURELY BE TURNED! It is
> subliminal, and burrows into the subconscious somehow. If you read
> three words of something and it looks like a rumorabout me don't read the
> fourth...delete!
Is this how you treat your friends? They stop defending you and you label
them as weak-willed close-minded individuals? I think Amy likely thinks
your a piece of shit now... and you've just proved it. Whenever somebody
doesn't talk to you you go freakin' crazy. "They hate me now because
somebody told them a lie!" perhaps they just didn't feel like talking to
you on irc? but nooo... the fucking cabal again. (pardon the freakin'
french i'm quite mad)
> This is like an epidemic for which there is no known cure. The only hope
> is containment. You must not become infected. You must take all
> precautions outlined above. The people spreading the rumors must be put in
> a no-holds-barred quarantine. Treat them as incommunicado. This is MY
> only hope!
How about removal of the cancerous growth? That's what carleton U did
didn't it? Chucked you right out.
mark
P.S. I can't believe i once defended Paul. I lasted a month.
--
ma...@echelon.ca / ma...@nortel.ca _________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Northern Telecom Ltd. |
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | Box 3511, Station 'C' |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 |
Brika Steinberg
> Brika Steinberg (ac...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
> Excuse me? I communicate exactly the way everybody does. Just what are you
> referring to here?
Considering the way you responded to my last post, I think I need to put
a disclaimer here.
The following post is my honest opinion. Please read no further unless
you are willing to consider it.
You tend to be a bit... reactionary. Not giving people the benefit of
the doubt enough, whether it's bugs in Freenet or a post made
personally. The only way I have ever been able to get through to you is
through extremely diplomatic language, for fear of getting a flaming
response.
For instance, there was a period of time when, for whatever reason, you
were unable to use your Freenet account and were borrowing another one.
You admitted to us here in the YSIG at one point that you were doing so.
Sometimes other people borrow a parent's account or something, so this
in itself I really don't care about. But when people pointed it out
later, you lashed out and denied that you had done anything of the sort,
calling any of these implications slanderous and libelous, and even
pretending to be another person named Bob Beland for a while.
So 1. Sometimes you overreact.
Another point: (pattern often found on Carleton newsgroups)
Bully-who-dislikes-Paul-for-no-good-reason-except-that-he-needs-someone-to-pick-on:
"Paul, you suck." (or something similar)
Paul: "Fuck you and the modem you rode in on"
Bully: "I hate you."
Paul: "Fuck you and the modem you rode in on"
etc.
So 2. There are some people who aren't worth reacting to and are only
bugging you for fun. Ignoring them is a form of maturity. Replying to
them and thus encouraging them is pointless and annoying.
> It's some sort of subliminal message. As I said in the article above,
> people who form their opinions the way you do STILL come down with this
> thing. It doesn't matter if you're not weak-minded, it isn't a matter of
> conscious choice. That is how this thing differs from normal rumormongering.
Remember, please that you were the one who brought up the discussion on
theories in this newsgroup. Theories in science are considered true
until proven otherwise. You have not done so. Gravity keeps me on the
ground, molecules are made of atoms, and I am conscious of my own
cognitive processes that determine whether or not I like you.
> > ...found you frustrating at times, but has tried not to dwell on it.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? The only thing frustrating around
> here is this thing going around about me, and my seeming powerlessness to
> do anything about it or even warn people!
See above examples.
> I don't think for a minute I'm in any way "perfect". I do KNOW though that
> the stuff being told about me and the rumors being spread are all lies.
> I also know that while I may not be perfect, I have certainly done nothing
> to deserve what is being done to me as my collection of friends and
> acquaintances is whittled away by this thing.
> The fact that people seem to believe the lies anyways, and that it even
> seems to influence people that are normally immune to mere rumors and
> propaganda, shows that something is insidious about it. Hence the
> subliminal message hypothesis.
The above examples of times when you have overreacted or responded to
people who should have been ignored were not rumours. They are among
other non-rumour incidents that have influenced my decision that you
have difficulty communicating well with others. How subliminal is that?
> I have no idea what you're trying to say here. There are lies and vicious
> rumors going about, none of which are at all "constructive criticism"; they
> are all attempts to destroy my life. You seem to be taking what I said in
> the article about this stuff, and applying it out of context to something
> else (though what that is, I do not know; the last piece of constructive
> criticism I recall hearing was Mal suggesting I ignore the rumormongers,
> to which I responded that I'd already tried that and half a hundred other
> things to no avail).
If someone were to say to me, "Brika, you really annoy me," I would
probably ask them why, or if it was obviously to push my buttons then I
would just assume they were having a bad day/life etc. The first is an
example of how one can take constructive criticism and the second how
sometimes nonconstructive criticism just isn't worth pursuing. That's
what I meant.
> There are lies being told about me, some quite blatantly in this newsgroup
> a few short hours ago!, and these seem to be having an effect on you
> despite what you just said yourself about not listening to mere hearsay.
Paul, listen to me. Everything I am saying is from my own experience
with you. I am not a member of any conspiracy, subliminal or
otherwise. If I were, why would I have talked to you for so long on IRC
many months ago to help you figure out how to stop the excessive
flamewars everywhere? Of course, they're not all gone but they *really*
settled down after that. If trying to offer an honest, constructive
opinion puts me on the "conspirator" list, then there's not much point
even trying to communicate with you. And I wonder how many others have
felt the same way and just stopped trying.
Brika.
Brika Steinberg
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> Fact: The cabal has long since disappeared, but the rumors persist, and
> *new varieties are being invented* 18 months later.
Carleton Association of Beer and Alcohol Lovers
- - - - -
I met at least 2 of them, years ago. They were organized for an
entirely different purpose.
> Fact: People I have done nothing to offend suddenly go from being friends
> to hating my guts, in under 2 hours of time, after joining certain IRC
> channels.
Friends online are not true friends. IRC is not like real life.
> Conclusion: This is not a normal rumor-mongering incident. The people that
> started this are long gone from the scene, but it persists, a
> whole year and a half later. People normally not the type to
> listen to rumors, are seduced by this thing. This thing spreads
> and spreads and spreads and shows no sign of ever stopping,
> whereas a normal rumor spreads so far and dies away of its own
> accord.
> Conclusion: Because normal rumors spread like a gas and dilute with
> distance, but this spreads more like an epidemic, undiluted by
> space or time, it seems more a kind of subliminal virus.
The flamewars have been going on a very long time. Of course it has far
reaching effects that don't seem to go away.
> Conclusion: Because string-minded, strong-willed individuals who HATE
> people that spread rumors and dismiss rumors out of hand are STILL
> affected, this thing bypasses the conscious straight to the
> subconscious. It must be a subliminal message.
1. I have my own reasons for being frustrated with you that have nothing
to do with anyone else's hearsay. Others probably do too. 2. Once
someone had already had repeated bad experiences with you they are
probably more likely to believe rumours about you.
> If someone has constructive criticism, I will gladly listen to it.
Can I quote you on that?
Brika. :)
Chris Brown
Mark Mielke (al...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Guess what Paul? NOBODY E-MAILS ABOUT YOU. You're not worth anybodies
> time. Why the hell would somehow say "People let's get together and hate
> Paul". NOBODY FUCKING CARES ABOUT YOU.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Eh.. that's not necessarily true. Most of us still care, we've just lost
the will to defend him because he's dug himself so deep.
--
glassshatteringbreakingshiningnewthoughtconclusionendoftimeclimaxsexinabottle
thunderinglightningflashbrightnesscontrasttelevisioncathoderaytubemessage
receivedantennametalrodrobotslargemachinesgrindingrustingpollutingcloudsrain
killspoisonmediacamerasworldviewsattelitespacejunkcomescrashingdown ba930
Alex Grienti
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
> (insert some big long text hear)
This is not a flame post, or a post ridiculing Paul, or not a defence or
an offence, but it is just the truth.
The chance of subliminial messages in any of these posts is almost near
impossible. Someone who would be able to do that would have to be some
sort of psychiatric genious. I don't think that it is so much an
'infection of the mind' that people are tending to dislike you, but
rather they had a chance to get to know you better and ended up finding
you annoying. It happens to almost everyone, so just get over the fact,
don't base IRC or posts or e-mail to real life, just ignore it. It's as
simple as that. There is such thing as the 'D' button in e-mail and the
/ignore command in IRC. To be perfectly honest, some things that you do
go rambling on about at some GT's does not seem to peak some people's
interests and yes, when you are not being talked to in some periods of
time, you try to gain people's attention. In my case when people don't
listen to me, I just stay silent and accept it after the fact, until an
oppertunity for a new conversation can be started. What I say here is
the plain truth..no reason to lie, I have not been 'infected with the
posting mind virus' or the so-called 'subliminal messaging' I am just
stating the truth and fact.
--
________________________________________________________.
Alexander Grienti <at...@freenet.carleton.ca> |
aka Heero_Yuy | "Life comes cheap...Especially Mine" |
aka The`Saint | -Heero Yuy |
(on EFNet) | "Whoever sees me goes to Hell!!!" |
| -Duo Maxwell |
--------------------------------------------------------+
Paul Derbyshire
Peter D. Boddy (bx...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Then listen to what the others have said, Ian for one. They are still
> trying to defend you, and help you at the same time. Look past the end of
> your nose, and see this.
Ian? He made anumber of untrue allegations against me, hardly what I would
call "constructive criticism"!
Paul Derbyshire
All of the rumors being told are lies. Ian's rumor about how I stare at
people, for instance,and which Greg instantly began to believe.
The rumors don't seem to die down, and seem to convince everyone. Why is
that?
Paul Derbyshire
Brika Steinberg (ac...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
>> Brika Steinberg (ac...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
>
>> Excuse me? I communicate exactly the way everybody does. Just what are you
>> referring to here?
>
> Considering the way you responded to my last post, I think I need to put
> a disclaimer here.
>
> The following post is my honest opinion. Please read no further unless
> you are willing to consider it.
>
>
> You tend to be a bit... reactionary. Not giving people the benefit of
> the doubt enough, whether it's bugs in Freenet or a post made
> personally. The only way I have ever been able to get through to you is
> through extremely diplomatic language, for fear of getting a flaming
> response.
It's called being defensive. Considering the unbelievable magnitude of the
slag campaign carried out against me continually for 18 months, I would
think it is quite understandable.
> For instance, there was a period of time when, for whatever reason, you
> were unable to use your Freenet account and were borrowing another one.
> You admitted to us here in the YSIG at one point that you were doing so.
> Sometimes other people borrow a parent's account or something, so this
> in itself I really don't care about. But when people pointed it out
> later, you lashed out and denied that you had done anything of the sort,
> calling any of these implications slanderous and libelous, and even
> pretending to be another person named Bob Beland for a while.
Because they were trying to get me in trouble with the NCF administrators.
This could not be allowed to go on. Their intent was to have me thrown
off, so as to destroy my life.
> So 1. Sometimes you overreact.
I react. Maybe sometimes I overreact. I react strongly because the
situation seems to warrant it.
> Another point: (pattern often found on Carleton newsgroups)
>
> Bully-who-dislikes-Paul-for-no-good-reason-except-that-he-needs-someone-to-pick-on:
> "Paul, you suck." (or something similar)
> Paul: "Fuck you and the modem you rode in on"
> Bully: "I hate you."
> Paul: "Fuck you and the modem you rode in on"
> etc.
>
> So 2. There are some people who aren't worth reacting to and are only
> bugging you for fun. Ignoring them is a form of maturity. Replying to
> them and thus encouraging them is pointless and annoying.
I don't react like that to a "Paul, you suck." I do, however react like
that if they try to spread lies and hate. The lies have to be stopped.Every person they spread to, is another victory for them, and another lost
friend, actual or potential, for me.
>> It's some sort of subliminal message. As I said in the article above,
>> people who form their opinions the way you do STILL come down with this
>> thing. It doesn't matter if you're not weak-minded, it isn't a matter of
>> conscious choice. That is how this thing differs from normal rumormongering.
>
> Remember, please that you were the one who brought up the discussion on
> theories in this newsgroup.
Actually, it started when Ian invented the "staring" rumor, posted it in
here, and it infected Greg thereafter, and I felt it necessary to minimize
the number of other people that would be exposed to it.
> Theories in science are considered true
> until proven otherwise. You have not done so. Gravity keeps me on the
> ground, molecules are made of atoms, and I am conscious of my own
> cognitive processes that determine whether or not I like you.
The subconscious can affect your actions or perceptions without conscious
control. This manifests itself everywhere from'nam flashbacks to
irrational phobias. Sometimes all the conscious willpower in the world
doesn't work against those. Nor does it seem to work against this.
> The above examples of times when you have overreacted or responded to
> people who should have been ignored were not rumours. They are among
> other non-rumour incidents that have influenced my decision that you
> have difficulty communicating well with others. How subliminal is that?
The only things I seem to be having difficulty communicating successfully
around here are:
1. The rumors being told, like Ian's staring rumor, are lies;
2. They seem to infect the subconscious so it's best to stay clear of them;
3. This whole thing has gotten pointless, and everyone should quit making
the things up,spreading them, or listening to them.
If nobody posted or mailed or IRC'ed any more lies about me, made channels
and invited my friends in and brainwashed them, or behaved strangely and
then e-mailed me scathing flame mail, and I subsequently didn't have to
repeat that they were lies, this whole thing would cease.
Yes, that went on. During the holidays, every last night, someone made an
invite only channel in IRC, with a different name each night; invited one
or two of my friends, different ones each night; and brainwashed
them. Within the space of two hours they'd gofrom friends to hating my guts.
I could be carrying on a friendly chat with them, in no way offending them,
and I'd know something was up when they quit talkinbg to me, or suddenly
said something rude and signed off.
Why was this being done? Why would these people take their word as
Gospel? Can you explain this?
Why did Ian post all that claptrap a few days ago? Why did Greg reiterate
it and then elaborate on the lie by claiming to have actually personally
witnessed an event that never happened? Can you explain their behavior?
> If someone were to say to me, "Brika, you really annoy me," I would
> probably ask them why, or if it was obviously to push my buttons then I
> would just assume they were having a bad day/life etc. The first is an
> example of how one can take constructive criticism and the second how
> sometimes nonconstructive criticism just isn't worth pursuing. That's
> what I meant.
Hmph. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about things like the lies
and hate propaganda that Ian spewed a few days ago right in this
newsgroup, or whatever the hell was being said on those IRC channels
during the holidays.
I don't think you're part of this smear campaign. But, you don't seemto
understand how I'm pretty much at the end of my rope.
I've tried everything to end it, tostop them converting any more people. I
ignoed them, for much of the holidays for starters, but they kept it up,
brainwashing a couple of people a night. I tried directly telling the
perpetrators to cease and desist. I've tried to warn people that there are
people around that will tell them lies about me and not to beleive them.
I've tried warning people not to even read a single rumor-containing
e-mail, message, or news posting.
I got fed up when after the GT it became apparent that it had gotten into
the inner sanctum, here. Dawn was brainwashed or infected. I did nothing
to offend her, but she pulled that stunt abandoning me downtown, then sent
me that shitogram spewing back at me all the lies she'd been told about
me, including Ian's staring rumor. Ian posted the staring rumor to the
newsgroup and it infected Greg and Michelle right after...they both seem
to actually believe it, and Greg actually elaborated it by claiming to
have actually witnessed it, which is utter hogwash.
You tell me. Why is it spreading even now, 18 months after the perpetrator
started the first rumor in 1996? Why would Ian Clysedale not only listen
to it somewhere and come to believe it, but then invent his own piece of
creative slander, the staring rumor, and post it here? Why is this happening?
Ignoring won't work, going on the defense doesn't work, and going on the
offense doesn't work, it spreads just as fast no matter which I do. WHat
do you suggest I do?
Paul Derbyshire
X-Asbestos: Yes
Alex Grienti (at...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
[deletia]
It'snot my fault if I sometimes have trouble getting on in groups. For
some reason if I'm in a group of people, everyone always seems to end up
talking with anyone else, but I'll be damned if I can ever get involved in
a conversation. Why this is, I haven't a clue.
Paul Derbyshire
[REPOST: This one accidentally mailed. News seems to be behaving today so
far.]
Brika Steinberg (ac...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
> Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>> Fact: The cabal has long since disappeared, but the rumors persist, and
>> *new varieties are being invented* 18 months later.
>
> Carleton Association of Beer and Alcohol Lovers
> - - - - -
> I met at least 2 of them, years ago. They were organized for an
> entirely different purpose.
Yeah. There was a time when their main pastime was harassing me, in late
1996/early 1997. They created the rumor-virus and started it spreading.
They have long since gone on to other things. Yet without any maintenance
effort, the rumors spread on.
> Friends online are not true friends. IRC is not like real life.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Amy was a true friend, if ever I had one. But they brainwashed her.
> 1. I have my own reasons for being frustrated with you that have nothing
> to do with anyone else's hearsay. Others probably do too. 2. Once
> someone had already had repeated bad experiences with you they are
> probably more likely to believe rumours about you.
I don't cause any "bad experiences". I am onlyhostileto someone who is
first hostile to me. I for one was never hostile to Ian Clysedale, or did
anythingto offend or annoy him. Yet he posted a rather unfriendly remark
about me in a newsgroup a while ago. Then he invented the "staring" rumor,
and infected Dawn, Michelle, and Greg with it, even posting it in ysig.
How do you explain his actions?
> Can I quote you on that?
Sure. Why do you ask?
> Brika. :)
Ignoring them didn't work. Going onthe offensive didn'twork. Going on the
defensive didn't work. What the hell should I do?
I refuse to give in. I vow on my life that I will try to persevere and
that the bastards responsible for this will have to pry my friendships
from my cold, dead, fingers. Now how can I put this into action? How could
I, for instance, have prevented Michelle or Greg from being suckered by
Ian Clysedale's staring rumor?
Peter D. Boddy
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Peter D. Boddy (bx...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Then listen to what the others have said, Ian for one. They are still
>> trying to defend you, and help you at the same time. Look past the end of
>> your nose, and see this.
>
> Ian? He made anumber of untrue allegations against me, hardly what I would
> call "constructive criticism"!
Gee, Paul, you seem to react badly when there is even the hint of someone
calling you a liar, but if someone else makes a comment, you feel free to
call them a liar. Ian said "Several female friends and acquaintances" had
told him that you stared. Greg said he has seen you do that. Are you
saying they are all lying?
Really Paul, you are going to far with this subliminal message thing. You
are losing whatever credibility you had left.
And it was constructive critism, although he might have phrased it better.
Women don't like to be thought of as slabs of meat, and oggling them
doesn't go over well usually.
Ian Clysdale
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> I refuse to give in. I vow on my life that I will try to persevere and
> that the bastards responsible for this will have to pry my friendships
> from my cold, dead, fingers. Now how can I put this into action? How could
> I, for instance, have prevented Michelle or Greg from being suckered by
> Ian Clysedale's staring rumor?
Paul, I'm declining to reply to any of your personal attacks or
comments, but could you please at least spell my name properly?
It's Ian Clysdale.
No E.
Thank you.
ian
--ian clysdale (lick me) () "nyah nyah! ian's got a girlfriend! ian can't
icly...@thetoybox.org () fuck straight guys!" -heather
Peter D. Boddy
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Yeah. There was a time when their main pastime was harassing me, in late
> 1996/early 1997. They created the rumor-virus and started it spreading.
> They have long since gone on to other things. Yet without any maintenance
> effort, the rumors spread on.
Paul, they have done no such thing. I am sure they'd be laughing in their
beer if they could see your current "subliminal message" thread. What you
call rumours, people actually saw happen. They were there, when you were
there. I'm not going over anything said before, but you can't deny the
fact that people saw you. If only someone had a camera, that might quiet
you on this.
>> Friends online are not true friends. IRC is not like real life.
>
> What the hell is that supposed to mean?
> Amy was a true friend, if ever I had one. But they brainwashed her.
It means as much as you would like it, IRC is not real life. I'd have to
disagree, IRC friends can turn into real friends, but only after meeting
them a few times, and actually doing friend stuff (movies, going out for a
beer, etc, etc.). And if I were to take your stance on everything in
life, I would insert outburst claiming slander and libel here. How on
earth can you say any one has brainwashed Amy?
Brika Steinberg
Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>
> Brika Steinberg (ac...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
> >> Brika Steinberg (ac...@freenet.carleton.ca) writes:
> > You tend to be a bit... reactionary. Not giving people the benefit of
> > the doubt enough, whether it's bugs in Freenet or a post made
> > personally. The only way I have ever been able to get through to you is
> > through extremely diplomatic language, for fear of getting a flaming
> > response.
>
> It's called being defensive. Considering the unbelievable magnitude of the
> slag campaign carried out against me continually for 18 months, I would
> think it is quite understandable.
But I'm not talking about that. I'm specifically talking about when you
overreact to criticism.
> Because they were trying to get me in trouble with the NCF administrators.
> This could not be allowed to go on. Their intent was to have me thrown
> off, so as to destroy my life.
But Paul, what you were doing *was* technically against the rules...
Intent or no intent. And when you start crying slander and libel for
something that is obviously true, then why should people believe you
about other things? You know that story about the boy who cried wolf?
> > So 1. Sometimes you overreact.
>
> I react. Maybe sometimes I overreact. I react strongly because the
> situation seems to warrant it.
Thank for admitting that sometimes you overreact. When you do, it is a
*huge* catalyst for flaming and/or "rumour-spreading" as you might call
it.
> I don't react like that to a "Paul, you suck." I do, however react like
> that if they try to spread lies and hate. The lies have to be stopped.
> Every person they spread to, is another victory for them, and another lost
> friend, actual or potential, for me.
But what I was trying to point out is that often that's all they mean
when they say something nasty about you. When someone is "spreading
lies and hate," it is often just to get a reaction out of you. And you
do tend to make yourself a prime target for bullies because you
consistently react back in a huge way. Also, sometimes an over-strong
denial of something will also make people believe something has merit.
> >> It's some sort of subliminal message. As I said in the article above,
> >> people who form their opinions the way you do STILL come down with this
> >> thing. It doesn't matter if you're not weak-minded, it isn't a matter of
> >> conscious choice. That is how this thing differs from normal rumormongering.
And I'm saying your theory is wacko. Let's agree to disagree because I
don't think we're going anywhere with this argument.
> > The above examples of times when you have overreacted or responded to
> > people who should have been ignored were not rumours. They are among
> > other non-rumour incidents that have influenced my decision that you
> > have difficulty communicating well with others. How subliminal is that?
You didn't answer this. Why?
Paul, answer this question too: If any of what you believe is true, why
would other people believe you?
> Hmph. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about things like the lies
> and hate propaganda that Ian spewed a few days ago right in this
> newsgroup, or whatever the hell was being said on those IRC channels
> during the holidays.
What Ian spewed was, for the most part, just his personal opinion. If
you can't take an opinion, get out of the debate.
> I don't think you're part of this smear campaign. But, you don't seemto
> understand how I'm pretty much at the end of my rope.
Yes, you're in a huge knot, partly others' faults and partly yours.
Obviously this is difficult. Honestly, if it were anyone I knew or even
myself I would go see someone (like a psych or something) who could help
me untangle it.
Brika. :)
Jennifer M. Powroz
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> All of the rumors being told are lies. Ian's rumor about how I stare at
> people, for instance,and which Greg instantly began to believe.
Actually, if I remember what Greg wrote correctly, it wasn't that he
instantly believed what Ian said; it was that he'd witnessed it for
himself. Perhaps that was why he chose to believe the "rumor" that Ian
said?
jen
--
"Messing with minds is perfectly legal, just as long as you don't remove
the balls from the table."
-Jay
Brika Steinberg
Ack. Before this gets any more out of hand, please remember. One of
the first things they tell you in any intro psych course is *don't
diagnose your friends/enemies/bugs crawling on the street/etc.*
Even psychiatrists with years of training still quibble over what is
right.
Bri. :)
Ian Clysdale
Colin Pascal (at...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Yeah, he's only hung like one, not related!
While I don't deny this, how would you know, Colin? =)
ian
--
Chris Brown
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> All of the rumors being told are lies. Ian's rumor about how I stare at
> people, for instance,and which Greg instantly began to believe.
He didn't instantly begin to believe.. I'm sure he already knew.
> The rumors don't seem to die down, and seem to convince everyone. Why is
> that?
Maybe it's because they're true?
Chris Brown
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> The only things I seem to be having difficulty communicating successfully
> around here are:
>
> 1. The rumors being told, like Ian's staring rumor, are lies;
The only lie being told is that none of it is true.
> 2. They seem to infect the subconscious so it's best to stay clear of them;
Do you realize how incredibly impossible that is?
> 3. This whole thing has gotten pointless, and everyone should quit making
> the things up,spreading them, or listening to them.
Eh.. nobody's made anything up so far. It's all been based on fact and
observation.
> If nobody posted or mailed or IRC'ed any more lies about me, made channels
> and invited my friends in and brainwashed them, or behaved strangely and
> then e-mailed me scathing flame mail, and I subsequently didn't have to
> repeat that they were lies, this whole thing would cease.
Nobody's been brainwashed. If there's any big conspiracy that the world is
out to get you, it's one that you created on your own. In fact, most of us
still *are* your freinds, just not in the way that you'd like us to be.
> Why did Ian post all that claptrap a few days ago?
I don't think it was nonsense.. maybe you should go back and have a look
at it again.
> Why did Greg reiterate
> it and then elaborate on the lie by claiming to have actually personally
> witnessed an event that never happened? Can you explain their behavior?
Maybe because he *did* witness it.
> me, including Ian's staring rumor. Ian posted the staring rumor to the
> newsgroup and it infected Greg and Michelle right after...they both seem
> to actually believe it,
Funny, I seem to recall Michelle saying something about you staring at her
chest sometime over a year ago.. why would somebody lie about that,
especially Michelle?
> and Greg actually elaborated it by claiming to
> have actually witnessed it, which is utter hogwash.
You mean to say that his eyes decieve him?
> You tell me. Why is it spreading even now, 18 months after the perpetrator
> started the first rumor in 1996? Why would Ian Clysedale not only listen
> to it somewhere and come to believe it, but then invent his own piece of
> creative slander, the staring rumor, and post it here? Why is this happening?
Because it's true.
Colin Pascal
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Actually, it started when Ian invented the "staring" rumor, posted it in
> here, and it infected Greg thereafter, and I felt it necessary to minimize
> the number of other people that would be exposed to it.
Fuck you Paul, I was there at the night of the GT and I saw how you'd gaze
at Dawn when you thought no one was lookng. (and it WASN'T at her face!)
I was always skeptical of your behaviour that I had heard about, but you
seem to almost always solidify everything everyone else has heard when you
meet people in public. Dawn (as well as every other girl you might have
offended) are not just slabs of meat for you to mentally undress.
> This manifests itself everywhere from'nam flashbacks to
This actually makes sense, considering I think that you are the most
traumatic thing in many peoples lives.
> 1. The rumors being told, like Ian's staring rumor, are lies;
The problem with this is that there are numerous trustworthy people who
say the same thing without consulting each other, and all you do in
defense is say "LIES! FOUL LIES!", which makes every who's reading the
posts think "hmmm... this Paul character is one apple too short of a Smurf...
> 2. They seem to infect the subconscious so it's best to stay clear of them;
Do you have a PHD is Psychology? How long have you studied how the mind
works? Are you basing your subliminal theories on ANYTHING other than
X-Files?
> 3. This whole thing has gotten pointless, and everyone should quit making
> the things up,spreading them, or listening to them.
What's that? Revoke your NCF account? okely dokely!
> behaved strangely and
> then e-mailed me scathing flame mail
We both know you got what you deserved. Buy a clue.
> Why was this being done? Why would these people take their word as
> Gospel? Can you explain this?
It's callled "getting to know you" syndrome. Once people do get to know
you, that always seems to happen/
> Why did Ian post all that claptrap a few days ago? Why did Greg reiterate
> it and then elaborate on the lie by claiming to have actually personally
> witnessed an event that never happened? Can you explain their behavior?
I think that might be the mystical best you seem to fear so much called
"REALITY"! *GASP!* OH the horror!
> Hmph. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about things like the lies
> and hate propaganda that Ian spewed a few days ago right in this
> newsgroup, or whatever the hell was being said on those IRC channels
> during the holidays.
Paul, if you insist on calling reality "lies", we will have to sue you for
libel. We don't want you defacing the space time continuum by altering
the past!
> Dawn was brainwashed or infected. I did nothing
> to offend her,
Paul, if someone rapes a woman, they can't just say "Oh, she wanted it".
Likewise, if a woman says that you were drooling lecherously at her, you
are no one to say "No, I was just being friendly!"
> but she pulled that stunt abandoning me downtown
For the record, "we" pulled that stunt, quit giving her all of the credit.
> me that shitogram spewing back at me all the lies she'd been told about
> me, including Ian's staring rumor.
OK, I get it. You think that Dawn said that because of Ian's post, which
is impossible since Dawn doesn't read the y-sig, and had not read the post
whenever she told you to piss off. See? It's all just a big
misunderstanding!
NEW THEORY:
Not only is Paul Schizophrenic, but he also has multiple personality
syndrome! the "other"-Paul is mean and lecherous being that comes out
once Paul is surrounded by people, and then hides deep in his
subconscious, unbeknownst to the sweet caring Paul.
Colin.
--
"This is not without the absence of bad."
- chris sibbit
at...@freenet.carleton.ca http://colin.tierranet.com/
Colin Pascal
Ian Clysdale (ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> It's Ian Clysdale.
> No E.
Yeah, he's only hung like one, not related!
Colin.
Len Worrell
Peter D. Boddy (bx...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> Yeah. There was a time when their main pastime was harassing me, in late
>> 1996/early 1997. They created the rumor-virus and started it spreading.
>> They have long since gone on to other things. Yet without any maintenance
>> effort, the rumors spread on.
>
> Paul, they have done no such thing. I am sure they'd be laughing in their
> beer if they could see your current "subliminal message" thread. What you
> call rumours, people actually saw happen. They were there, when you were
> there. I'm not going over anything said before, but you can't deny the
> fact that people saw you. If only someone had a camera, that might quiet
> you on this.
He's on video somewhere.. unless someone's taped over it.. its footage
from some meet i wasn't at but i did see the tape.. and it certainly
shows that there's truth in some of these "rumors" going around.
--
Delicate love, precious and pale, tempted and torn broken and failed
don't leave me here, don't leave me alone
i am the one, the devil you know..
David Moorhouse
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Why did Ian post all that claptrap a few days ago? Why did Greg reiterate
> it and then elaborate on the lie by claiming to have actually personally
> witnessed an event that never happened? Can you explain their behavior?
Paul, I'm sorry. I don't know of the event they described, but I
witnessed you with my own two eyes when you first met Kaia, a long time
ago. Your eyes didn't stray an inch above the neckline of her shirt for a
few minutes. I'm not trying to spread lies, or rumours, I'm pointing out
that you are wrong. If you are going to invite people to prove you wrong
by denying every accusation thrown against you, instead of ignoring it or
apologizing, then you deserve every bit of ridicule you receive. Admitting
to your own actions is something you have to learn to do. And if by the
slight chance you actually don't realize what you do, you're going to have
to start.
-Dave!
--
Don't you hate it when people answer their own questions? Yeah.
David Moorhouse
I know that I'm not one who should be arguing this, because of my
involvement with the ditching of Paul downtown, but I can't help but try
to add a little bit.
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> I have looked quite closely at all the facts.
In your opinion.
> Fact: The average case of someone spreading vicious rumors about someone
> else dies down in under six months.
Fact: Your case is not average! No matter what slant you look at that
with, it is the truth. Don't make such obvious generalizations, and don't
pull statistics in this kind of a dispute, it just loses you more credibility.
> Fact: Rumors normally die down unless someone is actively spreading them.
*OR* someone is actively encouraging them. (or passively, as you seem to
beleive)
> Fact: The cabal has long since disappeared, but the rumors persist, and
> *new varieties are being invented* 18 months later.
I'm not even going to bother saying anything about the cabal. By
inventing it in your own mind and propagating the idea, you gave people
that had something against you another thing to bother you with.
About the rumours. Why do you insist that this is the problem? Do you
beleive that EVERYBODY spreads nasty rumors about you, truly? And even if
you do beleive that, pull your statement from the top back down here. If
they were just rumours, they would have died down long ago unless there
was something happening to propagate them.
> Fact: Amy was not the type to listen to rumors.
> Fact: She defended me against them for a time.
> Fact: She became one of them eventually. Slower than most but eventually.
How do you know that? I have a lot of friends who I have lost touch with,
and don't talk to me anymore. If I called them up I wouldn't expect them
to be friendly to me. People drift apart, some faster than others, or with
more reason. Did she ever say anything bad to you? Or, more fairly, did
she say anything bad to you before you bothered her because of the fact
that you didn't talk to each other anymore? Maybe she just left the whoile
freenet scene. I do that frequently.
> Fact: People I never even spoke to in my life, turn out to hate my guts on
> my first saying hi to them.
Paul, the way you express yourself the most is on YSIG, a public
newsgroup that anybody can read. If you think that people are supposed to
be automatically friendly to you when you first meet them you'll have to
wake up.
> Fact: People I have done nothing to offend suddenly go from being friends
> to hating my guts, in under 2 hours of time, after joining certain IRC
> channels.
Paul, who are you to judge when you've offended someone? Trying to look
at it objectively, judging by the amount of people who have rejected you,
you obviously do something that you don't realize, or you deny, to make
them not like you. As an example, when you sat down beside me at the
reunion, I looked over at you and smiled. You glanced at me for a moment,
then looked down at the table. No hello, no nothing. After a few minutes
of you sitting there not saying very much of interest, I started ignoring
you because you kept repeating the same thing, not talking to anybody in
particular, and not trying to intelligently intercede in any of the light
conveersation that was going on. When you did speak, you brought some
slightly related point into the conversation, talked for longer than the
point gave credit for. What you said usually didn't help further the
conversation. After a little while of this, I gave up. I'd hoped maybe
you'd changed from the last time I saw you, but you hadn't. I'm sorry if
this sounds really mean, but you have to realize that maybe you are at
fault, not everybody else.
> Fact: I have never done anything to offend Dawn. During the GT, I never
> did anything to offend her; indeed was friendly towards her.
You acted how you thought was friendly. How do you know that you weren't
being annoying? You talked in little spurts, never keeping a thread of
conversation past a turn or two. And by the way, do you keep close
attention
to where your eyes wander when you're not particulaly looking at things?
It's kinda funny where your sight can end up when your mind's not on it.
If
you don't think that you werng rude with where you rested your eyes, then
pay
attention to where you're looking. Besides, it's not the first time this
has
happened, so as far as my opinion goes, you lose more credibility there too.
> Fact: She sent me an incredible shitogram yesterday that is utterly
> without provocation, and consists in large part of her reiterating
at me
> the content of some of the most recent and most vicious lies.
No, that is not a FACT. So stop saying it. In YOUR opinion it was without
provocation. You sent her a message asking for an explanation, and she
gave
you one.
> Conclusion: This is not a normal rumor-mongering incident. The people that
> started this are long gone from the scene, but it persists, a
> whole year and a half later. People normally not the type to
> listen to rumors, are seduced by this thing. This thing spreads
> and spreads and spreads and shows no sign of ever stopping,
that you can't see? Or are
you simply denying everything but the ludicrous explanations that you
fabricate
yourself?
> Conclusion: Because normal rumors spread like a gas and dilute with
> distance, but this spreads more like an epidemic, undiluted by
> space or time, it seems more a kind of subliminal virus.
Uh huh... right. I know I'm stooping pretty low to say that as an
argument,
but you've stooped even lower by resorting to that explanation.
> Conclusion: Because string-minded, strong-willed individuals who HATE
> people that spread rumors and dismiss rumors out of hand are
STILL
> affected, this thing bypasses the conscious straight to the
> subconscious. It must be a subliminal message.
That is an based on false facts and the assumption that the disease of
"not
liking you" is based solely on rumors. It's not a valid conclusion by ANY
standards.
> If you can point out a flaw in this logic, kindly point it out.
I have. You are using cut-and-dry logic without looking at all the factors.
> (This is NOT an invitation to simply spout rumors, lies, or claptrap and
> then say it must be wrong because I'm the Antichrist, or some such rot.
> Nor is it an invitation to reiterate the lies, then claim they are truth
> and spread like they do because they're true. They are lies.)
>
You keep stating that and restating that. They are all lies. Lies. Lies.
If
they are all lies, why are there so many of them? If they are all lies,
why
can only YOU see them? If you're assuming that we all think you're the
antichrist, or that we all don't like you for some diabolical or evil
reason,
spreading lies to satisfy our twisted minds, then I can see where your
logic
is coming from. Otherwise, nope. You aren't trying to convince us you're
not
the antichrist. By saying that You are the one who knows which are lies
and
which are truth, you're telling us you're omnicient like a god. It doesn't
help that you're trying to take over this sig and censor it.
>> If someone posts something even slightly critical (even constructive
>> critism), you jump all over them.
>
> I do not.
(Denial).
> If someone posts a lying rumor, I jump all over them with hobnail boots
> quite gleefully.
And everything that people post about you, you automatically label it as a
lying rumour. (Justification of denial)
> If someone has constructive criticism, I will gladly listen to it.
>
(Further justification)
You never see the constructive criticism! If I tell you, "You're annoying
for
blah and blah reason", you reply, "You're in the cabal" or maybe
logically,
"Give me an example". If I give you an example, you scream "That's a lie!
I
will not tolerate lies! Don't post that to this sig!" It seems you're
simply
denying all the things you do to annoy people, and that's what's really
going
on. No cabal. No subliminal virus. Denial. Face reality and you might make
some
real friends, not just nice people who tolerate your foolishness.
>> In essence, you are trolling for attention, at least, that is how it looks.
>
> I am trolling for nothing. Ian Clysedale was infected. At or near the time
> of the GT he infected Dawn who sent the shitogram. Subsequently, Ian and
> then Greg posted articles in this newsgroup consisting in large part of
> the more recent mutant varieties of the Anti-Paul rumor. Because I had
> deduced the insidious nature of this beast at the time of the Dawn
> incident after a review of the facts of the situation, I realized how
> dangerous these postings are. Read them too many times, and you will start
> to hate me as your perceptions slowly warp, making everything I do and say
> seem to you to be inimically hostile, even if it is merely the act of
> posting a "Hi there" to a newbie or something equally innocuous. This is
> why I took it upon myself to warn everyone NOT to read those 2 articles,
> if they value their friendships with me, or even their free will.
You did not warn anybody, you ORDERED them. This doesn't help the problem.
>
>> You've made denial an art form, going as far as to deny events that people
>> have personally witnessed.
>
> Just what are you implying with this remark? You seem to be trying to
> claim the rumors are true.
You just turned his remark into an offensive statement by stating that
he's
implying that all the bad "rumours" about you are true. He's merely
stating
the truth. You deny events that really happen, or worm your way around
them to
make them seem not as bad. This is not an attractive trait. Fix it now!
>
> They are all LIES.
No Paul, they are reality. The more you deny them, the more they'll pile
up on
you, and the more people will reject you.
>
> Greg's friends who tell him stuff I supposedly do, are lying to him, or he
> is lying. He may not be the type to lie, but if he has been infected, he
> simply cannot help himself.
>
>> How can people take your side if you deny everything? How can people
>> help you, if no one believes you any more?
>
> I deny nothing except that the rumors are true. All of them are lies.
With your definitions of the rumours and lies, you're saying you're
denying
nothing except for EVERYTHING BAD THAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK YOU'VE EVER
DONE.
(excuse the shouting). So you're denying everything, not nothing. Don't
try to
make your statements look innocent when they're not.
> They are complete inventions, total fabrications. If you believe
> otherwise, you are either a fool, or already yourself in the early stages
> of infection. If the latter proves to be the case you must leave this
> newsgroup or lurk. Posting anything concerning me will be forbidden, as
> you will endanger the minds of everyone in this group.
You're speaking way above your authority with the words, "you must" and
"forbidden". Is a person who assumes command where it isn't his and
denies
everything that people say about him an attractive person? Do I want to
be
your friend because you're so commanding or because you obviously are the
only one who knows how perfect you are? Nope.
Try for once to read this message over carefully and really take a look
at
your logic and my position. Try for once not to be judgemental to me, but
read what I said and defend it logically if you can. Don't stoop to my
level
and be judgemental back, dismissing it as lies or rumors. Even in
disliking you, insulting you and arguing with you, I'm still trying to
help. If you want to hold on to some friends, don't dismiss everything
that's up against you as lies or rumours. Learn what's going wrong.
Assuming you're right and not changing may be healthy for some things, but
this has gone too far for too long.
(excuse the bad formatting of my text, I had to edit this offline)
Ian Clysdale
Colin Pascal (at...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> Ian Clysdale (ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
>> While I don't deny this, how would you know, Colin? =)
> I kept on getting those "FREE XXX" spams and such, and I finally decided
> to try one, and guess who was the posterboy of the month!
Damn! That was before I figured out how to subliminally manipulated
millionaires, and I really needed the money to pay tuition... :(
ian
(Well, as long as you appreciated it I guess...)
Colin Pascal
Ian Clysdale (ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> While I don't deny this, how would you know, Colin? =)
I kept on getting those "FREE XXX" spams and such, and I finally decided
to try one, and guess who was the posterboy of the month!
Colin.
Malgorzata E. Kaminska
Paul,
This is concerning the whole breast issue that Ian brought up and that
Greg expanded on (as did Dave later on). I can see how you might think that
Ian is a liar, Greg is weak-minded and near-sighted, and so on. Obviously,
they don't have any kind of first hand knowledge about what they are
talking about as they don't have breasts (well, ok, they do, but they
aren't as prominent as on females). So it is quite clear how you might
think both of them are simply lying.
However, I have to tell you that when I met you a few years ago
that is exactly the feeling that I got. That you were looking at my
chest. Now, perhaps I am overreacting. Perhaps you were timid and
lowered your eyes for a moment that was a bit longer then appropriate.
Perhaps you weren't even looking. However, the point remains that it is
the way it felt as far as I was concerned. I'm not Ian, nor am I Greg,
and quite obviously I'm a bit more "meaty" in some places then they are as
that is what happens when one is a female. However, that does not mean I feel
comfortable when someone observes certain parts of myself for prolonged
periods. I can understand how a quick glance is ok. I mean, after all,
*I* glance at cute guys periodically. :-) But, keeping your eyes on a
particular site for a longer period of time, especially when it is below
the neck, cause, at least for me it does, a rather uncomfortable
situation. I have to admit though that when you talked to me at the last
GT you did look me straight in the eyes throughout the conversation. What
I am refering to happened every single time I met you, except recently.
I'm not saying you do it consciously Paul. You might not even see
anything. I often stare at some point in space and don't see the tree
that is coming straight at me because I'm absorb in some other thoughts.
But the point is that it made me feel uncomfortable. I ,ight have
mentionned it to Ian or Greg at some point. But, they seem to imply that
more then just I have made such a comment to them.
A while ago someone (I think it was Mark) posted something about
being specific. Well, that's pretty specific in my opinion, unless you
really want me to remember the exact dates.
My point is Paul that while Greg and Ian might not be right about
some things or may not have first-hand knowledge about them, they are
correct about that whole breast issue. I think it is important to clear
this up once and for all. I am not accusing you of doing it. I might be
the one who is overreacting. However, that is the way I felt. And when
you make someone feel bad, it shouldn't really matter if you are doing it
on purpose or not, you should change the way you do that particular thing.
In your case, while lowering your eyes may seem absolutely innocent, I
did not feel that way. It made me uncomfortable. And you know Paul,
we've discussed relationships. And you'll agree with me that in any kind
of relationship, wether romantic or platonic or whatever, as soon as one
person feels uncomfortable there is a problem that should be solved.
Perhaps I should solve it by getting a plastic surgeon to make me look
like a guy. Or perhaps you could make a conscious effort to be careful as
to were you focus your eyes. Either one should do the trick, though I
should tell you that I don't plan on changing my looks to resemble Ian or
Greg, though I do think both of them are quite cute! :-)
Mal.
--
Our ends are joined by a common link:
With one we sit, with one we think.
Success depends on which we use:
Heads we win, tails we lose. ~~ Heard in a recent lecture on Neuroanatomy
Mark Mielke
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> All of the rumors being told are lies. Ian's rumor about how I stare at
> people, for instance,and which Greg instantly began to believe.
>
> The rumors don't seem to die down, and seem to convince everyone. Why is
> that?
I sometimes stare at people. Especially on buses and often on accident. In
fact before i found my wonderful gf i would often stare at the chicks :-)
So what? Paul... what's the big deal?
mark
--
ma...@echelon.ca / ma...@nortel.ca _________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Northern Telecom Ltd. |
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | Box 3511, Station 'C' |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, ON K1Y 4H7 |
Mark Mielke
Paul Derbyshire (ao...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> It'snot my fault if I sometimes have trouble getting on in groups. For
> some reason if I'm in a group of people, everyone always seems to end up
> talking with anyone else, but I'll be damned if I can ever get involved in
> a conversation. Why this is, I haven't a clue.
Well this is a good start. It shows your thinking. Paul i don't think any
of us truly hate you. Just sometimes people react viciously to some things
you do, even if you personally don't mean them that way.
As far as i know i have never made up any information about you and then
proceed to "spread it around." I can understand how you feel sometimes...
Just like try not to assume that everyone is against you. First opinions
are made every single time you open your mouth in public.
Take me for example, i assume people around here consider me some kind of
loud mouth who doesn't give a damn. Hehe they're prob'ly right :-)
Whenever people have a reaction to you that you don't expect than you have
obviously missed something. People's reactions are often exaggerated so
don't take them as anything more than a hint.