Gamasutra interview
NObodyNOWHERE
great site even if you aren't interested in the interview. Here's the
link:
http://gamasutra.com/features/20070410/munroe_01.shtml
Enjoy.
--
NObodyNOWHERE
steve....@gmail.com
Emily in a misleading way.
The obvious one is that "reactions to I7 were mixed" (only) insofar as
"some people still prefer I6."
In the same vein but worse: the interviewer, though he never used I7,
was excited (as one would be) about the NL interface, writing that he
imagines I7 enables programmers to...
> focus on the experiences and environment of the game without being tripped up by a missing
> semicolon or something[.]
In other words, he's repeating a common misconception (begotten by
I7's pretension of naturality) that I7 users don't get tripped up by
programming syntax. (The vague idea is that you can just discursively
explain to the machine how you want the game to be.) Far from
correcting this misconception, Emily actually encourages the idea,
saying only that some people "like a more program-like style."
It's amazing. Lying to interviewers? If it were just a hoax this would
be hilarious, but Emily actually halfway means what she's saying. It's
pathological.
Jacek Pudlo
>A lot of the Munroe interview concerned I7, which was represented by
> Emily in a misleading way.
>
> The obvious one is that "reactions to I7 were mixed" (only) insofar as
> "some people still prefer I6."
>
> In the same vein but worse: the interviewer, though he never used I7,
> was excited (as one would be) about the NL interface, writing that he
> imagines I7 enables programmers to...
>
>> focus on the experiences and environment of the game without being
>> tripped up by a missing
>> semicolon or something[.]
>
> In other words, he's repeating a common misconception (begotten by
> I7's pretension of naturality) that I7 users don't get tripped up by
> programming syntax.
This is kind of ironic, considering how whenever you need something tricky
or clever you must include a snippet of I6. It would seem that you can't be
a full-fledged I7 programmer without knowing I6, which begs the question,
Why not simply learn I6 instead?
> (The vague idea is that you can just discursively
> explain to the machine how you want the game to be.) Far from
> correcting this misconception, Emily actually encourages the idea,
> saying only that some people "like a more program-like style."
>
> It's amazing. Lying to interviewers?
Remember that this is a woman who is not beneath slander. She's *way* beyond
mere lies.
Jacek Pudlo
>> It's amazing. Lying to interviewers?
>
> Remember that this is a woman who is not beneath slander. She's *way*
> beyond mere lies.
Oops! What I meant, of course, was that Short is not *above* slander. Oh
well, here's what I'm referring to.
Notice how Short insinuates that I distribute child pornography on Usenet.
Hazard Suit
> "Jacek Pudlo"
>
> >> It's amazing. Lying to interviewers?
>
> > Remember that this is a woman who is not beneath slander. She's *way*
> > beyond mere lies.
>
> Oops! What I meant, of course, was that Short is not *above* slander. Oh
> well, here's what I'm referring to.
>
>
> Notice how Short insinuates that I distribute child pornography on Usenet.
Yo! She said something wrong! Bring the torches, I'll bring the
pitchforks,
Jacek Pudlo
She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was intended to
smear my name. Merely saying something wrong is not necessarily immoral. She
also posted my phone number. She did all these things because I had made fun
of _Galatea_. She also made Google remove the post where I had made fun of
_Galatea_.
You don't need pitchforks to shut up a slanderous liar. Slanderous liars
tend to be cowards -- a subpoena is usually all it takes to shut them up.
jameshcu...@gmail.com
Now, now: there's no reason for that. We cannot assume one way or the
other that Jacek enjoys a younger crowd. In fact, for all we know
Jacek is gnawing on some boy-thigh right now as we speak; that would
surprise me less than it would (say) that Short (or the person who
plays her) cares one way or the other about the proceedings here.
Whadaya say, Jacek? Finger lickin' good?
Best,
James
David Whyld
doesn't have any of that nonsense you see on forums whereby offensive
idiots can be banned and their posts deleted. I'd miss out on my daily
laugh at the "newsgroups are superior to forums" idea then.
Jacek Pudlo
I'm sorry, but the Internet connection in my supersonic jet is breaking up.
If you insist on a speedy reply, I guess I can ask the pilot to send a radio
telegram. How about if you impale yourself on a telephone pole and wait for
me to telegraph your anus?
Jacek Pudlo
Explain yourself, Zyglot!
Zyglot
could see. A beautiful home, till it started to dry out. So I escaped, came
here, proliferated, and began to write dull IF using the worst development
system imaginable. The idea was that by becoming pathologically prolific, by
releasing dozens of titles a year, all equally dull, we would in effect
lobotimize mankind, and gain dominion over earth. Why not obliterate all
centers of power instead, like they did on Independence Day? Because our
analysts fucked up. You Tellurians give space aliens *way* too much credit.
Let me give you a taste of my world. A world without anger, without fear,
without hate, without laughter, without love. A world without coherent
narratives. A world where everyone is equally loved, because there is no
love. A world of faceless wizards, talking statues, spandex-clad
superheroes. (Yes, they are Zyglots too.) It's a world where even the brainy
frigid girl who thinks nudity is a sin, can fit in. You see, Jacek, even
"Emily's" feelings can be hurt by a pathetic little outcast who believes
individualism and creativity are the only ways to survive. Stop resisting
us, Jacek. Stop being an individualist. Stop being human. Join us, Jacek. We
can make you part of something so special, so perfect, so fearless. You will
never have to ask yourself, Is this game good enough to release? because in
our world everything is equally good and equally bad, because in our world
we *embrace* dullness and mediocrity.
turvyc
Matthew T. Russotto
Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>
>She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was intended to
>smear my name.
You gotta have a reputation of positive value before you can claim slander.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <wN3Th.38218$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
> >
> >She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was intended to
> >smear my name.
>
> You gotta have a reputation of positive value before you can claim slander.
More importantly, the claim has to bear some resemblance to reality.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
If the Bush administration hasn't subjected you to searches without a warrant,
it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're an American.
David Whyld
> Here, Matthew T. Russotto <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <wN3Th.38218$E02.15...@newsb.telia.net>,
> > Jacek Pudlo <j...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>
> > >She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was intended to
> > >smear my name.
>
> > You gotta have a reputation of positive value before you can claim slander.
>
> More importantly, the claim has to bear some resemblance to reality.
>
> --Z
>
> --
> "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
> *
> If the Bush administration hasn't subjected you to searches without a warrant,
> it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because you're an American.
More importantly still, people have to give a damn that you've been
subjected to slander. And does anyone...?
Jacek Pudlo
> In article <wN3Th.38218$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>>
>>She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was intended
>>to
>>smear my name.
>
> You gotta have a reputation of positive value before you can claim
> slander.
No. Saying that Stalin was a pedophile would be as slanderous as saying that
Russotto is a member of Al Qaida. Stalin was genocidal and you're presumably
not, but you're both entitled to the same protection against slander. It's
not a question of positive value. It's a question of veracity and intended
effect. Short knew her slanderous innuendo was unfounded and her intention
was to smear my name. But I understand your thinking, Matthew. According to
you and Short, some people are simply beneath regard. The notions of truth
and falsehood do not apply to them. Of course, Short never actually said
that I was distributing child pornography on Usenet. Not in those words.
Spineless cowards never slander openly. Instead they drop ugly innuendos.
Emily Short:
"Searching on his IP address in google.groups turns up only the following
post to alt.sex.pre-teens: "
A conveniently dead link follows. Emily Short just implicated me in a class
A felony based on a single dead link. Whatever she does for a living, I
would bet it does not involve criminal investigation, or any kind of serious
research. As a legal sidenote, by insinuating that I'm a child pornographer
and posting my phone number, Short violated my right to privacy and my right
to protection from libellous speech. There's lots of filth on Usenet, but
what she did is, at least by r*if standards, without peer.
Johnny Rivera
> "Matthew T. Russotto"
>
Fella, it's not exactly like anyone would want to phone you up, even
to hassle you.
Eric
news:1176326693.4...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Fella, it's not exactly like anyone would want to phone you up, even
> to hassle you.
Well to be fair, it's unlikely anyone would want to phone you up either, so
would you be okay if we throw your phone number up here? In fact, to prove
your point about how little this matters, why not man up and post your phone
number to put your money where your mouth is.
Awaiting ....
Hazard Suit
> "Matthew T. Russotto"
>
you don't deny it leads to a post by you...you just say the link is
dead
Jacek Pudlo
I have never posted to alt.sex.pre-teens. But, of course, where there's
smoke, there's fire. So what I say doesn't really matter. As the ellipsis in
your reply suggests, I will always carry the stigma of accusation. That's
the very point of an ugly innuendo -- no matter how groundless, there's
always a "Maybe he did it after all..." That's why, I believe, Short
deliberately provided a dead link. So that I could never clear my name.
What upsets me most about this is that she has the nerve to post here. After
all she's done, she behaves as if nothing happened. I can't stop her from
posting, but I can and will make sure people know what kind of person she
is.
jeremydb
> I have never posted to alt.sex.pre-teens. But, of course, where there's
> smoke, there's fire. So what I say doesn't really matter. As the ellipsis in
> your reply suggests, I will always carry the stigma of accusation. That's
> the very point of an ugly innuendo -- no matter how groundless, there's
> always a "Maybe he did it after all..." That's why, I believe, Short
> deliberately provided a dead link. So that I could never clear my name.
>
> What upsets me most about this is that she has the nerve to post here. After
> all she's done, she behaves as if nothing happened. I can't stop her from
> posting, but I can and will make sure people know what kind of person she
> is.
Let's assume that you're right on all counts. What's your point?
Should we all go around rabidly denouncing Emily (and her grim cabal
of gimps and simulationists) in public forums? You'd be out of a job!
Or should I warn my children against her sort of behavior, instead
holding up the example of civil and generous public discourse of ...
Jacek Pudlo? No, I guess that wouldn't work either... Stop playing her
(insert adjective here) games? Stop enjoying them? Enjoy them with a
guilty conscience?
You're not below contempt, Jacek, but your mean-spirited posting
style, inability to accept alternate views of complex subjects and
self-righteousness may place you below most people's regard.
It's a risk you appear to have no trouble taking, although your
feigned suprise at the "screw you" you receive in return gets a little
old.
And personally, your posts make me laugh. Thanks for that.
Warmly
Jeremy
Blank
West of house
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded
front door.
There is a small mailbox here. A notice has been fixed to the mailbox.
> x notice
The notice reads "Please do not feed the Trolls."
Jacek Pudlo
> Let's assume that you're right on all counts. What's your point?
> Should we all go around rabidly denouncing Emily (and her grim cabal
> of gimps and simulationists) in public forums? You'd be out of a job!
> Or should I warn my children against her sort of behavior, instead
> holding up the example of civil and generous public discourse of ...
> Jacek Pudlo? No, I guess that wouldn't work either... Stop playing her
> (insert adjective here) games? Stop enjoying them? Enjoy them with a
> guilty conscience?
Emily Short has placed herself beyond the pale of civilised discourse. What
you should do, is to kindly inform her that she's no longer welcome here and
politely ask her to leave. This has nothing to do with wether you like or
respect me. It's a matter of principle. Would you like the thing that
happened to me to happen to you? To drop an ugly innuendo on a public forum
is the easiest thing in the world. Anyone can do that. How can we stop this
from happening in the future? How can we stop people from revealing your
real name, phone number, ethnic background and insinuating that you are a
child molestor? How can we stop this from happening to *you*? The only
disciplinary sanction I can think of is life banishment from r*if. Short
must *never* post here again. If she does, this thread will be repeated.
Please note that what Short did was not a prank. Her "observations" carry
the note of seriousness and objectivity. Her tone is calm, her prose
laconic, her bearing that of a prosecutor addressing a court. Only Short
isn't just the prosecutor -- she's also the judge, jury and executioner.
These are not invectives slung in the heat of passion by a woman whose game
has been ridiculed -- they are straight-faced accusations pronounced calmly,
in cold blood. Of all the despicable things you can subject a community to,
a cold-blooded witch hunt is by far the most destructive. I believe an
instigator of such an act should not be allowed to post with impunity.
> You're not below contempt, Jacek, but your mean-spirited posting
> style, inability to accept alternate views of complex subjects and
> self-righteousness may place you below most people's regard.
And yet I have never in my life slandered anyone.
> It's a risk you appear to have no trouble taking, although your
> feigned suprise at the "screw you" you receive in return gets a little
> old.
>
> And personally, your posts make me laugh. Thanks for that.
When someone, out of sheer spite, accuses you of distributing child
pornography, I promise not to hold the above comment against you. If the
accusation is groundless, I will do everything within the bounds of the law
to help you clear your name and to punish the culprit. I will do so not
because I like or respect you, but because I know how it feels to be falsely
accused.
jeremydb
> "jeremydb"
>
> When someone, out of sheer spite, accuses you of distributing child
> pornography, I promise not to hold the above comment against you. If the
> accusation is groundless, I will do everything within the bounds of the law
> to help you clear your name and to punish the culprit. I will do so not
> because I like or respect you, but because I know how it feels to be falsely
> accused.
Although never accused of distributing child pornography, I was
subjected to extended public abuse in another online community from a
spiteful, eloquent, first-degree maniac, so I can relate.
My advice: give it a rest, go for a walk, lick your wounds and move
on. No amount of bitching and whining is going to change anyone's
opinion about Emily Short, or about any of the other people you
regularly drag through the mud. Whether that's just or not, I'm not
the one to say. It will, however, assuredly indelibly change their
opinion about you, as I guess you've probably noticed.
Communities are self-regulating, and this community appears to be
overwhelmingly FOR the presence of the individual(s) you'd prefer
would leave. The options are, I think, clear: live with it quietly and/
or smugly, believing that you're right, but knowing that it's a
hopeless cause; remain the Störenfried you've become, and soak up all
the scorn you can get; leave yourself.
You seem to have a sharp mind to go with that sharp tongue, and the
first option would seem to be the best all around. But the
satisfaction you desire will probably never be yours to enjoy. If you
don't think you're able to handle that, leaving is probably the thing
to do.
Regards,
Jeremy
Hazard Suit
to enlarge...
Johnny Rivera
> "Johnny Rivera" <johnny.win...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Are you... coming on to me? Well, either way, here you go. (281)
348-5009
Jacek Pudlo
> overwhelmingly FOR the presence of the individual(s) you'd prefer
> would leave. The options are, I think, clear: live with it quietly and/
> or smugly, believing that you're right, but knowing that it's a
> hopeless cause; remain the Störenfried you've become, and soak up all
> the scorn you can get; leave yourself.
A live hard and I play hard -- that's just the kind of man I am. But I am
not a disruptive element. It is those who slander who disrupt. Yes, I am a
plague of locusts onto my enemies, but I am also manna from Heaven to my
friends. If there's something I don't like about you, I will tell you
exactly what it is, and I will do so to your face. I will not go behind your
back and falsely accuse you of being a child pornographer. And if I believe
an injustice has befallen you, whoever you may be, I will do everything
within my power to help you punish the culprit, because I will not stand
idly by while injustice is suffered.
Emily Short is a woman without honour who does not deserve to be among
honourable people. I believe she can be fought in the same way in which
Apartheid was fought. People who respond to her posts must be made aware of
what she is and what she has done. Whether they choose to accept a
slanderous liar in their midst, is up to them.
Matthew T. Russotto
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> In article <wN3Th.38218$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
>> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>> >
>> >She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was intended to
>> >smear my name.
>>
>> You gotta have a reputation of positive value before you can claim slander.
>
>More importantly, the claim has to bear some resemblance to reality.
You mean Jacek's claim, or whatever Emily said? Because I can't
really imagine anything Emily said bad about Jacek not being credible :-)
Of course, it's likely Emily said nothing about Jacek...
Matthew T. Russotto
Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>"Matthew T. Russotto"
>
>> In article <wN3Th.38218$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
>> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>>>
>>>She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was intended
>>>to
>>>smear my name.
>>
>> You gotta have a reputation of positive value before you can claim
>> slander.
>
>No. Saying that Stalin was a pedophile would be as slanderous as saying that
>Russotto is a member of Al Qaida.
Stalin's dead, and cannot be slandered. You have no credibility, and
therefore you can't slander me that way. (and anyway, in this medium
it's libel)
Jacek Pudlo
> In article <U3bTh.38259$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>>"Matthew T. Russotto"
>>
>>> In article <wN3Th.38218$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
>>> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was
>>>>intended
>>>>to
>>>>smear my name.
>>>
>>> You gotta have a reputation of positive value before you can claim
>>> slander.
>>
>>No. Saying that Stalin was a pedophile would be as slanderous as saying
>>that
>>Russotto is a member of Al Qaida.
>
> Stalin's dead, and cannot be slandered.
The dead can be slandered. The dead cannot sue. The next of kin can sue.
> You have no credibility, and
> therefore you can't slander me that way.
That's exactly what made Short's innuendo so slanderous. She had
credibility. I intend to make sure she never has that again.
>(and anyway, in this medium
> it's libel)
Both slander and libel are forms of defamation. Libel is defamation
published in an enduring form, like a book. Slander is defamation published
in a fleeting form, like Usenet.
Don't you own an encyclopedia, or something? Do you ever check your facts
before you post?
Matthew T. Russotto
Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>"Matthew T. Russotto"
>
>> In article <U3bTh.38259$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
>> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>>>"Matthew T. Russotto"
>>>
>>>> In article <wN3Th.38218$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
>>>> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>She said something slanderous. She said something wrong that was
>>>>>intended
>>>>>to
>>>>>smear my name.
>>>>
>>>> You gotta have a reputation of positive value before you can claim
>>>> slander.
>>>
>>>No. Saying that Stalin was a pedophile would be as slanderous as saying
>>>that
>>>Russotto is a member of Al Qaida.
>>
>> Stalin's dead, and cannot be slandered.
>
>The dead can be slandered. The dead cannot sue. The next of kin can sue.
In fact, usually not.
>> You have no credibility, and
>> therefore you can't slander me that way.
>
>That's exactly what made Short's innuendo so slanderous. She had
>credibility. I intend to make sure she never has that again.
You can't. You have to have credibility to destroy someone else's credibility.
>>(and anyway, in this medium
>> it's libel)
>
>Both slander and libel are forms of defamation. Libel is defamation
>published in an enduring form, like a book. Slander is defamation published
>in a fleeting form, like Usenet.
Ahh, Jacek, you're a regular fount of erroneous "knowledge".
Eric
>>That's exactly what made Short's innuendo so slanderous. She had
>>credibility. I intend to make sure she never has that again.
>
> You can't. You have to have credibility to destroy someone else's
> credibility.
You don't, really. You just need facts. It can be _harder_ to wreck
someone's credibility if you're perceived to have none of your own but it's
not _impossible_. I have to admit, at this point I'm curious about what
actually started all this. I've seen the thread about Emily's "detective
work" --- but what spurred on that detective work? I mean, hell, as long as
we're all going to go back and forth on this, let's at least get what the
supposed facts are. Even if Jacek is some jerk or whatever, what prompted
Emily to spend so much of her time actually tracking down all these
different posts and IP addresses? That does seem a little pathological to
me. But maybe there was good reason? I don't know. I don't think anyone here
does either, from what I can tell.
Bert Byfield
> discourse. What you should do, is to kindly inform her that she's
> no longer welcome here and politely ask her to leave. This has
This is a Free Speech zone. If it weren't, *you* would have long ago
been the first person kicked out of it.
Bert Byfield
Trite! Back to English class with you!
> But I am not a disruptive element. It is those who slander who
> disrupt. Yes, I am a plague of locusts onto my enemies, but I am
> also manna from Heaven to my friends. If there's something I don't
> like about you, I will tell you exactly what it is, and I will do
> so to your face. I will not go behind your back and falsely accuse
> you of being a child pornographer. And if I believe an injustice
> has befallen you, whoever you may be, I will do everything within
> my power to help you punish the culprit, because I will not stand
> idly by while injustice is suffered.
All this verbal energy would be better spent in writing interactive
fiction, don't you think?
Jacek Pudlo
Yes, and because Free Speech reigns here, it is within our right to politely
ask Emily Short to leave. I am fully aware of the fact that there are no
legal means of preventing her from posting here. My only hope is that she is
not *entirely* shameless, that even she can see that returning to the scene
of the crime is -- if nothing else -- tasteless.
Andrew Plotkin
> Even if Jacek is some jerk or whatever, what prompted
> Emily to spend so much of her time actually tracking down all these
> different posts and IP addresses? That does seem a little pathological to
> me. But maybe there was good reason? I don't know. I don't think anyone here
> does either, from what I can tell.
Hm? The story isn't some great secret. You can go find all the old
threads in Google. It's just old news, and most of us don't feel the
need to drag it all out every time Jacek shows up. (Just because *he*
feels the need...)
Since you ask:
Jacek spent a lot of time and effort trying to disrupt discussion on
these newsgroups. All the usual troll stuff. He used a lot of sock
puppet accounts. He'd start arguments, and then take both sides of
arguments, to make it seem like those arguments were central parts of
IF culture. He lied, quoted out of context, and misconstrued people's
posts. Then when people (yes, including me) called him on it, he would
lie and misquote and misconstrue about *that*. And, as is traditional,
he would accuse everybody else of his own sins.
(I'm using the past tense here, although close observation will note
that he's still doing it. I don't recall he's ever even denied it;
he's certainly called himself a troll with pride.)
Occasionally, when one of us got sufficiently annoyed at being called
a liar, we would go look for some facts to support ourselves. Not to
convince Jacek, of course -- he knows what he's doing -- but prevent
him from completely framing the discussion for future viewers.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
When Bush says "Stay the course," what he means is "I don't know what to
do next." He's been saying this for years now.
Matthew T. Russotto
Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>Yes, and because Free Speech reigns here, it is within our right to politely
>ask Emily Short to leave.
You might want to see a doctor about that tapeworm.
Bert Byfield
>> ago been the first person kicked out of it.
> Yes, and because Free Speech reigns here, it is within our right
Who does this mysterious "our" refer to? Do you have a single supporter
in here? You appear to be a one-man-show.
Eric
news:Xns9910AC83AE695ca...@66.250.146.128...
I don't know about 'supporter' but on the other hand, I think Emily's
actions were a little over the top. When I see people aggregating data
across newsgroups and IP addresses and ferreting out presumed double
identities, that strikes me as a little ...... obsessive, to say the least.
Even if Jacek was lying about something, why not just ignore? Isn't that
what everyone here is telling Jacek to do? I notice no one suggested that
after Emily's post. (The reference to alt.sex.pre-teens was clearly not
necessary. Posting a phone number is also, to me, unnecessary.)
Here's what Emily said in her 'call to action':
Whether this has any effect or not, I recommend looking twice at anything
posted from a hotmail address through google groups, *even if it claims to
be from a poster you already know*, and checking whether the
NNTP-Posting-Host is the same as this one. This person has proven himself
tenacious, vindictive, and indifferent to argument; he is not above
impersonation of known persons, and has engaged in complicated deceitful
behavior. Responding to him, in any name for any reason, will likely only
encourage him.
I find that kind of funny, as if she felt she was some sort of guardian for
people. Jacek is recommending Emily leave this newsgroup. Emily was
recommending people be on the watch for hotmail address or a particular
posting host and avoid talking to that person. While the details are
different, I see similar behavior. Maybe that's just me.
Jacek Pudlo
> Jacek spent a lot of time and effort trying to disrupt discussion on
> these newsgroups. All the usual troll stuff. He used a lot of sock
> puppet accounts.
There's no law against using different handles on Usenet. There are laws,
however, that protect a poster's privacy and reputation. So you'll have to
be more specific. What *exactly* did I do that justified Short's witch hunt?
> He'd start arguments, and then take both sides of
> arguments, to make it seem like those arguments were central parts of
> IF culture.
So I'm an evil saboteur whose mission is to misdirect aesthetic attention on
r*if? What would I achieve by this? You really have no idea how paranoid and
crazy and just plain stupid this sounds, do you? You *honestly* believe what
you're saying? And by the way, what *are* the "central parts of IF culture"?
I'd like to know exactly what I've been misdirecting attention from.
> He lied, quoted out of context, and misconstrued people's
> posts. Then when people (yes, including me) called him on it, he would
> lie and misquote and misconstrue about *that*. And, as is traditional,
> he would accuse everybody else of his own sins.
Can you back this up? I find it difficult to defend my name when the
accusations raised against me are not backed up by evidence. Also, I'm
interested in what you perceive to be my lies. The fact that you disagree
with me on many issues does not make me a liar. Would these lies you refer
to, Andrew, by any chance be my admittedly unkind comments about your games?
I admit to repeatedly calling you a mediocre author, but please understand,
Andrew, that this was never a lie. I truly believe you to be a mediocre
author. Isn't this what it's *really* been all about? An attempt to
discredit an unkind critic? Is it a coincidence that Emily did her
"detective work" only a day after my ridiculing post on _Galatea_? Is it a
coincidence that it, shortly afterwards, was removed from Google's archive?
Do you deny these facts?
> (I'm using the past tense here, although close observation will note
> that he's still doing it. I don't recall he's ever even denied it;
> he's certainly called himself a troll with pride.)
For once, you got it right. I did call myself a troll with mock pride, on
one or two occassions, out of exasperation, mainly. It's a bit like an
Afro-American calling himself "nigger" to spite white racists. Because, as
you may or may not remember, you use that term whenever you refer to me.
Especially when I critisise your games.
> Occasionally, when one of us got sufficiently annoyed at being called
> a liar, we would go look for some facts to support ourselves.
And these facts would include me being a child pornographer? You see, this
is the weak link in your narrative, Andrew. How exactly did I move from
using different handles and starting arguments to becoming a child
pornographer? Not even I can follow you, and I'm supposed to be the
protagonist of this strange tale.
I never held you in much regard as a writer, Andrew, but I always respected
you as a human being. I think you're *way* too easily hurt in your artistic
pride, but I've always presumed you to be an honest person. So I have to ask
you this. Do you believe yourself in what you are saying? Or let me put it
this way. Do you, or do you not, claim that I distribute child pornography
on Usenet? If you do, can you back it up with evidence? Or do you admit that
the child pornography innuendo was fabricated by Short as a way of getting
even with a nasty critic?
Your arguments look to me like justification after the fact. They constantly
skirt the central issue, the central issue being, Why did Short insinuate
that I'm a child pornographer?
> Not to
> convince Jacek, of course -- he knows what he's doing -- but prevent
> him from completely framing the discussion for future viewers.
Surely the people who read these groups are intelligent enough to know when
they are being manipulated? I think you give me more credit than I deserve,
and I also think that future (re)viewers, for their own good, should know
that certain authors must be handled with kid gloves.
I admit that I have partially myself to blame. I said some pretty unkind
(perhaps even nasty) things about your and Short's games. Perhaps I should
have been more considerate to your feelings. I believe a reviewer's job is
to review, even if that means hurting feelings, but had I been able to
anticipate Short's so-called "detective work," I would have no doubt worded
my comments differently.
ChicagoDave
> I find that kind of funny, as if she felt she was some sort of guardian for
> people. Jacek is recommending Emily leave this newsgroup. Emily was
> recommending people be on the watch for hotmail address or a particular
> posting host and avoid talking to that person. While the details are
> different, I see similar behavior. Maybe that's just me.
This is what happens to whistleblowers. They go way out of their way
to point out something bad and people start pointing fingers at them.
Emily did a service to this usenet group. We would all be better
served if the trolls would just leave, but sadly they don't seem to
have anything better to do.
In lieu of the absence of trolls, it's perfectly understandable that
certain responses be challenged to make newcomers aware of the troll
behavior.
I do find it odd that anyone would act as a troll. I can see the
occasional rant, but the person that makes a concerted effort to
infiltrate and annoy people on a regular basis defies rational
explanation.
I only imagine trying to explain a troll to my 9 year old daughter.
Me: So...there are people on usenet that we call trolls.
Daughter: What's a troll?
Me: It's a person that posts annoying and or rude comments to a
conversation.
Daughter: Why?
Me: I don't know.
Daughter: Sounds mean to me.
Me: Me too.
Daughter: (thinks)
Me: What?
Daughter: Maybe their mom was mad at them that day.
Me: That's a better explanation than I can come up with.
Daughter: Weird.
Me: Yeah.
David C.
Jacek Pudlo
> On Apr 12, 4:54 pm, "Eric" <-> wrote:
>> I find that kind of funny, as if she felt she was some sort of guardian
>> for
>> people. Jacek is recommending Emily leave this newsgroup. Emily was
>> recommending people be on the watch for hotmail address or a particular
>> posting host and avoid talking to that person. While the details are
>> different, I see similar behavior. Maybe that's just me.
>
> This is what happens to whistleblowers.
No. This is what happens to slanderous liars.
[...]
> I do find it odd that anyone would act as a troll. I can see the
> occasional rant, but the person that makes a concerted effort to
> infiltrate and annoy people on a regular basis defies rational
> explanation.
>
> I only imagine trying to explain a troll to my 9 year old daughter.
>
> Me: So...there are people on usenet that we call trolls.
> Daughter: What's a troll?
> Me: It's a person that posts annoying and or rude comments to a
> conversation.
> Daughter: Why?
> Me: I don't know.
> Daughter: Sounds mean to me.
> Me: Me too.
> Daughter: (thinks)
> Me: What?
> Daughter: Maybe their mom was mad at them that day.
Your nine-year-old child had to *stop* and think to come up with that lame
explanation? I spoke four languages when I was nine. Is your daughter
retarded or has she merely inherited her father's intelligence?
See? I'm rude. I annoy people. Especially stupid people. But I am *not* a
child pornographer. This has been my point all along.
Khelwood
That's very impressive. Do you ever say anything intelligent or
worthwhile in any of the other languages you speak?
Jacek Pudlo
Khelwood
>> > I do find it odd that anyone would act as a troll. I can see the
>> > occasional rant, but the person that makes a concerted effort to
>> > infiltrate and annoy people on a regular basis defies rational
>> > explanation.
>>
>> > I only imagine trying to explain a troll to my 9 year old daughter.
>>
>> > Me: So...there are people on usenet that we call trolls.
>> > Daughter: What's a troll?
>> > Me: It's a person that posts annoying and or rude comments to a
>> > conversation.
>> > Daughter: Why?
>> > Me: I don't know.
>> > Daughter: Sounds mean to me.
>> > Me: Me too.
>> > Daughter: (thinks)
>> > Me: What?
>> > Daughter: Maybe their mom was mad at them that day.
>>
>> Your nine-year-old child had to *stop* and think to come up with that
>> lame
>> explanation? I spoke four languages when I was nine.
>
> That's very impressive. Do you ever say anything intelligent or
> worthwhile in any of the other languages you speak?
Please note that I'm not so much passing judgement on David's daughter, as
on his portayal of her. She may not be a cretin, but her father sure makes
her look like one.
ChicagoDave
> Your nine-year-old child had to *stop* and think to come up with that lame
> explanation? I spoke four languages when I was nine. Is your daughter
> retarded or has she merely inherited her father's intelligence?
>
> See? I'm rude. I annoy people. Especially stupid people. But I am *not* a
Me: See.
Daughter: Very weird.
Me: Yep.
David C.
Jacek Pudlo
Oh, and I would also like to point out that I don't like kids. Isn't this
what this thread has been all about? Whether I like kids or not? Perhaps we
should have discussed IF instead? Tell that to Short.
James Cunningham
You don't like kids? Could have fooled me, Jacek. I am privy to *secret
knowledge* concerning your most sensuous desires, and -- everyone lean
toward me; I'm going to whisper this so as not to offend the delicate
ears among us -- what Jacek really wants is some superfreak of an eight
year old boy to sweep him off his feet and give him a weekend to
remember.
He denies it! But how many times can he expect us to believe him, if he
keeps wetting his sheets to dreams about Little Lord Fauntleroy? C'mon.
So, dear folks, fellow raifers, gentlemen and dearest women: if Jacek's
ramblings get you down, just remember that *you* have the upper hand.
Your sexual desires may be actualized with the approval of society;
Jacek's end up in a rape kit and a life of therapy for some poor little
kid.
Best,
James
Adam Thornton
Johnny Rivera <johnny...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Are you... coming on to me? Well, either way, here you go. (281)
>348-5009
Ew. Houston.
Adam
Jacek Pudlo
Some crazy woman insinuates that I'm a child pornographer, and this is what
I have to live with for the rest of my life. Do you all see my point now? Do
you see why Emily Short may *never* be allowed to post with impunity here?
Johnny Rivera
> For once, you got it right. I did call myself a troll with mock pride, on
> one or two occassions, out of exasperation, mainly. It's a bit like an
> Afro-American calling himself "nigger" to spite white racists. Because, as
> you may or may not remember, you use that term whenever you refer to me.
> Especially when I critisise your games.
Jacek, no. Just... no. The two aren't similar, and you still don't
deny being a troll.
You simply state that you've referred to yourself as one "out of
exasperation" and
with "mock pride." If I thought you were a racist, I would think you
were trying to
draw real parallels between the history of black people in America and
trolls on
usenet, that "mock pride" is supposed to mean something much more...
distasteful. But, no, I think you're just a troll.
On Apr 12, 5:10 pm, "Jacek Pudlo" wrote:
>Oh, and I would also like to point out that I don't like kids. Isn't this
>what this thread has been all about? Whether I like kids or not? Perhaps we
>should have discussed IF instead? Tell that to Short.
What does child pornography have to do with liking kids, Jacek? You're
using
a word with two very different meanings to mean the same thing. Yes,
pedophiles
are attracted to children, but the way they "like" children is very
different from
liking children. Liking children implies, maybe, a mentor relationship
or, at the
very least, not having twisted thoughts about them. Jacek, you don't
like kids.
Okay. Then stay away from them. And I don't think you're a pedophile.
But,
I don't believe that Emily called you one, either. I've yet to see
actual proof of it.
At most she insinuated that you troll pedophiles, which is more
admirable than
what you're doing here.
And seeing as you hi-jacked Steve Breslin's hate parade (I commend
Steve
for staying out of this one; and, I suppose, his contributionsto the
TADS 3 docs),
this thread is actually about Emily misrepresenting I7, which I can't
comment on
either way, as I haven't read the interview or looked at I7 in depth.
You then
extrapolated this to calling Emily a slanderous liar. It's enough to
hi-jack a thread,
Jacek. You don't have to throw around accusations in a thread you've
hi-jacked.
It adds insult to injury.
And yes, discussing IF is what the group is for. Emily's not here, so
I'll ask you:
What's your favorite Spring Comp game, this year?
On Apr 12, 11:46 pm, "Jacek Pudlo" wrote:
>Some crazy woman insinuates that I'm a child pornographer, and this is what
>I have to live with for the rest of my life. Do you all see my point now? Do
>you see why Emily Short may *never* be allowed to post with impunity here?
I've seen no evidence that Emily is crazy. I'll give her the same
benefit of doubt I
give you.
And, jeez, the post you're complaining about is nearly five years old.
I certainly
never would have seen it if you hadn't brought it up. Has it been
mentioned
since then? Did anyone remember it, aside from you? You should've just
let it go.
On Apr 12, 8:46 pm, Adam Thornton wrote:
> In article <1176378596.204097.192...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Johnny Rivera <johnny.win...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Are you... coming on to me? Well, either way, here you go. (281)
> >348-5009
>
> Ew. Houston.
>
> Adam
Heh. Yeah, sometimes.
Johnny Rivera
Jacek Pudlo
> On Apr 12, 4:08 pm, "Jacek Pudlo" wrote:
>> For once, you got it right. I did call myself a troll with mock pride, on
>> one or two occassions, out of exasperation, mainly. It's a bit like an
>> Afro-American calling himself "nigger" to spite white racists. Because,
>> as
>> you may or may not remember, you use that term whenever you refer to me.
>> Especially when I critisise your games.
>
> Jacek, no. Just... no. The two aren't similar, and you still don't
> deny being a troll.
Is troll a moral concept? Is it a legal concept? Do I deny being a
Termadurian? No, because I don't know what a Termadurian is, nor do I
particularly care. I do know, however, what spineles slandering coward
means.
> But, no, I think you're just a troll.
That's like calling someone a reactionary bourgeois. It means whatever you
want it to mean, and in Plotkin's case it means that you dislike his games.
> And I don't think you're a pedophile.
> But,
> I don't believe that Emily called you one, either.
No, that would have taken some guts. What she did is called "ugly innuendo."
It's when you insinuate something disparaging and hurtful about someone
without clearly stating what you mean. It could happen to you. It could
happen to anybody. No one is safe, unless we make an example out of Emily
Short and banish her from r*if. That way all petty vindictive slanderous
cowards will know that this behaviour is unacceptable. Slanderous cowards
scare easily. In fact, I haven't seen her lately on r*if. Have you?
> And, jeez, the post you're complaining about is nearly five years old.
> I certainly
> never would have seen it if you hadn't brought it up. Has it been
> mentioned
> since then? Did anyone remember it, aside from you? You should've just
> let it go.
As far as I'm concerned, it's the hight of fucking arrogance to tell a man
not to defend his honour.
jeremydb
> No, that would have taken some guts. What she did is called "ugly innuendo."
> It's when you insinuate something disparaging and hurtful about someone
> without clearly stating what you mean. It could happen to you. It could
> happen to anybody. No one is safe, unless we make an example out of Emily
> Short and banish her from r*if. That way all petty vindictive slanderous
> cowards will know that this behaviour is unacceptable. Slanderous cowards
> scare easily. In fact, I haven't seen her lately on r*if. Have you?
Er, yeah, like yesterday, when you answered two helpful posts of hers
with the equivalent of "die, bitch!" screeds. Jacek, there is only one
person being petty and vindictive here (hint: it's you). Holding a
grudge well beyond its expiration date and constantly reminding people
of how much of a pedophile you aren't isn't just pointless; it's
pathetic. Your honor isn't at stake: no one actually thinks that
you're any sort of innuendo-derived anything. They simply think that
you're an asshole, an impression that every venom-laced word you type
intensifies. An asshole with a serious emotional problem, with a
sensitive little ego that blows little slights out of all semblance of
justified proportion.
Therapists are probably available in all 4 of those languages. If you
ever leave the house, you might consider consulting with one about
that anger issue.
Regardless,
Jeremy
Jacek Pudlo
> On 13 Apr., 14:02, "Jacek Pudlo" <j...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>
>> No, that would have taken some guts. What she did is called "ugly
>> innuendo."
>> It's when you insinuate something disparaging and hurtful about someone
>> without clearly stating what you mean. It could happen to you. It could
>> happen to anybody. No one is safe, unless we make an example out of Emily
>> Short and banish her from r*if. That way all petty vindictive slanderous
>> cowards will know that this behaviour is unacceptable. Slanderous cowards
>> scare easily. In fact, I haven't seen her lately on r*if. Have you?
>
> Er, yeah, like yesterday, when you answered two helpful posts of hers
> with the equivalent of "die, bitch!" screeds. Jacek, there is only one
> person being petty and vindictive here (hint: it's you). Holding a
> grudge well beyond its expiration date and constantly reminding people
> of how much of a pedophile you aren't isn't just pointless; it's
> pathetic. Your honor isn't at stake: no one actually thinks that
> you're any sort of innuendo-derived anything.
No one really thinks that the women referred to by Don Imus as
"snappy-headed hos" are whores, but still, his show was cancelled. What
Emily Short did was *much* more than call me a "snappy-headed ho." What she
did was intended as an insult, but unlike Imus's racist slur it did not
*look* like an insult. It looked like a calm, objective accusation. That's
what makes it so ugly.
> They simply think that
> you're an asshole, an impression that every venom-laced word you type
> intensifies. An asshole with a serious emotional problem, with a
> sensitive little ego that blows little slights out of all semblance of
> justified proportion.
What's wrong with you, Jeremy? Are you so demasculinised that you consider
love of honour an emotional problem? When someone pulls a knife on me, I
kill him with his own knife. When someone slanders me, I take the slander
and stuff it back into the slanderer's mouth.
jeremydb
> > They simply think that
> > you're an asshole, an impression that every venom-laced word you type
> > intensifies. An asshole with a serious emotional problem, with a
> > sensitive little ego that blows little slights out of all semblance of
> > justified proportion.
>
> What's wrong with you, Jeremy? Are you so demasculinised that you consider
> love of honour an emotional problem? When someone pulls a knife on me, I
> kill him with his own knife. When someone slanders me, I take the slander
> and stuff it back into the slanderer's mouth.
What's interesting is that I avoid pulling your strange ideas of
masculinity, which you've brought up in your last few posts, into this
delightful exchange. If the core your hypermacho manhood has been so
grievously and permanently injured by the "dead link insinuation" of 5
years ago, then you really are a delicate flower. Keep on truckin',
Sally.
Jeremy
jeremydb
> What's interesting is that I avoid pulling your strange ideas of
> masculinity, which you've brought up in your last few posts, into this
> delightful exchange.
Sorry, this should have read:
I had avoided pulling your strange ideas of masculinity...
Jacek Pudlo
Here's something you can try out at work, Jeremy. Insinuate publicly that
one of your co-workers is a pedophile. Make sure a lot of people hear it,
included the co-worker in question. Then come back and tell us how your
employer reacted.
jeremydb
> > What's interesting is that I avoid pulling your strange ideas of
> > masculinity, which you've brought up in your last few posts, into this
> > delightful exchange. If the core your hypermacho manhood has been so
> > grievously and permanently injured by the "dead link insinuation" of 5
> > years ago, then you really are a delicate flower. Keep on truckin',
> > Sally.
>
> Here's something you can try out at work, Jeremy. Insinuate publicly that
> one of your co-workers is a pedophile. Make sure a lot of people hear it,
> included the co-worker in question. Then come back and tell us how your
> employer reacted.
Your metaphor is badly chosen. r*if is not a workplace; there's no
hierarchy and there's no professionality which needs to be maintained
to cooperatively generate a product. It's more like a neighborhood.
Now, let's take your little thought experiment to a neighborhood:
Your neighbor, call him Joe, at the annual yard sale 4 years ago, made
a loud insinuation that you, given your antisocial tendencies and
underdeveloped sense of self, wouldn't be too out of place at a NAMBLA
dinner. Some neighbors laughed, some thought the comment went too far.
Not a single one actually took the comment seriously, no one called
the police, your perfectly normal adult porn collection wasn't
confiscated and searched, and life could have gone on. You and Joe,
that rude swine, maybe wouldn't spend much time chatting anymore.
EXCEPT, every day for the next 4 years, you light a paper bag full of
your own shit on fire and throw it at Joe's front door. You install
loudspeakers on your roof and start broadcasting diatribes to your
neighbors about your damaged honor and demanding satisfaction. The
kind of satisfaction only achieved through the relocation of that
neighbor, as well as the cabal of neighbors who have remained in
contact with Joe. At neighborhood meetings, whenever Joe gets up to
speak, you start screaming at the top of your lungs about what a
motherfucker rude ol' Joe is. "I am not a pedophile" you shriek, to a
roomful of collective sighs.
After a while, your neighbors begin to mutter that maybe YOU've got
the problem here, and making increasingly open suggestions that you
find a new place to live. No one talks to you in the supermarket
anymore. Joe wasn't right to insinuate that you are a pedophile, but
you've reacted in such a puerile manner that it really doesn't matter
anymore what Joe did. You've become the problem.
Stop putting shit on Joe's front porch, turn off the loudspeakers, mow
your lawn and just avoid Joe. That's how neighborhoods work. Or go
find yourself a new one.
Jeremy
tjg92
place this thread wouldn't have gotten "hijacked". I just have to say,
though, this comment was worth the whole argument:
Hazard Suit
Nicely put. You are absolutely right. But I but that doesn't stop him
from posting. I just wanted to say that no one, including yourself
Jacek (or do you prefer Mr. Pudlo?) is really thinking we are going to
banish Emily Short. It's not gonna happen. There is not the slightest
idea it will happen.
Why don't we all move back to writing games and discussing IF?
David Whyld
somewhere else to act like an ass. There's nothing a troll hates more
than being ignored.
rxw...@yahoo.com
such as this, but I did end up reading this one. I don't know the
people involved, but I've now become curious about one thing that
seems to be ambiguous. Did she actually do this? Meaning did Emily
actually accuse or insinuate that Jacek was a pedophile? Or is it
generally believed that Jacek is making this up?
Jacek Pudlo
> yes, sure, let's make mrs. short leave the very community she helped
> to enlarge...
In 2000, when Emily Short first entered the comp, it received 213 votes. In
2002 it received 198 votes. If we assume that Short is the single factor
determining the size of the IF community, we must conclude she has scared
away 15 people between 2000 and 2002. But that would be stupid and absurd,
of course. A bit like implicating someone as a pedophile based on a dead
link.
David Whyld
Or a bit like implying you're certifiably insane just because you've
trolled a newsgroup for years. Have you really got nothing better to
do with your time?
(BTW, I hear a nursery has just opened down the road. If you're quick,
you might get first dibs.)
Matthew T. Russotto
tjg92 <2ndp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You know, I really think that if nobody argued with Jacek in the first
>place this thread wouldn't have gotten "hijacked".
When no one argues with Jacek, he just creates sock puppets to argue
with. We might as well have the fun ourselves.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Jacek Pudlo
> On 13 Apr., 16:17, "Jacek Pudlo" <j...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>> > What's interesting is that I avoid pulling your strange ideas of
>> > masculinity, which you've brought up in your last few posts, into this
>> > delightful exchange. If the core your hypermacho manhood has been so
>> > grievously and permanently injured by the "dead link insinuation" of 5
>> > years ago, then you really are a delicate flower. Keep on truckin',
>> > Sally.
>>
>> Here's something you can try out at work, Jeremy. Insinuate publicly that
>> one of your co-workers is a pedophile. Make sure a lot of people hear it,
>> included the co-worker in question. Then come back and tell us how your
>> employer reacted.
>
> Your metaphor is badly chosen. r*if is not a workplace; there's no
> hierarchy and there's no professionality which needs to be maintained
> to cooperatively generate a product. It's more like a neighborhood.
> Now, let's take your little thought experiment to a neighborhood:
I feel like an airplane flying over cows in a meadow. I can see the whole
picture, but how do I convey it to the cows? They are chewing their cud,
disinterestedly, only a few aware of the airplane. And even those few seem
oblivious of the implication of altitude -- the fact that the the airplane
can see farther than they do.
If you believe that an artistic community does not "generate a product;" if
you believe that there is no hierarchy within an artistic community; if you
believe that its members are entitled to less protection from slander than
the employees of a Pizza Hut, then you are truly a mindless cow.
> Your neighbor, call him Joe, at the annual yard sale 4 years ago, made
> a loud insinuation that you, given your antisocial tendencies and
> underdeveloped sense of self, wouldn't be too out of place at a NAMBLA
> dinner.
Distributing child pornography is a felony. It is also an immoral act.
Having dinner with members of NAMBLA is neither. You're trying to
caricaturise me, yet you can't. You can't caricaturise me because you must
tone down what has been done to me. You must tone down what has been done to
me because that's the only way to save Emily Short's face. What you describe
is simply not comparable to what Emily Short did. And that torpedoes the
rest of your metaphor.
Hazard Suit
Moo.
And obviously, you never watched South Park.
Jacek, did you know Emily Short is a pseudonym? Why not tell us
something entertaining about that?
jeremydb
> picture, but how do I convey it to the cows? They are chewing their cud,
> disinterestedly, only a few aware of the airplane. And even those few seem
> oblivious of the implication of altitude -- the fact that the the airplane
> can see farther than they do.
Dude, why does a big, powerful, manly airplane like you want to hang
out with a bunch of cows?
mu
jb
David Whyld
Because the padded room he generally inhabits just isn't that
interesting.
JDC
I wasn't around back then either, and I finally got irritated enough
to look up the actual post that Jacek cites. The context of the quote
is that Emily had searched for posts by various presumed aliases of
Jacek (and other apparent trolls) and listed quite a number of links
to posts by these aliases. Among these she includes the following:
>Searching on his IP address in google.groups turns up only the following
>post to alt.sex.pre-teens:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=200108282301.SAA08239%40pond.zip...
That's the entirety of the comment, AFAICT. Decide for yourself, but I
find that Jacek's own citation doesn't support his claims.
Now, can we finally get back to savaging Steve Breslin's post? That at
least was related to IF...
-JDC
Hazard Suit
Hey, newbies like me learn something about annoying NPC's here.
Adam Thornton
Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>I feel like an airplane flying over cows in a meadow. I can see the whole
>picture, but how do I convey it to the cows? They are chewing their cud,
>disinterestedly, only a few aware of the airplane. And even those few seem
>oblivious of the implication of altitude -- the fact that the the airplane
>can see farther than they do.
This post is only somewhat addressed to Jacek, because I am aware that
English is not his native language, and this is a subtlety that most
English speakers do not comprehend. Nevertheless, it irritates me, so I
shall post a warning here pour encourager les autres, as it were:
AAAAUGH! DAMN IT TO HELL! YOU MEAN "UNINTERESTEDLY," NOT
"DISINTERESTEDLY"! THEY MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
As my sixth grade English teacher explained it, "A judge should be
disinterested, not uninterested."
While I'm on the subject (you are, as far as I know, innocent of this
sin): "enormity" is not a synonym for "extraordinary size."
Adam
Eric
news:1176573226.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, but, c'mon: only an idiot wouldn't see that this was a subtle jab.
It's like the question of "have you stopped beating your wife". The
insinuation is that you were beating her no matter what. Here the
insinuation is that "his IP address" --- notice that it's HIS address, even
though it could be a gateway --- was found on a group called --- gasp! can
you believe it?! --- alt.sex.pre-teens. Why even bring that up? What purpose
could it serve? Is she calling him a pedophile? No, but implication can be a
wonderful thing and someone as smart as Emily appears to be certainly would
have (or should have) known how a remark like this would be (or could be)
seen. And even if people don't think that, again: why bring it up? Why
mention alt.sex.pre-teens at all?
Look, I agree with everyone. This should be a dead issue. It's over. Done
with. I don't think Emily should leave raif any more than Jacek shuld.
But --- it's also true that this wasn't Emily's shining moment. And I still
maintain that Emily --- who argues we should ignore trolls --- sure did a
lot of researching on these people that she says we should best ignore. That
said, she's not the only one: look at how many people keep talking in this
thread. (Me included --- but I don't have the same concept of troll as
everyone else.)
Eric
"Adam Thornton" <ad...@fsf.net> wrote in message
news:ikh7f4-...@quicksilver.fsf.net...
Maybe he meant that the cows were unbiased by any sort personal interest
regarding the plane.
Here's what the notes to the dictionary say: Disinterested was originally
used to mean "not interested, indifferent"; uninterested in its earliest use
meant "impartial." By various developmental twists, disinterested is now
used in both senses. Uninterested is used mainly in the sense "not
interested, indifferent." It is occasionally used to mean "not having a
personal or property interest."
The notes for enormity say: Enormity has been in frequent and continuous
use in the sense "immensity" since the 18th century. Some hold that
enormousness is the correct word in that sense and that enormity can only
mean "outrageousness" or "atrociousness"
Jacek Pudlo
> In article <zF3Uh.38457$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>>I feel like an airplane flying over cows in a meadow. I can see the whole
>>picture, but how do I convey it to the cows? They are chewing their cud,
>>disinterestedly, only a few aware of the airplane. And even those few seem
>>oblivious of the implication of altitude -- the fact that the the airplane
>>can see farther than they do.
>
> This post is only somewhat addressed to Jacek, because I am aware that
> English is not his native language, and this is a subtlety that most
> English speakers do not comprehend. Nevertheless, it irritates me, so I
> shall post a warning here pour encourager les autres, as it were:
>
> AAAAUGH! DAMN IT TO HELL! YOU MEAN "UNINTERESTEDLY," NOT
> "DISINTERESTEDLY"! THEY MEAN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinterested
> As my sixth grade English teacher explained it, "A judge should be
> disinterested, not uninterested."
>
> While I'm on the subject (you are, as far as I know, innocent of this
> sin): "enormity" is not a synonym for "extraordinary size."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity
Being a tourist to the Anglophone land of IF, I'd hate to lecture a
native -- especially one with such a highly evolved sense for linguistic
subtlety -- but don't you think "disinterested cows" has a comic ring to it
that "uninterested cows" lacks?
Pedantically speaking, based on 18th century usage, you may be right.
Common-sensically speaking, based on contemporary usage, you're wrong. And
stylistically speaking, you are most certainly wrong.
Adam Thornton
Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinterested
>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity
....for those of you keeping track at home, this too may be accounted a
post which is hostile in tone:
If I may suggest politely, dictionary.reference.com may blow me.
>Being a tourist to the Anglophone land of IF, I'd hate to lecture a
>native -- especially one with such a highly evolved sense for linguistic
>subtlety -- but don't you think "disinterested cows" has a comic ring to it
>that "uninterested cows" lacks?
Oh, I got a comic ring you can LICK, buddy. Yeah, I got it right *here*.
>Pedantically speaking, based on 18th century usage, you may be right.
Indeed I am.
>Common-sensically speaking, based on contemporary usage, you're wrong.
However, that's merely because contemporary usage has been degraded and
corrupted by the slack, drooling lips of countless mouth-breathing
retards. God forbid I should ever praise anything French or suggest
that the Academie Francaise is anything short of a ludicrous effort to
Canutically turn back the tide, but it is a shame that English--a
language capable of such glorious and minute nuance in its heroically
promiscuous etymological diversity--should be flattened into a drab,
Orwellian Newspeak by thick-tongued, tin-eared morons.
>And stylistically speaking, you are most certainly wrong.
But, Jacek, de gustibus non disputandum. And there's especially no
disputing the taste, of these, my sweaty testicles, which I hereby
present and enthusiastically suggest you suck.
Adam
P.S. My invitation should in no wise be taken as suggestion that I am
condoning the implication that Jacek is a pedophile. I myself am well
over the age of consent in any jurisdiction, and am free to offer my
balls to whomever (also legally capable, of course, of giving meaningful
consent) I choose for the purpose of sucking.
Further, never have any of our communications--which have been varied
and multifarious, ranging from the mutually-admiring to my telling him
to, I belive, "eat shit and die" (I may have the wording slighly
incorrect)--implied the slightest tendency in him towards pedophila.
Not once has he told me that my work-in-progress requires more
supple-limbed hairless boys--although he has told me that it *does* need
more effiminate Greek pirates. To be fair, he is absolutely correct: it
does, in point of actual fact, require more effeminate Greek pirates.
This glaring deficiency will be addressed in due course as development
proceeds.
Jacek Pudlo
> In article <7N9Uh.38497$E02....@newsb.telia.net>,
> Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinterested
>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enormity
>
> ....for those of you keeping track at home, this too may be accounted a
> post which is hostile in tone:
>
> If I may suggest politely, dictionary.reference.com may blow me.
Are you aware of any prescriptive English dictionaries being published
during this century?
>>Being a tourist to the Anglophone land of IF, I'd hate to lecture a
>>native -- especially one with such a highly evolved sense for linguistic
>>subtlety -- but don't you think "disinterested cows" has a comic ring to
>>it
>>that "uninterested cows" lacks?
>
> Oh, I got a comic ring you can LICK, buddy. Yeah, I got it right *here*.
>
>>Pedantically speaking, based on 18th century usage, you may be right.
>
> Indeed I am.
>
>>Common-sensically speaking, based on contemporary usage, you're wrong.
>
> However, that's merely because contemporary usage has been degraded and
> corrupted by the slack, drooling lips of countless mouth-breathing
> retards. God forbid I should ever praise anything French or suggest
> that the Academie Francaise is anything short of a ludicrous effort to
> Canutically turn back the tide, but it is a shame that English--a
> language capable of such glorious and minute nuance in its heroically
> promiscuous etymological diversity--should be flattened into a drab,
> Orwellian Newspeak by thick-tongued, tin-eared morons.
Semantically the words may have merged, but connotatively they are distinct.
That's why "disinterested cow" sounds better than "uninterested cow." So I
don't see the flattening effect here.
>>And stylistically speaking, you are most certainly wrong.
>
> But, Jacek, de gustibus non disputandum.
That sentiment is as banal in Latin as it is in English. "uninterested"
simply doesn't achieve the intended stylistic effect. It's not a question of
taste, but of Sprachgefühl.
> And there's especially no
> disputing the taste, of these, my sweaty testicles, which I hereby
> present and enthusiastically suggest you suck.
From what I hear, they are gloriously minute and heroically promiscuous,
but, as you perfectly well know, I never carnally converse with large
mammals, even with a specimen as hairless and minutely endowed and adorable
as you.
> Adam
>
> P.S. My invitation should in no wise be taken as suggestion that I am
> condoning the implication that Jacek is a pedophile. I myself am well
> over the age of consent in any jurisdiction, and am free to offer my
> balls to whomever (also legally capable, of course, of giving meaningful
> consent) I choose for the purpose of sucking.
>
> Further, never have any of our communications--which have been varied
> and multifarious, ranging from the mutually-admiring to my telling him
> to, I belive, "eat shit and die" (I may have the wording slighly
> incorrect)--implied the slightest tendency in him towards pedophila.
>
> Not once has he told me that my work-in-progress requires more
> supple-limbed hairless boys--although he has told me that it *does* need
> more effiminate Greek pirates. To be fair, he is absolutely correct: it
> does, in point of actual fact, require more effeminate Greek pirates.
> This glaring deficiency will be addressed in due course as development
> proceeds.
What are you drinking? And when will I be able to play your stiffy? Oh, that
came out *totally* wrong.
Emily Short
> Why even bring that up? What purpose
> could it serve? Is she calling him a pedophile? No, but implication can be a
> wonderful thing and someone as smart as Emily appears to be certainly would
> have (or should have) known how a remark like this would be (or could be)
> seen. And even if people don't think that, again: why bring it up?
For what it's worth: at the time, my purpose was to put out all the
information I had at my disposal. Numerous flamewars had sprung up,
apparently between a large number of newbies and a large number of
regular raifers, and the newsgroup was suddenly almost all noise. When
some of us realized that a) many of these newbies were sock puppets
(but sock puppets of multiple agents) and b) some of the nastiest
posts by "regulars" were really also sent from accounts impersonating
those people, it seemed worth pointing those facts out to the whole
group.
In the process, we turned up quite a lot of net contributions from the
same address. Some of this material was pretty clearly by the same
person as part of a single campaign to cause trouble on raif, and some
of which was more ambiguous, on down through the last links, which had
no clear sign of being related to the same person at all. My thought
was to post everything, and this did in fact stop the craziness. Since
then I have not replied to Jacek's jibes, but answered only in the
cases where I felt he had a legitimate grievance to which I morally
ought to respond.
When Jacek later brought it up himself, I did post a public apology
(http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.int-fiction/msg/
9a156efde1ed9a73?dmode=source) both for the implication of the search
hit I'd found -- which, since IP addresses are frequently reallocated,
was a posting very likely not from any of his identities, but from
someone else entirely -- and for the overzealous posting of personal
information, which was a frustrated response to his having used
identities belonging to other people; also for having misjudged some
aspects of his character in saying he has no real interest in IF, when
it is now obvious that he does. He found this apology inadequate,
which is his right, but it was sincerely meant.
As I've said before in several contexts, I'm not now urging his
ostracism, as such, either. That original spate of setting regulars
against each other was nasty and destructive and had no redeeming
features I can see, but Jacek has since emerged as a colorful and
highly recognizable character, perceptive, linguistically gifted,
capable of keen critical thought, and apparently a competent author of
IF in his own right. At its best his writing reveals a joyously fecund
imagination, crude, witty, and rich as well-manured land. I think it's
pointless to argue with him when he's trolling, though, and I tend to
think of this matter as being as closed as it's going to get: it's
five years in the past and has been apologized for and retracted,
inasmuch as I can do that.
K M
-Kate (who is reading _Sarum_ nights)
Adam Thornton
Jacek Pudlo <ja...@jacek.jacek> wrote:
>From what I hear, they are gloriously minute and heroically promiscuous,
>but, as you perfectly well know, I never carnally converse with large
>mammals, even with a specimen as hairless and minutely endowed and adorable
>as you.
Hey! I'm not hairless!
>What are you drinking? And when will I be able to play your stiffy? Oh, that
>came out *totally* wrong.
Gin. In this case, my liquid muse, not my playtester.
As to the second, my lips are sealed, which is apparently more than one
can say for *you*.
Adam
Adam Thornton
Hazard Suit
> In article <1176601217.234310.29...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> K M <kate-mc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Adam, good use of "Canutically," just now.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Adam
What games has Jacek written?
Adam Thornton
Hazard Suit <the-...@gmx.de> wrote:
>On 15 Apr., 08:18, a...@fsf.net (Adam Thornton) wrote:
>> In article <1176601217.234310.29...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>> K M <kate-mc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Adam, good use of "Canutically," just now.
"Gamlet".
It won the Golden Banana in 2004 IFComp, 9th place overall. I
playtested it, so my opinions are suspect, but I thought it was a good
game in design and puzzle structure, whose underlying subversion of the
conventions of IF--while still sort-of-plausibly grounded in the world
sketched out by the story--was quite clever.
I suspect that a bunch of people voted it down because of the author; if
they hadn't, it would not have won the Banana but might have placed a
bit higher in the standings.
The endgame seemed a bit rushed, but as I recall, Jacek was under the
gun of the deadline by that point.
Adam