Has Tholen ever been punched inna nose?
D.G. Porter
JJ Hinrichs
> I guess "yes."
Lord knows *I* don't wanna be impolite, but why is every other original
post something about this Tholen character?
What did he do?
And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
Has he or she been impolite?
JJ
Sonarrat Citalis
news:3CFC5CD8...@worldnet.att.net...
It is rudeness incarnate. Its last reply to me was so hideous, I'll never speak
to it again.
--
-Sonarrat Citalis.
Medtner, Mompou, and originals at http://www.mp3.com/Sonarrat/
Signature at http://sonarrat.stormloader.com/sonarratsig.html
tho...@antispam.ham
> I guess "yes."
What you guess is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
relevant. Of course, you just proved that you're an antagonist.
tho...@antispam.ham
> D.G. Porter wrote:
>> I guess "yes."
> Lord knows *I* don't wanna be impolite, but why is every other original
> post something about this Tholen character?
Because Porter is an antagonist (and he's not the only one).
> What did he do?
I pointed out that the new Colin Matthews "Pluto" movement, if it
had been placed before "Neptune" in "The Planets", would not
correspond to the "current alignment" in the Solar System, as
indicated by Daniels.
> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
Porter gets more enjoyment from being an antagonist.
> Has he or she been impolite?
Judge for yourself. Here's the entire article that triggered the
latest round of attacks by the usual antagonists, including Porter,
Seriff, Daniels, Beck, orangie, Sacqueboutier, Harrington, Citalis...
] Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
] From: tho...@AntiSpam.ham
] Subject: Re: Holst, The Planets
] Message-ID: <Xway8.57505$VQ2.34...@twister.socal.rr.com>
] Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:06:31 GMT
]
] Peter T. Daniels writes:
]
] > So is "Pluto" any good (I mean, how can you stick something after the
] > end of "Neptune"? or did they go with the current alignment and put
] > "Pluto" before "Neptune"?
]
] Pluto is not before Neptune in the current alignment, Daniels. That
] ended in 1999.
tho...@antispam.ham
> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>> I guess "yes."
>> Lord knows *I* don't wanna be impolite, but why is every other original
>> post something about this Tholen character?
>>
>> What did he do?
>> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
>>
>> Has he or she been impolite?
> It is rudeness incarnate.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic to boot.
> Its last reply to me was so hideous, I'll never speak to it again.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
JJ Hinrichs
>
> I pointed out that the new Colin Matthews "Pluto" movement, if it
> had been placed before "Neptune" in "The Planets", would not
> correspond to the "current alignment" in the Solar System, as
> indicated by Daniels.
oh dear God, no! Vile fiend!
> > And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
> Porter gets more enjoyment from being an antagonist.
It would seem so.
>
> > Has he or she been impolite?
>
> Judge for yourself. Here's the entire article that triggered the
> latest round of attacks by the usual antagonists, including Porter,
> Seriff, Daniels, Beck, orangie, Sacqueboutier, Harrington, Citalis...
>
> ] Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
> ] From: tho...@AntiSpam.ham
> ] Subject: Re: Holst, The Planets
> ] Message-ID: <Xway8.57505$VQ2.34...@twister.socal.rr.com>
> ] Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:06:31 GMT
> ]
> ] Peter T. Daniels writes:
> ]
> ] > So is "Pluto" any good (I mean, how can you stick something after the
> ] > end of "Neptune"? or did they go with the current alignment and put
> ] > "Pluto" before "Neptune"?
> ]
> ] Pluto is not before Neptune in the current alignment, Daniels. That
> ] ended in 1999.
That's it? That's what causes these endless posts over nothing?
JJ
mike
for tholen the colon, yes. he could have posted an informative post with
some planatary platitudes -- tholen the colon is a public servant. he works
for the state and he ought to take a more even handed approach with the
public. in reality, the things he knows aren't as important to us at the
musical things we know. NASA is just another waste of money for some of us
-- i'd rather see all NASA money going for funding string quartets in
grammar schools.
tholon represents psudo-knowledge for us... his method, the scholastic
syllogism, is meant for theological argument. this method causes tholen the
colon to assume that we must be talking about his qualities.
tholon the colon is good for passing information on, but when he tries to
make anything of his offal, he becomes officious. well, actually, he starts
barking like one of those yapping dogs.
jj, you'll know the tholonic function when he attacks one of your
propositions. he can't help himself.
>
>
> JJ
>
>
Peter T. Daniels
Not exactly. Tholen seems unfamiliar with the concept of time -- the
"Pluto" movement was composed during the epoch when Pluto was closer to
the sun than Neptune, thus providing a rationale for placing its
movement before the "Neptune" movement. The alignment current at the
time of composition, clearly, is what I referred to.
However, Tholen's antagonism goes back long, long before his Holst
misunderstanding.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
D.G. Porter
Tholen simple seems incapable of carrying on a normal conversation.
Instead, he takes every phrase and tacks on one opf his cutey-poo
rejoinders. When people get fed up with him he acts like he's the
victim.
In the above post, Tholen insisted and still insists that the us of the
word "current" must be RIGHT NOW, never anything else. Any attempt to
use it in any other but "the Tholen way" gets him going on endless
tit-for-tat.
I once asked him about Ives for band. (Now, he will start to parse this
and say it isn't so.) He mentioned a piece that was originally composed
for organ but had been arranged for band. Every single attempt to ask
himn about the organ version got the endless evasiveness he is infamous
for. In effect, he's a "conversation Nazi."
D.G. Porter
>
> > > And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
> > Porter gets more enjoyment from being an antagonist.
>
> It would seem so.
When I am told over and over again that anything I think is "irrelevant"
I take it as antagonistic. When I argue a point and I am told that my
arguments are irrelevant and unsubstantiated, an when I substantiate
them and trhe substantiation is dismissed, yes, I take it as deliberate
antagonism from a twit who simply wants to assume a false air of
superiority. In short, this asswipe pisses me off deliberately and then
whines about it.
Once I characterized him as "Sid Sawyer." First he stated there was no
"Sid Sawyer." I quoted the book at him. He just spun off on another
tangent. He is incapable of participating in a normal conversation and
he really doesn't know squat about music.
D.G. Porter
Fuck you, gnat.
D.G. Porter
You judge for yourself. Here are some typical Tholenian responses.
"What you guess is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
relevant."
"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
"I see that you didn't answer the question, Porter. No surprise
there, really."
"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
And of course:
"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
When you try to answer one of his questions, this is all you will get in
response.
Do a Google search on him and you'll see that his whole reason for
living seems to be perpetuating this gnat-like annoyance on anyone who
engages him.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> What did he do?
>> I pointed out that the new Colin Matthews "Pluto" movement, if it
>> had been placed before "Neptune" in "The Planets", would not
>> correspond to the "current alignment" in the Solar System, as
>> indicated by Daniels.
> oh dear God, no! Vile fiend!
Amazing, isn't it?
>>> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
>> Porter gets more enjoyment from being an antagonist.
> It would seem so.
Witness his postings from today.
>>> Has he or she been impolite?
>> Judge for yourself. Here's the entire article that triggered the
>> latest round of attacks by the usual antagonists, including Porter,
>> Seriff, Daniels, Beck, orangie, Sacqueboutier, Harrington, Citalis...
>>
>> ] Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
>> ] From: tho...@AntiSpam.ham
>> ] Subject: Re: Holst, The Planets
>> ] Message-ID: <Xway8.57505$VQ2.34...@twister.socal.rr.com>
>> ] Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:06:31 GMT
>> ]
>> ] Peter T. Daniels writes:
>> ]
>> ] > So is "Pluto" any good (I mean, how can you stick something after the
>> ] > end of "Neptune"? or did they go with the current alignment and put
>> ] > "Pluto" before "Neptune"?
>> ]
>> ] Pluto is not before Neptune in the current alignment, Daniels. That
>> ] ended in 1999.
> That's it? That's what causes these endless posts over nothing?
Yep.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Not exactly.
Incorrect; that's exactly what I posted that triggered the latest
round of antagonism.
> Tholen seems unfamiliar with the concept of time
What seems to you is irrelevant, Daniels.
> -- the "Pluto" movement was composed during the epoch when Pluto was
> closer to the sun than Neptune,
You didn't refer to that, Daniels; rather, you referred to the "current
alignment".
> thus providing a rationale for placing its movement before the
> "Neptune" movement.
The same "rationale" puts Mercury first, Daniels. Guess what?
It isn't.
> The alignment current at the time of composition, clearly, is
> what I referred to.
On the contrary, the word "current" does not, clearly, refer to the
time of composition, Daniels.
> However, Tholen's antagonism goes back long, long before his Holst
> misunderstanding.
You're erroneously presupposing any antagonism on my part, Daniels.
You're also erroneously presupposing some misunderstanding of Holst
on my part, Daniels.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> What did he do?
>>> It would seem so.
What seems to you is irrelevant, Porter. That's rather ironic, coming
from the person whose so-called "satire" isn't even conversation. It's
pure antagonism.
> Instead, he takes every phrase and tacks on one opf his cutey-poo
> rejoinders.
Where is the alleged "cutey-poo rejoinder" in the above evidence,
Porter?
> When people get fed up with him he acts like he's the victim.
Who is allegedly fed up with me, Porter? Hinrichs is clearly fed up
with you, however. Witness his complaint to YOUR posting.
> In the above post, Tholen insisted and still insists that the us of the
> word "current" must be RIGHT NOW, never anything else.
That is the context in which it appeared, Porter. However, even if you
adopt Daniels' spin doctoring and insist that it meant when the work
was composed (for which he should have used "then current alignment"
to be grammatically correct), consider the fact that the work was
premiered in 2000, still after the "current alignment" had ended.
Either way, you and Daniels still lose.
> Any attempt to use it in any other but "the Tholen way" gets him
> going on endless tit-for-tat.
I'm using it the right way, Porter. Meanwhile, you're the one
starting these bizarre threads that cause me to stand up to your
antagonism.
> I once asked him about Ives for band.
Both non sequitur and incorrect. You asked me about my "favorite Ives
piece". No restriction to band music. Still suffering from reading
comprehension problems?
> (Now, he will start to parse this and say it isn't so.)
With good reason, Porter.
> He mentioned a piece that was originally composed for organ but had
> been arranged for band. Every single attempt to ask himn about the
> organ version got the endless evasiveness he is infamous for.
It's not my "favorite Ives piece" when played on the organ, Porter.
Therefore it is YOU who evaded the answer to your own question.
> In effect, he's a "conversation Nazi."
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective,
as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
tho...@antispam.ham
> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>>>> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
>>> Porter gets more enjoyment from being an antagonist.
>> It would seem so.
> When I am told over and over again that anything I think is "irrelevant"
> I take it as antagonistic.
Why is that, Porter? The facts are what is relevant, not what you
happen to think.
> When I argue a point and I am told that my arguments are irrelevant
> and unsubstantiated, an when I substantiate them and trhe
> substantiation is dismissed, yes, I take it as deliberate
> antagonism from a twit who simply wants to assume a false air of
> superiority.
Which arguments have you allegedly substantiated, Porter? Witness
your previous posting. You merely pontificated that "current
alignment" could mean "the alignment back when it was composed".
Heck, you don't even know when the work was composed!
> In short, this asswipe pisses me off deliberately
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> and then whines about it.
Illogical; how can I whine about something I haven't done, Porter?
> Once I characterized him as "Sid Sawyer." First he stated there was no
> "Sid Sawyer."
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter. In reality,
I asked if you meant "Tom Sawyer".
> I quoted the book at him.
And wound up trying to tell me that Sarah Mary Williams was Tom
Sawyer in drag. So much for quoting the book.
> He just spun off on another tangent.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter, and rather
ironic, coming from someone whose "Sid Sawyer" was itself another
tangent.
> He is incapable of participating in a normal conversation
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter.
> and he really doesn't know squat about music.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter. I obviously
know more about the Pluto movement than either you or Daniels.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> I guess "yes."
>> What you guess is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
>> relevant. Of course, you just proved that you're an antagonist.
> Fuck you, gnat.
Even more antagonism.
tho...@antispam.ham
> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>> I guess "yes."
>> Lord knows *I* don't wanna be impolite, but why is every other original
>> post something about this Tholen character?
>>
>> What did he do?
>> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
>>
>> Has he or she been impolite?
> You judge for yourself. Here are some typical Tholenian responses.
>
> "What you guess is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
> relevant."
Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
it appeared.
> "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
it appeared.
> "I see that you didn't answer the question, Porter. No surprise
> there, really."
Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
it appeared.
> "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
it appeared.
> And of course:
>
> "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
it appeared.
> When you try to answer one of his questions, this is all you will
> get in response.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Try answering a
question with some substantiation sometime, Porter, rather than
with more of your antagonism.
> Do a Google search on him and you'll see that his whole reason for
> living seems to be perpetuating this gnat-like annoyance on anyone
> who engages him.
What seems to you is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
relevant.
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter writes:
>
> > JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>
> >> D.G. Porter wrote:
>
> >>> I guess "yes."
>
> >> Lord knows *I* don't wanna be impolite, but why is every other original
> >> post something about this Tholen character?
> >>
> >> What did he do?
> >> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
> >>
> >> Has he or she been impolite?
>
> > You judge for yourself. Here are some typical Tholenian responses.
> >
> > "What you guess is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
> > relevant."
Note: See the last line of this post.
> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
> it appeared.
Robot response.
> > "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
>
> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
> it appeared.
Robot response.
> > "I see that you didn't answer the question, Porter. No surprise
> > there, really."
>
> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
> it appeared.
Robot response.
> > "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
>
> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
> it appeared.
Robot response.
> > And of course:
> >
> > "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
>
> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
> it appeared.
Robot response.
Not even an appreciation of subtle satire. How robotic.
> > When you try to answer one of his questions, this is all you will
> > get in response.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Try answering a
> question with some substantiation sometime, Porter, rather than
> with more of your antagonism.
When I provide substantiation, you reject it as either a "Non sequitur,"
or as "Irrelevant" because it's what I think. Or just deny it is
substantiation. Do you want examples?
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter writes:
>
> > JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>
> >>>> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
>
> >>> Porter gets more enjoyment from being an antagonist.
>
> >> It would seem so.
>
> > When I am told over and over again that anything I think is "irrelevant"
> > I take it as antagonistic.
>
> Why is that, Porter? The facts are what is relevant, not what you
> happen to think.
Fuck you, gnat. Thoughts are relevant.
> > When I argue a point and I am told that my arguments are irrelevant
> > and unsubstantiated, an when I substantiate them and trhe
> > substantiation is dismissed, yes, I take it as deliberate
> > antagonism from a twit who simply wants to assume a false air of
> > superiority.
>
> Which arguments have you allegedly substantiated, Porter? Witness
> your previous posting. You merely pontificated that "current
> alignment" could mean "the alignment back when it was composed".
> Heck, you don't even know when the work was composed!
Fuck off, gnat.
> > In short, this asswipe pisses me off deliberately
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>
> > and then whines about it.
>
> Illogical; how can I whine about something I haven't done, Porter?
>
> > Once I characterized him as "Sid Sawyer." First he stated there was no
> > "Sid Sawyer."
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter. In reality,
> I asked if you meant "Tom Sawyer".
No, you dogmatically stated that I must mean "Tom Sawyer" and asserted
there was no "Sid."
> > I quoted the book at him.
>
> And wound up trying to tell me that Sarah Mary Williams was Tom
> Sawyer in drag. So much for quoting the book.
You are stupid. When Tom is in drag he gives the two names individually
then combines them. YOU read the book, clown.
> > He just spun off on another tangent.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter, and rather
> ironic, coming from someone whose "Sid Sawyer" was itself another
> tangent.
This is typical of Tholen's behaviour.
> > He is incapable of participating in a normal conversation
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter.
>
> > and he really doesn't know squat about music.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter. I obviously
> know more about the Pluto movement than either you or Daniels.
What you know is "Pluto Water 'movement'."
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter writes:
>
>
>
> What seems to you is irrelevant, Porter.
What I think is relevant, douchebag.
> That's rather ironic, coming
> from the person whose so-called "satire" isn't even conversation. It's
> pure antagonism.
Fuck off, gnat.
> > Instead, he takes every phrase and tacks on one opf his cutey-poo
> > rejoinders.
>
> Where is the alleged "cutey-poo rejoinder" in the above evidence,
> Porter?
>
> > When people get fed up with him he acts like he's the victim.
>
> Who is allegedly fed up with me, Porter? Hinrichs is clearly fed up
> with you, however. Witness his complaint to YOUR posting.
He'll learn what a dipstick you are, Dave.
> > In the above post, Tholen insisted and still insists that the us of the
> > word "current" must be RIGHT NOW, never anything else.
>
> That is the context in which it appeared, Porter. However, even if you
> adopt Daniels' spin doctoring and insist that it meant when the work
> was composed (for which he should have used "then current alignment"
> to be grammatically correct), consider the fact that the work was
> premiered in 2000, still after the "current alignment" had ended.
> Either way, you and Daniels still lose.
Un-fucking-believable. Are you a real person?
> > Any attempt to use it in any other but "the Tholen way" gets him
> > going on endless tit-for-tat.
>
> I'm using it the right way, Porter. Meanwhile, you're the one
> starting these bizarre threads that cause me to stand up to your
> antagonism.
I *CAUSE* YOU TO "STAND UP"!????? BWAH HA HA HA!!!!!!
That means you have no control over your life! What a dipstick!
> > I once asked him about Ives for band.
>
> Both non sequitur and incorrect. You asked me about my "favorite Ives
> piece". No restriction to band music. Still suffering from reading
> comprehension problems?
Maybe in error but very sequitur as it substantiates what an idiot you
are.
> > (Now, he will start to parse this and say it isn't so.)
>
> With good reason, Porter.
Told ya.
> > He mentioned a piece that was originally composed for organ but had
> > been arranged for band. Every single attempt to ask himn about the
> > organ version got the endless evasiveness he is infamous for.
>
> It's not my "favorite Ives piece" when played on the organ, Porter.
Un-fucking-believable...
> Therefore it is YOU who evaded the answer to your own question.
What a dumb fucker... he can't branch out into any area of conversation
that isn't already delineated by his narrow comprehension skills.
> > In effect, he's a "conversation Nazi."
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective,
> as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
Another robotic response....
D.G. Porter
>
> Porter, you're the one
D.G. Porter
>
> It's not my "favorite Ives piece" when played on the organ, Porter.
Why didn't you simply say so back then?
D.G. Porter
>
> > > What did he do?
> >
> > had been placed before "Trousers" in "The Pants", would not
> > correspond to the "current alignment" in the Denim System, as
> > indicated by Daniels.
>
> oh dear God, no! Vile pants!
>
> > > And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical pants] issues?
> > Porter gets more enjoyment from wearing pants.
>
> It would seem so.
>
> >
> > > Has he or she been in pants?
> >
> > Judge for yourself. Here's the entire article that triggered the
> > Seriff, Daniels, Beck, orangie, Sacqueboutier, Harrington, Citalis...
> >
> > ] Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
> > ] Subject: Re: Holst, The Pants
> > ] Message-ID: <Xway8.57505$VQ2.34...@twister.socal.rr.com>
> > ] Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 11:06:31 GMT
> > ]
> > ] Peter T. Daniels writes:
> > ]
> > ] > end of "Trousers"? or did they go with the current alignment and put
> > ] > "Pants" before "Trousers"?
> > ]
> > ] Pants are not before Trousers in the current alignment, Daniels. That
> > ] ended in 1999.
>
> That's it? That's what causes these endless pants over trousers?
>
> JJ
D.G. Porter
>
> JJ Hinrichs <hinr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
> news:3CFCDAC9...@worldnet.att.net:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It would seem so.
>
> >
> >
> > That's it? That's what causes these endless pants?
>
> for tholen the colon, yes. he could have posted informative pants with
> some panterian platitudes -- tholen the colon is a pants servant. he works
> for the pants and he ought to take a more even handed approach with the
> pants. in reality, the things he knows aren't as important to us as the
> musical pants we know. LEVI is just another waste of money for some of us
> -- i'd rather see all LEVI money going for funding cordueroys in
> grammar schools.
>
> tholon represents psudo-pants for us... his method, the scholastic
> syllogism, is meant for theological argument. this method causes tholen the
>
> tholon the colon is good for pantsing information on, but when he tries to
> make anything of his pants, he becomes officious. well, actually, he starts
> barking like one of those yapping pants.
>
> jj, you'll know the tholonic function when he attacks one of your
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > JJ
> >
> >
Oisk17
(snip)>tholen the colon is a public servant. he works
>for the state and he ought to take a more even handed approach with the
>public.
Mike the tyke continues to call Tholen childish names, although Tholen has
never done the same to Mike.
in reality, the things he knows aren't as important to us at the
>musical things we know. NASA is just another waste of money for some of us
>-- i'd rather see all NASA money going for funding string quartets in
>grammar schools.
ALL NASA money? You mean that the exploration of space, the search for
knowledge about the universe is not worth pursuing at all? Much as I, like
Mike, would love to see additional funding for music programs in schools, I
would also like to know whether there is any form of life in the watery layers
now discovered on Mars...it is not an "either -or" situation.
>
>tholon represents psudo-knowledge for us... his method, the scholastic
>syllogism, is meant for theological argument. this method causes tholen the
>colon to assume that we must be talking about his qualities.
>
>tholon the colon is good for passing information on, but when he tries to
>make anything of his offal, he becomes officious. well, actually, he starts
>barking like one of those yapping dogs.
>
Mike the tyke is good for passing information on a variety of subjects, from
photography, to poetry, to composition, but I do not appreciate his excremation
points...
>jj, you'll know the tholonic function when he attacks one of your
>propositions. he can't help himself.
>
I agree with Mike here. Tholen does this to me even when I am defending him...
Paul
mike
news:20020604235625...@mb-ms.aol.com:
>>From: mike orangiemike
>
> (snip)>tholen the colon is a public servant. he works
>>for the state and he ought to take a more even handed approach with the
>>public.
>
> Mike the tyke continues to call Tholen childish names, although Tholen
> has never done the same to Mike.
as a kind of courtesy to you, i'm not on your case about the feebleness of
"tyke". tholen the colon, however, isn't even able to get out of bed. his
belches have to stand for all manner of things. this is the way of the
neanderthal, and we must respect the colon in tholen.
>
> in reality, the things he knows aren't as important to us at the
>>musical things we know. NASA is just another waste of money for some of
>>us -- i'd rather see all NASA money going for funding string quartets
>>in grammar schools.
>
> ALL NASA money? You mean that the exploration of space, the search for
> knowledge about the universe is not worth pursuing at all?
not at all. can you really tell me why it's more important to go to mars
than go to macdonalds? is there stuff there? are we looking for golden
cities again?
> Much as I,
> like Mike, would love to see additional funding for music programs in
> schools, I would also like to know whether there is any form of life in
> the watery layers now discovered on Mars...it is not an "either -or"
> situation.
why? why is it worth bankrupting society just so that we can know an iota
more about what we already know. we know what life is. the martian life is
going to be identical to certain life forms on earth... the atmosphere's
obviously commingled at some point. i am curious why the water dropped from
the planetoids didn't surface form an cycle cloud of gases about the
surface. it may just be that mars got creamed more than earth did, and that
we inherated all its gasses. i like the idea of seeing stuff in outer
space. they raise lots of questions. but, i like the idea of redesigning
ourselves biologically. that's a decent spending of resources. i'd like
bigger ears, for instance.
>
>>
>>tholon represents psudo-knowledge for us... his method, the scholastic
>>syllogism, is meant for theological argument. this method causes tholen
>>the colon to assume that we must be talking about his qualities.
>>
>>tholon the colon is good for passing information on, but when he tries
>>to make anything of his offal, he becomes officious. well, actually, he
>>starts barking like one of those yapping dogs.
>>
> Mike the tyke is good for passing information on a variety of subjects,
> from photography, to poetry, to composition, but I do not appreciate
> his excremation points...
what business is this of yours? are you religious? will god strike the
newsgroup down for my doo-dosity? (i'd say "doo-dacity" but, you know, it
just sounds too pretentious).
>
>>jj, you'll know the tholonic function when he attacks one of your
>>propositions. he can't help himself.
>>
> I agree with Mike here. Tholen does this to me even when I am
> defending him...
he's not attacking, though. You know that. "A superior mind cannot but help
reform inferiorities into acceptable superiorities"*.
do you think he can make my ears bigger?
* tholen d.c. date pickup line from his arizona days. the rest of it goes,
"let me work on your ...".
>
> Paul
>
>
>
mike
news:3CFD8A...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught:
if i did, i must have been in a trance. conscious, i would have used
"panting" more, cause i like verbal intrusions.
this is Levi the Levite, by the way? how'd HE get involved with a cosmetic
gargoyle like tholen D.C.?
he had to use the men's room?
JJ Hinrichs
> propositions. he can't help himself.
The same happened to me w/ this John Harrington feller.
Well, if we ever get around to music again, I guess we'll see if this Tholen
character attacks me.
JJ, all atingle with anticipation
JJ Hinrichs
oh, and I do apologize for accidentally starting a long flame war.
oops.
JJ
D.G. Porter
>
> ois...@aol.com (Oisk17) wrote in
> news:20020604235625...@mb-ms.aol.com:
>
> >>From: mike orangiemike
> >
> >>us -- i'd rather see all NASA money going for funding string quartets
> >>in grammar schools.
> >
> > ALL NASA money? You mean that the exploration of space, the search for
> > knowledge about the universe is not worth pursuing at all?
>
> not at all. can you really tell me why it's more important to go to mars
> than go to macdonalds? is there stuff there? are we looking for golden
> cities again?
No, we are looking for big rocks that can slam into us the way one did
65 million years ago.
mike
more recent than that.
what will you do when you find one? get under it?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> It would seem so.
I see that for Porter's latest style of antagonism, he's not adding
any original text to his follow-up, but rather dishonestly altering
existing text written by others.
tho...@antispam.ham
> mike wrote:
>> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
I see that for Porter's latest style of antagonism, he's not adding
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>>>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>>>> I guess "yes."
>>>> Lord knows *I* don't wanna be impolite, but why is every other original
>>>> post something about this Tholen character?
>>>>
>>>> What did he do?
>>>> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
>>>>
>>>> Has he or she been impolite?
>>> You judge for yourself. Here are some typical Tholenian responses.
>>>
>>> "What you guess is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
>>> relevant."
> Note: See the last line of this post.
So what? That refers to something that seemed to you, Porter.
>> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
>> it appeared.
> Robot response.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
>> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
>> it appeared.
> Robot response.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> "I see that you didn't answer the question, Porter. No surprise
>>> there, really."
>> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
>> it appeared.
> Robot response.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
>> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
>> it appeared.
> Robot response.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>>> And of course:
>>>
>>> "Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim."
>> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
>> it appeared.
> Robot response.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Not even an appreciation of subtle satire.
Why should anyone appreciate your antagonism, Porter?
> How robotic.
How illogical.
>>> When you try to answer one of his questions, this is all you will
>>> get in response.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Try answering a
>> question with some substantiation sometime, Porter, rather than
>> with more of your antagonism.
> When I provide substantiation, you reject it as either a "Non sequitur,"
> or as "Irrelevant" because it's what I think.
You're erroneously presupposing that what you think represents
substantiation, Porter.
> Or just deny it is substantiation.
With good reason, Porter. Substantiation is independent of what one
person thinks.
> Do you want examples?
You're erroneously presupposing that you have any valid examples,
Porter.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>>>>>> And why won't you move on to more substantive [classical music] issues?
>>>>> Porter gets more enjoyment from being an antagonist.
>>>> It would seem so.
>>> When I am told over and over again that anything I think is "irrelevant"
>>> I take it as antagonistic.
>> Why is that, Porter? The facts are what is relevant, not what you
>> happen to think.
> Fuck you,
Such foul language.
> gnat.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
> Thoughts are relevant.
Not when facts are available, Porter.
>>> When I argue a point and I am told that my arguments are irrelevant
>>> and unsubstantiated, an when I substantiate them and trhe
>>> substantiation is dismissed, yes, I take it as deliberate
>>> antagonism from a twit who simply wants to assume a false air of
>>> superiority.
>> Which arguments have you allegedly substantiated, Porter? Witness
>> your previous posting. You merely pontificated that "current
>> alignment" could mean "the alignment back when it was composed".
>> Heck, you don't even know when the work was composed!
> Fuck off,
Such foul language.
> gnat.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
>>> In short, this asswipe pisses me off deliberately
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Note: no response.
>>> and then whines about it.
>> Illogical; how can I whine about something I haven't done, Porter?
Note: no response.
>>> Once I characterized him as "Sid Sawyer." First he stated there was no
>>> "Sid Sawyer."
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter. In reality,
>> I asked if you meant "Tom Sawyer".
> No, you dogmatically stated that I must mean "Tom Sawyer" and asserted
> there was no "Sid."
Classic pontification.
>>> I quoted the book at him.
>> And wound up trying to tell me that Sarah Mary Williams was Tom
>> Sawyer in drag. So much for quoting the book.
> You are stupid.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
> When Tom is in drag he gives the two names individually
> then combines them.
When is Tom allegedly in drag, Porter?
> YOU read the book, clown.
Unnecessary, Porter; I already know it was Huck Finn who was the
person in drag. You really know how to make a fool of yourself,
Porter.
>>> He just spun off on another tangent.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter, and rather
>> ironic, coming from someone whose "Sid Sawyer" was itself another
>> tangent.
> This is typical of Tholen's behaviour.
The truth is typical of me, Porter.
>>> He is incapable of participating in a normal conversation
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter.
Note: no response.
>>> and he really doesn't know squat about music.
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Porter. I obviously
>> know more about the Pluto movement than either you or Daniels.
> What you know is "Pluto Water 'movement'."
What alleged "Water", Porter?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> Tholen simple seems incapable of carrying on a normal conversation.
>> What seems to you is irrelevant, Porter.
> What I think is relevant,
On what basis do you make that claim, Porter?
> douchebag.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
>> That's rather ironic, coming from the person whose so-called
>> "satire" isn't even conversation. It's pure antagonism.
> Fuck off,
Such foul language.
> gnat.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
>>> Instead, he takes every phrase and tacks on one opf his cutey-poo
>>> rejoinders.
>> Where is the alleged "cutey-poo rejoinder" in the above evidence,
>> Porter?
Note: no response.
>>> When people get fed up with him he acts like he's the victim.
>> Who is allegedly fed up with me, Porter? Hinrichs is clearly fed up
>> with you, however. Witness his complaint to YOUR posting.
> He'll learn what a dipstick you are, Dave.
Classic pontification, but you're showing him/her all about you,
Porter.
>>> In the above post, Tholen insisted and still insists that the us of the
>>> word "current" must be RIGHT NOW, never anything else.
>> That is the context in which it appeared, Porter. However, even if you
>> adopt Daniels' spin doctoring and insist that it meant when the work
>> was composed (for which he should have used "then current alignment"
>> to be grammatically correct), consider the fact that the work was
>> premiered in 2000, still after the "current alignment" had ended.
>> Either way, you and Daniels still lose.
> Un-fucking-believable.
Such foul language.
> Are you a real person?
I see that you've evading the evidence, Porter. No surprise there,
really.
>>> Any attempt to use it in any other but "the Tholen way" gets him
>>> going on endless tit-for-tat.
>> I'm using it the right way, Porter. Meanwhile, you're the one
>> starting these bizarre threads that cause me to stand up to your
>> antagonism.
> I *CAUSE* YOU TO "STAND UP"!?????
..to your antagonism, Porter.
> BWAH HA HA HA!!!!!!
Why are you now crying, Porter?
> That means you have no control over your life!
It does no such thing, Porter.
> What a dipstick!
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
>>> I once asked him about Ives for band.
>> Both non sequitur and incorrect. You asked me about my "favorite Ives
>> piece". No restriction to band music. Still suffering from reading
>> comprehension problems?
> Maybe in error but very sequitur as it substantiates what an idiot you
> are.
Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.
>>> (Now, he will start to parse this and say it isn't so.)
>> With good reason, Porter.
> Told ya.
Is that because you knew I had a good reason to tell you it isn't so,
Porter?
>>> He mentioned a piece that was originally composed for organ but had
>>> been arranged for band. Every single attempt to ask himn about the
>>> organ version got the endless evasiveness he is infamous for.
>> It's not my "favorite Ives piece" when played on the organ, Porter.
> Un-fucking-believable...
Such foul language.
>> Therefore it is YOU who evaded the answer to your own question.
> What a dumb fucker...
Such foul language, laced with invective.
> he can't branch out into any area of conversation that isn't
> already delineated by his narrow comprehension skills.
What alleged "narrow comprehension skills", Porter? One man's
evasion is another man's broadening of the topic. Interesting
rationalization.
>>> In effect, he's a "conversation Nazi."
>> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, laced with invective,
>> as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.
> Another robotic response....
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> It's not my "favorite Ives piece" when played on the organ, Porter.
> Why didn't you simply say so back then?
You didn't ask, Porter. Instead, you chose to antagonize.
tho...@antispam.ham
> orangiemike wrote:
>> tholen the colon is a public servant. he works for the state and he
>> ought to take a more even handed approach with the public.
> Mike the tyke continues to call Tholen childish names, although Tholen
> has never done the same to Mike.
It would be hypocritical to do so.
>> in reality, the things he knows aren't as important to us at the
>> musical things we know. NASA is just another waste of money for some
>> of us -- i'd rather see all NASA money going for funding string
>> quartets in grammar schools.
> ALL NASA money? You mean that the exploration of space, the search for
> knowledge about the universe is not worth pursuing at all? Much as I,
> like Mike, would love to see additional funding for music programs in
> schools, I would also like to know whether there is any form of life
> in the watery layers now discovered on Mars...it is not an "either -or"
> situation.
How about knowing whether there's an asteroid on a future collision
course with Earth?
>> tholon represents psudo-knowledge for us... his method, the scholastic
>> syllogism, is meant for theological argument. this method causes tholen the
>> colon to assume that we must be talking about his qualities.
>>
>> tholon the colon is good for passing information on, but when he tries to
>> make anything of his offal, he becomes officious. well, actually, he starts
>> barking like one of those yapping dogs.
> Mike the tyke is good for passing information on a variety of subjects,
> from photography, to poetry, to composition, but I do not appreciate his
> excremation points...
>> jj, you'll know the tholonic function when he attacks one of your
>> propositions. he can't help himself.
> I agree with Mike here. Tholen does this to me even when I am defending
> him...
Where have I attacked one of your propositions?
tho...@antispam.ham
> orangie wrote:
>> jj, you'll know the tholonic function when he attacks one of your
>> propositions. he can't help himself.
> The same happened to me w/ this John Harrington feller.
Can't say I'm surprised.
> Well, if we ever get around to music again, I guess we'll see if
> this Tholen character attacks me.
We'll also see if you're an antagonist.
tho...@antispam.ham
> oh, and I do apologize for accidentally starting a long flame war.
>
> oops.
What makes you think you started it? "Extending" is a more
appropriate word.
tho...@antispam.ham
> No, we are looking for big rocks that can slam into us the way one did
> 65 million years ago.
I didn't know you were in the business, Porter. Which big rocks have
you found?
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Porter, you're the one starting these bizarre threads that
>> cause me to stand up to your antagonism.
Note: no response.
Peter T. Daniels
He must've really taken Basic Training to heart -- "never volunteer."
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Daniel Seriff
(in message <Xns9223BA9ADA0B6...@66.75.162.198>):
> but, i like the idea of redesigning
> ourselves biologically. that's a decent spending of resources. i'd like
> bigger ears, for instance.
No, you wouldn't, Mike. Trust me.
--
Daniel Seriff
Bears are crazy. They'll bite your head if you're wearing steak on it.
- SG
Daniel Seriff
(in message <OomL8.47122$R53.16...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
> JJ Hinrichs writes:
>
>> Well, if we ever get around to music again, I guess we'll see if
>> this Tholen character attacks me.
>
> We'll also see if you're an antagonist.
Didn't take him long, did it?
--
Daniel Seriff
La musique est un langage qui se signifie soi-même.
- Jean-Jacques Nattiez
Daniel Seriff
(in message <xcmL8.47010$R53.16...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>> Thoughts are relevant.
>
> Not when facts are available, Porter.
Facts are just things that lots of people think are true. The sky is only
blue because most of us agree that it's blue.
--
Daniel Seriff
Torah! Torah! Torah!
- War cry of the kamikaze Rabbis
Daniel Seriff
(in message <UMaL8.40129$R53.16...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
> D.G. Porter writes:
>
>> You judge for yourself. Here are some typical Tholenian responses.
>>
>> "What you guess is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
>> relevant."
>
> Leave it to Porter to yank a response out of the context in which
> it appeared.
This from someone who digestifys (i.e., removes from context) every single
post, and indeed every single sentence, by people that he thinks are
antagonizing him? Hypocrite.
>> Do a Google search on him and you'll see that his whole reason for
>> living seems to be perpetuating this gnat-like annoyance on anyone
>> who engages him.
>
> What seems to you is irrelevant, Porter; what you can prove is
> relevant.
Classic pontification.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <sh2L8.38044$R53.15...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
> D.G. Porter writes:
>
>> I guess "yes."
>
> What you guess is irrelevant, Porter;
Classic pontification.
> what you can prove is relevant.
Classic pontification.
> Of course, you just proved that you're an antagonist.
Alain Naigeon
I find all these tholen threads rather boring
and more and more imperialistic...
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Strasbourg, France
D.G. Porter
> any original pants to his follow-up, but rather dishonestly altering
> existing pants written by others.
D.G. Porter
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2002 6:14:54 -0500, tho...@AntiSpam.ham wrote
> (in message <OomL8.47122$R53.16...@twister.socal.rr.com>):
>
> > JJ Hinrichs writes:
> >
> >> Well, if we ever get around to music again, I guess we'll see if
> >> this Tholen character attacks me.
> >
> > We'll also see if you're an antagonist.
>
> Didn't take him long, did it?
Nope.
I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
would be this soon and this particular (non-antagonistic) post.
JJ Hinrichs
> I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
> would be this soon and this particular (non-antagonistic) post.
What did I say that was antagonistic?
Rude, maybe, but certainly not intending to start anything like THIS.
You can blame John Harrington for that.
and really, aren't you the one going around every day with a new
Tholen-this-and-Tholen-that post?
a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, no?
JJ
JJ Hinrichs
> appropriate word.
well I did something many people hate. I stated an opinion.
JJ
Coby Beck
D.G. Porter <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote in message
news:3CFD9E...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught...
> mike wrote:
> > not at all. can you really tell me why it's more important to go to mars
> > than go to macdonalds? is there stuff there? are we looking for golden
> > cities again?
>
> No, we are looking for big rocks that can slam into us the way one did
> 65 million years ago.
Actually, astronomers have identified a new and much more serious threat
recently. It's discovery came about through observations of Asteroid 3255
over several years and specifically its interaction with other asteroids and
the resulting effect on the asteroid belt as a cohesive entity. Details of
the gathered data can be seen here:
http://www.minorplanetobserver.com/astlc/targets_3Q_2002_.htm (9th row from
the bottom.)
What is basically happening is this asteroid is exhibiting very odd and
repetitious behaviors: in the face of stimuli of widely varied gravitational
effects from the dozens of other asteroids it approaches, Asteroid 3255 is
exhibiting the same response time and time again. Rather than reacting as a
normal asteroid does, in a different way to different stimuli, it
continually displays the same rotational irregularities, or abnormal spins.
Many theories have been put forward as to the cause of this "reactional rut"
but in an ironic twist to the scientific method, the almost maddening
consistency of reaction, rather than illuminating any cause, actually
obscures all efforts to comprehend the mechanism that is at work.
Astronomers have now confirmed through countless observations over many
years that this is indeed having a disruptive effect on all of the asteroids
in any vicinity Asteroid 3255 happens to pass through. The other asteroids
are in effect "thrown off" by these bizarre spins and in turn have reactions
of their own and often alter their natural orbits. These unpredictable
orbital alterations are where lies the danger. In effect, if Asteroid 3255
is not neutralized, it could result in the rapid deterioration of the
asteroid belt, leaving the solar system flooded with rogue planetoids, each
a potential disaster for earth.
So far, there seems to be little anyone can do, and this fact alone
undoubtably contributes to the lack of publicity surrounding this issue. It
is however, the subject of much concern and controversy. Be vigilant and
keep informed.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
mike
in all fairness to tholen d. colon, i think he was just circling -- don't
these ferals poke to see if the prey is alive? -- is this a nutritional or
a safety concern? i don't know.
but, wasn't it interesting that JJ pointed at Harrington as someone else
who was antagonistic to him? and wasn't it harrington's post which first
whipped t.d.c. into a frenzy?
we're lucky to have been here at the creation... but, at what cost? how
many marginals were driven in fear of us to their plonk plunger... running
in confusion at our attempts to name the essence of tholon and huntington,
astral twins? we have been tainted by the twin-backed beast we hunt.
mike
news:ZmtL8.186480$GG6.15...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca:
>
> D.G. Porter <dgpo...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught> wrote in message
> news:3CFD9E...@SENDMENOSPAMpacbell.naught...
>> mike wrote:
>> > not at all. can you really tell me why it's more important to go to
>> > mars than go to macdonalds? is there stuff there? are we looking for
>> > golden cities again?
>>
>> No, we are looking for big rocks that can slam into us the way one did
>> 65 million years ago.
>
> Actually, astronomers have identified a new and much more serious
> threat recently. It's discovery came about through observations of
> Asteroid 3255 over several years and specifically its interaction with
> other asteroids and the resulting effect on the asteroid belt as a
> cohesive entity. Details of the gathered data can be seen here:
> http://www.minorplanetobserver.com/astlc/targets_3Q_2002_.htm (9th row
> from the bottom.)
yes, peter pointed this out awhile ago here. and i wondered outloud if his
encouragement of astronomers meant that tholen, d.c. could sell autographed
hardhats for the big event.
i believe i pointed out that some earth science people think that the
entire gulf of mexico is an impact crater. i don't remember tholen, d.c.
popping up on this tidbit, so i suppose it's an acceptable thing to say.
what, we're gonna need just-in-time delivery of hard-hats from china? this
is good advice.
mike
@worldnet.att.net:
jj, what did you do before you became interested in music criticism as a
career?
D.G. Porter
D.G. Porter
>
> > Nope.
> > I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
> > would be this soon and this particular (non-antagonistic) post.
>
> What did I say that was antagonistic?
Nothing. You've just received your first lesson on how Tholen operates.
> Rude, maybe, but certainly not intending to start anything like THIS.
Not even rude. Tholen just sees "antagonism" in anything that doesn't
actively reinforce what he already thinks.
> You can blame John Harrington for that.
And Tholen deserves no blame? He can't back away. In fact he looks for
trouble.
> and really, aren't you the one going around every day with a new
> Tholen-this-and-Tholen-that post?
> a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, no?
You can't see what's going on here?
You've just gotten the usual Tholen treatment and you still don't
understand?
Look at the thread "The Cause of Tholen's obsessiveness."
Even if I add nothing and repost a non-reply to his answers, he will
interpret it as "antagonism" and doggedly replly to each one.
He can't even see that there is humor in the "pants" threads. Instead
he accuses me of being "dishonest."
He has a net-wide reputation for doing this.
You're just the newest recipient.
Now, exactly what did you say? You said:
"Well, if we ever get around to music again, I guess we'll see if this
Tholen character attacks me."
AH! See, you called him "this Tholen character"! THAT was your
mistake! That was your "antagonism"!
See now how it works?
D.G. Porter
In Tholen's world you are not allowed an opinion unless it agrees with
or reinforces his. Anything else is "antagonism."
D.G. Porter
You've just metaphorically described Dave Tholen!
> Astronomers have now confirmed through countless observations over many
> years that this is indeed having a disruptive effect on all of the asteroids
> in any vicinity Asteroid 3255 happens to pass through. The other asteroids
> are in effect "thrown off" by these bizarre spins and in turn have reactions
> of their own and often alter their natural orbits. These unpredictable
> orbital alterations are where lies the danger. In effect, if Asteroid 3255
> is not neutralized, it could result in the rapid deterioration of the
> asteroid belt, leaving the solar system flooded with rogue planetoids, each
> a potential disaster for earth.
Yep, you have DEFINITELY metaphorically described Tholen!
> So far, there seems to be little anyone can do, and this fact alone
> undoubtably contributes to the lack of publicity surrounding this issue. It
> is however, the subject of much concern and controversy. Be vigilant and
> keep informed.
We try.
(Now, stand back and wait for the "standing up.")
D.G. Porter
>
Daniel Seriff wrote:
>
> >> this Tholen character attacks me.
> >
>
> Didn't take him long, did it?
>
> > I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
>
> What did I wear that was antagonistic?
>
> Rude, maybe, but certainly not intending to start anything like THIS.
>
>
> and really, aren't you the one going around every day with new
> Tholen-this-and-Tholen-that pants?
> a bit like the pants calling the kettle black, no?
>
> JJ
Peter T. Daniels
Or "irrelevant."
Or "pontification."
Or "erroneous presupposition."
tho...@antispam.ham
> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>> I didn't write:
>>> JJ Hinrichs writes:
>>>> Well, if we ever get around to pants again, I guess we'll see if
>>>> this Tholen character attacks me.
>>> We'll also see if you're an haberdasher.
>> Didn't take him long, did it?
>>> Nope.
>>> I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
>>> would be this soon and these particular (non-antagonistic) pants.
>> What did I wear that was antagonistic?
>>
>> Rude, maybe, but certainly not intending to start anything like THIS.
>>
>> You can pants John Harrington for that.
>>
>> and really, aren't you the one going around every day with new
>> Tholen-this-and-Tholen-that pants?
>> a bit like the pants calling the kettle black, no?
I see that for Porter's latest style of antagonism, he's not adding
any original text to his follow-up, but rather dishonestly altering
existing text written by others.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Why not create a rec.music.tholen?
Because the antagonists want an audience.
> I find all these tholen threads rather boring
> and more and more imperialistic...
Complain to Porter.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>>>>>> What did he do?
>>>> It would seem so.
I see that for Porter's latest style of antagonism, he's not adding
any original text to his follow-up, but rather dishonestly altering
existing text written by others.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> D.G. Porter writes:
>>>> It's not my "favorite Ives piece" when played on the organ, Porter.
>>> Why didn't you simply say so back then?
>> You didn't ask, Porter. Instead, you chose to antagonize.
> He must've really taken Basic Training to heart -- "never volunteer."
What makes you think Porter has had Basic Training, Daniels?
tho...@antispam.ham
> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> JJ Hinrichs writes:
>>>> Well, if we ever get around to music again, I guess we'll see if
>>>> this Tholen character attacks me.
>>> We'll also see if you're an antagonist.
>> Didn't take him long, did it?
> Nope.
What didn't take long?
> I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
> would be this soon and this particular (non-antagonistic) post.
You're erroneously presupposing that I "started in" on JJ, Porter.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> Nope.
>> I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
>> would be this soon and this particular (non-antagonistic) post.
> What did I say that was antagonistic?
Nothing.
> Rude, maybe, but certainly not intending to start anything like THIS.
Maybe not rude.
> You can blame John Harrington for that.
You can blame Harrington for a lot of things.
> and really, aren't you the one going around every day with a new
> Tholen-this-and-Tholen-that post?
"Every day" would be an exaggeration, but Porter has started more
than his share of antagonistic postings, and then tried to blame
me for them by calling me the antagonist.
> a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, no?
No. I don't go around starting antagonistic threads like Porter.
tho...@antispam.ham
And I stated an opinion regarding an American composer of classical
music, but apparently Harrington hated that. So did Sacqueboutier.
tho...@antispam.ham
> D.G. Porter wrote:
>> mike wrote:
>>> not at all. can you really tell me why it's more important to go to mars
>>> than go to macdonalds? is there stuff there? are we looking for golden
>>> cities again?
>> No, we are looking for big rocks that can slam into us the way one did
>> 65 million years ago.
> Actually, astronomers have identified a new and much more serious threat
> recently. It's discovery came about through observations of Asteroid 3255
> over several years and specifically its interaction with other asteroids and
> the resulting effect on the asteroid belt as a cohesive entity.
What alleged observations of Asteroid 3255?
> Details of the gathered data can be seen here:
> http://www.minorplanetobserver.com/astlc/targets_3Q_2002_.htm (9th row from
> the bottom.)
Incorrect, Beck; that line says nothing about the allegedly "gathered data"
but rather when there is an opportunity to gather data.
> What is basically happening is this asteroid is exhibiting very odd and
> repetitious behaviors: in the face of stimuli of widely varied gravitational
> effects from the dozens of other asteroids it approaches, Asteroid 3255 is
> exhibiting the same response time and time again. Rather than reacting as a
> normal asteroid does, in a different way to different stimuli, it
> continually displays the same rotational irregularities, or abnormal spins.
> Many theories have been put forward as to the cause of this "reactional rut"
> but in an ironic twist to the scientific method, the almost maddening
> consistency of reaction, rather than illuminating any cause, actually
> obscures all efforts to comprehend the mechanism that is at work.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Astronomers have now confirmed through countless observations over many
> years that this is indeed having a disruptive effect on all of the asteroids
> in any vicinity Asteroid 3255 happens to pass through. The other asteroids
> are in effect "thrown off" by these bizarre spins and in turn have reactions
> of their own and often alter their natural orbits. These unpredictable
> orbital alterations are where lies the danger. In effect, if Asteroid 3255
> is not neutralized, it could result in the rapid deterioration of the
> asteroid belt, leaving the solar system flooded with rogue planetoids, each
> a potential disaster for earth.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> So far, there seems to be little anyone can do, and this fact alone
> undoubtably contributes to the lack of publicity surrounding this issue. It
> is however, the subject of much concern and controversy. Be vigilant and
> keep informed.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
tho...@antispam.ham
> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>>> Nope.
>>> I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
>>> would be this soon and this particular (non-antagonistic) post.
>> What did I say that was antagonistic?
> Nothing. You've just received your first lesson on how Tholen operates.
You're erroneously presupposing that I "started in" on JJ, Porter.
>> Rude, maybe, but certainly not intending to start anything like THIS.
> Not even rude. Tholen just sees "antagonism" in anything that doesn't
> actively reinforce what he already thinks.
Where did I allegedly see antagonism in what JJ posted, Porter?
>> You can blame John Harrington for that.
> And Tholen deserves no blame?
Why should I, Porter? I didn't start this thread.
> He can't back away.
How ironic, coming from the person who can't back away, even after
preaching that to others.
> In fact he looks for trouble.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> and really, aren't you the one going around every day with a new
>> Tholen-this-and-Tholen-that post?
>> a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, no?
> You can't see what's going on here?
He can, Porter; after all, he saw the thread you started.
> You've just gotten the usual Tholen treatment and you still don't
> understand?
What alleged "usual Tholen treatment", Porter?
> Look at the thread "The Cause of Tholen's obsessiveness."
Look at who started it.
> Even if I add nothing and repost a non-reply to his answers, he will
> interpret it as "antagonism" and doggedly replly to each one.
The very fact that the thread exists is evidence for your antagonism,
Porter.
> He can't even see that there is humor in the "pants" threads.
You won't even admit that there is antagonism in those threads, Porter.
> Instead he accuses me of being "dishonest."
With good reason, Porter; you've attributed text to me that I did not
write.
> He has a net-wide reputation for doing this.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. But now you have a
reptuation for dishonestly altering what others write, Porter.
> You're just the newest recipient.
Recipient of what, Porter?
> Now, exactly what did you say? You said:
> "Well, if we ever get around to music again, I guess we'll see if this
> Tholen character attacks me."
And exactly what did I say in response, Porter? I said we'll see if
he's an antagonist. The key word in both sentences is "if", Porter.
Has JJ antagonized me? No. Have I attacked him? No.
> AH! See, you called him "this Tholen character"! THAT was your
> mistake! That was your "antagonism"!
> See now how it works?
What I see is your reading comprehension problem, Porter. You don't
even understand what "if" means.
tho...@antispam.ham
> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>>> What makes you think you started it? "Extending" is a more
>>> appropriate word.
>> well I did something many people hate. I stated an opinion.
> In Tholen's world you are not allowed an opinion unless it agrees with
> or reinforces his.
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Anything else is "antagonism."
tho...@antispam.ham
> Coby Beck wrote:
>> D.G. Porter wrote:
>>> mike wrote:
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> Astronomers have now confirmed through countless observations over many
>> years that this is indeed having a disruptive effect on all of the asteroids
>> in any vicinity Asteroid 3255 happens to pass through. The other asteroids
>> are in effect "thrown off" by these bizarre spins and in turn have reactions
>> of their own and often alter their natural orbits. These unpredictable
>> orbital alterations are where lies the danger. In effect, if Asteroid 3255
>> is not neutralized, it could result in the rapid deterioration of the
>> asteroid belt, leaving the solar system flooded with rogue planetoids, each
>> a potential disaster for earth.
> Yep, you have DEFINITELY metaphorically described Tholen!
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
>> So far, there seems to be little anyone can do, and this fact alone
>> undoubtably contributes to the lack of publicity surrounding this issue. It
>> is however, the subject of much concern and controversy. Be vigilant and
>> keep informed.
> We try.
Not very hard, Porter. If you had, you would have realized that the
alleged "evidence" above says nothing about interactions with other
asteroids.
> (Now, stand back and wait for the "standing up.")
We don't have to wait for the antagonism. It's already been posted.
tho...@antispam.ham
Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>> Porter, you're the one starting these bizarre threads that
>>>> cause me to stand up to your antagonism.
>> Note: no response.
Note: still no response. Porter's obsessiveness (how ironic) is
what is responsible for the reposting of the text above.
D.G. Porter
D.G. Porter
>
>
> Classic pants and unsuspendered trousers.
D.G. Porter
> any original material to this pair of pants, but rather dishonestly altering
> existing pants worn by Dave Tholen.
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter writes:
>
> > JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>
> >> I didn't write:
>
> >>> JJ Hinrichs writes:
>
> >>>> Well, if we ever get around to pants again, I guess we'll see if
> >>>> this Tholen character attacks me.
>
> >>> We'll also see if you're an haberdasher.
>
> >> Didn't take him long, did it?
>
> >>> Nope.
> >>> I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
> >>> would be this soon and these particular (non-antagonistic) pants.
>
> >> What did I wear that was antagonistic?
> >>
> >> Rude, maybe, but certainly not intending to start anything like THIS.
> >>
> >> You can pants John Harrington for that.
> >>
> >> and really, aren't you the one going around every day with new
> >> Tholen-this-and-Tholen-that pants?
> >> a bit like the pants calling the kettle black, no?
>
> original pants to his wardrobe, but rather dishonestly altering
> existing pants found in his neighbor's dresser.
Pants pants pants pants, pants pants pants pants, Lovely pants,
wonderful pants!
Pants pants pants pants!
D.G. Porter
The Fellowship of the Pants
> D.G. Porter writes:
The Two Pairs of Pants
> >>>> Porter, you're the one wearing these bizarre threads that
> >>>> cause me to stand up in your pants.
>
> >> Note: no pants.
>
> Note: still no pants. Porter's pants (how in need of ironing) are
> what is responsible for the repairing of the pants above.
The Return of the Pants
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter wrote:
> >
> > JJ Hinrichs wrote:
> > >
> > > > appropriate word.
> > >
> > > well I did something many people hate. I stated I wear pants.
> >
> > In Tholen's world you are not allowed pants unless it agrees with
> > or reinforces his pants. Anything else is just "pants."
>
> Or "trousers."
>
> Or "pantaloons."
>
> Or "erroneous pants."
> --
> Pants R. Us
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>>>> I didn't write:
>>>>> JJ Hinrichs writes:
Non sequitur.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>>>> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
>>>>>>>> What did he do?
>>>>>> It would seem so.
I see that for Porter's latest style of antagonism, he's not adding
any original text to his follow-up, but rather dishonestly altering
existing text written by others.
tho...@antispam.ham
> I didn't write:
>> Classic pants and unsuspendered trousers.
I see that for Porter's latest style of antagonism, he's not adding
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> JJ Hinrichs wrote:
I see that for Porter's latest style of antagonism, he's not adding
tho...@antispam.ham
Note: still no response, just obsessive behavior on the part of
Porter.
tho...@antispam.ham
> tho...@AntiPants.ham wrote:
Having attribution problems now, Porter?
> The Fellowship of the Pants
Non sequitur.
>> D.G. Porter writes:
> The Two Pairs of Pants
Non sequitur.
>>>>>> Porter, you're the one wearing these bizarre threads that
>>>>>> cause me to stand up in your pants.
>>>> Note: no pants.
>> Note: still no pants. Porter's pants (how in need of ironing) are
>> what is responsible for the repairing of the pants above.
> The Return of the Pants
Non sequitur.
D.G. Porter
D.G. Porter
>
> D.G. Porter writes:
>
> > tho...@AntiPants.ham wrote:
>
> Having attribution problems now, Porter?
>
> > The Fellowship of the Pants
>
>
> >> D.G. Porter writes:
>
> > The Two Pairs of Pants
>
>
> >>>>>> Porter, you're the one wearing these bizarre threads that
> >>>>>> cause me to stand up in your pants.
>
> >>>> Note: no pants.
>
> >> Note: still no pants. Porter's pants (how in need of ironing) are
> >> what is responsible for the repairing of the pants above.
>
> > The Return of the Pants
>
D.G. Porter
> any original text to his follow-up.
D.G. Porter
Peter T. Daniels
How many times are you going to repeat this latest effusion?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Peter T. Daniels
How is it dishonest? The postings are signed; and they are appended
directly to those of which they are transformations. They're kinda cute.
Reminding us of Letterman's production company, "Worldwide Pants."
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Peter T. Daniels writes:
>
>
> >>>> It's not my "favorite Ives piece" when played on the organ, Porter.
>
> >>> Why didn't you simply say so back then?
>
> >> You didn't ask, Porter. Instead, you chose to antagonize.
>
> > He must've really taken Basic Training to heart -- "never volunteer."
>
> What makes you think Porter has had Basic Training, Daniels?
Classic erroneous presupposition. (I, though, will explain why.)
One doesn't have to have "had" Basic Training to be familiar with its
celebrated lesson "never volunteer."
Peter T. Daniels
>
> JJ Hinrichs writes:
>
> >> Nope.
> >> I should have expected Tholen to start in on JJ but I didn't think it
>
> > What did I say that was antagonistic?
>
> Nothing.
>
>
>
> > You can blame John Harrington for that.
>
>
> > and really, aren't you the one going around every day with a new
> > Tholen-this-and-Tholen-that post?
>
> "Every day" would be an exaggeration, but Porter has started more
> than his share of antagonistic postings, and then tried to blame
> me for them by calling me the antagonist.
>
> > a bit like the pot calling the kettle black, no?
>
> No. I don't go around starting antagonistic threads like Porter.
You don't start the threads, but you start the antagonism.
By not following the basic principles of conversation.
Oisk17
>
>as a kind of courtesy to you, i'm not on your case about the feebleness of
>"tyke". tholen the colon, however, isn't even able to get out of bed
No, I think Mike the Tyke is appropriate. When an intelligent adult is reduced
to juvenile name-calling, "Tyke" is a suitable epithet. I recall being called
"Paul the small" and "Bones Cohen," by twelve year olds. Tholen the colon
amounts to the same thing....schoolyard humor.
>
>not at all. can you really tell me why it's more important to go to mars
>than go to macdonalds? is there stuff there? are we looking for golden
>cities again?
As Dave might say, "Gad!" We are not sure what is there, which is why we want
to go. You obviously believe that the search for a good string quartet is far
more important than the search for scientific knowledge.
>. the atmosphere's
>obviously commingled at some point. i am curious why the water dropped from
>the planetoids didn't surface form an cycle cloud of gases about the
>surface
As a courtesy to you, I am not going to attempt to interpret this last
sentence! I will graciously assume that it is due to keyboard problems.
> it may just be that mars got creamed more than earth did, and that
>we inherated all its gasses
I leave it to Tholen the astronomer to attack the bad science. Mike, it is no
reflection on your intellect, and many highly intelligent people cannot spell,
but you have to be one of the worst spellers posting here. (I might be the
second worst) Of course, I realize that you do not really care.
> (i'd say "doo-dacity" but, you know, it
>just sounds too pretentious).
>
Never stopped you before! <G>
Regards,
Paul
Oisk17
>Where have I attacked one of your propositions?
>
Fair enough. When I wrote that the "usually erudite Mike had lowered the level
of discourse with his 'Tholen the colon' line", you responded with something
like "What evidence do you have that Mike is erudite?"
I interpret this as attacking my proposition, i.e. that Mike is erudite. (and
he is! Even though I disagree with him much of the time)
Paul