Re: Net Kooks
jcon
Marcus Denning wrote:
> i had an interesting conversation with a clinical psychologist the other
> day -- he's done a lot of work with people like Androcles and Hammond, both
> net kooks and people not on the web.
>
> he says that these people create a 'closed system' that can't be penetrated
> even by individual psychotherapy -- that the only way into their world is
> through group therapy with an experienced leader and that even then the
> results aren't consistent.
>
Presumably Hammond got that during is time at the mental
institution (see D. Kossy "Kooks"). It doesn't seem to have
helped.
-jc
> just thought that was interesting.
tj Frazir
he said a bunch of crap on how much he would like group payees paying
his fucking ass 100 bucks hour each !!!
Greese monkeys do the ssae thing and take a good car and fuck it up so
they can fix it.
I never met a shrink with boath oars in the water .
Dirk Van de moortel
"Marcus Denning" <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:20060823123940.541$8...@newsreader.com...
>i had an interesting conversation with a clinical psychologist the other
> day -- he's done a lot of work with people like Androcles and Hammond, both
> net kooks and people not on the web.
>
> he says that these people create a 'closed system' that can't be penetrated
> even by individual psychotherapy -- that the only way into their world is
> through group therapy with an experienced leader and that even then the
> results aren't consistent.
>
Yes, thanks.
Interesting but nothing new.
These 'closed systems' are exactly what characterize syndromes
like autism, or, what we mostly see on Usenet, Asperger's syndrome:
http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aswhatisit.html
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~cns/
But these are of course just *names* that psychotherapists
invent to describe what anyone would just call "annoying people".
I think that the only real effective way into their world is by
violently kicking their bottoms. At least in Androcles' case
this seems to have a profound effect: repeatedly emphasising
how incredibly stupid he actually is and rubbing his nose in
the stuff he drops on the carpet, provokes reactions like this:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
Image having someone like that sitting in your sofa ;-)
Dirk Vdm
malibu
Marcus Denning wrote:
> i had an interesting conversation with a clinical psychologist the other
> day -- he's done a lot of work with people like Androcles and Hammond, both
> net kooks and people not on the web.
>
> he says that these people create a 'closed system' that can't be penetrated
> even by individual psychotherapy -- that the only way into their world is
> through group therapy with an experienced leader and that even then the
> results aren't consistent.
>
> just thought that was interesting.
What I think interesting is having the president
of the USA say he saw the first plane hit the
twin towers on TV and nobody calls him out on that?
There *was* no TV image of the first plane hit on that morning.
Unless he saw it on a private viewing of the
crime of the century- of which he had prior knowledge.
Which makes him a monster of the first order.
Just the 'kooks'?
Psychologists subscribe to a world view. If
that world view includes believing lies, then, yes,
it might take some work to convert some people.
Guess what America?
You're no longer free.
John
hanson
news:1156354349....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> What I think interesting is having the president of the USA say
> he saw the first plane hit the twin towers on TV and nobody
> calls him out on that?
> There *was* no TV image of the first plane hit on that morning.
> Unless he saw it on a private viewing of the crime of the century-
> of which he had prior knowledge. Which makes him a monster
> that world view includes believing lies, then, yes,
> it might take some work to convert some people.
> John
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... John John, all that can't be blamed exclusievcly onto
Bush. .... Besides, we are cared for very well (or so it seems) by
the rabbi Chertoff's son, Micahel, who is in charge of our a safety,
and who is comning from the same clan of Israel to which have
given to 3-7 Billion $$$US tax money each year for the last 60
years, and an equal $$ amount to the ass-venters to placate and
pacify them so that they don't continue to kick Jew ass, which
begs the question:
==== What are all these BILLIONS of US tax-payer dollars buying
the American public, besides continuous terrorism, mayhem and war
where Jews being connected to or are involved in ? --- What good or
benefit has come in return to the American taxpayers from Israel for
all that tax money that came off the tables from poor American families?"
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:Di0Hg.37192$uh7.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[anip]
What is the difference between xi and x'?
Shit or get of the pot, net kook.
Androcles
jcon
Sorcerer wrote:
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:Di0Hg.37192$uh7.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
>
> [anip]
>
> What is the difference between xi and x'?
If you had ever taken algebra, you would know that symbols
such as these only have the meanings we assign to them, so
in the absence of any other information, the only correct
answer is:
"xi is an x followed by an i, while x' is an x followed
by a prime (or apostrophe)".
But thanks for giving the OP an excellent example of a
net kook.
-jc
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Do not ever miss the i,
which it would be the square root of -1 ( minus one ),
a definitely as a matter a fact.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"jcon" <cire...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1156362158....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Golden Boar
I wonder what these psychotherapists would make of you. You have a
website on which you collect so called mistakes which people have made
on usenet groups. And half the time the so called mistake is in your
interpretation of what has been written.
You're just as loony as Androcles is!
YBM
> You're just as loony as Androcles is!
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82-42-155-222.cable.ubr10.live.blueyonder.co.uk
Golden Boar
If you think I'm Androcles, then your an idiot.
hanson
news:1156393176....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
[YBM aka "Your Basic Moron" (per Andro) wrote]:
>>
>> Golden Boar (= Androcles) wrote :
>> > You're just as loony as Androcles is!
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82-42-155-222.cable.ubr10.live.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> If you think I'm Androcles, then your an idiot.
>
ahahaha... ahahaha... NO!.. not an idiot. Andro said that
YBM was short for "Your Basic Moron"... ahahahaha...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/b8dddb8edc98dd07
There are some similarities though. All morons and idiots
tend to be Einstein Dingleberries, dangling very close to
their idols' sphincter.... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, GB...
ahahaha.... ahahanson
Dirk Van de moortel
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message news:44ed23fc$0$19801$636a...@news.free.fr...
> Golden Boar (= Androcles) wrote :
>> You're just as loony as Androcles is!
>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82-42-155-222.cable.ubr10.live.blueyonder.co.uk
Yes, that briefly crossed my mind a while ago as well, but I
don't think he's Androcles.
Androcles has learned a new word and calls him an imbecile.
He calls Androles a senile old fart:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/8ca290dae727e0a2
So I don't think they are very fond of each other.
But of course you never know with this kind of people ;-)
No, I think that Golden Boar is a new name for another
well known crackpot. Not a very interesting one, actually.
Dirk Vdm
Golden Boar
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
And your wrong about that as well. I've always used the name Golden
Boar.
Sorcerer
"Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156393176....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
We both know he's an idiot, Brass Boor.
That's why he's Your Basic Moron.
His hero is Dork Van de merde, the imbecile that
doesn't know xi from x', thinks "xor" implies "or" and that sqrt() is
always positive unless you say -sqrt() because his computer uses it
that way.
Androcles
Sorcerer
The psychopath Dork Van de merde is never sure who she is, so
naturally she is never sure who anyone else is.
Dirk Van de Androcles.
Sorcerer
[anip]
xi, x'. Difference?
Androcles
Randy Poe
Golden Boar wrote:
> I wonder what these psychotherapists would make of you. You have a
> website on which you collect so called mistakes which people have made
> on usenet groups. And half the time the so called mistake is in your
> interpretation of what has been written.
I'll bite. Pick two or three where you think the mistake is
"interpretation".
- Randy
Bruce Scott TOK
>day -- he's done a lot of work with people like Androcles and Hammond, both
>net kooks and people not on the web.
>
>he says that these people create a 'closed system' that can't be penetrated
>even by individual psychotherapy -- that the only way into their world is
>through group therapy with an experienced leader and that even then the
>results aren't consistent.
>
>just thought that was interesting.
It is... I should think the first thing these people need is to be
confronted, regularly and close-up, with the reality that there are
countless others out there just like themselves. That can only be done
in group therapy. Does the psychologist use this particular awareness
(nonuniqueness of each particular subject) as part of his work?
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Bruce Scott TOK
>of the USA say he saw the first plane hit the
>twin towers on TV and nobody calls him out on that?
[...]
When did he say that? Most people have by now seen at least part of the
footage of him reading about the pet goat to those kids in Florida at
the time.
schoenf...@gmail.com
malibu wrote:
> Marcus Denning wrote:
> > i had an interesting conversation with a clinical psychologist the other
> > day -- he's done a lot of work with people like Androcles and Hammond, both
> > net kooks and people not on the web.
> >
> > he says that these people create a 'closed system' that can't be penetrated
> > even by individual psychotherapy -- that the only way into their world is
> > through group therapy with an experienced leader and that even then the
> > results aren't consistent.
> >
> > just thought that was interesting.
>
> What I think interesting is having the president
> of the USA say he saw the first plane hit the
> twin towers on TV and nobody calls him out on that?
>
> There *was* no TV image of the first plane hit on that morning.
> Unless he saw it on a private viewing of the
> crime of the century- of which he had prior knowledge.
> Which makes him a monster of the first order.
>
> Just the 'kooks'?
The scientific establishment, from physics to psychology, is a
historical laughing stock.
> Psychologists subscribe to a world view. If
> that world view includes believing lies, then, yes,
> it might take some work to convert some people.
>
> Guess what America?
> You're no longer free.
It's always good to see at least one person on these groups who appears
to be sane.
> John
mlut...@wanadoo.fr
That's why I called him an OCD sufferer, i.e. a parrot suffering from
obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Marcel Luttgens
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
However, yourself, you do talk exactly like any totalitarian system, when
they do remark that a people becomes to understand more their bullshit and
becomes to see clearly the life evolution.
Therefore, they do say to them that they do have to make more psychologists
as to arrive to end it by installing a police state all along.
Finally, that a people becomes more and more frighten from each other and
from anything which it does move and anything which it does not move
neither, simply as that.
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Think About That!
"Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:200608241101....@ipp.mpg.de...
Golden Boar
Sure, here you go.
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Slander.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ExactlyWhatYouSaid.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourMotives.html
In these examples, there are no mistakes to be misinterpreted.
I guess dirk thinks any critisim of him is an "Immortal Fumble".
He is sad and pathetic, and his website is a pile of shite.
Sorcerer
"Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
message news:200608241101....@ipp.mpg.de...
The "closed system" of the kook is typified by Dork Van de merde and
Phuckwit Duck, with thousands of relativists like them that refuse to think
logically, simply because they cannot.
They are as sheep, all eating the same grass and bleating with one voice.
"Baaaa".
I should think the first thing these people need is to be confronted,
regularly and close-up, with the reality that there are countless others
out there just like themselves. That could NOT be done by group therapy
but by individual counselling, the latter being more effective on the hive
mind.
Does the psychologist use this particular awareness
(nonuniqueness of each particular subject) as part of his work, or is he
a shithead sheep too?
caio,
Androcles
Sorcerer
<mlut...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:1156419570....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
He is also a psychopath, fascinated by me.
psychopath:
a mentally ill or unstable person; especially : a person affected with
antisocial personality disorder
| Your brain is as messy as your desktop folder
| C:\Documents and Settings\Androcles.ANDROCLE-7851E5\Desktop
| and your anti-trojan protection.
| Watch out ;-)
Watch your back:
dirk:
Etymology: Scots durk
: a long straight-bladed dagger
Androcles
YBM
> ... the imbecile that
> doesn't know xi from x', thinks "xor" implies "or" and that sqrt() is
> always positive unless you say -sqrt() because his computer uses it
> that way.
How could someone unable to address that (p xor q) => (p or q) and
that sqrt:R->R is nonnegative be called if not an imbecile ?
Sorcerer
Dork Van de merde highlighted what he wrote himself and said it was
Jan's "fumble"?
On a sunny day (Fri, 05 May 2006 18:13:15 GMT) it happened "Dirk Van de
moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
<%AM6g.408629$1p2.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
[snip intervening text]
So, what is yours? Slander?
Go away asshole.He truly is sick.
"The fine art of not getting the point"
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IgnorantMoron.html
As for Blind Poe and Spot Schwartz, (Black Spot)
Einstein:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Proof Poe cannot read:
"Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" -- Poe the blind man.
Proof "Uncle Al" cannot read:
"BTW, you fuck-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Androcyst, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling
alley." --Schwartz the fucking imbecile.
Ya gotta love "nor could it".
Still, at least we have absolute proof that nobody should take any notice
whatsoever of these arseholes.
Androcles.
Sorcerer
"Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156419689....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
|
Dork Van de merde highlighted what he wrote himself and said it was
Jan's "fumble"?
On a sunny day (Fri, 05 May 2006 18:13:15 GMT) it happened "Dirk Van de
moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
<%AM6g.408629$1p2.11...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
[snip intervening text]
So, what is yours? Slander?
Go away asshole.He truly is sick.
"The fine art of not getting the point"
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IgnorantMoron.html
As for Blind Poe and Spot Schwartz, (Black Spot)
Einstein:
稼tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Proof Poe cannot read:
"Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" -- Poe the blind man.
Proof "Uncle Al" cannot read:
"BTW, you fuck-faced baboon, "(c+v) appears nowhere in the paper, nor
could it. Hey Androcyst, you are an ineducable idiot. Your high
school should be leveled and replaced by an abandoned bowling
alley." --Schwartz the fucking imbecile.
Ya gotta love "nor could it".
Poe admits to being a troll:
"No, I admit to having abandoned any hope of rational
conversation with *you*. I'm trolling *you*, if you like. "
Tom
"Ahmed Ouahi, Architect" <ahmed...@welho.com> wrote in message
news:ecifp9$u7v$1...@nyytiset.pp.htv.fi...
>
> Do not ever miss the i,
> which it would be the square root of -1 ( minus one ),
> a definitely as a matter a fact.
>
i is also part of the id, in the human brain,
which shrinkologists have discovered dramatically shrinking in size on both
Androcles and Hammond to the size of a pin-head.
Androcles and Hammond really are pin-heads.
Randy Poe
Golden Boar wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > I wonder what these psychotherapists would make of you. You have a
> > > website on which you collect so called mistakes which people have made
> > > on usenet groups. And half the time the so called mistake is in your
> > > interpretation of what has been written.
> >
> > I'll bite. Pick two or three where you think the mistake is
> > "interpretation".
> >
> > - Randy
>
> Sure, here you go.
>
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Slander.html
I believe it is pointing out the irony between Pantelje's
slander and his accusation of slander. Note the highlights.
How does this support your accusation?
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ExactlyWhatYouSaid.html
PD lays out a set of criteria by which he judges posts not worth
responding to. None of them corresponds to the highlighted
accusation "you only open your mind to someone who kisses your
arse". Do I need to go through them one by one in gory
detail?
So the "immortal fumble" is the statement "that's exactly
what you said" when nothing close to that statement appears
anywhere in the list. I'll go through the list one by one if you
like.
How does this support your accusation?
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourMotives.html
Not sure why this was worth saving. It's just a long rant by someone
claiming to be telepathic. "I know your motives, you are evil" random
accusations of McCarthyism, evillness, censorship, the usual.
How does this support your accusation?
I remind you that your accusation is that these are posts where
the poster was not making an idiot of themselves, but was
sensible and merely misunderstood. So please tell me how
your three examples qualify.
1. Are you saying that Pantelje did not make an accusation
of slander, or did not slander someone? Which of those
was misunderstood?
2. Are you saying that one of those criteria does correspond
to "won't kiss your arse"? Or that "won't kiss your arse" was
misunderstood? What was misunderstood here?
3. Are you saying that this is not a long rant accusing someone
of evil, censorship, McCarthyism, etc? What part of it was
misunderstood in your opinion?
> In these examples, there are no mistakes to be misinterpreted.
Ah. But then why did you hold them up as examples of
posters who were misinterpreted if there was nothing to
misinterpret?
Curioser and curioser. I no longer know what point you're
making.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1156433795.3...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Heh... actually he does have a slight point.
Maybe indeed it's not just fumbles.
Maybe it has evolved somewhat into a list of profanities,
insanities and disgusting rants...
I have put a subtitle on the page to reflect this.
Thanks Golden One :-)
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
Sorcerer wrote:
> "Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156419689....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Randy Poe wrote:
> | > Golden Boar wrote:
> | > > I wonder what these psychotherapists would make of you. You have a
> | > > website on which you collect so called mistakes which people have made
> | > > on usenet groups. And half the time the so called mistake is in your
> | > > interpretation of what has been written.
> | >
> | > I'll bite. Pick two or three where you think the mistake is
> | > "interpretation".
> | >
> | > - Randy
> |
> | Sure, here you go.
> |
> | http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Slander.html
> |
> Dork Van de merde highlighted what he wrote himself and said it was
> Jan's "fumble"?
Poor Androcles, perpetually confused by the simple things.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/d61c845731139408
Note author.
- Randy
Dirk Van de moortel
"Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156400893....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I agree, I can be wrong.
No problem :-)
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
Sorcerer wrote:
> As for Blind Poe and Spot Schwartz, (Black Spot)
>
> Einstein:
> Reference:
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> Proof Poe cannot read:
> "Where in that equation did (c+v) occur?" -- Poe the blind man.
Poor forgetful Androcles has forgotten that he is the one who
did the editing tying that comment (about another equation)
to this equation, and that they didn't originally occur in the
same post.
- Randy
Sorcerer
"What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?" -- Dork Van de merde
in response to a quotation from Einstein's paper, "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies"
That has to be the mother of all fumbles, motherfucker.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:6SgHg.142197$9d4.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Bruce Scott TOK" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in
> message news:200608241101....@ipp.mpg.de...
> | >i had an interesting conversation with a clinical psychologist the other
> | >day -- he's done a lot of work with people like Androcles and Hammond,
> both
> | >net kooks and people not on the web.
> | >
> | >he says that these people create a 'closed system' that can't be
> penetrated
> | >even by individual psychotherapy -- that the only way into their world is
> | >through group therapy with an experienced leader and that even then the
> | >results aren't consistent.
> | >
> | >just thought that was interesting.
> |
> | It is... I should think the first thing these people need is to be
> | confronted, regularly and close-up, with the reality that there are
> | countless others out there just like themselves. That can only be done
> | in group therapy. Does the psychologist use this particular awareness
> | (nonuniqueness of each particular subject) as part of his work?
> |
> |
> | --
> | ciao,
> | Bruce
>
> The "closed system" of the kook is typified by Dork Van de merde and
> Phuckwit Duck, with thousands of relativists like them that refuse to think
> logically, simply because they cannot.
You mean think logically, simply like in
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
?
I agree, that is very difficult. But it's a good that that it is
so funny, don't you think?
> They are as sheep, all eating the same grass and bleating with one voice.
> "Baaaa".
Baaaalogic you mean?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sorcerer" <Headm...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:u7kHg.142543$9d4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
It would be, but you never give the whole story with context
and real pointers, do you?
Even this I can easily list as a fumble:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RegurShit.html
This is Androcles at his *very* best.
This is what it makes it all so interesting :-)
Dirk Vdm
Sorcerer
| I agree, I can be wrong.
| No problem :-)
HAHAHAHAHA!
When were you ever right?
You are funnier than Wilson Rabbidge (whoever that is) :-)
Androcles
Sorcerer
| Some kind of quote of some post?
| An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
| Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?"-- Dork Van de merde
Yeah, that's what I mean, motherfucker.
Androcles
Sorcerer
"Oriel36" <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.02072...@posting.google.com...
> >Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
> more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
> from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
> ``stationary system.''
What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
Dirk
HAHAHAHA... Pot, kettle, black.
It IS the mother of all fumbles, motherfucker.
You don't need a pointer, you tried to bluff you way out of it.
Anyone can google to find it.
"So I will kindly ask again, and I will clarify what I mean:
1) What is this?
2) Some kind of quote of some post?
Clarification:
Something you want us to believe you invented?
Something you found somewhere?
Something you want to tell us?
Something you want to tell us something about?
Something you forgot to delete when you started
with the beginning of your message "Dear Al,"?
3) An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
4) Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?
Clarification:
The 'shit' in question 4 is a reprise of the 'shit' in
question 3. This is what we call a 'style figure'.
Didn't they teach you to write English in Germany?
How old are you? " -- Dirk Vdm
That's the squirm you wrote, worm, trying to wriggle out.
"I can testify that among relativists you said the truest thing ever
about the 1905 paper,you did'nt recognise the excerpt from the 1905
paper and this makes it all the more funny.
Perhaps Androcles recognises that it is from the kinematics section of
the 1905 paper and I am delighted that you agree with him that it is
'shit' that is not worth reading. "
HAHAHAHA!!!!
Androcles
Golden Boar
Randy Poe wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
> > Randy Poe wrote:
> > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > I wonder what these psychotherapists would make of you. You have a
> > > > website on which you collect so called mistakes which people have made
> > > > on usenet groups. And half the time the so called mistake is in your
> > > > interpretation of what has been written.
> > >
> > > I'll bite. Pick two or three where you think the mistake is
> > > "interpretation".
> > >
> > > - Randy
> >
> > Sure, here you go.
> >
> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Slander.html
>
> I believe it is pointing out the irony between Pantelje's
> slander and his accusation of slander. Note the highlights.
>
> How does this support your accusation?
What slander?
What accusation of slander?
>
> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ExactlyWhatYouSaid.html
>
> PD lays out a set of criteria by which he judges posts not worth
> responding to. None of them corresponds to the highlighted
> accusation "you only open your mind to someone who kisses your
> arse". Do I need to go through them one by one in gory
> detail?
>
> So the "immortal fumble" is the statement "that's exactly
> what you said" when nothing close to that statement appears
> anywhere in the list. I'll go through the list one by one if you
> like.
>
> How does this support your accusation?
Do you know that in the English language, certain phrase can have
different meanings.
"that's exactly what you said" in this context is implying that that's
what PD meant without actually saying it.
This is quite obvious, since srp's previous sentence appeared nowhere
in PD's response.
>
> > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourMotives.html
>
> Not sure why this was worth saving. It's just a long rant by someone
> claiming to be telepathic. "I know your motives, you are evil" random
> accusations of McCarthyism, evillness, censorship, the usual.
>
> How does this support your accusation?
"Not sure why this was worth saving".
>
> I remind you that your accusation is that these are posts where
> the poster was not making an idiot of themselves, but was
> sensible and merely misunderstood. So please tell me how
> your three examples qualify.
Already have.
>
> 1. Are you saying that Pantelje did not make an accusation
> of slander, or did not slander someone? Which of those
> was misunderstood?
He asked a question about someones hobbies.
Who did he slander?
>
> 2. Are you saying that one of those criteria does correspond
> to "won't kiss your arse"? Or that "won't kiss your arse" was
> misunderstood? What was misunderstood here?
"That's exactly what you said" is a phrase commonly used to mean that's
what was being said without actually saying it.
I didn't take this phrase to mean that PD actually wrote that he should
kiss his arse, since it is obvious that PD wrote no such thing.
Ever heard of the phases "the dogs bollocks" or "shit hot", these
phases actually mean that something is very very good.
>
> 3. Are you saying that this is not a long rant accusing someone
> of evil, censorship, McCarthyism, etc? What part of it was
> misunderstood in your opinion?
None of it was misunderstood. It was a long rant from one person pissed
off with another person. How is that an "Immortal fumble".
>
> > In these examples, there are no mistakes to be misinterpreted.
>
> Ah. But then why did you hold them up as examples of
> posters who were misinterpreted if there was nothing to
> misinterpret?
Someone with knowledge of the English language should not have had any
trouble understanding what was meant.
Since you and Dirk seem to speak English quite well, it must be
diliberate misinterpretation on your parts.
>
> Curioser and curioser. I no longer know what point you're
> making.
>
> - Randy
The point I was making is that a lot of these so called "Immortal
fumbles" are just pathetic, and a few of them are not even fumbles at
all, they are just the opionions of pissed off people.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1156451870.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> The point I was making is that a lot of these so called "Immortal
> fumbles" are just pathetic, and a few of them are not even fumbles at
> all, they are just the opionions of pissed off people.
which is why, specially for you, I added a little subtitle to the page
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Since I don't know the ID of this message before I send it,
and since it takes a few minutes before the message will be
archived, but perhaps tomorrow I will put a pointer to this
message on this subtitle. Howzdad?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
Perhaps I already did it today :-)
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
Golden Boar wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > Randy Poe wrote:
> > > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > > I wonder what these psychotherapists would make of you. You have a
> > > > > website on which you collect so called mistakes which people have made
> > > > > on usenet groups. And half the time the so called mistake is in your
> > > > > interpretation of what has been written.
> > > >
> > > > I'll bite. Pick two or three where you think the mistake is
> > > > "interpretation".
> > > >
> > > > - Randy
> > >
> > > Sure, here you go.
> > >
> > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Slander.html
> >
> > I believe it is pointing out the irony between Pantelje's
> > slander and his accusation of slander. Note the highlights.
> >
> > How does this support your accusation?
>
> What slander?
Pantelje: "One Stone religion it is. Nothing will prove their
god wrong."
> What accusation of slander?
Pantelje: "So, what is yours [hobby]? Slander?"
> > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ExactlyWhatYouSaid.html
> >
> > PD lays out a set of criteria by which he judges posts not worth
> > responding to. None of them corresponds to the highlighted
> > accusation "you only open your mind to someone who kisses your
> > arse". Do I need to go through them one by one in gory
> > detail?
> >
> > So the "immortal fumble" is the statement "that's exactly
> > what you said" when nothing close to that statement appears
> > anywhere in the list. I'll go through the list one by one if you
> > like.
> >
> > How does this support your accusation?
>
> Do you know that in the English language, certain phrase can have
> different meanings.
> "that's exactly what you said" in this context is implying that that's
> what PD meant without actually saying it.
Hence my question. Which of them do you think corresponds
to the, let us call it, paraphrase? Which of PD's statements
do you think can be characterized that way?
> > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourMotives.html
> >
> > Not sure why this was worth saving. It's just a long rant by someone
> > claiming to be telepathic. "I know your motives, you are evil" random
> > accusations of McCarthyism, evillness, censorship, the usual.
> >
> > How does this support your accusation?
>
> "Not sure why this was worth saving".
You: And half the time the so called mistake is in your
interpretation of what has been written.
Me: I'll bite. Pick two or three where you think the mistake is
"interpretation".
So I'll grant that this is not included as a fumble. I just found
it odd that you included it as an example of "the so called
mistake is in your interpretation of what was written" since
your objection is not that anything written was misinterpreted.
> > I remind you that your accusation is that these are posts where
> > the poster was not making an idiot of themselves, but was
> > sensible and merely misunderstood. So please tell me how
> > your three examples qualify.
>
> Already have.
Not yet. No answer to the questions below:
> > 1. Are you saying that Pantelje did not make an accusation
> > of slander, or did not slander someone? Which of those
> > was misunderstood?
>
> He asked a question about someones hobbies.
> Who did he slander?
See above.
> > 2. Are you saying that one of those criteria does correspond
> > to "won't kiss your arse"? Or that "won't kiss your arse" was
> > misunderstood? What was misunderstood here?
>
> "That's exactly what you said" is a phrase commonly used to mean that's
> what was being said without actually saying it.
OK, so you are claiming, over and over, that something on that
list corresponds to "won't kiss your arse".
Since you believe this, I trust you can point out which one(s).
> I didn't take this phrase to mean that PD actually wrote that he should
> kiss his arse, since it is obvious that PD wrote no such thing.
Right. Hence my question:
Are you saying that one of those criteria does correspond
to "won't kiss your arse"? Which one?
> Ever heard of the phases "the dogs bollocks" or "shit hot",
No. This may be news to you, but slang in one English-speaking
country is not necessarily used in another.
> these phases actually mean that something is very very good.
I'll take your word for it. Now can you answer my question?
> > 3. Are you saying that this is not a long rant accusing someone
> > of evil, censorship, McCarthyism, etc? What part of it was
> > misunderstood in your opinion?
>
> None of it was misunderstood. It was a long rant from one person pissed
> off with another person. How is that an "Immortal fumble".
It isn't. But nor is it what you claimed to be providing, a
post which was misunderstood.
- Randy
Sorcerer
http://www.usenetarchive.org/Dir1/File490.html
>> >Paul B. Andersen:
>> >| I am claiming that with interferometer radio telescopes both
>> >| the frequency and the wavelength of the wave are measured with
>> >| extreme precision.
>> >
>> >Henry Wilson:
>> >| How is the 'frequency' actually measured, Paul?
>> >| Please answer. Don't snip.
>> >
>> >Paul B. Andersen:
>> >| Actually I have a hard time believing that you are serious.
>> >| But OK.
>> >| We are talking about interferometer radio telescopes like the VLA.
>> >| Each element (of 27) is a 25m parabolic disk antenna with a receiver.
>> >| Very low noise, cooled to below 15K, etc.)
>> >| If we are talking about the 21cm band, the frequency is about 1.42GHz.
>> >| There is obviously no information about the wavelength of anything
>> >| in this signal, it is a voltage varying with time, v(t). If a single
>> >frequency
>> >| is received, then the number of cycles per time unit can in principle
>> >be
>> >| counted directly, which is no problem to do at this frequency.
Got that, folks:
frequency is about 1.42GHz, measured with extreme precision.
There is no problem counting at 1.42 GHz (in principle)... with extreme
precision, using a caesium clock, for example:
The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium 133 atom. - NIST.
It is very easy to count 6.473684345 ticks of a caesium clock.
Now THAT is a net kook.
Androcles
Sorcerer
"Golden Boar" <golde...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156451870.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
Blind Poe is a troll. He admits it. Then he bellows that he's killfiled.
Androcles: > So you admit to being a troll,
Blind Poe:
No, I admit to having abandoned any hope of rational
conversation with *you*. I'm trolling *you*, if you like.
It is blatantly obvious Dork is a troll, his web site has no physics at all
and he refuses to state the difference between xi and x'.
Androcles.
Sorcerer
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:ukoHg.39193$hh7.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[snip]
What's the difference between xi and x', net kook?
Androcles
Sorcerer
Sorcerer
Golden Boar
Randy Poe wrote:
> Golden Boar wrote:
> > Randy Poe wrote:
> > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > Randy Poe wrote:
> > > > > Golden Boar wrote:
> > > > > > I wonder what these psychotherapists would make of you. You have a
> > > > > > website on which you collect so called mistakes which people have made
> > > > > > on usenet groups. And half the time the so called mistake is in your
> > > > > > interpretation of what has been written.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll bite. Pick two or three where you think the mistake is
> > > > > "interpretation".
> > > > >
> > > > > - Randy
> > > >
> > > > Sure, here you go.
> > > >
> > > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Slander.html
> > >
> > > I believe it is pointing out the irony between Pantelje's
> > > slander and his accusation of slander. Note the highlights.
> > >
> > > How does this support your accusation?
> >
> > What slander?
>
> Pantelje: "One Stone religion it is. Nothing will prove their
> god wrong."
How is that slander?
>
> > What accusation of slander?
>
> Pantelje: "So, what is yours [hobby]? Slander?"
This is a question, not slander.
>
> > > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ExactlyWhatYouSaid.html
> > >
> > > PD lays out a set of criteria by which he judges posts not worth
> > > responding to. None of them corresponds to the highlighted
> > > accusation "you only open your mind to someone who kisses your
> > > arse". Do I need to go through them one by one in gory
> > > detail?
> > >
> > > So the "immortal fumble" is the statement "that's exactly
> > > what you said" when nothing close to that statement appears
> > > anywhere in the list. I'll go through the list one by one if you
> > > like.
> > >
> > > How does this support your accusation?
> >
> > Do you know that in the English language, certain phrase can have
> > different meanings.
> > "that's exactly what you said" in this context is implying that that's
> > what PD meant without actually saying it.
>
> Hence my question. Which of them do you think corresponds
> to the, let us call it, paraphrase? Which of PD's statements
> do you think can be characterized that way?
Obviously, srp thought that all the statements as a whole where being
characterized in that way.
>
> > > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/YourMotives.html
> > >
> > > Not sure why this was worth saving. It's just a long rant by someone
> > > claiming to be telepathic. "I know your motives, you are evil" random
> > > accusations of McCarthyism, evillness, censorship, the usual.
> > >
> > > How does this support your accusation?
> >
> > "Not sure why this was worth saving".
>
> You: And half the time the so called mistake is in your
> interpretation of what has been written.
>
> Me: I'll bite. Pick two or three where you think the mistake is
> "interpretation".
>
> So I'll grant that this is not included as a fumble. I just found
> it odd that you included it as an example of "the so called
> mistake is in your interpretation of what was written" since
> your objection is not that anything written was misinterpreted.
The misinterpretation here is that the whole post was interpreted as a
fumble.
>
> > > I remind you that your accusation is that these are posts where
> > > the poster was not making an idiot of themselves, but was
> > > sensible and merely misunderstood. So please tell me how
> > > your three examples qualify.
> >
> > Already have.
>
> Not yet. No answer to the questions below:
>
> > > 1. Are you saying that Pantelje did not make an accusation
> > > of slander, or did not slander someone? Which of those
> > > was misunderstood?
He didn't make an accusation of slander, neither did he slander anyone.
> >
> > He asked a question about someones hobbies.
> > Who did he slander?
>
> See above.
The above does not mention who he was supposed to have slandered.
>
> > > 2. Are you saying that one of those criteria does correspond
> > > to "won't kiss your arse"? Or that "won't kiss your arse" was
> > > misunderstood? What was misunderstood here?
The whole of the reply is basically saying "kiss my arse". Another
phrase which you might misinterpret.
> >
> > "That's exactly what you said" is a phrase commonly used to mean that's
> > what was being said without actually saying it.
>
> OK, so you are claiming, over and over, that something on that
> list corresponds to "won't kiss your arse".
The whole of the reply is given with a "holier than thou" attitute.
PD often comes across in this fashion.
>
> Since you believe this, I trust you can point out which one(s).
"whether the poster has expressed any lucidity or capability for
self-consistent thought"
- basically saying that he can't think straight.
"whether the poster is clearly ignorant of basic principles that can be
demonstrated with everyday facts and experiments"
-basically saying that he is ignoring the facts.
"whether the poster seems at all receptive to positive criticism"
-basically saying that he ignores peoples responses.
etc.
Taken all together, is basically says, "kiss my arse".
>
> > I didn't take this phrase to mean that PD actually wrote that he should
> > kiss his arse, since it is obvious that PD wrote no such thing.
>
> Right. Hence my question:
> Are you saying that one of those criteria does correspond
> to "won't kiss your arse"? Which one?
I'm saying that the whole response is saying "kiss my arse".
>
> > Ever heard of the phases "the dogs bollocks" or "shit hot",
>
> No. This may be news to you, but slang in one English-speaking
> country is not necessarily used in another.
Hence, the misinterpretations.
>
> > these phases actually mean that something is very very good.
>
> I'll take your word for it. Now can you answer my question?
>
> > > 3. Are you saying that this is not a long rant accusing someone
> > > of evil, censorship, McCarthyism, etc? What part of it was
> > > misunderstood in your opinion?
> >
> > None of it was misunderstood. It was a long rant from one person pissed
> > off with another person. How is that an "Immortal fumble".
>
> It isn't. But nor is it what you claimed to be providing, a
> post which was misunderstood.
I was providing a post which was misinterpreted, not misunderstood. The
misinterpretation was that the post was somehow a fumble, which we both
agree that it wasn't.
>
> - Randy
Randy Poe
Golden Boar wrote:
> Randy Poe wrote:
> > > > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ExactlyWhatYouSaid.html
> > > >
> > > > PD lays out a set of criteria by which he judges posts not worth
> > > > responding to. None of them corresponds to the highlighted
> > > > accusation "you only open your mind to someone who kisses your
> > > > arse". Do I need to go through them one by one in gory
> > > > detail?
> > > >
> > > > So the "immortal fumble" is the statement "that's exactly
> > > > what you said" when nothing close to that statement appears
> > > > anywhere in the list. I'll go through the list one by one if you
> > > > like.
> > > >
> > > > How does this support your accusation?
> > >
> > > Do you know that in the English language, certain phrase can have
> > > different meanings.
> > > "that's exactly what you said" in this context is implying that that's
> > > what PD meant without actually saying it.
> >
> > Hence my question. Which of them do you think corresponds
> > to the, let us call it, paraphrase? Which of PD's statements
> > do you think can be characterized that way?
>
> Obviously, srp thought that all the statements as a whole where being
> characterized in that way.
OK, let's go through it.
> The whole of the reply is basically saying "kiss my arse". Another
> phrase which you might misinterpret.
>> >- whether the poster has expressed any lucidity or capability for
>>> self-consistent thought
Asking that someone write lucidly is asking for "kissing my ass"?
>>> - whether the poster is clearly ignorant of basic principles that can
>>> be demonstrated with everyday facts and experiments
Asking that somebody proposing "new physics" be consistent
with everyday facts is "kissing my ass"?
>>> - whether the poster seems at all receptive to positive criticism
Asking that somebody be a two-way rather than "write-only"
participant in a conversation is asking him to "kiss my ass"?
>>> - whether the poster is simply interested in self-aggrandizement and
>>> not at all interested in what is demonstrably right
Asking somebody to be interested in discussion rather than
self-aggrandizement is asking him to "kiss my ass"?
>>> - whether the poster is under some gross delusions about what science
>>> is and how it works
Asking somebody to learn what science is before criticizing it
is asking to "kiss my ass"?
>>> - whether the poster judges that an entire community of scientists is
>>> wrong about something even though the poster has not taken the time to
>>> read or study anything about that something
Asking somebody to learn anything at all about a subject before
concluding that everyone in that subject is wrong is asking to
"kiss my ass"?
>>> - whether the poster is so egocentric that he presumes that anything he
>>> writes will be read with interest and responded to.
Deciding not to respond to egocentrism is asking someone to
"kiss my ass"?
Yes, apparently "kiss my ass" means something different to you
than to me. To me it means I'm asking someone to praise me,
to flatter me. All I see above is a request not to shit in the
living room.
- Randy
SCW
Burp! Excuse me...
SCW
Sorcerer
"SCW" <dou...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1158792256.9...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Sure... Just don't fart.