ATTN: Jim Sculley, the GOF FAQ repost you requested
JTK
updates since the last posting, mainly typographic errors and such.
Please reply with any corrections you may have.
GANG OF FOURTEEN FAQ
October 29, 2000
0. PREFACE
==========
"Kites rise highest against the wind; not with it." - Sir Winston
Churchill
The story you are about to read is true. For many years now I, Gary R.
Van Sickle (AKA "JTK"), have been very publically demanding, primarily
through postings in comp.lang.java.advocacy, a better Java than what
Sun has been willing to spoon-feed its customers. I have done this by
ridiculing Java's crippling technical shortcomings, as well as
lambasting Sun's unabashed attempts to lie to the public about such
matters as standardization.
It has made me few friends. But a great many powerful enemies.
To kick off the year 2000, those enemies conspired to silence me
through a harassment campaign intended to at the very least get me
fired from my job, and at worst... well, I'd rather not think about how
far these evil individuals would go. I refer to this group of
individuals as the "Gang Of Fourteen", a moniker first suggested by
John Lockwood, for reasons that will become obvious forthwith.
Their story is documented herein. It is known to be incomplete and may
contain inaccuracies, but will be filled in, corrected, and reposted as
necessary until the full, accurate, sordid tale is out in the open, for
all to see.
Just as the Gang Of Fourteen likes it.
1. MEMBERS OF THE GANG OF FOURTEEN
==================================
The Gang Of Fourteen as of this late date appears to consist solely of
its Principals:
Peter van der Linden (AKA "The Shareholder"*, "van der Liar", "pvdl"),
ringleader
Phil Earnhardt (AKA "Private Dick")**, second in command
Before it became obvious to even the dimmest of bulbs that Mr. van der
Linden and Mr. Earnhardt were using the rest of the Gang's members
(especially one Mr. le Locat) to their own nefarious ends (i.e. "get
[JTK] removed from this newsgroup"), the following were known to have
some involvement with the Gang Of Fourteen, the extent of which is
unknown and certainly minimal compared to the evil activities of the
Principals above:
Yann le Locat (Real sounding name, probable alias)
"anoncoward" (Likely alias)
"petilon" (Likely alias)
Also deserving of mention, but not believed at this time to have ever
been a member per se of the Gang Of Fourteen, is one Mr. Philip Niznik,
AKA "1$worth". He was merely incited by the Principals to send
harassing email (harassing towards me) to a fellow employee he was told
was my supervisor.
A few other unsavory characters seem to "hang" with the Gang Of
Fourteen (e.g., make excuses for the Gang's unconscionable behavior,
etc), but are of little consequence and warrant no further mention.
The alert reader will note that the total number of individuals does
not add up to fourteen. It is not known if there actually are more
members still unknown to this investigation, or if indeed Mr. van der
Linden was being truthful when he stated that he made up the number of
individuals actually involved in the plot to "remove" me.
* Thanks to Mr. van der Linden's "mistaken" impression that he was a
shareholder in my company (which does not publically trade stock) for
this knickname. See more about this hilarious "mistake" in the
timeline below.
** Thanks to Mr. Gary Johnson for this most fitting knickname.
2. TIMELINE OF THE KNOWN ACTIVITIES OF THE GANG OF FOURTEEN
===========================================================
Follwing is a timeline of the known activities of the Gang Of Fourteen
as of this writing. It is certainly incomplete, both due to the Gang's
secretive nature, and the fact that they are still very much active in
comp.lang.java.advocacy. More information will be added as it becomes
available.
FEB ??-4, 2000
--------------
Yann le Locat calls me a "monkey" on upwards of fifteen occaisions, in
multiple posts. Mr. Coward calls me "monkey" and "monkey boy" with
comparable frequency.
FEB 4, 2000
-----------
After several days of this nonsense, I call them on their racist
epithets. Nobody needs to be calling anybody "monkey boy". Both Mr.
le Locat and Mr. Coward immediately cease and desist their
namecalling. Neither will repeat their words again, even when asked to
do so simply to clarify the nature of arguments erupting months in the
future.
They do however make embarassing attempts, which in fact continue to
this day, to blame *me* for *their* namecalling.
FEB 10, 2000:
-------------
Mr. Coward apologises for calling me "monkey boy":
"Dear JTK,
I was unaware that the word "monkey" can have racist meaning in your
society and towards you in particular. I certainly didn't intend that
meaning as I was, and still am, unaware of your race. You dumb ass
racist idiot." - anonc...@my-deja.com, <87vdj8$ul$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
What my 'race' has to do with the fact that calling people "monkey boy"
is unacceptable is beyond me. At any rate, I accepted the apology, and
considered the matter closed with Mr. Coward (Obviously the "dumb ass"
line was a simple typographical error).
FEB ??, 2000:
----------
Mr. Phil Earnhardt contacts the ISP of my employer with the expressed
intent of "getting me removed from this newsgroup" <Message ID TBD>, an
intent he later attempts to deny. He makes it clear that he has no
knowledge of who's email account the truths he does not want told are
coming from, only that they come from someone at my company's place of
business. His attempts to get me fired fail, hilariously.
APR 20, 2000
------------
Peter van der Linden attempts to cancel one of my posts, and is caught
red handed by Gary Johnson. The evidence is as follows:
Path: news-west.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!
cyclone1.usenetserver.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!nntp.inc.net!test-
hog.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news3.best.com!
nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.java,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: cmsg cancel <38FE26E2...@nowhere.com>
From: pv...@best.com (Peter van der Linden)
Date: 20 Apr 2000 00:13:00 GMT
Message-ID: <38fe4b8c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell15.ba.best.com
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 956189580 223 pv...@206.184.139.147
The attempt failed. As far as is known at this time, this was the only
attempt at cancelling a post of mine by Mr. van der Linden, or anyone
else for that matter.
Mr. van der Linden's motives are known only to himself. I can only
speculate that he was investigating the feasibility of setting up
a "cancelbot" to automatically cancel any postings in
comp.lang.java.advocacy that contained any truthful statements.
DATES UNKNOWN, 2000:
--------------------
Peter van der Linden does considerable research to discover who
this "JTK" really is. He goes so far as to come up with a list
of "stylistic similarities" between JTK's writings and Peter's foil
Gary R. Van Sickle's writings. He even claims to have taken up a
collection and hired a private investigator to find out who this
scourge JTK really is, a claim he later retracts. He claims to have
called up my place of employment and pumped our receptionist for
information about me.
He claims in article <???> to have done this research at the request of
Mr. Yann le Locat. The true impetus for this extensive research is
unknown at the time of this writing.
AUG 6, 2000:
------------
Mr. Petilon reveals to me that he knows who JTK really is, by sending
the following short email to my work email address:
> From: Petilon [mailto:[Mr. Petilon's Yahoo email address censored -
Ed.]]
> Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 4:40 PM
> To: [My work email address censored - Ed.]
> Subject: Microsoft FAQ
>
>
> Hi JTK,
>
> Care to comment about my Microsoft FAQ?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/petilon/
>
> Apu Petilon
> [Mr. Petilon's Yahoo email address censored - Ed.]
> [Yahoo ad stuff snipped]
How he became aware of my work email address, a full twelve days before
Mr. le Locat posted it publically, is still a mystery.
AUG 8, 2000:
------------
Mr. Coward reveals that he is also now aware of who JTK really is, in
c.l.j.a article <8mpt92$h1j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, with various lame
allusions such as "Maybe you're not
feeling well. R you sicklee?". Note that this is a full ten days
before Mr. le Locat posted the information publically, but in this case
it may not be so mysterious.
In the article, he addresses me as "Tiberious" [sic], a curious mistake
which indicates to me that the knowledge was communicated to him not in
written form, but rather vocally. I take this mistake as rather strong
evidence that Mr. Coward and Mr. van der Linden are much closer
associates than they might want the participants of this newsgroup to
believe, possibly even working at the same physical installation.
Incidentally, Mr. Coward claims a few days later to have "known for
months" who I really was. Yet this is the earliest indication I can
find. Needless to say, this may be another of Mr. Coward's less than
truthful statements.
AUG 16, 2000:
-------------
Peter van der Linden sends, via Federal Express, two printed copies of
a letter to the CEO of my company, accusing me of using company
computer resources to post "libellous and false" material to
comp.lang.java.advocacy, and alledging that I did so on company time.
Neither he nor my legal counsel saw anything resembling libel in any of
the examples Mr. van der Linden gave. My legal counsel's opinion, as I
had suspected, was that the letter was in fact actionable harassment
against me.
You can read the full text of the unseemly letter(s) in article
<8pmt0r$at3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>.
AUG 18, 2000:
-------------
Yann le Locat "outs" JTK, posting the information Mr. van der Linden
claims to have obtained for him. This information reveals him to be
one Gary R. Van Sickle, apparently quite an admirable person: he works
on GNU/GPL software, contributes to the distributed SETI@Home Project,
designs medical electronic equipment for a living, and loves the
Teletubbies, very much. He also was shown to have no financial or
emotional investment whatsoever in Java, unlike his accusers.
Here's the post, with the non-essential bits censored:
> From: yann_l...@my-deja.com
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.advocacy
> Subject: JTK, Welcome to the world of accountability!
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:10:06 GMT
> Message-ID: <8nju5c$dg7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
> Dear fellow participants,
>
> As you have noticed, in the past 2 years, an anonymous poster calling
> himself JTK has been spreading lies and FUD, as well as libellous
> statements. [more of the same lies and libels snipped - Ed.]
>
> So, who is the anonymous JTK that keeps plaguing this NG?
>
> (drums rolling... the audience starts sweating as the suspense builds
> up... more drums rolling...)
>
> ...
>
> Step forward, Gary R. Van Sickle, who leaves [sic] at:
> [Wrong guy's home address and phone number censored]
>
> and works for Braemar Inc.:
> [Right address and phone number censored]
>
> We welcome you to the world of accountability!
> We hope you will enjoy your stay here now that you can post messages
> and be held accountable for them!
>
> I am sure a lot of people have questions to ask you. I, myself, have
to
> talk to you about *certains* accusations you made under the cloak of
> anynomity and whether you stand by them under your real name.
>
> [I did. See article <TBD>. - Ed.]
>
> Yann Le Locat
> [Yann's bizarre and unwise habit of posting his own (assumedly
accurate, but who knows?) home address and phone number censored for
his own good]
>
> ["Stylistic similarity" evidence snipped, essentially the same as in
the above letter]
Note that I harbor no ill will towards Mr. le Locat for this. He was
simply a stooge, used by Mr. van der Linden in an unconscionable
attempt to harass me into silence, to silence the truth I am not afraid
to espouse.
AUG 18, 2000 (continued):
-------------------------
Later that day, and continuining on into August 19, Mr. van der Linden,
apparently enraged that I wasn't the wilting lily he was expecting,
posted at least five articles to c.l.j.a with a .sig containing not
only the same (partially incorrect) information Mr. le Locat made
public, but also incitements for others to harass me at both my home
and place of employment. Also added was the outright fabrication (ie
lie) that my job was "junior network administrator" (I've never been
any sort of network administrator).
And if all *that* wasn't enough, the second such article contained the
following threat:
"If I hear anything more out of you, other than an apology, I will call
your supervisor and put everything on the table. Do you want that?" -
Peter van der Linden
Ignoring the fact that Mr. van der Linden has yet to tell me what I've
done to him that warrants an apology, I told him that was *exactly*
what I wanted him to do. To my knowledge, the call has never been
placed.
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Mr. van der Linden
sent his harassing Federal Express package to the CEO of my company two
days *prior* to the threat.
AUG 18, 2000 (continued):
-------------------------
Heeding Mr. van der Linden's incitements to harass me and the company I
work for, Mr. Philip Niznik, AKA "1$worth", emails the following letter
to a fellow employee of my employer, under the mistaken impression that
she was my supervisor:
> From: Philip Niznik [Mr. Niznik's email address censored - Ed.]
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 7:25 PM
> To: [Fellow employee's email censored - Ed.]
> Cc: [My employer's 'catchall' email address censored - Ed.]; [My work
email address censored - Ed.]
> Subject: Gary R. Van Sickle
>
>
> Dear [Fellow employee's name censored - Ed.],
>
> Just a quick note to make you aware that one of your employees' is
> posting libellous and insulting material from your servers to the
> newsgroup
> comp.java.lang.advocacy. This brings your good company name into
> disrepute because of the opinions that Gary expresses and it
> would be an
> idea to ask him to stop wasting company time/money on personal issues
> which may land your firm in litigation.
>
> I hope that you can take action to curb this activity as it is very
> offensive for the many people who use this technical forum.
> Thanks in advance for your help.
> Kind Regards,
> Philip Niznik.
I replied to this email, cc'ing Mr. Niznik on it, to explain to my
fellow employee why she was receiving this harassment. Some time
later, Mr. van der Linden (sic) posted that very reply to c.l.j.a
[article # to be added to this FAQ in a later update, unless Mr. van
der Linden is able to cancel it from Deja News]. Despite repeated
questioning, Mr. van der Linden has to date refused to explain how that
reply came to be in his posession, as the only addressees were said
fellow employee and Mr. Niznik.
AUG 19, 2000:
-------------
As suddenly as he began the bizarre practice, Mr. van der Linden
removed all information concerning me from his .sig. He has been asked
on numerous occaisions why he has now stopped, but so far has refused
to explain this odd change in his posting habits.
AUG 20, 2000:
-------------
Peter van der Linden reveals the existence of the Gang Of Fourteen in
article <8nnlgb$1pud$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>:
"The reason that fourteen .advocacy posters got together two months ago
and hired a private investigator to trace, trail, and identify Gary Van
Sickle and determine his recent employment history was not because he
is an anonymous poster. [It was because he] took advantage of the
shadows to cast the most insulting abuse on anyone who disagreed with
his extreme position."
Huh, that discription sounds more like a few other participants of
c.l.j.a that don't like to have their own medicine force-fed back to
them, in triplicate. Well, at least we can all agree that I never
attempted to get anyone fired, huh Pete?
AUG 20, 2000:
-------------
After an unprecedented firestorm of outrage over the situation from
friend and foe of JTK alike, Peter van der Linden posts another
article, this time denying his previous Gang Of Fourteen claims:
"There is no private investigator tailing Gary Van Sickle, or tracing
him. There is no "group of 14" who paying for a PI. I flat out made
up those two outrageous stories." - Peter van der Linden
Well, there obviously wasn't a *good* one tracing me, seeing as over
half of the information posted is completely wrong, and some was in
fact fabricated (e.g. that I was any sort of "network administrator",
as claimed by Mr. van der Linden). Peter explains that it was in fact
*he* who was the PI, he gathered and/or fabricated all the information
that Yann le Locat initially published.
Whether there was in fact a hired PI or not is not known at this time,
as we obviously cannot tell either way from Mr. van der Linden's
contradictory statements.
AUG 21, 2000:
-------------
In article <8nrmqj$opj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Mr. le Locat finally admits
that what I had been telling him from the very beginning was in fact
true:
""monkey" in some contexts is a racist term (some people told me that
here, I was not aware)"
To date he has not apologized for making the slur. But as mentioned
above, he has stopped using the term to refer to me or anyone else in
this forum. I guess that's the important thing.
SEPT 15, 2000:
--------------
Peter van der Linden claims to be a shareholder of the company I work
for, in article <8ps723$1bn7$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>:
In article <8ps723$1bn7$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
pv...@best.com (Peter van der Linden) wrote:
> In article <39C183A2...@home.com>,
> James A. Robertson <jar...@mail.com> wrote:
> >Why is it your business? Unless you are a shareholder or a fellow
> >employee, it's not.
>
> Actually James, I *am* a shareholder.
>
Interesting to say the least, since our company is not publicly traded.
Mr. van der Linden unsuccessfully attempts to cancel the post the next
day, claiming "I made a mistake to post that without having the info to
hand". And if you believe that, I've got this bridge....
At this point, most of the Gang Of Fourteen has distanced themselves
substantially from Mr. van der Linden's ever-increasinlgy bizarre
behavior. His only remaining compatriots at this point appear to be
Phil Earnhardt, who stridently exhorts that any discussion of Mr. van
der Linden's behavior "be taken to private email" and out of the
searing light of public scrutiny, and Jonathan Revusky, who's own
posting behavior, if not actions, are even more bizarre than Mr. van
der Linden's.
3. MOTIVES BEHIND THE GANG OF FOURTEEN'S ACTIVITIES
===================================================
At this point, the real motives of the Gang Of Fourteen's harrassment
campaign towards me are unknown. It is known that the stated reason,
assisting Mr. le Locat in "facing his accusor", is false, since while
Mr. le Locat knew who I was well before he "outed" me, their harassment
campaign continued until well after that.
The unfortunate fact is that we may never know the true reasons behind
the evil deeds of these men. However, it is interesting to note the
following coincidences:
- Peter van der Linden, the Gang's leader, is a fairly well-known
employee of Sun Microsystems, though he does not mention that fact in
his postings. He is also rumored to have authored Java-related books.
- Phil Earnhard is known to be employed at a company with ties to Sun
Microsystems. He is extremely embarrased of this fact, and most
definitely does *not* want the general public to know about it.
- "Petilon" has, when pressed, on several occaisions claimed to have
worked under contract for Oracle (which I needn't mention is hand-in-
glove with Sun Microsystems). This is how he explains why he has at
times posted to comp.lang.java.advocacy from an Oracle email address.
- "anoncoward" is a wild-eyed Microsoft-hater and Javapologist. His
anti-.NET postings of late are an incontrivertible indication of that.
With that, I'll let the Gentle Reader come to his or her own
conclusions as to the real motives behind the harassment campaign
conspiracy.
4. EPILOGUE
===========
So there you have it. The sad, true story of a nefarious conspiracy to
silence the truth. But what evil refuses to understand is that the
truth can never be silenced; darkness cannot somehow "absorb" the
light, nor silence somehow "drown out" beautiful music.
Allow me to leave you, Gentle Reader, with one of my many favorites,
which to my knowledge has not been improved upon in the almost two
thousand years since it was first published:
"If it is not seemly, do it not; if it is not true, speak it not." -
Marcus Aurelius, 121-180 AD
Thank you for your time,
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer. Patriot.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jim Sculley
>
> Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ.
I made no such request. If you insist on lying, do it elsewhere. If
you wish to have your FAQ dissected, put it on a web page somewhere, as
I stated.
Jim S.
JTK
Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com> wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> >
> > Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ.
>
> I made no such request.
You absolutely did. You unequivocally stated that it
contained "imaginary" material:
"[T]he title of [the GOF FAQ] alone is a figment of your imagination.
As is a great deal of the content." - Jim Sculley,
<3A4C98F1...@abraxis.com>
I most certainly do *not* want the Gang Of Fourteen FAQ to present
*any* imaginary material as fact! And you're saying it contains
a "great deal" of imaginary material! Hence, you just volunteered to
point out any content which is "a figment of my imagination" soas I can
correct it, or retract the statement. I mean, you don't want to lose
any respect around here, do you?!
Let's address the title first, as it's the only thing so far that
you've specifically pointed to as being 'imaginary'. I can assure you
that the words "Gang Of Fourteen FAQ" are all very real words, so I'm
at somewhat of a loss to understand what you mean by 'imaginary'.
There most certainly was a 'Gang Of Fourteen', although, as is clearly
explained in the FAQ, they themselves never went by this name, and it
is not known exactly how many conspirators were involved in the
harassment campaign against me. So unless you have a better suggestion
for a name for the conspirators, I'll stick with this moniker.
Is it the "FAQ" part that you claim is 'imaginary'? I'll readily admit
the document does not conform to generally accepted FAQ formats, but it
does it's best to answer the questions enquiring minds want to know.
Possibly a better name would be "Gang Of Fourteen Fact Sheet," or
maybe "Report On The Van Sickle Commission's Investigation Of The 'Gang
Of Fourteen' Conspiracy," but both seem unnecessarily long to me.
Again, any ideas?
> If you insist on lying, do it elsewhere.
On the contrary, I insist that the truth be told. You have accused me
of "imagining" "a great deal of the content" of the Gang Of Fourteen
FAQ. I insist that you point out that "imaginary content" so that I
may correct the FAQ.
> If
> you wish to have your FAQ dissected, put it on a web page somewhere,
as
> I stated.
>
I just posted it here, and you just replied to it. There is no more
convenient forum for such "dissection" as you call it than this
newsgroup. Furthermore, posting my FAQ to a web page if it indeed
*does* contain any "imagined" material as you claim would be highly
unethical.
And I know for a fact how much you "give a shit" about ethics.
So please, fire away: please post any factual corrections or additions
you may have to my Gang Of Fourteen FAQ.
Alternately, retract your statement, or risk losing "even the
tiniest shred of respectability".
--
JTK, whom the Java Conspiracy spent a lot of time, money, and energy to
discover is apparently one "Gary Van Sickle", which the evidence shows
to be quite an upstanding member of the community, and destroyed a
perfectly good newsgroup in the process.
Did they get their money's worth?
Reality is a point of view
| I most certainly do *not* want the Gang Of Fourteen FAQ to present
| *any* imaginary material as fact! And you're saying it contains
Then fix the pvdl cancel assertion. Alleged, or some such.
| So please, fire away: please post any factual corrections or additions
+----
This would be the second request.
Your apologist rewriting of 'racism card playing' history is
also noted.
BTW, C/C++ is not safe, and I am shocked that you continue to
promote it. Even the NSA's recently unveiled Linux release was
found to contain a buffer overflow, within days of its release.
--
Gary Johnson gjoh...@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
<a href=http://www.squeak.org>Tired of selfish technology monopolies?</a>
Jim Sculley
>
> In article <3A520F15...@abraxis.com>,
> > I made no such request.
>
> You absolutely did. You unequivocally stated that it
> contained "imaginary" material:
How do you equate this with a request? I certainly hope you have that
Merriam-Webster site bookmarked. You seem to need it quite a bit
lately.
<snip>
> Hence, you just volunteered to point out any content which is "a figment of my
> imagination" soas I can correct it, or retract the statement. I mean, you don't
> want to lose any respect around here, do you?!
Better go look up 'volunteer' as well.
> There most certainly was a 'Gang Of Fourteen', although, as is clearly
> explained in the FAQ, they themselves never went by this name, and it
> is not known exactly how many conspirators were involved in the
> harassment campaign against me.
And you fail to see the problem with this? Let's rename the Keating 5,
the Keating 3,475,123. Do you see the problem now? Here's a simple
direct question. Let's see if Gary can muster up the courage to answer
it:
What place does exagerration have in something purporting to contain
facts?
> So unless you have a better suggestion
> for a name for the conspirators, I'll stick with this moniker.
How about a moniker that truly represents the *supposed* number of
participants, which by all evidence is one, perhaps two; 3 or 4 if you
really stretch the imagination.
> but both seem unnecessarily long to me.
Or perhaps less attention drawing? Perhaps a little closer to the
actual truth than the imaginary truth that fuels your fantasies?
> > If you insist on lying, do it elsewhere.
>
> On the contrary, I insist that the truth be told. You have accused me
> of "imagining" "a great deal of the content" of the Gang Of Fourteen
> FAQ. I insist that you point out that "imaginary content" so that I
> may correct the FAQ.
You can 'insist' all you want Gary. Here's a little bit of Truth for
you. What you 'insist' carries absolutely no weight because you have
consistently failed to answer the simplest, most direct yes/no
questions. You instead chose to call people racists, homophobes,
alcoholics, and drug abusers in some ridiculous attempt to draw
attention away from the fact that you had once again lied youself into a
corner.
>
> > If you wish to have your FAQ dissected, put it on a web page somewhere,
> > as I stated.
> >
>
> I just posted it here, and you just replied to it. There is no more
> convenient forum for such "dissection" as you call it than this
> newsgroup.
I disagree. A web page is a far better place to do so. USENET is not a
place for posts of excessive size and/or content. If you don't
understand the basic mechanisms of USENET, I'd suggest you look up the
relevant RFCs and perhaps you will learn something.
> Furthermore, posting my FAQ to a web page if it indeed
> *does* contain any "imagined" material as you claim would be highly
> unethical.
How exactly would this be more unethical than posting it here? Let's
have your detiale analysis of why this would be true. Once again, go
read the relevant USENET RFCs. You're clearly lacking in some technical
knowledge.
>
> And I know for a fact how much you "give a shit" about ethics.
>
Per usual, Gary, you really don't know 'shit'.
> So please, fire away: please post any factual corrections or additions
> you may have to my Gang Of Fourteen FAQ.
>
> Alternately, retract your statement, or risk losing "even the
> tiniest shred of respectability".
What statement would that be Gary? The statement where I said I 'made
no such request'? Seems to me the only one here who hasn't been
truthful is you.
Put it on a web page as requested; or, to put as fine a point as
possible on it, piss off.
Jim S.
Tim Tyler
:> > Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ.
:>
:> I made no such request.
: You absolutely did. You unequivocally stated that it
: contained "imaginary" material:
: "[T]he title of [the GOF FAQ] alone is a figment of your imagination.
: As is a great deal of the content." - Jim Sculley,
: <3A4C98F1...@abraxis.com>
That is *not* a request of *any* sort. It is a flat statement.
How you interpreted this as a request for you to post your GOF
material again is beyond me.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Surf against sewage.
John Lockwood
>JTK <gary_va...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>: Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com> wrote:
>:> JTK wrote:
>
>:> > Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ.
>:>
>:> I made no such request.
>
>: You absolutely did. You unequivocally stated that it
>: contained "imaginary" material:
>
>: "[T]he title of [the GOF FAQ] alone is a figment of your imagination.
>: As is a great deal of the content." - Jim Sculley,
>: <3A4C98F1...@abraxis.com>
>
>That is *not* a request of *any* sort. It is a flat statement.
>
>How you interpreted this as a request for you to post your GOF
>material again is beyond me.
Actually it is a flat misstatement, since as we all know full well the
number fourteen was not made up by JTK, but by Peter Van Der Linden.
It's at least ironic that JTK should end up getting blamed for lies
that the opposing side made up.
John
Jim Sculley
> >How you interpreted this as a request for you to post your GOF
> >material again is beyond me.
>
> Actually it is a flat misstatement, since as we all know full well the
> number fourteen was not made up by JTK, but by Peter Van Der Linden.
If I recall correctly, that particular lie was revealed shortly after it
was written John. And if you search DejaNews, you'll find that the term
'Gang Of Fourteen' was coined by Gary. And if you for one instant
believe that the title of Gary's 'fact' sheet is in any way truthful,
well, there's not much that can be done to persuade someone so blind to
reality.
Jim S.
Jim Lewis
jkr...@my-deja.com
po...@ais.ucla.edu (Jim Lewis) wrote:
> Get a life.
>
I'd request that you get a clue about how to reply to something. Why
exactly did you quote the full text only to add one line to the posting?
John Lockwood
wrote:
>John Lockwood wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:51:48 GMT, Tim Tyler <t...@cryogen.com> wrote:
>
>> >How you interpreted this as a request for you to post your GOF
>> >material again is beyond me.
>>
>> Actually it is a flat misstatement, since as we all know full well the
>> number fourteen was not made up by JTK, but by Peter Van Der Linden.
>
>If I recall correctly, that particular lie was revealed shortly after it
>was written John.
Correct. I just wanted to clarify here because it seemed that the
spin on the recent thread was that Gary had made up the lie himself,
and that's incorrect.
> And if you search DejaNews, you'll find that the term
>'Gang Of Fourteen' was coined by Gary.
I notice that in the FAQ itself, Gary gives me credit for it. I seem
to recall Gary making it up as you say here and then me suggesting as
an alternative, "the gag of fourteen", in reference to PVDL's lie (or
gag, if you will).
Whoever made it up, if a guy goes after you at work and later lies
about that event and says "There were fourteen of us", then retracts
that number and says, "I was making that up", then it's rather
difficult for the guy thus harassed or his friends to come up with an
appropriate name for such a liar-led cabal, I should think. What are
the choices, really? "The gang who went after me at work for lying
and then lied about their membership, and turned out not to be a gang,
but one or two major idiots"? "The people who went after me at work,
who were at once fourteen in number and the next minute not"?
No, "gang of fourteen" fits -- there's nothing disingenuous in that.
Perhaps some scare quotes around fourteen would tell the story better,
but what the heck. You guys will be all over him no matter what he
does, so we needn't fear that you won't set the record, as it were,
straight.
>And if you for one instant
>believe that the title of Gary's 'fact' sheet is in any way truthful,
>well, there's not much that can be done to persuade someone so blind to
>reality.
I didn't say the title was truthful, what I said in the part you
didn't quote were words to the effect that it was ironic that you're
going after Gary for a lie that he didn't make up. If it were a lie
that Gary made up, then there wouldn't be any irony in you blaming him
for it since you'd be correct. If it weren't a lie at all, then I
wouldn't have said as I did above that Peter van der Linden "made it
up".
John
JTK
gjoh...@dream.season.com (Reality is a point of view) wrote:
> +---- gary_va...@my-deja.com wrote (Thu, 04 Jan 2001 06:52:12
GMT):
> | I most certainly do *not* want the Gang Of Fourteen FAQ to present
> | *any* imaginary material as fact! And you're saying it contains
>
> Then fix the pvdl cancel assertion. Alleged, or some such.
>
You are I assume referring to the following portion of the FAQ:
"APR 20, 2000
------------
Peter van der Linden attempts to cancel one of my posts, and is caught
red handed by Gary Johnson. The evidence is as follows:
Path: news-west.usenetserver.com!cyclone1.usenetserver.com!
cyclone1.usenetserver.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!nntp.inc.net!test-
hog.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news2.best.com!news3.best.com!
nntp1.ba.best.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: netscape.public.mozilla.java,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: cmsg cancel <38FE26E2...@nowhere.com>
From: pv...@best.com (Peter van der Linden)
Date: 20 Apr 2000 00:13:00 GMT
Message-ID: <38fe4b8c$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell15.ba.best.com
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 956189580 223 pv...@206.184.139.147"
Does this evidence leave any room for doubt that Mr. van der Linden
attempted to cancel a post of mine? I'm certainly not an expert at
these things, but "X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 956189580 223
pv...@206.184.139.147" and "Subject: cmsg cancel
<38FE26E2...@nowhere.com>" seem to me to leave absolutely no room
for doubt that the ugly facts are that Mr. van der Linden attempted to
cancel a post of mine.
If this could have been faked by someone or something, I would be more
than happy to note that in the FAQ, but I'll need an explanation as to
how this could be anything other than what it appears to be.
> | So please, fire away: please post any factual corrections or
additions
> +----
>
> This would be the second request.
>
Sheesh Johnson, at least give me *one* post to respond!
> Your apologist rewriting of 'racism card playing' history is
> also noted.
>
Rewriting? How so? If you have an alternate view of events, please
post it, and we can get the rough edges of this FAQ hammered out.
> BTW, C/C++ is not safe,
Ah, this has to do with the FAQ how again?
> and I am shocked that you continue to
> promote it.
Gary, walking is not safe, and I am shocked that billions of people do
it every day. I bet that even *you* do some walking Gary! Do you? If
so, you are risking, not data, not 'security', not worldy goods, but
your very *life* with *every step*! How can you rationalize such a
thing?!?
> Even the NSA's recently unveiled Linux release was
> found to contain a buffer overflow, within days of its release.
>
Huh. Guess they better switch to JavaOS then.
BAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA!!! OH MERCY I STILL GOT IT!
No seriously, Windows 2000. Security flaws fixed while you wait.
Flaws that actually affect users, well, they never get fixed, but then
again, Why2K is a damn good product in that respect anywhoo.
> --
> Gary Johnson gjoh...@season.com
> Privacy on the net is still illegal.
> <a href=http://www.squeak.org>Tired of selfish technology monopolies?
</a>
>
--
Reality is a point of view
| these things, but "X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 956189580 223
Did you verify it with Best? Headers are easy to munge, even
Path: can be misleading. Anything less and you are an
anoncoward with different preferences. :)
| If this could have been faked by someone or something, I would be more
| than happy to note that in the FAQ, but I'll need an explanation as to
| how this could be anything other than what it appears to be.
Sorry, you earned a 'disingenuous' assumption long ago, do some
research, it shouldn't be difficult to find the explanation you
seek.
| Rewriting? How so? If you have an alternate view of events, please
| post it, and we can get the rough edges of this FAQ hammered out.
+----
"I was cynically misleading, betraying the very concepts I
pretend to cherish, and made no apologies for my misbehavior."
No doubt you will McNealy that account.
JTK
Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com> wrote:
> JTK wrote:
> >
> > In article <3A520F15...@abraxis.com>,
>
> > > I made no such request.
> >
> > You absolutely did. You unequivocally stated that it
> > contained "imaginary" material:
>
> How do you equate this with a request?
I explained that in the paragraph immediately following your quote.
You can read the bulk of it immediately below starting with "Hence" if
you wish.
> > Hence, you just volunteered to point out any content which is "a
figment of my
> > imagination" soas I can correct it, or retract the statement. I
mean, you don't
> > want to lose any respect around here, do you?!
>
> Better go look up 'volunteer' as well.
>
Speaking of which, you've still not told us or your military record, or
even whether you have one. But that's an argument for another thread.
> > There most certainly was a 'Gang Of Fourteen', although, as is
clearly
> > explained in the FAQ, they themselves never went by this name, and
it
> > is not known exactly how many conspirators were involved in the
> > harassment campaign against me.
>
> And you fail to see the problem with this?
Yes. Please explain how being completely straightforward with the
Gentle Reader is a "problem". I mean for honest men, not for the Gang
Of Fourteen.
> Let's rename the Keating 5,
> the Keating 3,475,123. Do you see the problem now?
No. While I doubt very much that over three million people were
directly involved in that particular scandal, if Keating had stated
that there were indeed 3,475,123 co-scandal-itors, wouldn't name names,
and only five were ever found out, how exactly would it be a "problem"
if they were henceforth referred to as "The Keating 3,475,123"? How
would changing the number to "5" make it any less of a "problem",
seeing as the true number was most likely more than five?
> Here's a simple
> direct question.
Good, I like these. Because you're mentally unable to accept a simple
direct answer, unless it fits your distorted world view.
> Let's see if Gary can muster up the courage to answer
> it:
>
Oh you bet I can baby!
> What place does exagerration have in something purporting to contain
> facts?
>
Little or none I suppose, but it would of course have to be addressed
on a case-by-case basis. In the current case, how do you
consider "Fourteen" and "exaggeration"? Peter van der Linden himself,
as is clearly explained in the FAQ may I remind you, flatly stated that
the number of conspirators was fourteen. He later recanted, as is also
clearly stated in the FAQ. And all prison inmates are innocent.
Ergo, we who seek the truth are left with a quandry: how many people
were/are actually involved? I don't know, other than that it is at an
absolute minimum five plus one "quasi-member" (Niznik) based on
incontravertible evidence which is, again, presented in the FAQ. I
strongly suspect that there may be more; I firmly believe, but have no
proof to date, that Mr. van der Linden spearheaded this conspiracy of
harassment under orders. Orders come from somebody or somebodies.
So the bottom line is, we who seek the truth do not know the sum total
number of conspirators. The best number we have to date is Peter van
der Linden's confession (again, later recanted) of fourteen
individuals. If you have a more accurate count, and more importantly
names, I'll change the number in a heartbeat.
> > So unless you have a better suggestion
> > for a name for the conspirators, I'll stick with this moniker.
>
> How about a moniker that truly represents the *supposed* number of
> participants,
So I have to change the name every time some new evidence comes to
light? No thanks.
> which by all evidence is one, perhaps two; 3 or 4 if you
> really stretch the imagination.
>
So you haven't even read the FAQ. Figures.
Tell me Mr. Scully, how many people directly attempted to get me fired
from my job?
Tell me Mr. Sculley, how again did both Petilon and Mr. Coward find out
who I supposedly was a full TWELVE and TEN DAYS respectively before the
Conspiracy publically "outed" me?
Tell me Mr. Scully, how many people does it take to make a conspiracy?
> > but both seem unnecessarily long to me.
>
> Or perhaps less attention drawing?
"Report On The Van Sickle Commission's Investigation Of The 'Gang
Of Fourteen' Conspiracy" is less 'attention drawing' than "GOF FAQ"?
Wow.
> Perhaps a little closer to the
> actual truth than the imaginary truth that fuels your fantasies?
>
Tell ya what Jimmy, how about this: let's drop the number altogether.
What do you suggest we call the Gang Of Fourteen, without putting a
number in the name?
> > > If you insist on lying, do it elsewhere.
> >
> > On the contrary, I insist that the truth be told. You have accused
me
> > of "imagining" "a great deal of the content" of the Gang Of Fourteen
> > FAQ. I insist that you point out that "imaginary content" so that I
> > may correct the FAQ.
>
> You can 'insist' all you want Gary.
So you're not going to do it? Now how did I know for an absolute fact
that was coming? I must be psychic!
> Here's a little bit of Truth for
> you. What you 'insist' carries absolutely no weight because you have
> consistently failed to answer the simplest, most direct yes/no
> questions.
Huh, seems I just did so, yet again, above. Yet you seem to be unable
to point to a single instance of the alleged "imaginary content" of the
Gang Of Fourteen FAQ.
> You instead chose to call people racists,
If the shoe fits, it's ugly.
> homophobes,
Quote me doing this. Either my memory is failing even worse that I
thought it was, or you're a liar.
Guess where I'm placing my bet.
> alcoholics, and drug abusers
Mr. Coward just accused me of doing PCP the other day, yet I don't see
you taking him to task for it. Not a peep.
Curious.
> in some ridiculous attempt to draw
> attention away from the fact that you had once again lied youself
into a
> corner.
>
Name the lies Mr. Sculley. Oh, and while you're at it, please answer
the question you just completely avoided, reposted here for your
convenience:
"You have accused me of "imagining" "a great deal of the content" of
the Gang Of Fourteen FAQ. I insist that you point out that "imaginary
content" so that I may correct the FAQ." - Me
You *do* want the "imaginary content" of the FAQ corrected or removed,
don't you? Point it out so I may do so.
> >
> > > If you wish to have your FAQ dissected, put it on a web page
somewhere,
> > > as I stated.
> > >
> >
> > I just posted it here, and you just replied to it. There is no more
> > convenient forum for such "dissection" as you call it than this
> > newsgroup.
>
> I disagree.
You can 'disagree' all you want Jim. Here's a little bit of Truth for
you. The FAQ ain't going anywhere. It's here to stay. The truth will
be told, and the less you like it, the more I'll tell it.
> A web page is a far better place to do so. USENET is not a
> place for posts of excessive size
The FAQ as it stands is exactly 21,017 bytes long. Unless you're
connected to the Internet via smoke signals, that's not 'excessive' by
anyone's standards. And don't anyone give me the "but I pay by the
bit" BS: if you are not interested in the truth, killfile me.
> and/or content.
BAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAAA!!
Yeah, we sure as hell wouldn't want any CONTENT going on in here!
BAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> If you don't
> understand the basic mechanisms of USENET, I'd suggest you look up the
> relevant RFCs and perhaps you will learn something.
>
Let's see if I got it:
I post something, you post a reply, I post a reply to your reply,
lather, rinse, repeat.
> > Furthermore, posting my FAQ to a web page if it indeed
> > *does* contain any "imagined" material as you claim would be highly
> > unethical.
>
> How exactly would this be more unethical than posting it here?
Because the whole world would be exposed to my "imagination" instead of
only the interested parties, i.e. the Conspiracy, its apologists, and
the seekers of truth abut this matter. If indeed there is
any "imaginary content" in the FAQ, a claim which you now appear to be
incapable of backing up, why, it could be seen by anyone even
*accidentally*, and who knows how much more damage it could do than if
it was contained in the c.l.j.a "sandbox"!
> Let's
> have your detiale analysis of why this would be true.
Ya just got it baby.
> Once again, go
> read the relevant USENET RFCs.
Which RFC covers exposing conspiracies? I shoulda been on that
committee...
> You're clearly lacking in some technical
> knowledge.
>
Oooooh, nice dig!
Pfhht.
> >
> > And I know for a fact how much you "give a shit" about ethics.
> >
>
> Per usual, Gary, you really don't know 'shit'.
>
Indeed. Clearly you're the man to go to when it comes to shit.
> > So please, fire away: please post any factual corrections or
additions
> > you may have to my Gang Of Fourteen FAQ.
> >
> > Alternately, retract your statement, or risk losing "even the
> > tiniest shred of respectability".
>
> What statement would that be Gary?
This one:
"[T]he title of [the GOF FAQ] alone is a figment of your imagination.
As is a great deal of the content." - Jim Sculley,
<3A4C98F1...@abraxis.com>
> The statement where I said I 'made
> no such request'?
No, this one:
"[T]he title of [the GOF FAQ] alone is a figment of your imagination.
As is a great deal of the content." - Jim Sculley,
<3A4C98F1...@abraxis.com>
> Seems to me the only one here who hasn't been
> truthful is you.
>
And yet you can't point out a *single* untruth in the GOF FAQ! Indeed,
not even a single *INNACURACY*! Rich.
> Put it on a web page as requested; or, to put as fine a point as
> possible on it, piss off.
>
Well, if I do put it on a web page, can I then write that web page "on
a 2x4 and [shove] it up your ass sideways"? - Jim Sculley,
<3A4C85F9...@abraxis.com>
Oh, and I almost forgot, Happy New Year Jim. May this year be better
than your last.
I mean statistically it's *gotta*, huh?
> Jim S.
JTK
t...@cryogen.com wrote:
> JTK <gary_va...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> : Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com> wrote:
> :> JTK wrote:
>
> :> > Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ.
> :>
> :> I made no such request.
>
> : You absolutely did. You unequivocally stated that it
> : contained "imaginary" material:
>
> : "[T]he title of [the GOF FAQ] alone is a figment of your
imagination.
> : As is a great deal of the content." - Jim Sculley,
> : <3A4C98F1...@abraxis.com>
>
> That is *not* a request of *any* sort. It is a flat statement.
>
Exactly! A flat statement that I demand be backed up. Ergo I have
given Mr. Scull*e*y the opportunity to point out this
alleged "imaginary content" of the Gang Of Fourteen FAQ, and even
reposted it for his convenience.
And yet, he seems to be unable to point to even a *single* instance of
this supposed "imaginary content". I find that a bit strange
considering how sure Mr. Scull*e*y sounded in his "flat statement".
> How you interpreted this as a request for you to post your GOF
> material again is beyond me.
I hope the above has clarified it.
> --
> __________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
> |im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Surf against
sewage.
>
--
JTK
Ironic perhaps, but not at all surprising:
"For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and
slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were
evil, and his brother's righteous.
Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." - 1 John 3:11-13
> John
>
May the New Year bring peace and happiness to you and yours John.
JTK
po...@ais.ucla.edu (Jim Lewis) wrote:
> Get a life.
>
*Another* one? Jeez Jim, between trying to keep these guys from
getting me fired, revolutionizing medicine, sowing the seeds of love,
spreading the Word, fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way,
rocking and/or rolling all night, and partying every day, I barely have
time to get to the gym as it is!
Ah well, I'll see what I can do...
[snipped WesTraliaesque quoting of GOF FAQ for brevity]
--
JTK, whom the Java Conspiracy spent a lot of time, money, and energy to
discover is apparently one "Gary Van Sickle", which the evidence shows
to be quite an upstanding member of the community, and destroyed a
perfectly good newsgroup in the process.
Did they get their money's worth?
Jim Sculley
>
> Exactly!
So this statement:
"Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ."
is a complete fabrication, manufactured by the inner workings of your
deep seeded persecution fantasy, where all those who show you to be
wrong are magically rendered evil members of an organized conspiracy to
silence you. In other words, you are a liar.
Jim S.
Jim Sculley
> > How do you equate this with a request?
>
> I explained that in the paragraph immediately following your quote.
No, you didn't.
> You can read the bulk of it immediately below starting with "Hence" if
> you wish.
I'll ask again: How do you equate my statement with a request Gary?
Your 'explanation' is nothing more than a pathetic harangue for the
purpose of drawing attention to yourself, as always.
>
> Speaking of which, you've still not told us or your military record, or
> even whether you have one. But that's an argument for another thread.
A thread that you've apparently not been reading.
>
> Yes. Please explain how being completely straightforward with the
> Gentle Reader is a "problem".
Completely straightforward would imply telling the truth. Entitling the
document the 'Gang of Fourteen FAQ' is misleading at best, and an
outright lie at worst.
> I mean for honest men, not for the Gang Of Fourteen.
Which of course, doesn't exist and never did.
>
> > Let's rename the Keating 5,
> > the Keating 3,475,123. Do you see the problem now?
>
> No. While I doubt very much that over three million people were
> directly involved in that particular scandal, if Keating had stated
> that there were indeed 3,475,123 co-scandal-itors, wouldn't name names,
> and only five were ever found out, how exactly would it be a "problem"
> if they were henceforth referred to as "The Keating 3,475,123"?
To put it quite simply Gary, no rational individual would continue to
call it the Gang of 3,475,123 when it was very clear that no such number
of people were invloved. As facts emerge, headlines change, as do news
reports. Your FAQ title, however, remains remarkably stagnant, and
inaccurate.
> > Here's a simple direct question.
>
> Good, I like these. Because you're mentally unable to accept a simple
> direct answer, unless it fits your distorted world view.
Apparently you still haven't looked up 'Projection'. How long do
servlets take to respond Gary?
>
> > What place does exagerration have in something purporting to contain
> > facts?
> >
>
> Little or none I suppose, but it would of course have to be addressed
> on a case-by-case basis. In the current case, how do you
> consider "Fourteen" and "exaggeration"? Peter van der Linden himself,
> as is clearly explained in the FAQ may I remind you, flatly stated that
> the number of conspirators was fourteen.
You have flatly stated that servlets would take days to respond.
> He later recanted, as is also clearly stated in the FAQ.
You have yet to recant your statement that servlets would take days to
respond. Now which lie has been put to rest and which is still
festering?
>
> Ergo, we who seek the truth are left with a quandry:
Not really.
> how many people were/are actually involved?
Less than 14. Until you have proof to the contrary.
> I don't know, other than that it is at an absolute minimum five
You 'know' no such thing. The 'evidence' you have presented is pure
speculation. You have no concrete evidence that 5 people worked
together in any way shape or form.
> plus one "quasi-member" (Niznik) based on
> incontravertible evidence which is, again, presented in the FAQ.
I fail to see how a poster responding to a .sig file amounts to an
induction as a quasi-member of a imaginary covert conspiracy to harass
you.
> I strongly suspect that there may be more; I firmly believe, but have no
> proof to date, that Mr. van der Linden spearheaded this conspiracy of
> harassment under orders. Orders come from somebody or somebodies.
So who is giving you your orders then? Oh that's right. Your
statements apply to everyone else, not *you* personally.
>
> So the bottom line is, we who seek the truth
So how long do servlets take to respond?
> do not know the sum total number of conspirators.
Gary, you don't even know that there was a conspiracy. It just happens
to fit into your persecution fantasy nicely.
> The best number we have to date is Peter van der Linden's confession (again,
> later recanted) of fourteen individuals. If you have a more accurate count, and > more importantly names, I'll change the number in a heartbeat.
Sure. Less than 14. Until you have proof otherwise.
>
> > > So unless you have a better suggestion
> > > for a name for the conspirators, I'll stick with this moniker.
> >
> > How about a moniker that truly represents the *supposed* number of
> > participants,
>
> So I have to change the name every time some new evidence comes to
> light? No thanks.
"Their story is documented herein. It is known to be incomplete and may
contain inaccuracies, but will be filled in, corrected, and reposted as
necessary until the full, accurate, sordid tale is out in the open, for
all to see." -- Gary Van sickle
>
> > which by all evidence is one, perhaps two; 3 or 4 if you
> > really stretch the imagination.
> >
>
> So you haven't even read the FAQ. Figures.
Certainly I've read it. However, I've also read material from you such
as:
Servlets take days to respond
Jini is late
There are no Java apps
Java is dead
There are no Smalltalk apps
Clearly, you are both a troll, and a liar, and as such, the 'evidence'
in your 'FAQ' is entirely suspect.
>
> Tell me Mr. Scully, how many people directly attempted to get me fired
> from my job?
Zero, as far I can tell. This, once again, is a assertion that happens
to fit your persecution fantasy quite nicely, and has thus become 'fact'
in your mind.
>
> Tell me Mr. Sculley, how again did both Petilon and Mr. Coward find out
> who I supposedly was a full TWELVE and TEN DAYS respectively before the
> Conspiracy publically "outed" me?
The same way anyone else could Gary. You weren't exactly the sharpest
knife in the drawer when it came to anonymity.
>
> Tell me Mr. Scully, how many people does it take to make a conspiracy?
>
You can have as many people as you want, but until you have concrete
evidence that they have worked together, there is no conspiracy outside
the confines of your persecution fantasy.
> > > but both seem unnecessarily long to me.
> >
> > Or perhaps less attention drawing?
>
> "Report On The Van Sickle Commission's Investigation Of The 'Gang
> Of Fourteen' Conspiracy" is less 'attention drawing' than "GOF FAQ"?
> Wow.
There's that number 14 again.
>
> > Perhaps a little closer to the
> > actual truth than the imaginary truth that fuels your fantasies?
> >
>
> Tell ya what Jimmy, how about this: let's drop the number altogether.
> What do you suggest we call the Gang Of Fourteen, without putting a
> number in the name?
I suggest you not call it anything until you have some concerete
evidence of a conspiracy. I also suggest that you not post that
information here again as it most certainly constitutes SPAM at this
point. I also suggest that you never again attempt to attribute to me
requests which I have not made.
>
> > > > If you insist on lying, do it elsewhere.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I insist that the truth be told. You have accused
> me
> > > of "imagining" "a great deal of the content" of the Gang Of Fourteen
> > > FAQ. I insist that you point out that "imaginary content" so that I
> > > may correct the FAQ.
> >
> > You can 'insist' all you want Gary.
>
> So you're not going to do it? Now how did I know for an absolute fact
> that was coming? I must be psychic!
I told you under what conditions I would do it. If you don't like the
conditions, that's not my problem.
>
> > Here's a little bit of Truth for
> > you. What you 'insist' carries absolutely no weight because you have
> > consistently failed to answer the simplest, most direct yes/no
> > questions.
>
> Huh, seems I just did so, yet again, above. Yet you seem to be unable
> to point to a single instance of the alleged "imaginary content" of the
> Gang Of Fourteen FAQ.
Unable? No, Gary, this once again is a fabrication you have created in
your deluded fantasy. I said I'm not interested in doing it here. If
you don't like the conditions, that's not my problem.
>
> > You instead chose to call people racists,
>
> If the shoe fits, it's ugly.
>
> > homophobes,
>
> Quote me doing this. Either my memory is failing even worse that I
> thought it was, or you're a liar.
It's there in DejaNews. It is not my responsibility to jar your memory
when you cannot even muster the courage to answer the simplest yes/no
questions. Do your own research if yo wihds to keep your lies straight.
Keep a journal or something.
>
> Guess where I'm placing my bet.
>
> > alcoholics, and drug abusers
>
> Mr. Coward just accused me of doing PCP the other day, yet I don't see
> you taking him to task for it. Not a peep.
Seems to me I'm talking to you at this point. When Anon does this
dozens of times, to dozens of people, for the purpose of evading direct
technical questions, then someone may have to address that issue.
>
> Curious.
>
> > in some ridiculous attempt to draw
> > attention away from the fact that you had once again lied youself
> into a
> > corner.
> >
>
> Name the lies Mr. Sculley.
If you don't like the conditions under which I have agreed to do so,
that's not my problem.
> Oh, and while you're at it, please answer
> the question you just completely avoided, reposted here for your
> convenience:
>
> "You have accused me of "imagining" "a great deal of the content" of
> the Gang Of Fourteen FAQ. I insist that you point out that "imaginary
> content" so that I may correct the FAQ." - Me
I see no question there at all, Gary. What I do see is you showing
yourself to be the greatest hypocrite I have ever encountered.
>
> You *do* want the "imaginary content" of the FAQ corrected or removed,
> don't you? Point it out so I may do so.
If you don't like the conditions under which I have agreed to do so,
that's not my problem.
<snip>
> > If you don't
> > understand the basic mechanisms of USENET, I'd suggest you look up the
> > relevant RFCs and perhaps you will learn something.
> >
>
> Let's see if I got it:
>
> I post something, you post a reply, I post a reply to your reply,
> lather, rinse, repeat.
No Gary, that's more like an AOL instant message, or a phone call. You
apparently are USENET-clueless.
> >
> > How exactly would this be more unethical than posting it here?
>
> Because the whole world would be exposed to my "imagination" instead of
> only the interested parties, i.e. the Conspiracy, its apologists, and
> the seekers of truth abut this matter.
I wasn't aware that the 'whole world' would be visiting your web site.
Can you provide some evidence of this (i.e. server statistics, page
hits, etc). Until then, I'll just assume you are balking, as usual.
> If indeed there is any "imaginary content" in the FAQ, a claim which you now
> appear to be incapable of backing up,
Incapable? Hardly. If you don't like the conditions under which I have
agreed to do so, that's not my problem.
> why, it could be seen by anyone even *accidentally*, and who knows how much more
> damage it could do than if it was contained in the c.l.j.a "sandbox"!
Now what exact mechanism is preventing uninterested parties from seeing
it here? References to the appropriate USENET RFC please.
> > What statement would that be Gary?
>
> This one:
>
> "[T]he title of [the GOF FAQ] alone is a figment of your imagination.
> As is a great deal of the content." - Jim Sculley,
> <3A4C98F1...@abraxis.com>
>
> > The statement where I said I 'made no such request'?
Now why would I retract a truthful statement?
> >
>
> And yet you can't point out a *single* untruth in the GOF FAQ! Indeed,
> not even a single *INNACURACY*! Rich.
Can't? Hardly. If you don't like the conditions under which I have
agreed to do so, that's not my problem.
Jim S.
John Lockwood
wrote:
>May the New Year bring peace and happiness to you and yours John.
And you as well, dude. And lots of smoting to thine enemies, too. :)
We now return to our regularly scheduled smiting, already in
progress...
John
Jim
John Lockwood
wrote:
>is a complete fabrication, manufactured by the inner workings of your
>deep seeded persecution fantasy, where all those who show you to be
>wrong are magically rendered evil members of an organized conspiracy to
>silence you. In other words, you are a liar.
He's a liar? You mean it never happened?
More correct to say that all those who got together to contact his
employer were in an organized conspiracy to silence him. What do you
_think_ those idiots were trying to accomplish? Flying a plane?
Getting a blow job? Planting a rose garden?
They didn't like the guy, and they went after him for it, not here in
the newsgroup, not all over usenet, not in e-mail, not on a website,
but in downtown meatspace, where the guy works.
I am _so_ glad that it's you on the side of defending that and not me.
Here's a couple of arguments you can rehash if you like:
1) He brought it on himself.
2) The good of Java (the interests of truth, the protection of
children -- pick one) demanded that we go after the guy at work.
Actually, this one you're propounding now, "Gary imagined it" is
rather a novel approach, come to think of it. But wait, how is it
that I, who's brain is separated from Gary's by a couple of keyboards
and a gazillion miles of internet wiring, among other things, also
remember it?
Do you think I also have a "deep seeded [sic] persecution fantasy",
only I think it's some other guy who's getting his seeds persecuted?
If I was going to pick a guy to imagine getting persecuted by a mob of
idiots, why would I pick a guy who's constantly trashing the language
I work with every day?
John
John Lockwood
wrote:
>> and I am shocked that you continue to
>> promote it.
>
>Gary, walking is not safe, and I am shocked that billions of people do
>it every day. I bet that even *you* do some walking Gary! Do you? If
>so, you are risking, not data, not 'security', not worldy goods, but
>your very *life* with *every step*! How can you rationalize such a
>thing?!?
Dude, every once in a while you just _shine_ like a star. ;-)
I've been learning assembly language recently. Now _there's_ a safe
language. That processor isn't doing anything 'ceptin' I know about
it. LOL
John
Jim Sculley
>
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:36:04 -0500, Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com>
> wrote:
>
> >is a complete fabrication, manufactured by the inner workings of your
> >deep seeded persecution fantasy, where all those who show you to be
> >wrong are magically rendered evil members of an organized conspiracy to
> >silence you. In other words, you are a liar.
>
> He's a liar? You mean it never happened?
That's right John, I never requested the FAQ be posted.
>
> More correct to say that all those who got together to contact his employer were
> in an organized conspiracy to silence him.
Which 'all those' are you referring to John? Have you seen any proof
that anyone 'got together' to do anything? Other than Gary's opinion in
the matter, and a smattering of circumstantial evidence so paper thin
and surrounded by other lies thus making it highly suspect?
> What do you _think_ those idiots were trying to accomplish? Flying a plane?
> Getting a blow job? Planting a rose garden?
What one thinks has little to do with the actual facts. The actual
facts are known only to those people who contacted his employer. And
once again I must point out that there is little evidence that there
was any organized conspiracy at all.
>
> They didn't like the guy,
This is your opinion, not fact.
> and they went after him for it,
Again, opinion, not fact.
> not here in the newsgroup,
You apparently weren't here very long before this all took place.
> not all over usenet
That would be not only pointless, but ineffective as well.
> not in e-mail,
You apparently have forgotten that JTK had no valid email address.
> not on a website,
Well, you're wrong there. There was at one point a web site listing
JTKs top lies to date.
> but in downtown meatspace, where the guy works.
In light of my corrections to your assumptions above John, I hope it is
now clear to you that there was no place left to turn. A request to his
ISP to look into the matter was likely tossed into the circular file by
Gary himself because he was likely the web contact according to the
company web site at the time. So tell me John, where exactly should
people have gone to complain?
>
> I am _so_ glad that it's you on the side of defending that and not me.
Bully for you. I'm perfectly happy with my position in this matter.
You however seem to feel a need to once again start frothing at the
mouth and expressing a bunch of opinions as though they were facts.
>
> Here's a couple of arguments you can rehash if you like:
>
> 1) He brought it on himself.
I believe this to be true. Gary was given every opportunity to act in a
responsible manner. He chose not to.
>
> 2) The good of Java (the interests of truth, the protection of
> children -- pick one) demanded that we go after the guy at work.
To my knowledge, no one has ever put forth this argument. Perhaps you
imagined it.
>
> Actually, this one you're propounding now, "Gary imagined it" is
> rather a novel approach, come to think of it.
Well, John, can you show me where I requested the FAQ? That is what you
are talking about right? After all, that is the topic at hand.
> But wait, how is it that I, who's brain is separated from Gary's by a couple of
> keyboards and a gazillion miles of internet wiring, among other things, also
> remember it?
Remember what John? You were a third party to pseudo-events that
partially transpired in a USENET newsgroup. Somewhow I doubt you'd be
considered a reliable witness. You seem perfectly happy to listen to
exactly one side of the issue and ignore the rest because it happens to
bring up old feelings of persecution from earlier times for you and
yours.
>
> Do you think I also have a "deep seeded [sic] persecution fantasy",
Deep seeded John. Yes, you can say deep seated, but 'seeded' is just as
valid. As in 'planted', 'entrenched', etc. Apparently you missed the
post where I described grammar and spelling flames as the last resort of
the USENET feeble-minded. Especially when said flame is misplaced.
As for any particular fantasies you may have, well, you are guilty of
this little gem:
"You want to punish him, and you will. And you're all going to be mad
at me for sticking up for him. Your hearts are so full of blind rage
that you're going to go after me now. That's fine by me."
So, John, how many people went after you? One? Five? Fourteen? Have
you started a FAQ?
> If I was going to pick a guy to imagine getting persecuted by a mob of
> idiots,
Now it's a mob? Better tell Gary to update the FAQ then.
> why would I pick a guy who's constantly trashing the language
> I work with every day?
Only you can knmow your own intentions/reasons John.
Jim S.
John Lockwood
wrote:
>John Lockwood wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:36:04 -0500, Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >is a complete fabrication, manufactured by the inner workings of your
>> >deep seeded persecution fantasy, where all those who show you to be
>> >wrong are magically rendered evil members of an organized conspiracy to
>> >silence you. In other words, you are a liar.
>>
>> He's a liar? You mean it never happened?
>
>That's right John, I never requested the FAQ be posted.
You either don't read well or you're intentionally equivocating, it
seems to me. Either way, let's try to make the best of it.
>
>>
>> More correct to say that all those who got together to contact his employer were
>> in an organized conspiracy to silence him.
>
>Which 'all those' are you referring to John? Have you seen any proof
>that anyone 'got together' to do anything?
We've had, it seems to me, more than one person admit to contacting
his employer, and _lots_ of people who defended doing so.
>
>>
>> They didn't like the guy,
>
>This is your opinion, not fact.
Oh, give me a break. You just called the guy a liar in your last
post. You want to tell me you did that in the spirit of friendship?
>
>> and they went after him for it,
>
>Again, opinion, not fact.
Bullshit.
>
>> not here in the newsgroup,
>
>You apparently weren't here very long before this all took place.
I'm talking about a specific incident... but
>
>> not all over usenet
snip it
>
>That would be not only pointless, but ineffective as well.
>
>> not in e-mail,
>
>You apparently have forgotten that JTK had no valid email address.
>
any way you like it
>> not on a website,
>
and we'll boogie...
>Well, you're wrong there. There was at one point a web site listing
>JTKs top lies to date.
>
>> but in downtown meatspace, where the guy works.
down to here...
>
>In light of my corrections to your assumptions above John, I hope it is
>now clear to you that there was no place left to turn.
In other words, they had _had_ to go after him at work? Oh wait, but
they didn't go after him at work, or did they? It's hard to keep
track of your mood swings here, Jimbo.
>A request to his
>ISP to look into the matter was likely tossed into the circular file by
>Gary himself because he was likely the web contact according to the
>company web site at the time. So tell me John, where exactly should
>people have gone to complain?
Jesus, maybe. "Vengeance is mine," sayeth the lord. Nice thing about
that advice is that it works even for atheists like me.
What I really believe is that anyone who goes after someone at work
for screwing around in a newsgroup isn't really wrapped all that tight
to begin with, so they should complain to whoever sells them their
Prozac.
But wait, these people _did_ go there to complain? And they did go
after him at work? Or they didn't? Let's try to get some clarity
here. You seem at this point to be defending something that you seem
to be saying at the outset didn't happen. So let's be clear. Was it
ok for it to happen, or didn't it happen, or was it not OK, or did it
happen?
By all means, tell us more about the request to his ISP from the
people who weren't after him.
>
>>
>> I am _so_ glad that it's you on the side of defending that and not me.
>
>Bully for you. I'm perfectly happy with my position in this matter.
>You however seem to feel a need to once again start frothing at the
>mouth and expressing a bunch of opinions as though they were facts.
Oh, so now they're not facts again, but you want me to tell you where
those people should have gone to complain, as though they were facts?
>
>>
>> Here's a couple of arguments you can rehash if you like:
>>
>> 1) He brought it on himself.
>
>I believe this to be true. Gary was given every opportunity to act in a
>responsible manner. He chose not to.
So now they are facts, or he couldn't have brought it on himself. My
my, don't we go round and round here.
>
>>
>> 2) The good of Java (the interests of truth, the protection of
>> children -- pick one) demanded that we go after the guy at work.
>
>To my knowledge, no one has ever put forth this argument. Perhaps you
>imagined it.
HA HA HA. Now I'm imagining things? This newsgroup was absolutely
FULL of that argument at the time it happened. Peter van der Linden
was especially fond of defending his behavior on the grounds that JTK
had repeatedly lied in a technical newsgroup.
>>
>> Actually, this one you're propounding now, "Gary imagined it" is
>> rather a novel approach, come to think of it.
>
>Well, John, can you show me where I requested the FAQ? That is what you
>are talking about right? After all, that is the topic at hand.
No, you've equivocated again. We're talking about whether, in fact,
one or more people contacted Gary's employer to rat on him for posting
to the newsgroup and whether, in fact, they lied about it afterwards.
I don't know if you requested to have the FAQ read, that's not the
issue yet (though you'll request a revision of it below)...
>Remember what John? You were a third party to pseudo-events that
>partially transpired in a USENET newsgroup. Somewhow I doubt you'd be
>considered a reliable witness. You seem perfectly happy to listen to
>exactly one side of the issue and ignore the rest because it happens to
>bring up old feelings of persecution from earlier times for you and
>yours.
Right, exactly, I have a persecution complex, too, and no one ever
went after Gary at work, but where else should they have gone to
complain when they never went anywhere to complain? ROTFLMAO
>"You want to punish him, and you will. And you're all going to be mad
>at me for sticking up for him. Your hearts are so full of blind rage
>that you're going to go after me now. That's fine by me."
>
>So, John, how many people went after you? One? Five? Fourteen? Have
>you started a FAQ?
No, do you want me to?
>
>
>> If I was going to pick a guy to imagine getting persecuted by a mob of
>> idiots,
>
>Now it's a mob? Better tell Gary to update the FAQ then.
Well, now you have requested that the FAQ be updated. Even I saw it
that time. OK, Gary, please update the FAQ as Jim Sculley has
explicitly requested here, and then please repost it.
>
>
>> why would I pick a guy who's constantly trashing the language
>> I work with every day?
>
>Only you can knmow your own intentions/reasons John.
Really? I would have thought that by now my hatred for smug,
self-righteous gangs of bullies like the ones who went after JTK at
work and the ones defending them would be as obvious as stink on a
hog.
And you may have such rhetorical fun with that metaphor as you would.
John
Tim Tyler
: Does this evidence leave any room for doubt that Mr. van der Linden
: attempted to cancel a post of mine? I'm certainly not an expert at
: these things, but "X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 956189580 223
: pv...@206.184.139.147" and "Subject: cmsg cancel
: <38FE26E2...@nowhere.com>" seem to me to leave absolutely no room
: for doubt that the ugly facts are that Mr. van der Linden attempted to
: cancel a post of mine.
Of course there's room for doubt. Is the post digitally signed with
PVDL's public key? If not then forging is not even very difficult.
Usenet cancels are not automatically authenticated.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Sarcasm: Barbed ire.
Peter van der Linden
Van Sickle's behavior has come up again.
During 1999 and 2000 Gary Van Sickle essentially destroyed the
comp.lang.java.advocacy newsgroup by making literally thousands of abusive,
insulting, and false postings over a two year period. He made these
postings anonymously under the title "JTK". These are available at
the deja archive for anyone who cares to look at this URL:
Gary taunted many people calling them drug addicts, homophobes, racists, etc.
One guy finally got sick of being called a racist by Gary Van Sickle
(who was posting anonymously, remember), and he looked up the IP address
for Gary's posts. Gary was posting his lies profanity and insults from
Braemar Inc, a small medical devices company in the mid west. His
identity was quickly established through other postings from there.
Gary denied it for several days, but finally admitted his actions.
You can reach them at 11481 Rupp Drive, Burnsville MN 55337,
phone 800 328-2719. Or you can email the executives there as
judy@braemarinc, jschmidt@braemarinc, or st...@braemarinc.com.
Every post that Gary Van Sickle made over a 2+ year period was
dragging Braemar's good name into the dirt, by association with the
rather filthy language and assertions that posted. That is a
completely unnecessary burden, I would have thought.
After Gary's host had been identified, I wrote to the service provider
(Braemar) to ask if Gary's actions were in accordance with company
policy. Another person emailed Judy Naus, a Braemar manager.
That resulted in a rather frightened email from Gary Van
Sickle to Judy Naus, misrepresenting all the wicked and profane
things that Gary had done, but also promising not to post from Braemar
systems again.
Gary omitted to tell Judy the extent and content of his posting,
and the fact that he had hurled all his insults anonymously from the
Braemar equipment. Nor did he mention the denigrating posts he had
made about competing medical equipment from the Braemar account.
Gary forgot to tell Judy Naus that he had pretended to be black
in order to make his anonymous charge of racism more effective.
Words almost fail me at this point.
Gary tried to imply that anyone complaining about him was a "Usenet Kook"
despite the fact that some of us here are actually quite
well-credentialed and respected professionals who object to Gary's
long period of irresponsible behavior.
Apparently Gary's use of Braemar systems to make untruthful claims
about the Java language was not in accordance with Braemar policy,
because he stopped doing it.
Gary then started posting under his own name, but he
has lately lapsed back into posting during working hours again.
He continues his insults, lies, abuse, taunts, and false witness to
this day. Perhaps Braemar does not keep him busy enough.
If you are going to bring up Gary Van Sickle's behavior, at least
have the grace to describe it accurately. Thank you.
Greg Chien
pv...@best.com (Peter van der Linden) wrote:
>
> During 1999 and 2000 Gary Van Sickle essentially destroyed the
> comp.lang.java.advocacy newsgroup
How can I still read the destroyed newsgroup? or a canceled post ;-)
--
Regards,
Greg
anonc...@my-deja.com
> made about competing medical equipment from the Braemar account.
Yup. I'm still utterly amazed that Gary R Van Sickle claimed that eko
Systems' Frontiers system was "unsalable" and would "wedge" medical
equipment!
He's quite a guy - can't answer simple yes or no questions but can
spread harmful lies about another medical equipment company's product.
James A. Robertson
I find your reactions infinitely more destructive and annoying. JTK is
a harmless buffoon. You on the other hand, are a self righteous
buffoon. Guess what? I find it really, really easy to hit 'thread as
read' on threads that get out of hand. You, on the other hand, go
postal.
--
James A. Robertson
Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
jar...@mail.com
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
John Lockwood
wrote:
>Sorry to bother everyone with an old topic, but the subject of Gary R.
>Van Sickle's behavior has come up again.
No, the topic of Gary's destructive behavior hasn't come up again --
the topic of _you_ trying to incite a bunch of self-righteous bullies
to go after a guy at work who disagreed with you has come up again.
And here you're going to do it again:
>You can reach them at 11481 Rupp Drive, Burnsville MN 55337,
>phone 800 328-2719. Or you can email the executives there as
>judy@braemarinc, jschmidt@braemarinc, or st...@braemarinc.com.
>Every post that Gary Van Sickle made over a 2+ year period was
>dragging Braemar's good name into the dirt, by association with the
>rather filthy language and assertions that posted. That is a
>completely unnecessary burden, I would have thought.
Jim, perhaps I'm _imagining_ that Peter van der Linden just listed a
bunch of Gary's bosses with explicit instructions on how to go after
the guy again?
Perhaps I should e-mail those executives and let them in on the fact
that you're posting their e-mails to a public newsgroup and harassing
someone who probably is a good employee and who definitely is a
personal friend of mine? Did they give you permission to post their
e-mail addresses to support your harassment campaign?
>Gary tried to imply that anyone complaining about him was a "Usenet Kook"
Not to put to fine an "implication" on it, anyone going after a guy at
work for bickering in a newsgroup explicitly devoted to language wars
_is_ a Usenet Kook. You are, without a doubt, since I started using
Fidonet some ten years ago or more, singularly and unequivocally, the
biggest and most nuttiest of all the nut jobs I've met in a
communication medium where nut job is an everyday thing. Peter van
der Linden, next to the word nut job in the dictionary, your picture
would overstate the case.
>despite the fact that some of us here are actually quite
>well-credentialed and respected professionals
A lot of us are. But you, in contrast, are a flaming nut job. You're
a nut too big for any Craftsman wrench in any Sears store in this
country or any Russian equivalent. You are a kook, an odd duck, a
loon. You have but one bent oar partially in the water, and it rows
the wrong way. Were reason a light that shines on us all, you sir,
are a black hole of dense, unadulterated nuttiness. You're the
_reason_ I bought a kill-filter equipped newsgroup reader, and by not
having it set correctly I am sucked into the gravity of nuttiness that
flows from you like space-devouring waves.
>who object to Gary's long period of irresponsible behavior.
Yes, yes, yes. So you went after him at work, and now you're
suggesting that people should go after him again? Did I mention that
you're nuts?
>Gary then started posting under his own name, but he
>has lately lapsed back into posting during working hours again.
Oh, be still my heart!!! Horror of horrors, the guy posts things you
don't like to hear during the DAY!!! Oh, the pain of it!!! Oh the
humanity!!!
Someone puh-LEASE get this man some Prozac before he does something to
harm himself or others.
There you go...now back to your rubber room.
>He continues his insults, lies, abuse, taunts, and false witness to
>this day.
Not to me he doesn't. And do you want to know _why_ he doesn't, in
case, after all is said and done, you really are too clinically insane
to figure it out? Because I'm not one of the bullies gathered around
him like a circle of bullies around a schoolchild.
> Perhaps Braemar does not keep him busy enough.
So now, in addition to airing the e-mail addresses of several Braemar
executives in public, your suggesting that their management of their
employees is somehow lax? Are you sure they've given you permission
to do this? No, of course not. Why bother with permission when
psychopathology will do?
>If you are going to bring up Gary Van Sickle's behavior, at least
>have the grace to describe it accurately. Thank you.
Grace? For a nutcase bully like you? The only appropriate response
to a bully like you is to run away or punch him in the nose. Here's a
hint as to what this post is -- do you see my feet moving?
Gary van Sickle, I hereby give you my permission to quote this letter
in whole or in part to any of your employers, friends, or legal
counsel, past, present or future.
Peter van der Linden, do yourself and usenet a favor -- get a shrink.
Not some apprentice or journeyman shrink either -- get someone board
certified and ready for a career challenge.
John
Jim Sculley
>
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:12:39 -0500, Jim Sculley <nic...@abraxis.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >That's right John, I never requested the FAQ be posted.
>
> You either don't read well or you're intentionally equivocating, it
> seems to me. Either way, let's try to make the best of it.
I read just fine John. Here. I'll repeat the text for you again:
========
So this statement:
"Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ."
is a complete fabrication, manufactured by the inner workings of your
deep seeded persecution fantasy, where all those who show you to be
wrong are magically rendered evil members of an organized conspiracy to
silence you. In other words, you are a liar.
=======
I made no such request. Therefore, Gary is a liar.
>
> >
> >>
> >> More correct to say that all those who got together to contact his
> >> employer were in an organized conspiracy to silence him.
> >
> >Which 'all those' are you referring to John? Have you seen any proof
> >that anyone 'got together' to do anything?
>
> We've had, it seems to me, more than one person admit to contacting
> his employer, and _lots_ of people who defended doing so.
It's the 'together' and 'organized' part you are completely forgetting
John. To say they 'got together' or 'organized' is not known in any way
shape or form. It is pure speculation on your part and on Gary's part.
> >
> >>
> >> They didn't like the guy,
> >
> >This is your opinion, not fact.
>
> Oh, give me a break. You just called the guy a liar in your last
> post. You want to tell me you did that in the spirit of friendship?
How is calling someone a liar indicative of anything in thsi instance?
Gary attributed to me an action that I did not make. This is a lie.
There is no other way to look at it.
>
> >
> >> and they went after him for it,
> >
> >Again, opinion, not fact.
>
> Bullshit.
More opinion.
>
> >
> >> not here in the newsgroup,
> >
> >You apparently weren't here very long before this all took place.
>
> I'm talking about a specific incident... but
You've missed the point. Gary was given every opportunity on many,
many, many occasions to recant his numerous false statements. Yann
practically spelled it out in giant neon letters that he was going to
reveal his identity. Twice.
<snip>
>
> down to here...
Way to avoid clear evidence that you were wrong on all counts John. Oh
well.
>
> >
> >In light of my corrections to your assumptions above John, I hope it is
> >now clear to you that there was no place left to turn.
>
> In other words, they had _had_ to go after him at work? Oh wait, but
> they didn't go after him at work, or did they? It's hard to keep
> track of your mood swings here, Jimbo.
Now you have put words in my mouth. I said nothing about going after
him at work. I said there was no option left. In other words, the only
remaining outlet through which an attempt could be made in the hope of
making Gary act in a responsible, respectful manner was through his
employer. You've also once again fallen into 'conspiracy' mode where
hordes of angry individuals colluded in secret, plotting to get Gary
fired. There is absolutely zero evidence that such collusion took
place.
>
> >A request to his
> >ISP to look into the matter was likely tossed into the circular file by
> >Gary himself because he was likely the web contact according to the
> >company web site at the time. So tell me John, where exactly should
> >people have gone to complain?
>
> Jesus, maybe. "Vengeance is mine," sayeth the lord. Nice thing about
> that advice is that it works even for atheists like me.
You must get abused quite a bit John if you are totally unwilling to
take action when things get to the point where you find them
unacceptable. Some people don't like being stepped on.
>
> What I really believe is that anyone who goes after someone at work
> for screwing around in a newsgroup isn't really wrapped all that tight
> to begin with, so they should complain to whoever sells them their
> Prozac.
Well, John, it's nice to know that you consider USENET a place to screw
around. Some people don't view it that way. I certainly don't. If you
want to spend time screwing around, a chat room is a better place. And
how exactly repeatedly lying, treating people with zero respect, and
spouting offb thousands of posts full of inaccurate and/or deliberately
false is 'screwing around' is beyond me.
>
> But wait, these people _did_ go there to complain?
Yes they did. This is far different than 'going after' someone. When I
complain about the service at a restaurant am I going after the waitress
in an attept to get her fired?
> And they did go after him at work?
Well, now you're back to 'go after'. Oh well, it was nice while it
lasted.
> Or they didn't? Let's try to get some clarity here.
I'm crystal clear John. It's you that is making bold assumptions and
drawing false conclusions with little or no evidence.
> You seem at this point to be defending something that you seem
> to be saying at the outset didn't happen.
Nope. This is just your incorrect opinion. Your entire argument hinges
on some conspiracy to 'go after' Gary at work. I have said before, and
I'll say it again, I see no evidence of such a conspiracy.
> So let's be clear. Was it ok for it to happen,
Well, John, that would depend on what you mean by 'it'. The Big Bang?
The '69 Series? Nagasaki? Disco? What exactly are you talking about
here?
> or didn't it happen, or was it not OK, or did it happen?
Continued pronoun trouble.
>
> By all means, tell us more about the request to his ISP from the
> people who weren't after him.
Complaints to ISPs happen every day John. Accounts get pulled. For far
lesser reasons. I'm sure there is a rather lengthy DejaNews achive of
the events at the time. I have no desire to educate you on the facts,
when they are readily available for you to find yourself.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I am _so_ glad that it's you on the side of defending that and not me.
> >
> >Bully for you. I'm perfectly happy with my position in this matter.
> >You however seem to feel a need to once again start frothing at the
> >mouth and expressing a bunch of opinions as though they were facts.
>
> Oh, so now they're not facts again, but you want me to tell you where
> those people should have gone to complain, as though they were facts?
Wait. Now we're back to complaints? Make up your mind John. Was it
complaining? Or 'going after'? Two very different actions in my book.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Here's a couple of arguments you can rehash if you like:
> >>
> >> 1) He brought it on himself.
> >
> >I believe this to be true. Gary was given every opportunity to act in a
> >responsible manner. He chose not to.
>
> So now they are facts, or he couldn't have brought it on himself. My
> my, don't we go round and round here.
Which 'they' and 'it' would that be John? Again you fail to be specific.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 2) The good of Java (the interests of truth, the protection of
> >> children -- pick one) demanded that we go after the guy at work.
> >
> >To my knowledge, no one has ever put forth this argument. Perhaps you
> >imagined it.
>
> HA HA HA. Now I'm imagining things? This newsgroup was absolutely
> FULL of that argument at the time it happened.
Cites please?
> Peter van der Linden was especially fond of defending his behavior on the
> grounds that JTK had repeatedly lied in a technical newsgroup.
Now what does that have to do with 'the good of Java'? I really don't
like to see lying in any technical forum. Your mileage may vary, but it
would certainly seem strange to find people who found it 100%
acceptable.
>
> >>
> >> Actually, this one you're propounding now, "Gary imagined it" is
> >> rather a novel approach, come to think of it.
> >
> >Well, John, can you show me where I requested the FAQ? That is what you
> >are talking about right? After all, that is the topic at hand.
>
> No, you've equivocated again. We're talking about whether, in fact,
> one or more people contacted Gary's employer to rat on him for posting
> to the newsgroup and whether, in fact, they lied about it afterwards.
Wait. You've now dropped the 'together', the 'go after' and the
'organized' and have added a 'rat on' (which I presume to mean
'complain')? How interesting. When you figure out exactly what you are
trying to say, please repost. Clearly you haven't made up your mind.
> I don't know if you requested to have the FAQ read, that's not the
> issue yet (though you'll request a revision of it below)...
Well then, I'd suggest you head on over to DejaNews and do some
research.
>
> >Remember what John? You were a third party to pseudo-events that
> >partially transpired in a USENET newsgroup. Somewhow I doubt you'd be
> >considered a reliable witness. You seem perfectly happy to listen to
> >exactly one side of the issue and ignore the rest because it happens to
> >bring up old feelings of persecution from earlier times for you and
> >yours.
>
> Right, exactly, I have a persecution complex, too,
Do you want me to provide the cite where you as much as say the words
I've written above John? I'd be happy to.
> and no one ever went after Gary at work, but where else should they have
> gone to complain when they never went anywhere to complain? ROTFLMAO
Now we have 'went after' and 'complain' in the same sentence? Cripes.
<snip>
> >
> >Now it's a mob? Better tell Gary to update the FAQ then.
>
> Well, now you have requested that the FAQ be updated.
No, I don't think so. Please show me the analysis of my statement above
that equates to me requesting anything.
> Even I saw it that time.
Saw what John? Me not requesting anything? Yeah. I saw that too.
Twice.
> OK, Gary, please update the FAQ as Jim Sculley has
> explicitly requested here, and then please repost it.
Well, then, I guess we can call you a liar as well. Birds of a
feather and all that.
>
> Really? I would have thought that by now my hatred for smug,
Hatred? How nice. You are fine with hating, but vilify others who you
*believe* to be full of hate with only your misguided assumptions to
defend that belief?
> self-righteous gangs
Gangs? Now we've gone from a single mob to gangs? Really.
> of bullies like the ones who went after JTK at
> work and the ones defending them would be as obvious as stink on a
> hog.
Only to those who choose to ignore the evidence and base their entire
argumen t reading an FAQ full of lies, misrepresentations, and half of a
multi-faceted story.
Jim S.
Simon Cooke
"Peter van der Linden" <pv...@best.com> wrote in message
news:935mis$1j5$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> Sorry to bother everyone with an old topic, but the subject of Gary R.
> Van Sickle's behavior has come up again.
I'm not bothered at all -- mainly because I'm ignoring you. Be my guest.
Simon
Mike
I suggest a newsreader with a kill filter. Or perhaps a new life.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Mike
>comp.lang.java.advocacy newsgroup
I've only been a here a few weeks but I think Petilon is far more
damaging than JTK is.... but he's probably on your side so that's ok.
Peter van der Linden
Come, come, James. I hardly think that a quiet one page description
of Gary Van Sickle's antics qualifies as "going postal".
On the other hand, someone only has to mention some inadequacy of
Smalltalk to trigger pages and pages of righteous indigation, proofs,
would-be rebuttals, and "religious tracts" from your ever eager hand.
Whoops, I said "Smalltalk", guess we'll have to endure another lecture.
Simon Cooke
"Tim Tyler" <t...@cryogen.com> wrote in message news:G6poy...@bath.ac.uk...
> JTK <gary_va...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> : Does this evidence leave any room for doubt that Mr. van der Linden
> : attempted to cancel a post of mine? I'm certainly not an expert at
> : these things, but "X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 956189580 223
> : pv...@206.184.139.147" and "Subject: cmsg cancel
> : <38FE26E2...@nowhere.com>" seem to me to leave absolutely no room
> : for doubt that the ugly facts are that Mr. van der Linden attempted to
> : cancel a post of mine.
>
> Of course there's room for doubt. Is the post digitally signed with
> PVDL's public key? If not then forging is not even very difficult.
> Usenet cancels are not automatically authenticated.
Might I then recommend that you sign all your posts in such a manner from
here on out -- otherwise, you might have problems if someone fakes your
identity.Which would not be very difficult. After all, all we have to do is
post from YOUR internet provider.
Simon
Peter van der Linden
Once again John, you are misapplying the template of some horrible
bullying that you witnessed in the past, to excuse the horrible behavior
from Gary Van Sickle that we are all seeing now.
Just one question for you: at what point does your abuse of me become
bullying in your own mind? Just curious, not expecting a rational answer.
It is worth your while to think about it though. Because to my mind,
you have already gone past that point. To me, you are behaving like one
of the bullies you profess to despise.
petilon
>
> I've only been a here a few weeks
Interesting. I thought 'Mike' is Jen's new name. Your posts certainly
sound like Jen's. And you appeared about the same time Jen disappeared.
John Lockwood
wrote:
>
>Come, come, James. I hardly think that a quiet one page description
>of Gary Van Sickle's antics qualifies as "going postal".
Well, let's review a little snippet of this "quiet one page
description of Gary Van Sickel's antics" , shall we:
"You can reach them at 11481 Rupp Drive, Burnsville MN 55337,
phone 800 328-2719. Or you can email the executives there as
judy@braemarinc, jschmidt@braemarinc, or st...@braemarinc.com."
You're not posting a quiet, one page description of his antics,
nutcase, you're inciting people to go after him at work. Talk it over
with your shrink.
John Lockwood
wrote:
>
>Once again John, you are misapplying the template of some horrible
>bullying that you witnessed in the past, to excuse the horrible behavior
>from Gary Van Sickle that we are all seeing now.
Blah blah blah...
>
>Just one question for you: at what point does your abuse of me become
>bullying in your own mind? Just curious, not expecting a rational answer.
Nutcase, you wouldn't know what to do with a rational answer, and
until you prove yourself worthy of one by an extended period of adult
behavior (defined as abstinence from calling people's ISPs and
employers and otherwise running to tell mommy every time someone calls
little Petey a name), I have no intention of treating you to one.
As long as you smugly post exhortations to go after people at work or
otherwise harm human beings in meatspace, I will bloody your
rhetorical nose whenever the spirit moves me. On alternate days I'll
just be doing the sane thing myself and running away from your crazy
ass.
>
>It is worth your while to think about it though. Because to my mind,
>you have already gone past that point. To me, you are behaving like one
>of the bullies you profess to despise.
Yes, but to your psychiatrist, bloodying your nose when you go after
people at work is known as "an intervention." Talk it over with him.
Thrusters to maximum, slingshotting away from the black hole of
looney-tune...
John
John Lockwood
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
If he's Jen, shouldn't he spell his name "ekiM"?
:-)
John
John Lockwood
wrote:
>In article <935mis$1j5$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> pv...@best.com (Peter van der Linden) wrote:
>>
>> During 1999 and 2000 Gary Van Sickle essentially destroyed the
>> comp.lang.java.advocacy newsgroup
>
>How can I still read the destroyed newsgroup? or a canceled post ;-)
You must be _imagining_ that you can. ;-)
John
John Lockwood
Dude, I am not WORTHY ! :-)
John
petilon
>
> Not to put to fine an "implication" on it, anyone going after a guy at
> work for bickering in a newsgroup explicitly devoted to language wars
> _is_ a Usenet Kook.
I disagree. You are underestimating the importance of on-line forums
such as this. Lots of people visit this newsgroup hoping to get the real
skinny on Java. I know for a fact that even reporters often visit this
newsgroup looking for information. Disinformation spread on on-line
forums can do *real* damage to technologies such as Java.
So that's point number one: Disinformation spread on on-line forums can
do real damage. If you disagree let me know, and we can debate that
point further.
If you agree with point number one let us move on to point number two:
If someone spreads lies about you personally on a usenet newsgroup do
you have a right to do something about it? Most people will agree you
do. In fact, courts agree too. Now what if someone spreads malicious
and damaging lies on-line about something you worked your ass off for
the last five years? Do you have a right to do something about it?
I happen to believe you do. If you have heard about the Emulex stock
manipulation case then you know that lies spread on-line can even put
you behind bars.
So that's point number two: If you are the damaged party you have a
right to do something about it. Do you agree with this point? If you
don't let me know and we can debate this point further.
If you agree with points one and two let us move on to point number
three: If you have been damaged by on-line lies what can you do about
it? Is it reasonable to contact the ISP of the offender? I don't see
why not. Just yesterday my home PC was attacked repeatedly by a hacker
who had previously used anonymous FTP to store tons of porn files on
my computer. I didn't go to the police or to the courts, I complained
to his ISP since I know that it is against most ISP's policies to
engage in such activities. If the hacker is using his employer's
resources is it OK to contact the employer? I don't see why not. In
my case I contacted not just the ISP but also the employer because
the hacker was using his employer's Internet connection. I hope he
got fired.
So that's point number three, the final point: If you have been
damaged by lies spread on-line it is certainly within reason to
contact the person's ISP, or the employer, if the person used his
employer's resources.
If you want to defend JTK, I would recommend a different tack: Argue
that JTK is, and always has been, debating in good faith. Argue that
his points about Java are quite valid, and he is only trying to get
Sun to pay attention to some of the real defects of Java. Arguing
that anyone has the right to spread malicious lies, and that no one
has the right to try to do anything about it is just not smart.
John Lockwood
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <ujsc5t81l83rbhba8...@4ax.com>, John says...
>>
>> Not to put to fine an "implication" on it, anyone going after a guy at
>> work for bickering in a newsgroup explicitly devoted to language wars
>> _is_ a Usenet Kook.
>
>I disagree. You are underestimating the importance of on-line forums
>such as this. Lots of people visit this newsgroup hoping to get the real
>skinny on Java.
Anyone coming _here_ to get the real skinny on Java would conclude
that it is not a programming language, but a religion. If you meet
anyone who needs to find out that Java is in fact a programming
language plus a runtime, I suggest that you refer them to
comp.lang.java.programmer.
John
Simon Cooke
"petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:936cl...@drn.newsguy.com...
> I disagree. You are underestimating the importance of on-line forums
> such as this.
I recall IV drug users making similar statements regarding their dealers.
Simon
Tim Tyler
: "Tim Tyler" <t...@cryogen.com> wrote in message news:G6poy...@bath.ac.uk...
:> JTK <gary_va...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:> Of course there's room for doubt. Is the post digitally signed with
:> PVDL's public key? If not then forging is not even very difficult.
:> Usenet cancels are not automatically authenticated.
: Might I then recommend that you sign all your posts in such a manner from
: here on out [...]
You can recommend it. I will probably ignore you :-|
: -- otherwise, you might have problems if someone fakes your identity.
: Which would not be very difficult. After all, all we have to do is
: post from YOUR internet provider.
If someone fakes my identity, I will complain loudly. If they persist,
I /might/ start signing my posts - if I thought enough people cared
enough about who wrote them to bother verifying who their author was.
In short, I'll deal with this problem only if it arises.
--
__________ http://alife.co.uk/ http://mandala.co.uk/
|im |yler t...@cryogen.com http://hex.org.uk/ http://atoms.org.uk/
Tim Tyler
: "petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
:> You are underestimating the importance of on-line forums such as this.
: I recall IV drug users making similar statements regarding their dealers.
If you think online forums such as this one are *not* important,
what are you doing reading this newsgroup, and making posts in it?
Tim Tyler
: On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:12:39 -0500, Jim Sculley []:
:>John Lockwood wrote:
:>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:36:04 -0500, Jim Sculley []:
:>> [...] In other words, you are a liar.
:>>
:>> He's a liar? You mean it never happened?
:>
:>That's right John, I never requested the FAQ be posted.
: You either don't read well or you're intentionally equivocating, it
: seems to me. Either way, let's try to make the best of it.
You are the one exhibiting reading difficulties. To remind you, the full
quote (partly referenced above) reads:
``So this statement:
"Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ."
is a complete fabrication, manufactured by the inner workings of your
deep seeded persecution fantasy, where all those who show you to be
wrong are magically rendered evil members of an organized conspiracy to
silence you. In other words, you are a liar.''
Jim's subsequent comment:
"That's right John, I never requested the FAQ be posted."
...makes perfect sense, and appears to be 100% accurate.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Hat: Baldness cure.
John Lockwood
>John Lockwood <jo...@particlewave.com> wrote:
>: On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 12:12:39 -0500, Jim Sculley []:
>:>John Lockwood wrote:
>:>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:36:04 -0500, Jim Sculley []:
>
>You are the one exhibiting reading difficulties. To remind you, the full
>quote (partly referenced above) reads:
>
>``So this statement:
>
> "Per your request Jim, here's the FAQ."
>
> is a complete fabrication, manufactured by the inner workings of your
> deep seeded persecution fantasy, where all those who show you to be
> wrong are magically rendered evil members of an organized conspiracy to
> silence you. In other words, you are a liar.''
Actually we were both just looking at different parts of the same six
lines. But fair enough.
James A. Robertson
>
> of Gary Van Sickle's antics qualifies as "going postal".
>
No, the jihad against him last year was going postal.
> On the other hand, someone only has to mention some inadequacy of
> Smalltalk to trigger pages and pages of righteous indigation, proofs,
> would-be rebuttals, and "religious tracts" from your ever eager hand.
>
Will this involve notes and calls to my employer as well?
> Whoops, I said "Smalltalk", guess we'll have to endure another lecture.
Nope. Although you might learn something if you tried it out
Ermine Todd III
"petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:936cl...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > Not to put to fine an "implication" on it, anyone going after a guy at
> > work for bickering in a newsgroup explicitly devoted to language wars
> > _is_ a Usenet Kook.
>
> right to do something about it. Do you agree with this point? If you
> don't let me know and we can debate this point further.
>
Exactly HOW has that kook been damaged by someone posting their opinion or
understanding about some thing totally independent of the kook? Is the kook
somehow the owner or responsible for the thing? Does ANYTHING said about
the thing in any way, shape or form somehow impact the kook's personal
standing? No? Then why does this kook feel that he has the right to 1)
engage in a personal attacks against the poster, 2) do this on their own -
assuming that they feel they have a valid grievance - and not utilize the
mechanism of the courts (which is what our society has agreed is the
appropriate venue for resolving disputes) and 3) lying?
--ET--
petilon
> >
> > So that's point number two: If you are the damaged party you have a
> > right to do something about it. Do you agree with this point? If you
> > don't let me know and we can debate this point further.
> >
>
> Exactly HOW has that kook been damaged by someone posting their opinion or
> understanding about some thing totally independent of the kook? Is the kook
> somehow the owner or responsible for the thing? Does ANYTHING said about
> the thing in any way, shape or form somehow impact the kook's personal
> standing? No?
I have already addressed this in my post. I feel that if you slogged
your ass off on a technology for 5 years and then someone attempted to
destroy it by spreading malicious lies about it then you have a right
to be upset.
Now if you are arguing that those are not lies, and those are just
honest opinions posted in good faith, then you have a valid (but
disputable) argument. Again, I said so in my previous post.
> Then why does this kook feel that he has the right to 1)
> engage in a personal attacks against the poster,
I think it is reasonable to complain to the ISP and to the employer
if the perpetrator used his employer's resources.
> 2) do this on their own -
> assuming that they feel they have a valid grievance - and not utilize the
> mechanism of the courts (which is what our society has agreed is the
> appropriate venue for resolving disputes)
I disagree. Courts are not always the only available avenue. When my
computer was attacked by a hacker two days ago, I reported it to the
hacker's ISP and also to his employer (because he was using his
employer's Internet connection). I didn't go to court. If I wanted to
collect damages then I would have had to sue in a court, but I felt
it was unnecessary.
> and 3) lying?
>
BTW Ermine, in your reply, thank you for writing your comments *below* my
comments, which is the right order.
John Lockwood
<et...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>Exactly HOW has that kook been damaged by someone posting their opinion or
>understanding about some thing totally independent of the kook?
Ermine, I think you have to see this from the perspective of a kook in
order to get it. To you or me or Sally McGee, if we happen to be Java
programmers, and someone comes into an Internet newsgroup and says,
"Java sucks, it's performance is slow" a la Gary van Sickle, or if
someone comes in and says "Java sucks, Smalltalk is much more of a
pure object oriented language, and real men code in Smalltalk" a la
James A. Robertson, then it's really not that much of a big deal.
Well, sometimes, it is, but sane men get over it. For example, I've
gotten into some pretty heated snits with Robertson from time to time,
but I do try to keep it in perspective -- nothing he's said is worth
going after him at work, calling the cops on him, complaining to his
ISP, or any other damned thing. And I suspect, even when I've been a
total asshole about things, that Robertson probably feels the same way
about me -- i.e., he might plonk me or hate me or consider me rude,
but he probably wouldn't go after me at work or call my ISP over it.
But to a kook, if someone comes in here and starts trashing their
programming language, well, then, let's fire up the torches and march
on the town, because ours is the one true kooky way and the one true
kooky life, and no one cometh to our kooky father but through Sun
Microsystems. An inability to see things with the same perspective
with which sane men view them is one of the definining characteristics
of being a nutjob, and the nutjob that Petilon is defending in this
instance is that most dense of the dark matter fruitcakes himself,
PVDL.
John Lockwood
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>I have already addressed this in my post. I feel that if you slogged
>your ass off on a technology for 5 years and then someone attempted to
>destroy it by spreading malicious lies about it then you have a right
>to be upset.
I disagree with several of the premises implicit in your analysis:
1) That JTK is attempting to destroy Java. Of course I'm guessing
because they're his intentions, not mine, but I think that although
wildly critical of Java, his motivations are more along the lines of
the joy of shooting ducks in a pond as well as a genuine love of C++.
2) That someone who spends five years on Java would be harmed if Java
were to go away. Perhaps I'm too ecclectic, knowing Java and C++ and
Delphi and lately even brushing up my pitiful knowledge of assembler,
but to my way of thinking every minute I spend in _any_ language makes
me a better programmer. Perhaps I don't get it precisely _because_ I
don't specialize, but to me, if Java were to go away tomorrow, the
good Java programmers would still be good programmers. They're not
good programmers because of Java, they're good programmers because
they are dilligent, self-motivated, cautious, experienced, and they
document their work, use version control, keep it simple, test they're
code early and often, etc., etc.
3) That Java's so weak that a lone critic can suddenly destroy it.
Java is a simple language to use, it's got a syntax based on C++ which
many people know, and it provides excellent support for the kind of
applications businesses are paying for. Its mindshare is good at some
75% of that of C++, every time I look. Probably not one Java
programmer in a hundred or a thousand has even heard of Gary van
Sickle or JTK -- I'll bet that of the sixty or so I know personally,
I'm the only one.
4) That if Java is so weak that it can be destroyed by one or two
rabble rousers in a newsgroup, it's still worth coding in. Well, to
you, maybe. I like a language that can stand on its own technical
merits.
5) That PVDL isn't the biggest nut job on the Internet.
But OK, let's pretend that PVDL isn't the biggest nut job on the
internet, and let's further assume that your premise that going after
Gary was the right thing to do is correct. Assuming you think going
after Gary was right and just, please provide specific and complete
details as to the actions you took to go after Gary, or explain your
failure do so. If you're just being inconsistent and you never really
went after him, you just admire PVDL for it, that's fine, but if you
think going after him was the right thing to do, I don't think you
should have any trouble sharing the details of your participation in
that, do you? I mean, if it's the right thing to do, then you should
have nothing to hide, right?
John
James A. Robertson
>
> In article <eddbDAAeAHA.269@cpmsnbbsa07>, "Ermine says...
> > >
> > > So that's point number two: If you are the damaged party you have a
> > > right to do something about it. Do you agree with this point? If you
> > > don't let me know and we can debate this point further.
> > >
> >
> > Exactly HOW has that kook been damaged by someone posting their opinion or
> > understanding about some thing totally independent of the kook? Is the kook
> > somehow the owner or responsible for the thing? Does ANYTHING said about
> > the thing in any way, shape or form somehow impact the kook's personal
> > standing? No?
>
> I have already addressed this in my post. I feel that if you slogged
> your ass off on a technology for 5 years and then someone attempted to
> destroy it by spreading malicious lies about it then you have a right
> to be upset.
Goodness, this is an advocacy group. Nothing anyone says here has the
power to destroy anything. You are delusional if you believe otherwise.
>
> Now if you are arguing that those are not lies, and those are just
> honest opinions posted in good faith, then you have a valid (but
> disputable) argument. Again, I said so in my previous post.
>
> > Then why does this kook feel that he has the right to 1)
> > engage in a personal attacks against the poster,
>
Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.
> I think it is reasonable to complain to the ISP and to the employer
> if the perpetrator used his employer's resources.
>
> > 2) do this on their own -
> > assuming that they feel they have a valid grievance - and not utilize the
> > mechanism of the courts (which is what our society has agreed is the
> > appropriate venue for resolving disputes)
>
So when someone here decides that you have been unreasonable, you will
be happy to see the witchunt starting?
> I disagree. Courts are not always the only available avenue. When my
> computer was attacked by a hacker two days ago, I reported it to the
> hacker's ISP and also to his employer (because he was using his
> employer's Internet connection). I didn't go to court. If I wanted to
> collect damages then I would have had to sue in a court, but I felt
> it was unnecessary.
>
> > and 3) lying?
> >
>
> BTW Ermine, in your reply, thank you for writing your comments *below* my
> comments, which is the right order.
--
Simon Cooke
"Tim Tyler" <t...@cryogen.com> wrote in message news:G6qtF...@bath.ac.uk...
> Simon Cooke <simon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : "petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> :> You are underestimating the importance of on-line forums such as this.
>
> : I recall IV drug users making similar statements regarding their
dealers.
>
> If you think online forums such as this one are *not* important,
> what are you doing reading this newsgroup, and making posts in it?
Feeding the habit, mainly.
Simon
Simon Cooke
"petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> I have already addressed this in my post. I feel that if you slogged
> your ass off on a technology for 5 years and then someone attempted to
> destroy it by spreading malicious lies about it then you have a right
> to be upset.
Why, petilon! I didn't realize that you and PVDL were involved in the
*creation* of Java..
But wait... you probably *weren't*. So if you get upset because you've been
using a technology for 5 years, and someone is talking crap about it (from
your perspective), then you should either:
(a) get a life
(b) seek counselling
(c) realize that the My Computer Is Better Than Your Computer wars were
supposed to have been laid to rest in the early 90's
or (d) try wearing a rubber-band around your wrist, and when you get the
urge to make nasty posts, pull the rubber band and let it snap back onto
your wrist 4 or 5 times. According to some research I'm doing, this works
wonders.
Simon
James A. Robertson
--
Simon Cooke
Si
"James A. Robertson" <jar...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3A578C82...@mail.com...
Reality is a point of view
| If someone fakes my identity, I will complain loudly. If they persist,
| I /might/ start signing my posts - if I thought enough people cared
| enough about who wrote them to bother verifying who their author was.
A while back yet another of the aged, stuffed shirt,
pontificating posters (no, not in c.l.j.a, is was SternFUD, of
cryto infamy) was in a situation like the one described above.
Then someone acquired his private key (busted, snarfed, I don't
know) . . .
--
Gary Johnson gjoh...@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
<a href=http://www.squeak.org>Tired of selfish technology monopolies?</a>
Tim Tyler
: +---- t...@cryogen.com wrote (Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:17:32 GMT):
: | If someone fakes my identity, I will complain loudly. If they persist,
: | I /might/ start signing my posts [...]
: A while back yet another of the aged, stuffed shirt, pontificating
: posters [...]
You calling me an "aged stuffed-shirt ponficator"? Fisticuffs at dawn! ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler t...@cryogen.com Home page: http://alife.co.uk/tim/
Ermine Todd III
consider posting to this forum if you are going to continue along these
lines? Why, if you continue to do this, you might cause some of the more
outspoken types to actually suffer a stroke! <G>
--ET--
"John Lockwood" <jo...@particlewave.com> wrote in message
news:1bte5tcuis0av341k...@4ax.com...
Reality is a point of view
| You calling me an "aged stuffed-shirt ponficator"? Fisticuffs at dawn! ;-)
No, but you might be one of the 'only replies to the
interpersonal prattle' types. :p
petilon
>
> I disagree with several of the premises implicit in your analysis:
>
> 1) That JTK is attempting to destroy Java. Of course I'm guessing
> because they're his intentions, not mine, but I think that although
> wildly critical of Java, his motivations are more along the lines of
> the joy of shooting ducks in a pond as well as a genuine love of C++.
So basically you are arguing that JTK is debating in good faith.
This is a reasonable argument.
If your argument is that anyone has the right to spread malicious
lies and no one has the right to do anything about it then that's
unreasonable.
If you agree with me then you also agree that the only issue here
is whether JTK is debating in good faith or not. If he is not, and
if he is spreading malicious lies, then people who are damaged by
the *thousands* of malicious posts have a right to do something
about it. Do you agree with me on this point?
> 2) That someone who spends five years on Java would be harmed if Java
> were to go away.
<snip>
I was talking about people who have been working tirelessly for the
last 5 years to create Java. It is grossly unfair to them if someone
tries to damage the product of their hard work by spreading malicious
lies, don't you think? Don't they have a right to try to stop such
unfair damage?
You can argue that those aren't lies. You can argue that Java has
some real defects, and he is only pointing them out. Those would be
reasonable arguments. But please don't argue that no one has a right
to do something about it even though they are malicious lies.
> 3) That Java's so weak that a lone critic can suddenly destroy it.
<snip>
Why does it have to be destroyed? Why should Sun lose even one
customer because of someone spreading malicious lies through
*thousands* of messages posted on on-line forums?
Once again, the only reasonable argument you can make here is that
those are not deliberate, malicious lies. Please don't argue that
Sun should be willing to lose a few customers because of malicious
lies.
> 4) That if Java is so weak that it can be destroyed by one or two
> rabble rousers in a newsgroup, it's still worth coding in.
<snip>
Again, I don't agree that the threat of complete destruction is the
only thing that ought to spur someone to take action.
> 5) That PVDL isn't the biggest nut job on the Internet.
>
> But OK, let's pretend that PVDL isn't the biggest nut job on the
> internet, and let's further assume that your premise that going after
> Gary was the right thing to do is correct. Assuming you think going
> after Gary was right and just, please provide specific and complete
> details as to the actions you took to go after Gary, or explain your
> failure do so. If you're just being inconsistent and you never really
> went after him, you just admire PVDL for it, that's fine, but if you
> think going after him was the right thing to do, I don't think you
> should have any trouble sharing the details of your participation in
> that, do you? I mean, if it's the right thing to do, then you should
> have nothing to hide, right?
If someone tried to unfairly damage a product that I worked 5 years to
help create I would certainly try to do something about it. Just a few
days ago a hacker invaded my machine, and I reported him not just to
his ISP, but because he was using his employer's Internet connection,
also to his employer. I think my action was completely reasonable. Do
you disagree?
If Java fails it should be because it is lacking in merits, not because
of thousands of malicious lies posted on on-line forums (such as "Java
is only available on platforms X and Y").
The only question should be whether JTK is debating in good faith or not.
If he isn't, then because of the thousands of instances of malicious
posts he has been making, it is completely within reason to report him
to his ISP, or if is using his employer's resources, to his employer.
Tim Tyler
: On 6 Jan 2001 11:03:36 -0800, petilon
: <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
:>I have already addressed this in my post. I feel that if you slogged
:>your ass off on a technology for 5 years and then someone attempted to
:>destroy it by spreading malicious lies about it then you have a right
:>to be upset.
: I disagree with several of the premises implicit in your analysis: [...]
Those were not petilon's premises. For example, where did he imply,
suggest, (or whatever) that "Java's so weak that a lone critic can
suddenly destroy it"?
Or that "if Java is so weak that it can be destroyed by one or two
rabble rousers in a newsgroup, it's still worth coding in."
AFAICS, these ideas come from you - not from petilon.
Reality is a point of view
| The only question should be whether JTK is debating in good faith or not.
As that 'standard' is not applied to a number of the Java
apologists is it not YOU that is debating in bad faith,
anonymous poster of questionable assertions?
James A. Robertson
>
> > 3) That Java's so weak that a lone critic can suddenly destroy it.
> <snip>
>
> Why does it have to be destroyed? Why should Sun lose even one
> customer because of someone spreading malicious lies through
> *thousands* of messages posted on on-line forums?
>
> Once again, the only reasonable argument you can make here is that
> those are not deliberate, malicious lies. Please don't argue that
> Sun should be willing to lose a few customers because of malicious
> lies.
>
who died and made you Sun's gaurdian? The best answer to stupid speech
is more speech, not less. The harrassing techniques used by pvdl are
those used by someone so unsure of his case that he feels forced to
resort to other techniques.
> > 4) That if Java is so weak that it can be destroyed by one or two
> > rabble rousers in a newsgroup, it's still worth coding in.
> <snip>
>
> Again, I don't agree that the threat of complete destruction is the
> only thing that ought to spur someone to take action.
>
So use a killfile. If everyone ignored him, he'd go away. Instead, he
comes around not unlike a moth to a flame. Maybe it's the lack of
people like vdl and you that kept JTK from hanging around cls. Just a
thought.
> > 5) That PVDL isn't the biggest nut job on the Internet.
> >
> > But OK, let's pretend that PVDL isn't the biggest nut job on the
> > internet, and let's further assume that your premise that going after
> > Gary was the right thing to do is correct. Assuming you think going
> > after Gary was right and just, please provide specific and complete
> > details as to the actions you took to go after Gary, or explain your
> > failure do so. If you're just being inconsistent and you never really
> > went after him, you just admire PVDL for it, that's fine, but if you
> > think going after him was the right thing to do, I don't think you
> > should have any trouble sharing the details of your participation in
> > that, do you? I mean, if it's the right thing to do, then you should
> > have nothing to hide, right?
>
> If someone tried to unfairly damage a product that I worked 5 years to
> help create I would certainly try to do something about it. Just a few
> days ago a hacker invaded my machine, and I reported him not just to
> his ISP, but because he was using his employer's Internet connection,
> also to his employer. I think my action was completely reasonable. Do
> you disagree?
>
You are comparing actual, real harm to the ravings of an uninformed,
harmless buffoon? Is your work so fragile?
> If Java fails it should be because it is lacking in merits, not because
> of thousands of malicious lies posted on on-line forums (such as "Java
> is only available on platforms X and Y").
AAnd shutting down the speech doesn't solve this. It leaves questions
in other people's minds - 'hmm, why <did> they want that fellow shut
down?'
Creating a martyr is rarely the best path to success.
>
> The only question should be whether JTK is debating in good faith or not.
> If he isn't, then because of the thousands of instances of malicious
> posts he has been making, it is completely within reason to report him
> to his ISP, or if is using his employer's resources, to his employer.
--
John Lockwood
>John Lockwood <jo...@particlewave.com> wrote:
>: On 6 Jan 2001 11:03:36 -0800, petilon
>: <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>:>I have already addressed this in my post. I feel that if you slogged
>:>your ass off on a technology for 5 years and then someone attempted to
>:>destroy it by spreading malicious lies about it then you have a right
>:>to be upset.
>
>: I disagree with several of the premises implicit in your analysis: [...]
>
>Those were not petilon's premises. For example, where did he imply,
>suggest, (or whatever) that "Java's so weak that a lone critic can
>suddenly destroy it"?
>
>Or that "if Java is so weak that it can be destroyed by one or two
>rabble rousers in a newsgroup, it's still worth coding in."
>
>AFAICS, these ideas come from you - not from petilon.
Well, look, Petilon is the one who's arguing for going after the guy.
I'm not arguing for that, and yet I'm a Java programmer. Do you think
I'm _missing_ JTK's trashing of Java? If not, then why is it that
Petilon is worried about it enough to argue that it's OK to go after
the guy at work, and I'm not?
Well, one reason is because I don't think that Java is a religion, but
a programming language, so it's therefore less important than the
livelihood of a single human being, not more. Another reason is that
if Java's not so weak that a lone critic can suddenly destroy it,
there'd be no reason to go after the guy at work. Petilon's arguing
that it's OK to go after JTK at work because JTK is trying to destroy
Java, even in the post you quote:
>:>I have already addressed this in my post. I feel that if you slogged
>:>your ass off on a technology for 5 years and then someone attempted to
>:>destroy it by spreading malicious lies about it then you have a right
>:>to be upset.
Tim, Petilon's defense of PVDL's kookiness rests _squarely_ on JTK's
attempted destruction of Java, as this quote shows in it's use of hte
word "destroy". So are you saying that what Petilon's saying is this:
"Java is so important relative to a human being's livelihood that it's
OK to go after a guy at work for attempting to destroy it even if that
human being has no hope of success?" I think I give Petilon more
credit than you do in this instance.
John
John Lockwood
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <b3ve5t0odmij6ijj5...@4ax.com>, John says...
>>
>> I disagree with several of the premises implicit in your analysis:
>>
>> 1) That JTK is attempting to destroy Java. Of course I'm guessing
>> because they're his intentions, not mine, but I think that although
>> wildly critical of Java, his motivations are more along the lines of
>> the joy of shooting ducks in a pond as well as a genuine love of C++.
>
>So basically you are arguing that JTK is debating in good faith.
>This is a reasonable argument.
Well, what I'm arguing is that his motives are not to destroy Java.
He could still be motivated by thinking you and PVDL are nuts -- that
wouldn't really be good faith, however.
>
>If your argument is that anyone has the right to spread malicious
>lies and no one has the right to do anything about it then that's
>unreasonable.
>
>If you agree with me then you also agree that the only issue here
>is whether JTK is debating in good faith or not. If he is not, and
>if he is spreading malicious lies, then people who are damaged by
>the *thousands* of malicious posts have a right to do something
>about it. Do you agree with me on this point?
No. No one's damaged by anything he says. Anyone who thinks they are
and who doesn't wake up and reconsider a few days later is a
fruitcake, just like PVDL. Well, maybe not "just like PVDL", since
PVDL is a paradigmatic fruitcake, but baked in the same fruitcake pan,
at least.
>
>> 2) That someone who spends five years on Java would be harmed if Java
>> were to go away.
><snip>
>
>I was talking about people who have been working tirelessly for the
>last 5 years to create Java. It is grossly unfair to them if someone
>tries to damage the product of their hard work by spreading malicious
>lies, don't you think? Don't they have a right to try to stop such
>unfair damage?
Where's the unfair damage? You still have yet to prove that _anyone_
would come in here and listen to a guy like JTK and say to himself,
"gee, some nutcase thinks servlets take a day to execute, I'd better
stop using Java." Has Java's market share declined since JTK's been
here? Please show some statistics correlating knowing JTK with not
using Java.
And then, when you're done with that, do you mean a right in principle
(e.g., by recourse to the courts), or do you mean a right to do so "by
any means necessary", such as harassing someone at work, complaining
to their ISP, punching the guy, or what have you.
>
>You can argue that those aren't lies. You can argue that Java has
>some real defects, and he is only pointing them out. Those would be
>reasonable arguments. But please don't argue that no one has a right
>to do something about it even though they are malicious lies.
Someone's spreading malicious lies, so I'll take it up with the guy's
employers. Hmm... Reminds me of a twilight zone episode where the guy
wants to eliminate evil, and telephones people's bosses. I suspect
that that episode, in turn, was inspired by the likes of Joe
McCarthy...
>
>> 3) That Java's so weak that a lone critic can suddenly destroy it.
><snip>
>
>Why does it have to be destroyed? Why should Sun lose even one
>customer because of someone spreading malicious lies through
>*thousands* of messages posted on on-line forums?
Oh, excuse me. So you're saying that Sun's right to customers is so
pre-eminent here that anyone who lies about Java is fair game for
being chased at work? OK, well then, if that's your argument, here,
take me on. You ready? "Java is made of dogsnot and vermin baked
onto rusty shrimp." There, that was a lie, and it was malicious.
Come and get me.
>
>Once again, the only reasonable argument you can make here is that
>those are not deliberate, malicious lies. Please don't argue that
>Sun should be willing to lose a few customers because of malicious
>lies.
What action has _SUN_ taken in this. We're talking about PVDL, and we
would be talking about you except you don't have the courage of your
convictions.
>
>> 4) That if Java is so weak that it can be destroyed by one or two
>> rabble rousers in a newsgroup, it's still worth coding in.
><snip>
>
>Again, I don't agree that the threat of complete destruction is the
>only thing that ought to spur someone to take action.
Right, your argument above is that Sun's right to customers takes
pre-emininence over JTK's freedom of speech down to a granularity of
one customer. Let me requote you on that point:
>Why does it have to be destroyed? Why should Sun lose even one
>customer because of someone spreading malicious lies through
>*thousands* of messages posted on on-line forums?
So ONE Sun customer is worth more to you than another human being's
livelihood? You know what? Can we get some kind of PVDL memorial
award going?
I gotta go to my Java programming gig. JTK with his malicious like
has ruined it so for me, but I muddle through as best I can. ;-)
John
John Lockwood
Looks like I got it wrong. Petilon's argument seems to be:
Sun's right to have customers is so pre-eminent over the right of
another human being to engage in free discourse and pursue his
livelihood, that it's OK to pursue someone in their place of business
if their discourse is such that, in the sole opinion of either PVDL or
Petilon, Sun might lose one customer over it.
>Why does it have to be destroyed? Why should Sun lose even one
>customer because of someone spreading malicious lies through
>*thousands* of messages posted on on-line forums?
John
petilon
> >
> > If you agree with me then you also agree that the only issue here
> > is whether JTK is debating in good faith or not. If he is not, and
> > if he is spreading malicious lies, then people who are damaged by
> > the *thousands* of malicious posts have a right to do something
> > about it. Do you agree with me on this point?
>
> No. No one's damaged by anything he says.
I think you are underestimating the importance of on-line forums. Have
you read the story in 'Brill's Content' magazine about Microsoft's OS/2
FUD campaign and the effect it had on OS/2?
> Where's the unfair damage? You still have yet to prove that _anyone_
> would come in here and listen to a guy like JTK and say to himself,
> "gee, some nutcase thinks servlets take a day to execute, I'd better
> stop using Java." Has Java's market share declined since JTK's been
> here? Please show some statistics correlating knowing JTK with not
> using Java.
No, I haven't collected the statistics you are asking for. If someone
wanted to sue JTK for a specific dollar amount in damages then it may
be necessary to come up with some form of statistics or estimate.
Otherwise it isn't. The fact that he has posted thouands of articles
containing malicious lies is sufficient.
> And then, when you're done with that, do you mean a right in principle
> (e.g., by recourse to the courts), or do you mean a right to do so "by
> any means necessary", such as harassing someone at work, complaining
> to their ISP, punching the guy, or what have you.
No, I didn't say "by any means necessary". I am saying "reasonable
means". It is entirely reasonable to report someone abusing their
Internet connection to their ISP. If he is abusing his employer's
Internet connection then it is within reason to report him to his
employer.
> Someone's spreading malicious lies, so I'll take it up with the guy's
> employers.
<snip>
I didn't say that. I am however saying that *if* the guy has abused his
employer's Internet connection *then* it is reasonable to report him to
his employer.
> > Why does it have to be destroyed? Why should Sun lose even one
> > customer because of someone spreading malicious lies through
> > *thousands* of messages posted on on-line forums?
>
> Oh, excuse me. So you're saying that Sun's right to customers is so
> pre-eminent here that anyone who lies about Java is fair game for
> being chased at work?
<snip>
No. But if the perpetrator has posted *thousands* of messages, and has
made an occupation of spreading disinformation about Java, and he is
using employer's Internet connection to do this, then yes.
> > Again, I don't agree that the threat of complete destruction is the
> > only thing that ought to spur someone to take action.
>
> Right, your argument above is that Sun's right to customers takes
> pre-emininence over JTK's freedom of speech down to a granularity of
> one customer.
If you have been following the Emulex stock manipulation case then
you know that there are some limits to your freedom of speech.
Posting *thousands* of malicious lies about someone else's products
is not protected by freedom of speech.
So yes, Sun's right to customers takes precedence over JTK's non-right
to post *thousands* of messages containing malicious lies about Sun's
products.
> So ONE Sun customer is worth more to you than another human being's
> livelihood?
If this human being has made an occupation out of posting *thousands*
of messages containing malicious and damaging lies about someone else's
livelihood, then yes.
James A. Robertson
>
> In article <nmkj5tcvobi6isub7...@4ax.com>, John says...
> > >
> > > If you agree with me then you also agree that the only issue here
> > > is whether JTK is debating in good faith or not. If he is not, and
> > > if he is spreading malicious lies, then people who are damaged by
> > > the *thousands* of malicious posts have a right to do something
> > > about it. Do you agree with me on this point?
> >
> > No. No one's damaged by anything he says.
> <snip>
>
> I think you are underestimating the importance of on-line forums. Have
> you read the story in 'Brill's Content' magazine about Microsoft's OS/2
> FUD campaign and the effect it had on OS/2?
Chuckle. So in your mind, Gary is as influential as Microsoft? Not top
mention that there were other factors (price) in OS/2's rough start.
Especially given that OS/2 (1.3) had a huge head start on Windows.
>
> > Where's the unfair damage? You still have yet to prove that _anyone_
> > would come in here and listen to a guy like JTK and say to himself,
> > "gee, some nutcase thinks servlets take a day to execute, I'd better
> > stop using Java." Has Java's market share declined since JTK's been
> > here? Please show some statistics correlating knowing JTK with not
> > using Java.
>
> No, I haven't collected the statistics you are asking for. If someone
> wanted to sue JTK for a specific dollar amount in damages then it may
> be necessary to come up with some form of statistics or estimate.
> Otherwise it isn't. The fact that he has posted thouands of articles
> containing malicious lies is sufficient.
So it's just hand waving then.
>
> > And then, when you're done with that, do you mean a right in principle
> > (e.g., by recourse to the courts), or do you mean a right to do so "by
> > any means necessary", such as harassing someone at work, complaining
> > to their ISP, punching the guy, or what have you.
>
> No, I didn't say "by any means necessary". I am saying "reasonable
> means". It is entirely reasonable to report someone abusing their
> Internet connection to their ISP. If he is abusing his employer's
> Internet connection then it is within reason to report him to his
> employer.
He's not abusing. Wasting his own time, maybe. If you could learn how
to use a killfile, he wouldn't be wasting your.
>
> > Someone's spreading malicious lies, so I'll take it up with the guy's
> > employers.
> <snip>
>
> I didn't say that. I am however saying that *if* the guy has abused his
> employer's Internet connection *then* it is reasonable to report him to
> his employer.
You have yet to show any actual abuse.
>
> > > Why does it have to be destroyed? Why should Sun lose even one
> > > customer because of someone spreading malicious lies through
> > > *thousands* of messages posted on on-line forums?
> >
> > Oh, excuse me. So you're saying that Sun's right to customers is so
> > pre-eminent here that anyone who lies about Java is fair game for
> > being chased at work?
> <snip>
>
> No. But if the perpetrator has posted *thousands* of messages, and has
> made an occupation of spreading disinformation about Java, and he is
> using employer's Internet connection to do this, then yes.
>
Do we have an impartial board to decide what is and isn't
disinformation? Or is this just a pissing match?
> > > Again, I don't agree that the threat of complete destruction is the
> > > only thing that ought to spur someone to take action.
> >
> > Right, your argument above is that Sun's right to customers takes
> > pre-emininence over JTK's freedom of speech down to a granularity of
> > one customer.
>
> If you have been following the Emulex stock manipulation case then
> you know that there are some limits to your freedom of speech.
> Posting *thousands* of malicious lies about someone else's products
> is not protected by freedom of speech.
>
First, that involved stock manipulation - involving a coordinated set
of posts to online stock discussion forums combined with purchases and
sales. This is hardly the same thing. If you think it is, you are
clearly delusional. Shall I round up you and all the other people who
say bad things about MS and accuse you guys of SEC violations as well?
Be careful where you take this sort of accusation.
> So yes, Sun's right to customers takes precedence over JTK's non-right
> to post *thousands* of messages containing malicious lies about Sun's
> products.
>
Ok then. Let's start rounding up all the anti-MS posters and get them
slapped off of their ISP's as well. I'm sure that there have been
negative comments about other vendors as well; let's have a Jihad!
> > So ONE Sun customer is worth more to you than another human being's
> > livelihood?
>
> If this human being has made an occupation out of posting *thousands*
> of messages containing malicious and damaging lies about someone else's
> livelihood, then yes.
If this is the way you think, you are far, far more dangerous than Mr.
Sickle. Not to mention that you post anonymously as well. Although
after the pvdl Jihad, I can understand the desire to do so.
petilon
>
> Looks like I got it wrong. Petilon's argument seems to be:
>
> Sun's right to have customers is so pre-eminent over the right of
> another human being to engage in free discourse and pursue his
> livelihood, that it's OK to pursue someone in their place of business
> if their discourse is such that, in the sole opinion of either PVDL or
> Petilon, Sun might lose one customer over it.
No, that not my exact argument.
A corporation's rights are not completely different from an individual's
rights.
If *you* worked hard for the last 5 years in order to create some product
how would *you* feel if you found out that you have been losing a few
customers because someone has launched a disinformation campaign against
your product?
Would you just ignore that person? What about *your* livelihood? Wouldn't
you try to stop him from spreading unfounded and malicious lies about your
product?
If you answered yes to the above question then please explain why Sun
doesn't have the same rights as you.
'Free discourse' isn't free discourse if it infringes on someone else's
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
James A. Robertson
>
> A corporation's rights are not completely different from an individual's
> rights.
>
> If *you* worked hard for the last 5 years in order to create some product
> how would *you* feel if you found out that you have been losing a few
> customers because someone has launched a disinformation campaign against
> your product?
I have. I have watched mountains of FUD from C++ and Java folks as to
the 'problems' Smalltalk has. And I have yet to go out and try to get
someone thrown off USENET. Maybe I just have a thicker skin than you.
>
> Would you just ignore that person? What about *your* livelihood? Wouldn't
> you try to stop him from spreading unfounded and malicious lies about your
> product?
I typically either
-- respond with corrections
-- ignore the person
depending on who it is and what the statements are. What I don't do is
go after them personally. That's a childish reaction, taken by less
than mature individuals.
>
> If you answered yes to the above question then please explain why Sun
> doesn't have the same rights as you.
>
So you are a Sun employee harrassing other people based on their
speech? If so, the correct tactic would be a libel suit.
> 'Free discourse' isn't free discourse if it infringes on someone else's
> rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I fail to see how anything Gary has done has infringed on you or anyone
else. I've been responding to that kind of FUD for a <lot> longer than
Java has existed.
Mark Smith
>Ok then. Let's start rounding up all the anti-MS posters and get them
>slapped off of their ISP's as well. I'm sure that there have been
>negative comments about other vendors as well; let's have a Jihad!
Good idea. We could start with Petilon:
"Fat-client is dead."
"What is dead is the Desktop Software industry. (i.e.,
companies creating software for Windows.)"
"The desktop industry has been dead for the last few years."
"Win32 apps market is dead."
"Windows native clients are as dead as the dinosaur."
Outrageous stuff. As he says:
"If *you* worked hard for the last 5 years in order to create
some product how would *you* feel if you found out that you
have been losing a few customers because someone has launched
a disinformation campaign against your product?"
On behalf of the hard-working people at companies like Napster
and Adobe, not to mention thousands of small shareware vendors, I
think Petilon should turn himself in for posting these shockingly
irresponsible comments. I don't know how he sleeps at night.
Peter van der Linden
Yes, you certainly did. My complaint has nothing to do with Java or
Sun or customers put off by malicious lies.
I have just had enough of the bullying and harrassment from you, John,
and from Gary Van Sickle. For the past 4 months, I have not posted
in c.l.j.a at all.
However Gary Van Sickle, John Lockwood and others continued to harrass
me in their postings to the point where my name is mentioned about 100 times
in the four months to Jan 5. See
http://x53.deja.com/=dnc/qs.xp?ST=PS&QRY=linden&groups=comp.lang.java.advocacy&OP=dnquery.xp&maxhits=100
Finally I am fed up with it. Any further harrassment of this kind
is going to result in re-posting of Gary's employment information,
and a complaint to Braemar. He is not going to drag my name in the dirt,
without dragging his association with Braemar there too.
Anyone who wants to comment on the matter is welcome to contact
Braemar Inc at 11481 Rupp Drive, Burnsville MN 55337,
phone 800 328-2719. Or you can email the executives there as
ju...@braemarinc.com, jsch...@braemarinc.com, or st...@braemarinc.com.
However, I am going to play fair. I will only re-post this information
and make a complaint to Braemar in response to harrassment from Gary
Van Sickle or someone else on this subject. Thanks.
Simon Cooke
"petilon" <petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> No. But if the perpetrator has posted *thousands* of messages, and has
> made an occupation of spreading disinformation about Java, and he is
> using employer's Internet connection to do this, then yes.
So... you don't mind if we do the same regarding your MS posts then?
Simon
Simon Cooke
"Peter van der Linden" <pv...@best.com> wrote in message
news:93d0gk$1dca$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> However, I am going to play fair. I will only re-post this information
> and make a complaint to Braemar in response to harrassment from Gary
> Van Sickle or someone else on this subject. Thanks.
And if you do so, I will be more than happy to post your information, Peter.
If you want to escalate things instead of finding a way to defuse them, then
I'm sorry, but you're going to get YOUR info dragged in the mud.
Simon
Tim Tyler
: Tim, Petilon's defense of PVDL's kookiness rests _squarely_ on JTK's
: attempted destruction of Java, as this quote shows in it's use of hte
: word "destroy". So are you saying that what Petilon's saying is this:
: "Java is so important relative to a human being's livelihood that it's
: OK to go after a guy at work for attempting to destroy it even if that
: human being has no hope of success?" [...]
One human being has practically no chance of wiping out those
with Jewish racial features.
That does not mean that one individual cannot potentially make
a big negative impact on their population.
Individuals can be powerful forces, especially when they attempt to
mobilise support from others.
Just because destruction hardly seems to be on the cards, that
does not mean that no significant damage can be done.
I don't have any public opinion about petilon's claims beyond -
the fact that did not appear to be as you claimed.
Petilon never said one man could destroy Java AFAICS. He said one
man can /attempt/ to destroy Java - not that they might succeed.
An attempt to kill everyone in the world migh be doomed to failure -
but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying to prevent such attempts.
Tim Tyler
: | The only question should be whether JTK is debating in good faith or not.
: As that 'standard' is not applied to a number of the Java
: apologists is it not YOU that is debating in bad faith,
: anonymous poster of questionable assertions?
If petilon is anonymous, he's not doing a very good job of it. He
provides what appears to be a valid email address, has a public web
site, and it is known who he works for.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ t...@cryogen.com
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Niagra falls.
Simon Cooke
"Tim Tyler" <t...@cryogen.com> wrote in message news:G6uxB...@bath.ac.uk...
> John Lockwood <jo...@particlewave.com> wrote:
>
> : Tim, Petilon's defense of PVDL's kookiness rests _squarely_ on JTK's
> : attempted destruction of Java, as this quote shows in it's use of hte
> : word "destroy". So are you saying that what Petilon's saying is this:
> : "Java is so important relative to a human being's livelihood that it's
> : OK to go after a guy at work for attempting to destroy it even if that
> : human being has no hope of success?" [...]
>
> One human being has practically no chance of wiping out those
> with Jewish racial features.
Godwin's law invoked -
END OF THREAD.
petilon
reading my posts!
In article <qutj5tcs3vfmtut16...@4ax.com>, Mark says...
James A. Robertson
>
<snip>
Can we call your employer when you get annoying as well?
> However, I am going to play fair. I will only re-post this information
> and make a complaint to Braemar in response to harrassment from Gary
> Van Sickle or someone else on this subject. Thanks.
--
petilon
>
>> No. But if the perpetrator has posted *thousands* of messages, and has
>> made an occupation of spreading disinformation about Java, and he is
>> using employer's Internet connection to do this, then yes.
>
>So... you don't mind if we do the same regarding your MS posts then?
>
>Simon
>
>
Anyone can report anyone to their ISP/employer/whoever. It will then
be up to the ISP/employer/whoever to investigate whether your report
has any merit.
John Lockwood
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Isn't that a wonderful fucking world you live in, where everyone rats
on everyone all the time and then we let our bosses sort it out.
Again, better you than me.
John
John Lockwood
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Where's the unfair damage? You still have yet to prove that _anyone_
>> would come in here and listen to a guy like JTK and say to himself,
>> "gee, some nutcase thinks servlets take a day to execute, I'd better
>> stop using Java." Has Java's market share declined since JTK's been
>> here? Please show some statistics correlating knowing JTK with not
>> using Java.
>
>No, I haven't collected the statistics you are asking for. If someone
>wanted to sue JTK for a specific dollar amount in damages then it may
>be necessary to come up with some form of statistics or estimate.
But to chase him around at his place of employment you only have to be
a 32-bit fruitcake? Q.E.D.
>Otherwise it isn't. The fact that he has posted thouands of articles
>containing malicious lies is sufficient.
To take the law into your own hands? Bingo. Dummy, why do you
suppose the courts require evidence?
>
>> And then, when you're done with that, do you mean a right in principle
>> (e.g., by recourse to the courts), or do you mean a right to do so "by
>> any means necessary", such as harassing someone at work, complaining
>> to their ISP, punching the guy, or what have you.
>
>No, I didn't say "by any means necessary". I am saying "reasonable
>means".
Reasonable means where you don't have to prove harm, you just have to
think he harmed someone.
>It is entirely reasonable to report someone abusing their
>Internet connection to their ISP. If he is abusing his employer's
>Internet connection then it is within reason to report him to his
>employer.
And if he uses his car to drive to his computer, it would be within
reason to let the air out his tires.... and on and on. Well, again,
I'm glad you're on your side and not me.
>
>> Someone's spreading malicious lies, so I'll take it up with the guy's
>> employers.
><snip>
>
>I didn't say that. I am however saying that *if* the guy has abused his
>employer's Internet connection *then* it is reasonable to report him to
>his employer.
"Abused his internet connection"? Huh? You mean posted Spam? No,
you don't mean that. You mean a denial of service attack? No you
don't mean that. What you mean is that he's disagreed with YOU.
Of course, if you don't have to prove abuse, you only have to sneak
around and tell his employer, that's even better, isn't it?
>
>> > Why does it have to be destroyed? Why should Sun lose even one
>> > customer because of someone spreading malicious lies through
>> > *thousands* of messages posted on on-line forums?
>>
>> Oh, excuse me. So you're saying that Sun's right to customers is so
>> pre-eminent here that anyone who lies about Java is fair game for
>> being chased at work?
><snip>
>
>No. But if the perpetrator has posted *thousands* of messages, and has
>made an occupation of spreading disinformation about Java, and he is
>using employer's Internet connection to do this, then yes.
An occupation of it? You mean he gets paid for it?
>
>> > Again, I don't agree that the threat of complete destruction is the
>> > only thing that ought to spur someone to take action.
>>
>> Right, your argument above is that Sun's right to customers takes
>> pre-emininence over JTK's freedom of speech down to a granularity of
>> one customer.
>
>If you have been following the Emulex stock manipulation case then
>you know that there are some limits to your freedom of speech.
>Posting *thousands* of malicious lies about someone else's products
>is not protected by freedom of speech.
"Case", right, as in go to court, have to use evidence, etc. That
would be part of the legal system. How does that relate to harassing
a guy at work because he doesn't agree with you?
>
>So yes, Sun's right to customers takes precedence over JTK's non-right
>to post *thousands* of messages containing malicious lies about Sun's
>products.
>
>> So ONE Sun customer is worth more to you than another human being's
>> livelihood?
>
>If this human being has made an occupation
Occupation is a technical term involving pay. Prove it.
>out of posting *thousands* of messages containing
>malicious
Prove it.
> and damaging
Prove it.
>lies about someone else's livelihood, then yes.
Whose livlihood? Mine? I'm doing fine, and I make all my money these
days off of Java. Your holy war is a subject in search of a subject
matter, but as long as it's your holy war and not mine, that's cool.
John Lockwood
<petilonS...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
You seem to want to perpetually move glibly between that consumate bag
of mixed nuts, PVDL, and his chopped nuts apprentice, you, harrassing
the guy at work to Sun Microsystem's rights to pursue some legal
action against JTK for some fictitious damages that you don't feel
it's incumbent upon you to prove. That's groovey. Go back and forth.
I'm going backwards step by step, facing you, smiling.
John
John Lockwood
please post yours as well since you earlier stated:
> Anyone can report anyone to their ISP/employer/whoever. It will then
> be up to the ISP/employer/whoever to investigate whether your report
> has any merit.
Hey, come to think of it, that seems a bit tame. Why don't we all
just fucking shoot each other and whoever's fastest and luckiest can
walk away?
John Lockwood
>An attempt to kill everyone in the world migh be doomed to failure -
>but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying to prevent such attempts.
Kill everyone in the world? You went from saying stupid shit like
"Java servlets take a day to execute" to killing everyone in the
world?
I sense you have been sucked into the dark matter that is PVDL. Have
you tried swimming latterally instead of against the current? ;-)
John
John Lockwood
Petilon, could you please post your employer's names and addresses for
the benefit of those who want to go after you at work?
Thanks,
John
Peter van der Linden
John Lockwood <jo...@particlewave.com> wrote:
[looney tunes rambling, deleted]
How many times do you need it spelled out before you understand it, John?
My issue has nothing to do with Java, with Gary Van Sickle's lies about Java,
or with customers being misled.
I have simply lost patience with the bullying and harrassment the two of
you have subjected me to over the past four months. During that time I
have not posted a single byte to this newsgroup, but that isn't good enough
for you and Gary and Simon Cooke -- you carry on harrassing me regardless,
hurling slurs and insults like they were going out of style.
I have had enough of your bullying. If you had a shred of decency, you
would apologise and stop it. I don't know how to explain it any more simply
than this.
Reality is a point of view
| I have had enough of your bullying. If you had a shred of decency, you
| would apologise and stop it. I don't know how to explain it any more simply
| than this.
Pot, kettle.
Figure out the technical details of file locking _yet_, pvdl?
--
Gary Johnson gjoh...@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
<a href=http://www.squeak.org>Tired of selfish technology monopolies?</a>
James A. Robertson
>
> John Lockwood <jo...@particlewave.com> wrote:
> [looney tunes rambling, deleted]
>
Bullying? Who posted phone numbers and employers? I think you need to
look in a mirror.
> I have had enough of your bullying. If you had a shred of decency, you
> would apologise and stop it. I don't know how to explain it any more simply
> than this.
--
petilon
> >
> > Otherwise it isn't. The fact that he has posted thouands of articles
> > containing malicious lies is sufficient.
>
> To take the law into your own hands? Bingo. Dummy, why do you
> suppose the courts require evidence?
Reporting an abuser is not "taking the law into your own hands". Just
last week I reported a hacker who attacked my PC to his ISP. That's
not "taking the law into your own hands". The ISP presumably checked
their own logs to verify my complaint before taking appropriate action.
> > No, I didn't say "by any means necessary". I am saying "reasonable
> > means".
>
> Reasonable means where you don't have to prove harm, you just have to
> think he harmed someone.
No, I don't think I have to prove harm. In my case I only reported
the hacker. I provided some preliminary information. The ISP took it
from there, including verifying my complaint.
> > It is entirely reasonable to report someone abusing their
> > Internet connection to their ISP. If he is abusing his employer's
> > Internet connection then it is within reason to report him to his
> > employer.
>
> And if he uses his car to drive to his computer, it would be within
> reason to let the air out his tires.... and on and on. Well, again,
> I'm glad you're on your side and not me.
I don't think I need to respond to this nonsense.
> > I didn't say that. I am however saying that *if* the guy has abused his
> > employer's Internet connection *then* it is reasonable to report him to
> > his employer.
>
> "Abused his internet connection"? Huh? You mean posted Spam? No,
> you don't mean that. You mean a denial of service attack? No you
> don't mean that. What you mean is that he's disagreed with YOU.
Like I said, the only question here is whether JTK has been debating
in good faith or not.
>
> Of course, if you don't have to prove abuse, you only have to sneak
> around and tell his employer, that's even better, isn't it?
A good employer will not take action without verifying that the
employee has violated their policies.
> "Case", right, as in go to court, have to use evidence, etc. That
> would be part of the legal system. How does that relate to harassing
> a guy at work because he doesn't agree with you?
I don't support harassing a guy at work becuase he doesn't agree with
you. I support reporting a guy to his employer if he has been abusing
his employer's Internet connection.
> >
> > If this human being has made an occupation
>
> Occupation is a technical term involving pay. Prove it.
Not necessarily, according to my dictionary.
By the way John, what is your REAL reason for defending JTK? Is it
*really* because you believe he has been wronged? Or is it simply
because you were in the same situation as JTK once upon a time?
http://x65.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=661544452.1
petilon
>
> > An attempt to kill everyone in the world migh be doomed to failure -
> > but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying to prevent such attempts.
>
> Kill everyone in the world? You went from saying stupid shit like
> "Java servlets take a day to execute" to killing everyone in the
> world?
>
> I sense you have been sucked into the dark matter that is PVDL. Have
> you tried swimming latterally instead of against the current? ;-)
Try to control your emotions, John.
He didn't say making a stupid comment about servlets is equivalent to
killing everyone in the world. The point is only that just because an
unethical/illegal activity XYZ may not completely achieve its goals
does not mean it is not worth trying to stop such unethical/illegal
activity.
petilon
>>
>>Anyone can report anyone to their ISP/employer/whoever. It will then
>>be up to the ISP/employer/whoever to investigate whether your report
>>has any merit.
>
>Isn't that a wonderful fucking world you live in, where everyone rats
>on everyone all the time and then we let our bosses sort it out.
>Again, better you than me.
>
Get a hold of yourself John and try to look at things rationally.
Simon Cooke
> I have simply lost patience with the bullying and harrassment the two of
> you have subjected me to over the past four months. During that time I
> have not posted a single byte to this newsgroup, but that isn't good
enough
> for you and Gary and Simon Cooke -- you carry on harrassing me regardless,
> hurling slurs and insults like they were going out of style.
I'm not bullying you Peter -- I'm just telling you that if you post his
information again, I'll post yours. That's not bullying.
Simon
Mark Smith
>Thank you, thank you, thank you. I am glad *someone* has been
>reading my posts!
If you're going to be self-righteously humorless when it comes to JTK,
the least you could do is apply the same standard to yourself. What's
the difference between JTK's ridiculously overblown anti-Sun hyperbole
and your own ridiculously overblown anti-Microsoft hyperbole?