Another observation for Ian.
trotsky
that), but although there have been dozens on these two newsgroups that
have been willing to piss and moan about me, there were very few that
were willing to chime in about how good your writing was, and not a
single person capable of responding to a single point that I raised
about that first "turkey" that you posted. You seem to be somewhat of a
novice with respect to these Usenet altercations, so let me make this
point clear: this is how you know you've hit home, when whiny, pissy,
largely anonymous bastards are completely unable to say a goddamned
thing about something pithy that you've served up. I think you might
know this subconciously from the numerous times you have been unable to
respond to stuff I've posted, but I think it's necessary to ram this
point home. You are trying to learn here, right?
Ian McDowell
.
> Ian, I'm not sure you have noticed (you seem to have a problem with
> that), but although there have been dozens on these two newsgroups that
> have been willing to piss and moan about me, there were very few that
> were willing to chime in about how good your writing was, and not a
> single person capable of responding to a single point that I raised
> about that first "turkey" that you posted.
I've said something like this before, but it bears repeating. "The
Turkey" or even MORDRED"S CURSE could be the worst piece of shit ever
written, literary abortions beside which THE EYE OF ARGON and
BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces, and you'd still be an ageing
unemployed overweight unsocialized dweeb with a greasy pompadour who
lives with his mother. I could have ghostwritten BATMAN AND ROBIN or
spend all my time writing KNIGHT RIDER fan fiction and you'd still
have a clumsily phrased, typo-ridden and temptingly unsecure website
advertising a dubious product. I could caper in the moonlight while
wearing nothing but a cloak made from the skins of Kansas farmgirls
and their Yorkshire terriers and your sad lot would not be one iota
better.
I've done things, to one relative, two girlfriends and three friends,
that I deeply regret and there have been times when I was a complete
asshole in more ways that I can count. Strangely enough, saying to
myself "hey, at least I'm not Carrot Top or Donald Rumsfield" didn't
cheer me up in the least. Does saying "hey, at least I'm not Ian
McDowell!" make you feel any better about yourself?
> You seem to be somewhat of a
> novice with respect to these Usenet altercations, so let me make this
> point clear: this is how you know you've hit home, when whiny, pissy,
> largely anonymous bastards are completely unable to say a goddamned
> thing about something pithy that you've served up.
Or maybe it's just because not everyone wants to spend three hours a
day posting to Usenet. Notice that I didn't say "three hours a day
online" or even "reading Usenet," but specified the amount of time you
spend posting, with 90 percent of those posts being part of a futile
dick-measuring contest. I could understand you spending so many hours
flailing limply away at your phosphor enemies when you were doing it
from work, where things were presumably slow, but yikes, now that you
don't have a job you've become as much of a shut-in as Rich.
Speaking of Usenet, you might want to avoid spawning too many
redundant new threads (everything you've said here would have fit
quite handily into the "OT: Writing Sample" one). You also might want
to avoid using the expression "nigger pile" on other newsgroups.
Your post contains the following headers:
Message-ID: <Pefdb.5140$RW4....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:18:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.32.212.33
X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net 1064665135 66.32.212.33
(Sat, 27 Sep 2003 05:18:55 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 05:18:55 PDT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Note the "Complaints-To ab...@earthlink.net" line. Didn't you learn
anything the last time you lost your ISP? And do get some security
and encryption for the website.
The Gore-met
>Or maybe it's just because not everyone wants to spend three hours a
>day posting to Usenet.
Speaking on behalf of alt.horror (presumptuous though it may be, I
doubt few will take exception), I implore everyone, especially
Twatsky, to immediately fuck off.
Stop cross-posting to this group, stop changing headers, and if so
inclined, stop breathing. I'm tired of filtering out this abysmally
humourless 'battle'. It ceased being amusing 400 posts ago. Twatsky is
an exceptionally tenacious and witheringly tedious TROLL, do as we
have done here: IGNORE HIM. Permanently. Starve him for the attention
he so desperately craves. What could possibly hurt him more? Despite
protestations to the latter, those perpetuating this 'fight' are no
better than Moby Sikh.
Eat a gun. Thank you.
--
"If you beat them they won't dance for you".
WareWolf
mcdol...@hotmail.com says...
> trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
> .
> > Ian, I'm not sure you have noticed (you seem to have a problem with
> > that), but although there have been dozens on these two newsgroups that
> > have been willing to piss and moan about me, there were very few that
> > were willing to chime in about how good your writing was, and not a
> > single person capable of responding to a single point that I raised
> > about that first "turkey" that you posted.
>
> I've said something like this before, but it bears repeating. "The
> Turkey" or even MORDRED"S CURSE could be the worst piece of shit ever
> written, literary abortions beside which THE EYE OF ARGON and
> BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces, and you'd still be an ageing
> unemployed overweight unsocialized dweeb with a greasy pompadour who
> lives with his mother. I could have ghostwritten BATMAN AND ROBIN or
> spend all my time writing KNIGHT RIDER fan fiction and you'd still
> have a clumsily phrased, typo-ridden and temptingly unsecure website
> advertising a dubious product. I could caper in the moonlight while
> wearing nothing but a cloak made from the skins of Kansas farmgirls
> and their Yorkshire terriers and your sad lot would not be one iota
> better.
Oh, is trots claiming no one's said they like your writing? Well, that's
easy to remedy. Sorry for the oversight.
I like your writing. In fact, I quite enjoyed Mordred's Curse when I read
it a couple years ago (before finding this group).
Dusty
--
This Week's Column: She Must Have Converted
http://dusty.booksnbytes.com/columns/2003/2003_0921.html
trotsky
> trotsky wrote:
> .
>
> >Ian, I'm not sure you have noticed (you seem to have a problem with
> >that), but although there have been dozens on these two newsgroups that
> >have been willing to piss and moan about me, there were very few that
> >were willing to chime in about how good your writing was, and not a
> >single person capable of responding to a single point that I raised
> >about that first "turkey" that you posted.
>
>
> I've said something like this before, but it bears repeating. "The
> Turkey" or even MORDRED"S CURSE could be the worst piece of shit ever
> written, literary abortions beside which THE EYE OF ARGON and
> BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces, and you'd still be an ageing
> unemployed overweight unsocialized dweeb with a greasy pompadour who
> lives with his mother. I could have ghostwritten BATMAN AND ROBIN or
> spend all my time writing KNIGHT RIDER fan fiction and you'd still
> have a clumsily phrased, typo-ridden and temptingly unsecure website
> advertising a dubious product. I could caper in the moonlight while
> wearing nothing but a cloak made from the skins of Kansas farmgirls
> and their Yorkshire terriers and your sad lot would not be one iota
> better.
>
> I've done things, to one relative, two girlfriends and three friends,
> that I deeply regret and there have been times when I was a complete
> asshole in more ways that I can count. Strangely enough, saying to
> myself "hey, at least I'm not Carrot Top or Donald Rumsfield" didn't
> cheer me up in the least. Does saying "hey, at least I'm not Ian
> McDowell!" make you feel any better about yourself?
Well, yeah. You're a basketcase, with some kind of weird lack of
self-esteem/overestimation of self-esteem thing going on. And I find it
really weird and even scary that you would even mention my mother.
Isn't that topic off limits?
>
>
> >You seem to be somewhat of a
> >novice with respect to these Usenet altercations, so let me make this
> >point clear: this is how you know you've hit home, when whiny, pissy,
> >largely anonymous bastards are completely unable to say a goddamned
> >thing about something pithy that you've served up.
>
>
> Or maybe it's just because not everyone wants to spend three hours a
> day posting to Usenet.
Yeah, that's the fascinating thing about life: we all get to do what we
want to do. Hanging out in North Carolina or whatever bumblefuck place
you live isn't my idea of a good time, either. Hell, I'll bet the sushi
is super good south of the Mason-Dixon line, right?
> Notice that I didn't say "three hours a day
> online" or even "reading Usenet," but specified the amount of time you
> spend posting, with 90 percent of those posts being part of a futile
> dick-measuring contest.
Uh, Ian, it sounds like most of your writing involves some sort of dick
worship. But please, tell me more about how you focus on all the "right
things" in life.
> I could understand you spending so many hours
> flailing limply away at your phosphor enemies when you were doing it
> from work, where things were presumably slow, but yikes, now that you
> don't have a job you've become as much of a shut-in as Rich.
Ah, I get it. And you write, which is such a social endeavor. Let me
guess: when you get tired of hanging out and writing in one Starbucks
you go across the street to the other Starbucks, right? Again, Ian, I'm
all ears, tell me some more stories about what the proper way to live
one's life is. Oh, I should also point out that you've settled into the
typical Usenet tactic of deflection: you're afraid to talk about my
pointed comments about you, so you try and turn it around to talk about
me. I'm starting to get a swelled head from the all the conversations
being about me. I suppose you could say that you're saving us from
sleep inducement as an excuse.
> Speaking of Usenet, you might want to avoid spawning too many
> redundant new threads (everything you've said here would have fit
> quite handily into the "OT: Writing Sample" one). You also might want
> to avoid using the expression "nigger pile" on other newsgroups.
> Your post contains the following headers:
>
> Message-ID:
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:18:55 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.32.212.33
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@earthlink.net
> X-Trace: newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net 1064665135 66.32.212.33
> (Sat, 27 Sep 2003 05:18:55 PDT)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 05:18:55 PDT
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
>
> Note the "Complaints-To ab...@earthlink.net" line. Didn't you learn
> anything the last time you lost your ISP? And do get some security
> and encryption for the website.
Jeez Ian, now you're getting into the realm of the criminal here. You
are so sad. I trounce you again and again with mere words, so you have
to resort to threats. How much does it suck to be you? Do you realize
you couldn't respond to a single point I raised in my post? And how
much of a hypocrite could you possibly be? Trying to restrict my free
speech like this--it's as if your whole life is a lie. Don't you have
any explanation for your behavior here?
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote...
> Ian, I'm not sure you have noticed (you seem to have a problem with
> that), but although there have been dozens on these two newsgroups that
> have been willing to piss and moan about me, there were very few that
> were willing to chime in about how good your writing was, and not a
> single person capable of responding to a single point that I raised
> about that first "turkey" that you posted.
Nobody responded to your "points" because they were too
asinine to be worthy of a response.
-Jay
rande...@rrogers.com
wrote:
>trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote:
>.
>> Ian, I'm not sure you have noticed (you seem to have a problem with
>> that), but although there have been dozens on these two newsgroups that
>> have been willing to piss and moan about me, there were very few that
>> were willing to chime in about how good your writing was, and not a
>> single person capable of responding to a single point that I raised
>> about that first "turkey" that you posted.
>
>I've said something like this before, but it bears repeating. "The
>Turkey" or even MORDRED"S CURSE could be the worst piece of shit ever
>written, literary abortions beside which THE EYE OF ARGON and
>BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces
Christ, not another Scientologist!
-Rich
madkevin
<rande...@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:d7ednvco63pgvtum4...@4ax.com...
> >I've said something like this before, but it bears repeating. "The
> >Turkey" or even MORDRED"S CURSE could be the worst piece of shit ever
> >written, literary abortions beside which THE EYE OF ARGON and
> >BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces
>
> Christ, not another Scientologist!
> -Rich
That's correct, Rich. Actual Scientologists often refer to the, ahem, works of
L. Ron Hubbard as "literary abortions". Don't let that big brain of yours get in
the way of actual comprehension.
================
"The Mists Of Cogliano"
rande...@rrogers.com
wrote:
"-THE EYE OF ARGON and BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces"
Where does it say that Battlefield Earth is a "literary abortion?"
-Rich
madkevin
<rande...@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:6nugnvkbse1j2dcil...@4ax.com...
Read the quote again, you imbecile.
===============
"School Of Cogliano"
rande...@rrogers.com
wrote:
>
><rande...@rrogers.com> wrote in message
>news:6nugnvkbse1j2dcil...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 14:05:05 -0400, "madkevin" <madk...@golden.net>
>> wrote:
>
>> "-THE EYE OF ARGON and BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces"
>> Where does it say that Battlefield Earth is a "literary abortion?"
>> -Rich
>
>Read the quote again, you imbecile.
>
By implication of the quote, Battlefield Earth is not good, but it
does NOT say HOW bad it is or even that is IS that bad. But the films
designated as "literary abortions" in the quote DO NOT include
"Battleford Earth."
-Rich
Jay G
<rande...@rrogers.com> wrote
>
> By implication of the quote, Battlefield Earth is not good, but it
> does NOT say HOW bad it is or even that is IS that bad. But the films
> designated as "literary abortions" in the quote DO NOT include
> "Battleford Earth."
Here's the quote again:
> "The Turkey" or even MORDRED"S CURSE could be the worst
> piece of shit ever written, literary abortions beside which THE EYE
> OF ARGON and BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces....
It's called hyperbole. He's saying his writing could be so awful
that is makes what's considered the worst right now look good.
The hyperbole wouldn't be effective if he chose to compare his
works to books that are good, or even only middlingly awful.
But, just to be sure, he lists two works of literature. That
means he's putting BATTLEFIELD EARTH in the same
league as THE EYE OF ARGON quality-wise. So how
well is THE EYE OF ARGON thought of? Let's see:
"Widely regarded as one of the worst sci-fi stories ever written "
http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=11&threadid=605
"This is a short story which won the coveted 'Worst Story'
Award at an American Fantasy/SciFi convention fifteen years
running."
http://ineluki.dyndns.org/~mjc42/tut/library/argon.html
"Bottom of the Barrel"
http://www.ansible.demon.co.uk/writing/sfx/sfx043.html
"Legendarily bad"
http://www.amk.ca/books/h/Windows_Imagination.html
"Reputed to be the worst science fiction story ever written,
with some justification, I think."
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/argon.htm
"There are certain things, called "goodbad" things, which
are so umremittingy awful that they possess a terrible grandeur."
http://www.pale.org/personal/grignr.html
So, considering that, it is highly doubtful that
Ian thinks that BATTLEFIELD EARTH is
"good" by any measurement, and even more
doubtful that he is a Scientologist.
-Jay
Ian McDowell
> By implication of the quote, Battlefield Earth is not good, but it
> does NOT say HOW bad it is or even that is IS that bad. But the films
> designated as "literary abortions" in the quote DO NOT include
> "Battleford Earth."
Kevin has the right of it, Rich. BATTLEFIELD EARTH is infamously bad
(I'm talking about Hubbard's book, btw, although the film certainly
does it justice) and THE EYE OF ARGON is notorious as the "worst
science fiction novel ever written."* Hence it would take an almost
unimaginably awful "literary abortion" to make those two works seem
like masterpieces. This sort of hyperbole shouldn't be that hard to
understand. Saying "next to Rich Anderson, George W. Bush is a
bleeding heart liberal" is not the same thing as saying "George W.
Bush is a liberal."
Speaking of THE EYE OF ARGON, here's an entertaining like about it and
its history.
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/argon.htm
I'm not sure it's REALLY the worst SF novel ever written. Col. Tom
Kratman's upcoming STATE OF DISORDER, from those happy fascists at
Baen Books, may claim that "honor." Rich, if he actually bothered to
read novels, might like it. It's about how Hilary Clinton becomes
president and, through the machinations of her evil cabal of
homosexual abortionists, causes the good state of Texas to secede from
the union. No, I'm not kidding. Sample chapters can be found here.
trotsky
> wrote
>
> >By implication of the quote, Battlefield Earth is not good, but it
> >does NOT say HOW bad it is or even that is IS that bad. But the films
> >designated as "literary abortions" in the quote DO NOT include
> >"Battleford Earth."
>
>
> Here's the quote again:
>
> >"The Turkey" or even MORDRED"S CURSE could be the worst
> >piece of shit ever written, literary abortions beside which THE EYE
> >OF ARGON and BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces....
>
>
> It's called hyperbole. He's saying his writing could be so awful
> that is makes what's considered the worst right now look good.
> The hyperbole wouldn't be effective if he chose to compare his
> works to books that are good, or even only middlingly awful.
>
> But, just to be sure, he lists two works of literature. That
> means he's putting BATTLEFIELD EARTH in the same
> league as THE EYE OF ARGON quality-wise. So how
> well is THE EYE OF ARGON thought of? Let's see:
>
Jeez, Jay, your interpretation is exactly correctly, but you left out
one thing: if his writing wasn't so ponderous in the first place, Rich
probably wouldn't have been as easily confused.
trotsky
> rande...@rrogers.com :
>
>
> >By implication of the quote, Battlefield Earth is not good, but it
> >does NOT say HOW bad it is or even that is IS that bad. But the films
> >designated as "literary abortions" in the quote DO NOT include
> >"Battleford Earth."
>
>
> Kevin has the right of it, Rich.
Well, sort of. A general inability to comment on the overwrought aspect
of your writing just shows typical Usenet dicklessness.
rande...@rrogers.com
>
><rande...@rrogers.com> wrote
>>
>> By implication of the quote, Battlefield Earth is not good, but it
>> does NOT say HOW bad it is or even that is IS that bad. But the films
>> designated as "literary abortions" in the quote DO NOT include
>> "Battleford Earth."
>
>Here's the quote again:
>> "The Turkey" or even MORDRED"S CURSE could be the worst
>> piece of shit ever written, literary abortions beside which THE EYE
>> OF ARGON and BATTLEFIELD EARTH are masterpieces....
>
>It's called hyperbole. He's saying his writing could be so awful
>that is makes what's considered the worst right now look good.
>The hyperbole wouldn't be effective if he chose to compare his
>works to books that are good, or even only middlingly awful.
>
>But, just to be sure, he lists two works of literature. That
>means he's putting BATTLEFIELD EARTH in the same
>league as THE EYE OF ARGON quality-wise. So how
>well is THE EYE OF ARGON thought of? Let's see:
Sigh. Yes, I know that was the point of the post,
but the MAGNITUDE of the offensiveness of the movie,
"Battlefield Earth" is not deemed (by the post)
to be as high as the films he DID categorize as "literary
abortions."
Hyperbole and metaphors are RARELY needed to express
an opinion and are used too often, IMO.
-Rich
Ian McDowell
> Kevin has the right of it, Rich. BATTLEFIELD EARTH is infamously bad
> (I'm talking about Hubbard's book, btw, although the film certainly
> does it justice) and THE EYE OF ARGON is notorious as the "worst
> science fiction novel ever written
Mea Culpa "The Eye of Argon" is actually a short story rather than
novel; it just feels like a bloated, multi-volume epic a la Terry
Brooks or Robert Jordan.
And:
> I'm not sure it's REALLY the worst SF novel ever written. Col. Tom
> Kratman's upcoming STATE OF DISORDER, from those happy fascists at
> Baen Books, may claim that "honor." Rich, if he actually bothered to
> read novels, might like it. It's about how Hilary Clinton becomes
> president and, through the machinations of her evil cabal of
> homosexual abortionists, causes the good state of Texas to secede from
> the union. No, I'm not kidding. Sample chapters can be found here.
>
> http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200312/0743471709.htm?blurb
The sharp-eyed will note that the Kratman's book is actually called A
STATE OF DISOBEDIENCE. A friend and I are staying with her family in
the DC area and I'm using (with his permission), her father's
computer. This is very intimidating and distracting, since he's a
Brigadier General and decorated veteran of the first Gulf war (and
_his_ father was the man the M-1 tank is named after) and I have to
web browse via his AOL account -- I keep expecting highly classified
emails or instant messages to pop up on the screen!
madkevin
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote in message
news:s9heb.10045$NX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Jeez, Jay, your interpretation is exactly correctly, but you left out
> one thing: if his writing wasn't so ponderous in the first place, Rich
> probably wouldn't have been as easily confused.
Please. Rich is easily confused by a fucking forutne cookie.
=================
"With Three You Get Cogliano"
madkevin
<rande...@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:m0jjnvo8uf9e0ovde...@4ax.com...
You didn't know anything of the sort. You thought that Ian was praising the
novel (he wasn't even talking about the film, by the way) and, therefore, made
the incredible leap that he is therefore a Scientologist. The only possible way
you could have misunderstood it less is if Ian had written the bloody thing in
Swahili.
> Hyperbole and metaphors are RARELY needed to express
> an opinion and are used too often, IMO.
> -Rich
The reason you think they're used too often is because you can't understand
them, which in turn causes you to morph into a braying ass as seen here on this
thread. Tell me something, Rich: have you ever admitted that you were wrong
about anything? 'Cause this would be an opportune moment to start. Consider it a
warm-up for the election.
===============
"The Cogliano Is A Harsh Mistress"
Jay G
"Ian McDowell" <mcdol...@hotmail.com> wrote
> This is very intimidating and distracting, since he's a
> Brigadier General and decorated veteran of the first Gulf war (and
> _his_ father was the man the M-1 tank is named after)
His father's name was M-1?
-Jay
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote...
> Ian McDowell wrote:
> > Kevin has the right of it, Rich.
>
> Well, sort of. A general inability to comment on the overwrought aspect
> of your writing just shows typical Usenet dicklessness.
Overwrought? Why didn't you just use the word overdone instead
of being so elaborate? ;)
Seriously, Ian's writing only cause confusion in one person,
and that person was rich. Considering that nobody else
posted any confusion over the hyperbole, and considering
that rich still apparently doesn't understand it despite
several explanations, I don't think Ian's writing was overdone.
Besides, if he had written his post more simply, you
most likely would've attacked him of writing "bland" and
"boring" prose.
-Jay
rande...@rrogers.com
wrote:
>
><rande...@rrogers.com> wrote in message
>news:m0jjnvo8uf9e0ovde...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 06:43:10 -0500, "Jay G" <J...@tmbg.org> wrote:
>
>> >But, just to be sure, he lists two works of literature. That
>> >means he's putting BATTLEFIELD EARTH in the same
>> >league as THE EYE OF ARGON quality-wise. So how
>> >well is THE EYE OF ARGON thought of? Let's see:
>>
>> Sigh. Yes, I know that was the point of the post,
>> but the MAGNITUDE of the offensiveness of the movie,
>> "Battlefield Earth" is not deemed (by the post)
>> to be as high as the films he DID categorize as "literary
>> abortions."
>
>You didn't know anything of the sort. You thought that Ian was praising the
>novel (he wasn't even talking about the film, by the way) and, therefore, made
>the incredible leap that he is therefore a Scientologist. The only possible way
>you could have misunderstood it less is if Ian had written the bloody thing in
>Swahili.
I'll make it simple for you, welfare boy; L. Ron Hubbard was a
nutcase hack of a writer. He material is GARBAGE. Even a back-handed
compliment is too much praise for his swill.
>> Hyperbole and metaphors are RARELY needed to express
>> an opinion and are used too often, IMO.
>> -Rich
>
>The reason you think they're used too often is because you can't understand
>them, which in turn causes you to morph into a braying ass as seen here on this
>thread. Tell me something, Rich: have you ever admitted that you were wrong
>about anything? 'Cause this would be an opportune moment to start. Consider it a
>warm-up for the election.
>
>===============
>"The Cogliano Is A Harsh Mistress"
>
Hey, you can dance in the streets when "crazy eyes" is elected.
I haven't seen a stare like Dalton's since Martin Sheen in "The Dead
Zone."
-Rich
Ian McDowell
That's actually a family joke. His father's name is the same as his;
Creighton Abrams. Patton called the first General Abrams the best
tank commander he knew, which is presumably one reason why the M-1
Abrams was named after him (according to the book A MURDER IN WARTIME,
he also started the murder investigation that indirectly led to
Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers and the shutting down of the
C.I.A.'s assassination squad in Vietnam, but I never got a chance to
talk to his son about that or even ask him if he's read the book in
which his father figures as a hero).
trotsky
> "trotsky" wrote...
I'm not sure I see your point--I'm clearly the only one hear with the
necessary anatomy to discuss his writing at all. Thus far he's treated
us to two examples of his purple prose, and for some reason, although
many had no problem making comments about *me*, there was nary a comment
about Ian or his writing. Do you know why? They were following the old
adage of "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone don't say
anything at all".
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote
> I'm not sure I see your point--I'm clearly the only one hear with the
> necessary anatomy to discuss his writing at all. Thus far he's treated
> us to two examples of his purple prose,
Actually, he's treated us to 4:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.0309180536.3a9be8d2%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.0309251236.7b65c0b2%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.0309251239.ccfdbc0%40posting.google.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.0309250952.7375d17e%40posting.google.com
> and for some reason, although
> many had no problem making comments about *me*, there was nary a comment
> about Ian or his writing. Do you know why? They were following the old
> adage of "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone don't say
> anything at all".
You mean "nary a comment" except for these:
"WareWolf" <dus...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19d3f1165...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
>
> Dude, that was sick.
>
> Congratulations!
<rande...@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:b0mkmv85gpctkj1cc...@4ax.com...
>
> Even a dead turkey doesn't deserve homosexual pedophile inspired rape.
"Greg P." <d...@null.org.not.real> wrote in message
news:9mGcb.3411$NX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> I liked it Ian! Wish you would have posted more though =/
"lisa g" <eff.off@ISP> wrote in message
news:3f6ee...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> I love to read short stories (I love reading anything really) and enjoyed
> this a lot. I used to write them myself but havent had the time for ages.
> This has inspired me to get back on with it.
<azz...@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:3F7498A9...@olypen.com...
>
> That was very lovely. I was so moved. But why do I keep seeing Terry
> Jones and Eric Idle in the children's roles?
"The dog from that film you saw" <alan.l...@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:bkfa5o$177bh$1...@ID-98824.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> is this the plot of the next david cronenberg film?
"Robert Lee" <cranch...@snippitydoodah.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cranchingwire-49E...@news.east.earthlink.net...
>
> FWIW, Ian, you know I like your fiction, but I wasn't too crazy about
> the portion of the Book of the Dead story you posted.
I for one enjoyed Ian's Christmas story. I didn't post anything in that
thread however because I had completely ignored it until this thread
had been started.
-Jay
madkevin
<rande...@rrogers.com> wrote in message
news:uohknv8fuh7tmi7mb...@4ax.com...
> >You didn't know anything of the sort. You thought that Ian was praising the
> >novel (he wasn't even talking about the film, by the way) and, therefore,
made
> >the incredible leap that he is therefore a Scientologist. The only possible
way
> >you could have misunderstood it less is if Ian had written the bloody thing
in
> >Swahili.
>
> I'll make it simple for you, welfare boy; L. Ron Hubbard was a
> nutcase hack of a writer. He material is GARBAGE. Even a back-handed
> compliment is too much praise for his swill.
You are a total idiot. Listen up, you indescribably stupid man: nobody here
thinks L. Ron Hubbard is a good writer. Not Ian, and certainly not me. You
completely misunderstood what Ian wrote, and are now in the process of making
yourself look even dumber by continuing. All the misplaced insults (welfare
boy?) in the universe won't suddenly make you smart or right. Just give it up.
> >The reason you think they're used too often is because you can't understand
> >them, which in turn causes you to morph into a braying ass as seen here on
this
> >thread. Tell me something, Rich: have you ever admitted that you were wrong
> >about anything? 'Cause this would be an opportune moment to start. Consider
it a
> >warm-up for the election.
>
> Hey, you can dance in the streets when "crazy eyes" is elected.
> I haven't seen a stare like Dalton's since Martin Sheen in "The Dead
> Zone."
> -Rich
Hey, that's great, Rich. Does this mean you'll admit to being wrong about the
election, or not? One more day to make up those excuses!
===============
"The Manchurian Cogliano"
trotsky
> "trotsky" wrote
>
> >I'm not sure I see your point--I'm clearly the only one hear with the
> >necessary anatomy to discuss his writing at all. Thus far he's treated
> >us to two examples of his purple prose,
>
>
> Actually, he's treated us to 4:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.0309180536.3a9be8d2%40posting.google.com
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.0309251236.7b65c0b2%40posting.google.com
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.0309251239.ccfdbc0%40posting.google.com
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.0309250952.7375d17e%40posting.google.com
>
>
> >and for some reason, although
> >many had no problem making comments about *me*, there was nary a comment
> >about Ian or his writing. Do you know why? They were following the old
> >adage of "if you don't have anything nice to say about someone don't say
> >anything at all".
>
>
> You mean "nary a comment" except for these:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> I for one enjoyed Ian's Christmas story. I didn't post anything in that
> thread however because I had completely ignored it until this thread
> had been started.
It seems like you don't understand what this discussion is about. You
*specifically* trolled me about my opinion of Ian's rhetoric, which I
feel is not good, and have given numerous examples as to why. I'm the
*only* one that has managed to broach this subject, of course. Do you
even have an opinion? I claim that you will say some wishy-washy like
"Oh, he's great" or words to that effect because a) it takes backbone to
say something more pithy, or b) you don't really know enough about the
subject to offer a decent opinion.
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote
> It seems like you don't understand what this discussion is about. You
> *specifically* trolled me about my opinion of Ian's rhetoric, which I
> feel is not good, and have given numerous examples as to why. I'm the
> *only* one that has managed to broach this subject, of course.
You're not the only one to broach the subject. I listed some of the
comments made by people about Ian's writing in my previous
post. Of course, you may be the only one who tackled the subject
*in detail*, but that's a different matter.
Of course, you are far from an impartial observer. You had a low
opinion of Ian before he posted his writing samples, so it came as
a surprise to nobody that you were critical of them. For me, your
criticism lost all credibility when your first "point" was to criticize
an explanatory intro paragraph as "boring."
-Jay
trotsky
> "trotsky" wrote
>
> >It seems like you don't understand what this discussion is about. You
> >*specifically* trolled me about my opinion of Ian's rhetoric, which I
> >feel is not good, and have given numerous examples as to why. I'm the
> >*only* one that has managed to broach this subject, of course.
>
>
> You're not the only one to broach the subject. I listed some of the
> comments made by people about Ian's writing in my previous
> post.
You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means, do you.
> Of course, you may be the only one who tackled the subject
> *in detail*, but that's a different matter.
>
> Of course, you are far from an impartial observer. You had a low
> opinion of Ian before he posted his writing samples, so it came as
> a surprise to nobody that you were critical of them. For me, your
> criticism lost all credibility when your first "point" was to criticize
> an explanatory intro paragraph as "boring."
Figure out what the word "rhetoric" means, and then get back to me.
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote
>
> You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means, do you.
I do know what a question mark is. As for rhetoric, which
definition did you mean?
rhet·o·ric n.
1. a) The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
b) A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3. a) A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a
particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
b) Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or
intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere
rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.
When you wrote about Ian's "rhetoric" I thought you were using
the word to mean definition 3a: Ian's style of writing, or possibly
definition 2: Ian's skill in writing. Which is why I posted about
Ian's writing in my response.
-Jay
trotsky
> "trotsky" wrote
>
> >You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means, do you.
>
>
> I do know what a question mark is.
Me too: it follows a question. I made a statement.
> As for rhetoric, which
> definition did you mean?
>
> rhet·o·ric n.
> 1. a) The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
> b) A treatise or book discussing this art.
> 2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
> 3. a) A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a
> particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
> b) Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or
> intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere
> rhetoric.
> 4. Verbal communication; discourse.
>
> When you wrote about Ian's "rhetoric" I thought you were using
> the word to mean definition 3a: Ian's style of writing, or possibly
> definition 2: Ian's skill in writing. Which is why I posted about
> Ian's writing in my response.
Well now, that's interesting, because "I liked that story" doesn't
actually about the writing itself, does it. (Again, the intonation of
that sentence is that of a statement, not a question.) It's okay, if
you find yourself unable to make a coherent comment on the subject I'll
understand.
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" wrote
> >
> > >You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means, do you.
> >
> > I do know what a question mark is.
>
> Me too: it follows a question. I made a statement.
You didn't make a statement, you made a rhetorical question.
It's still a question, and needs to be punctuated as such.
Find me one credible source that states a sentence containing
the phrase "do you" is not a question.
> > When you wrote about Ian's "rhetoric" I thought you were using
> > the word to mean definition 3a: Ian's style of writing, or possibly
> > definition 2: Ian's skill in writing. Which is why I posted about
> > Ian's writing in my response.
>
> Well now, that's interesting, because "I liked that story" doesn't
> actually about the writing itself, does it. (Again, the intonation of
> that sentence is that of a statement, not a question.)
Again, it's a rhetorical question, not a statement. Here's a hint,
if you want to make that sentence a statement, remove "does it".
If you check back further on this thread, I made specific
comments on Ian's use of hyperbole. I countered your
claim that it was overwraught. Furthermore, that specific
hyperbole was also entertaining, colorful, and efective.
It got his point across better than if he had written something
more simple like "my writing may be bad."
> It's okay, if you find yourself unable to make a coherent
> comment on the subject I'll understand.
You should be able to understand, because you yourself
have failed to make a coherent comment about his writing
so far.
-Jay
Sean O'Hara
>
> I'm not sure it's REALLY the worst SF novel ever written. Col. Tom
> Kratman's upcoming STATE OF DISORDER, from those happy fascists at
> Baen Books, may claim that "honor."
Now, now, while I can count the number of decent books Baen's
published since 1990 on one hand, I wouldn't call them fascist.
They have too many libertoonian authors for that.
--
Sean O'Hara
Gibberish in Neutral: http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com/
trotsky
> "trotsky" wrote ...
>
> >Jay G wrote:
> >
> >>"trotsky" wrote
> >>
> >>
> >>>You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means, do you.
> >>
> >>I do know what a question mark is.
> >
> >Me too: it follows a question. I made a statement.
>
>
> You didn't make a statement, you made a rhetorical question.
> It's still a question, and needs to be punctuated as such.
> Find me one credible source that states a sentence containing
> the phrase "do you" is not a question.
I don't have to, Jay. It's called style. There are plenty of writers
that use rhetoric that is straight out of the grammar books, and smells
like it, too. Agree or disagree?
>
>
>
> >>When you wrote about Ian's "rhetoric" I thought you were using
> >>the word to mean definition 3a: Ian's style of writing, or possibly
> >>definition 2: Ian's skill in writing. Which is why I posted about
> >>Ian's writing in my response.
> >
> >Well now, that's interesting, because "I liked that story" doesn't
> >actually about the writing itself, does it. (Again, the intonation of
> >that sentence is that of a statement, not a question.)
>
>
> Again, it's a rhetorical question, not a statement. Here's a hint,
> if you want to make that sentence a statement, remove "does it".
I'm sorry, I misspoke: although it's in the form of a question, the
intonation is that of a statement. Again, agree or disagree?
>
>
> If you check back further on this thread, I made specific
> comments on Ian's use of hyperbole. I countered your
> claim that it was overwraught.
That would be "overwrought", but who's counting. And now you're
changing your tune--you said that multiple people commented on the
quality of his writing--are you admitting to being wrong when you said this?
> Furthermore, that specific
> hyperbole was also entertaining, colorful, and efective.
> It got his point across better than if he had written something
> more simple like "my writing may be bad."
Now who's biased? You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of
disagreeing with me. Here's where I'm coming from: here are four
writers of genre fiction that I used to read and enjoy in my youth:
Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard. Ian claims to be a
professional writer, and yet will *never* be in the same league with any
of these guys. Granted, there are plenty of shit writers in the horror,
sci-fi and fantasy genres that he is probably better than, but's that's
little consolation, don't you think? (The intonation on that one was
that of a question.)
> > It's okay, if you find yourself unable to make a coherent
> >comment on the subject I'll understand.
>
>
> You should be able to understand, because you yourself
> have failed to make a coherent comment about his writing
> so far.
I figured you would resort to lying eventually. My rebuttal to his
"Thanksgiving" story about fucking a turkey was spot-on, which is why
none of the bu-fus on either group had a single word to counter what I
said. That's just the way this game is played, Jay: wake up and smell
the coffee.
>
>
madkevin
> I don't have to, Jay. It's called style.
Specifically, the style of somebody who can't write.
===============
"Cogliano Junction"
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" wrote ...
> > >Jay G wrote:
> > >>"trotsky" wrote
> >
> > It's still a question, and needs to be punctuated as such.
> > Find me one credible source that states a sentence containing
> > the phrase "do you" is not a question.
>
> I don't have to, Jay. It's called style. There are plenty of writers
> that use rhetoric that is straight out of the grammar books, and smells
> like it, too. Agree or disagree?
So you'd rather look cool than be grammatical. However, even
ignoring the grammatical error in your sentence, it still doesn't read
well. Specifically, since you ment it to be a statement, it has two
completely extraneous words tagged on to the end of it.
Let's break it down a bit:
You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means.
You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means?
The first line is how most people would write the sentence you wrote
if they wanted it to be a statement. The second line becomes a
question simply by substituting a question mark at the end.
However, the phrasing of the question is somewhat awkward
Have you no idea what the word "rhetoric" means?
The most typical way most would write the sentence as a
statement. It is simple, clear, and grammatical. Notice
the inversion of the verb and the subject.
You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means, do you?
You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means, do you.
The first line is another valid way to write the sentence as
a question. The beginning is the same as if you were to
write the sentence as a statement, but the addition of
"do you" at the end turns it into a question.
The second line however.....makes no sense. As a statement,
the addition of "do you" at the end is completely unneccessary.
Also, it's confusing, since the phrase "do you" is used to signify
a question. It's not good grammar and it's not good style.
> > If you check back further on this thread, I made specific
> > comments on Ian's use of hyperbole. I countered your
> > claim that it was overwraught.
>
> That would be "overwrought", but who's counting.
You are apparently, even though I refrained from commenting
on this grammatical abbomination you wrote:
> Well now, that's interesting, because "I liked that story" doesn't
> actually about the writing itself, does it.
Hint: it's not a bad sentence only because of the reasons I
described above.
> And now you're changing your tune--you said that multiple
> people commented on the quality of his writing--are you
> admitting to being wrong when you said this?
Not only did I say that multiple say that multiple people
commented on the quality of his writing, I provided
quotes and links. I also asserted that I wrote
specifically about his writing style in an earlier post.
These two assertions are not mutually exclusive.
> Now who's biased? You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of
> disagreeing with me.
How did you reach that conclusion?
> Here's where I'm coming from: here are four
> writers of genre fiction that I used to read and enjoy in my youth:
> Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard. Ian claims to be a
> professional writer, and yet will *never* be in the same league with any
> of these guys.
There is a difference between someone's writing being as good
as the writing of those considered the masters of their genres
and someone's writing being "shit." Namely, there's a wide
range of quality between "best" and "worst," and somewhere
in that range fits Ian's work. I'd say it lies on the "good" side
of that scale, but opinions may differ.
> I figured you would resort to lying eventually. My rebuttal to his
> "Thanksgiving" story about fucking a turkey was spot-on, which is why
> none of the bu-fus on either group had a single word to counter what I
> said.
Your rationale is flawed. Just because nobody except Ian bothered to
respond to your "rebuttal" doesn't mean that it was because they
thought it was "spot on." There are a multitude of reasons why a
person may not have responded to that post, from it having not
been received on that person's newsserver to the person deeming it
unworthy of a response. Lack of a response is not "proof" of anything.
Furthermore, it's rather funny, and kind of cute, that you think that
your "rebuttal" was anything but an exercise in futility. Ian posted
that story with the full expectation that you would attempt to
"tear it to shreds." If you think that your comments hurt Ian at
all, you weren't paying attention. His response to your "rebuttal"
was to sarcastically thank you for your input and then to
"toss more bones" in your direction. In one post he provided
out of context plot points and sentences from works he didn't
post, and you eagerly jumped at the bait. You reacted in
the exact manner that Ian had predicted and the rest of us
had probably expected.
-Jay
trotsky
But that's just it, Jay--you have no idea what "good style" means, which
is why you can't last five seconds in a conversation about Ian's lack of
it. You can change the subject as many times as you want, but that
won't change the facts.
>
>
>
>
> >>If you check back further on this thread, I made specific
> >>comments on Ian's use of hyperbole. I countered your
> >>claim that it was overwraught.
> >
> >That would be "overwrought", but who's counting.
>
>
> You are apparently, even though I refrained from commenting
> on this grammatical abbomination you wrote:
So the grammar matters, but the incorrect spelling of "abomination"
doesn't? How do you decide?
>
>
> >Well now, that's interesting, because "I liked that story" doesn't
> >actually about the writing itself, does it.
>
>
> Hint: it's not a bad sentence only because of the reasons I
> described above.
I left out the word "say". I'm pretty sure you could figure that out
from the context, but what you're really after is an excuse not to
discuss the subject, because you're a coward. Moreover, I'm not the one
claiming to be a professional writer.
>
>
>
> >And now you're changing your tune--you said that multiple
> >people commented on the quality of his writing--are you
> >admitting to being wrong when you said this?
>
>
> Not only did I say that multiple say that multiple people
> commented on the quality of his writing, I provided
> quotes and links. I also asserted that I wrote
> specifically about his writing style in an earlier post.
> These two assertions are not mutually exclusive.
They sure as hell are. What you are saying is that you have exactly
*one* example of someone commenting on the writing style--yours. And
that was about as sincere as a three dollar bill.
>
>
>
> >Now who's biased? You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of
> >disagreeing with me.
>
>
> How did you reach that conclusion?
Because nobody could honestly say that his lack of style could even
remotely be considered good.
>
> >Here's where I'm coming from: here are four
> >writers of genre fiction that I used to read and enjoy in my youth:
> >Asimov, Bradbury, Lovecraft, and Robert E. Howard. Ian claims to be a
> >professional writer, and yet will *never* be in the same league with any
> >of these guys.
>
>
> There is a difference between someone's writing being as good
> as the writing of those considered the masters of their genres
> and someone's writing being "shit." Namely, there's a wide
> range of quality between "best" and "worst," and somewhere
> in that range fits Ian's work. I'd say it lies on the "good" side
> of that scale, but opinions may differ.
That's pretty wishy-washy. Essentially you're admitting that his
writing is flawed compared to the best, but you lack the brains/guts to
say what those flaws are. Just admit that you're in a logical cul de
sac: you'd be a liar if you claimed his writing was anywhere close to
best, and you'd have to concede my argument if you were to go into
details of what the flaws in his writing style are.
>
>
>
> >I figured you would resort to lying eventually. My rebuttal to his
> >"Thanksgiving" story about fucking a turkey was spot-on, which is why
> >none of the bu-fus on either group had a single word to counter what I
> >said.
>
>
> Your rationale is flawed.
I think not.
> Just because nobody except Ian bothered to
> respond
That's pretty weak. I challenge you to come up with a single person to
counter a single point of what I said about that story. How do people
get this fucked up?
> to your "rebuttal" doesn't mean that it was because they
> thought it was "spot on." There are a multitude of reasons why a
> person may not have responded to that post, from it having not
> been received on that person's newsserver to the person deeming it
> unworthy of a response. Lack of a response is not "proof" of anything.
Are you new to Usenet?
>
>
> Furthermore, it's rather funny, and kind of cute, that you think that
> your "rebuttal" was anything but an exercise in futility. Ian posted
> that story with the full expectation that you would attempt to
> "tear it to shreds." If you think that your comments hurt Ian at
> all, you weren't paying attention.
Oh, I was paying attention: he threatened to hack into my website, which
I'm pretty sure is the kind of thing the FBI investigates. Now you're
just lying.
> His response to your "rebuttal"
> was to sarcastically thank you for your input and then to
> "toss more bones" in your direction. In one post he provided
> out of context plot points and sentences from works he didn't
> post, and you eagerly jumped at the bait.
That, of course, never happened, but don't let the truth stop from lying!
> You reacted in
> the exact manner that Ian had predicted and the rest of us
> had probably expected.
>
That explains his following me to other newsgroups and pissing and
moaning about a website that has no relation to this newsgroup, to be
certain. You're just a lying, cowardly anonymouse--a dime a dozen.
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote :
>
> But that's just it, Jay--you have no idea what "good style" means, which
> is why you can't last five seconds in a conversation about Ian's lack of
> it. You can change the subject as many times as you want, but that
> won't change the facts.
I may not know style, but I know which of the following
sentences is a better written statement:
You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means.
You have no idea what the word "rhetoric" means, do you.
(Hint: it's the one that's not structured like a question.)
> > You are apparently, even though I refrained from commenting
> > on this grammatical abbomination you wrote:
>
> So the grammar matters, but the incorrect spelling of "abomination"
> doesn't? How do you decide?
Yes, you caught me, I misspelled abomination, as well as
overwrought. Spelling matters. However, so does
grammar, even though you refuse to acknowledge that
it does, or that you have errored.
> > >Now who's biased? You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of
> > >disagreeing with me.
> >
> > How did you reach that conclusion?
>
> Because nobody could honestly say that his lack of style could even
> remotely be considered good.
Right, because your opinion of his writing is the only one anyone
could possibly have, and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
I'm sure all your friends love being told what their opinions are:
"I like pecan pie"
"No you don't, you hate it. Stop lying."
> > There is a difference between someone's writing being as good
> > as the writing of those considered the masters of their genres
> > and someone's writing being "shit." Namely, there's a wide
> > range of quality between "best" and "worst," and somewhere
> > in that range fits Ian's work. I'd say it lies on the "good" side
> > of that scale, but opinions may differ.
>
> That's pretty wishy-washy. Essentially you're admitting that his
> writing is flawed compared to the best, but you lack the brains/guts to
> say what those flaws are. Just admit that you're in a logical cul de
> sac: you'd be a liar if you claimed his writing was anywhere close to
> best, and you'd have to concede my argument if you were to go into
> details of what the flaws in his writing style are.
Your argument was that his writing is awful, which is a far different
opinion than "not the best."
> > Your rationale is flawed.
> > Just because nobody except Ian bothered to
> > respond
>
> That's pretty weak. I challenge you to come up with a single person to
> counter a single point of what I said about that story. How do people
> get this fucked up?
I could comment on them, if you'd like. Perhaps to keep away
the spectre of "bias" on my part, I could comment only on the
factual errors in your "points."
>
> > to your "rebuttal" doesn't mean that it was because they
> > thought it was "spot on." There are a multitude of reasons why a
> > person may not have responded to that post, from it having not
> > been received on that person's newsserver to the person deeming it
> > unworthy of a response. Lack of a response is not "proof" of anything.
>
> Are you new to Usenet?
Look, a rhetorical question where you used proper punctuation! I'm
so proud of you, I knew you could do it.
> > Furthermore, it's rather funny, and kind of cute, that you think that
> > your "rebuttal" was anything but an exercise in futility. Ian posted
> > that story with the full expectation that you would attempt to
> > "tear it to shreds." If you think that your comments hurt Ian at
> > all, you weren't paying attention.
>
> Oh, I was paying attention: he threatened to hack into my website, which
> I'm pretty sure is the kind of thing the FBI investigates. Now you're
> just lying.
You should probably report it then. I do think you have managed to
annoy Ian, but I think it's from other posts you've made, and not
from your "criticism" of his story.
> > In one post he provided
> > out of context plot points and sentences from works he didn't
> > post, and you eagerly jumped at the bait.
>
> That, of course, never happened, but don't let the truth stop from lying!
Ian's post:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.03092...@posting.google.com
Yours:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=X8ldb.5393%24RW4.2454%40newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net
> > You reacted in
> > the exact manner that Ian had predicted and the rest of us
> > had probably expected.
>
> That explains his following me to other newsgroups and pissing and
> moaning about a website that has no relation to this newsgroup, to be
> certain. You're just a lying, cowardly anonymouse--a dime a dozen.
What following you to other newsgroups? I couldn't find
any posts by Ian in the following groups you frequent:
rec.audio.opinion
alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
alt.sports.baseball.chi-whitesox
chi.media
uk.rec.audio
ca.politics
rec.arts.tv
The only newsgroups where you both have posted is:
rec.arts.movies.current-films
rec.arts.movies.past-films
alt.horror
Considering that the first two are movie related
and Ian was posting to them before you appeared
on the net, and considering the 3rd is in his field
of writing, I wouldn't call it "following."
As for the website, that was a personal attack,
although you're no stranger to those yourself trots.
-Jay
trotsky
Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote :
<snip>
>>>Your rationale is flawed.
>>> Just because nobody except Ian bothered to
>>>respond
>>
>>That's pretty weak. I challenge you to come up with a single person to
>>counter a single point of what I said about that story. How do people
>>get this fucked up?
>
>
> I could comment on them, if you'd like.
No you couldn't, you don't have the guts. I dare you.
Perhaps to keep away
> the spectre of "bias" on my part, I could comment only on the
> factual errors in your "points."
And that's what I'd have to call a lie. You'd egest some gobbledygook
and say, "Look, it makes sense!" which of course it wouldn't. Again, I
dare you.
>>>to your "rebuttal" doesn't mean that it was because they
>>>thought it was "spot on." There are a multitude of reasons why a
>>>person may not have responded to that post, from it having not
>>>been received on that person's newsserver to the person deeming it
>>>unworthy of a response. Lack of a response is not "proof" of anything.
>>
>>Are you new to Usenet?
>
>
> Look, a rhetorical question where you used proper punctuation! I'm
> so proud of you, I knew you could do it.
That wasn't rhetorical, Jay. You're acting like a newbie. Are you a
newbie. (That was the meaning of the question stated as a statement.
We can go over this stuff ten or fifteen more times if need be.)
>>>Furthermore, it's rather funny, and kind of cute, that you think that
>>>your "rebuttal" was anything but an exercise in futility. Ian posted
>>>that story with the full expectation that you would attempt to
>>>"tear it to shreds." If you think that your comments hurt Ian at
>>>all, you weren't paying attention.
>>
>>Oh, I was paying attention: he threatened to hack into my website, which
>>I'm pretty sure is the kind of thing the FBI investigates. Now you're
>>just lying.
>
>
> You should probably report it then. I do think you have managed to
> annoy Ian, but I think it's from other posts you've made, and not
> from your "criticism" of his story.
Wow, your Ari Fleischer impersonation is spot on. I had no idea you
were that intimate with the guy.
Idiot, he posted info. that was posted on the groups he *doesn't*
frequent, because he was desperate for ammunition. You're really tood
stupid to figure out what's going on here.
> As for the website, that was a personal attack,
> although you're no stranger to those yourself trots.
Name one, you filthy liar.
Jay G
> >>counter a single point of what I said about that story.
> >
>
> No you couldn't, you don't have the guts. I dare you.
Ohhh..... a dare. Are you going to double dare me next?
Regardless, here's my comments:
news:vo34351...@corp.supernews.com
> Perhaps to keep away
> > the spectre of "bias" on my part, I could comment only on the
> > factual errors in your "points."
>
> And that's what I'd have to call a lie. You'd egest some gobbledygook
> and say, "Look, it makes sense!" which of course it wouldn't. Again, I
> dare you.
I decided to reply to all of your comments, although I did
point out the two factual errors you made.
> >>Are you new to Usenet?
> >
> > Look, a rhetorical question where you used proper punctuation! I'm
> > so proud of you, I knew you could do it.
>
> That wasn't rhetorical, Jay. You're acting like a newbie. Are you a
> newbie. (That was the meaning of the question stated as a statement.
> We can go over this stuff ten or fifteen more times if need be.)
We could, but you keep looking dumber every time we do. ("Me put
period at end of question. Me got's style")
If the question wasn't rhetorical, then it reveals how forgetful you are.
We've had three lengthy arguments on this newsgroup, the first
occurring in March of this year. I've been on Usenet as long as
you have.
> >>>In one post he provided
> >>>out of context plot points and sentences from works he didn't
> >>>post, and you eagerly jumped at the bait.
> >>
> >>That, of course, never happened, but don't let the truth stop from
lying!
> >
> >
> > Ian's post:
> >
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=6a88873e.03092...@posting.google.com
> > Yours:
> >
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=X8ldb.5393%24RW4.2454%40newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net
Just noting that you didn't respond to this part of my message.
Does that mean you admit you were wrong when you said
I was lying?
> > The only newsgroups where you both have posted is:
> > rec.arts.movies.current-films
> > rec.arts.movies.past-films
> > alt.horror
> >
> > Considering that the first two are movie related
> > and Ian was posting to them before you appeared
> > on the net, and considering the 3rd is in his field
> > of writing, I wouldn't call it "following."
>
> Idiot, he posted info. that was posted on the groups he *doesn't*
> frequent, because he was desperate for ammunition. You're really tood
> stupid to figure out what's going on here.
Have you heard of this new thing, called Google Groups? I
think this part used to be called Dejanews or Deja, but
Google picked it up. Basically, you can search the archive
of Usenet posts. What's interesting is that when you do
a search for an author, all of that person's posts come up,
even ones in newsgroups one doesn't frequent.
Considering Ian posts from Google, it seems likely that
your posts in other groups came up when he was doing
a search of your messages, perhaps for a specific quote
he remembers you made..
He hasn't "followed you into" other groups, which I would
classify as posting and harassing you in groups he does
not normally frequent. What he has done is make use
of messages, and info in those messages, that you have
made freely available to the public.
Now his use of that info has been somewhat questionable,
except for maybe the comparison of your writing on
your website to his. However, you should know by
now that anything posted to Usenet is fair game.
What are you, a newbie?
> > As for the website, that was a personal attack,
> > although you're no stranger to those yourself trots.
>
> Name one, you filthy liar.
You mean besides that one? How about calling
Ian a "dick" and a "basketcase"?
-Jay
trotsky
Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>>The only newsgroups where you both have posted is:
>>>rec.arts.movies.current-films
>>>rec.arts.movies.past-films
>>>alt.horror
>>>
>>>Considering that the first two are movie related
>>>and Ian was posting to them before you appeared
>>>on the net, and considering the 3rd is in his field
>>>of writing, I wouldn't call it "following."
>>
>>Idiot, he posted info. that was posted on the groups he *doesn't*
>>frequent, because he was desperate for ammunition. You're really too
>>stupid to figure out what's going on here.
>
>
> Have you heard of this new thing, called Google Groups? I
> think this part used to be called Dejanews or Deja, but
> Google picked it up. Basically, you can search the archive
> of Usenet posts. What's interesting is that when you do
> a search for an author, all of that person's posts come up,
> even ones in newsgroups one doesn't frequent.
> Considering Ian posts from Google, it seems likely that
> your posts in other groups came up when he was doing
> a search of your messages, perhaps for a specific quote
> he remembers you made..
That makes sense: he's looking for a quote from me, so he looks in a
group he doesn't read! Jay, please, in all seriousness, how can you
possibly be anymore full of shit?
> He hasn't "followed you into" other groups, which I would
> classify as posting and harassing you in groups he does
> not normally frequent.
That explains why he crossposted to alt.horror, right? Or is it because
he thinks he belongs there because of his incredibly bad writing?
What he has done is make use
> of messages, and info in those messages, that you have
> made freely available to the public.
That doesn't even make sense on several levels.
> Now his use of that info has been somewhat questionable,
What do you mean by "questionable", Jay? Are you trying to sound like a
crawling worm?
> except for maybe the comparison of your writing on
> your website to his. However, you should know by
> now that anything posted to Usenet is fair game.
> What are you, a newbie?
Jay, this is futile. Your behavior here is what I call online fellatio.
I'm pretty sure if you proposition the guy he'll go for it.
>>>As for the website, that was a personal attack,
>>>although you're no stranger to those yourself trots.
>>
>>Name one, you filthy liar.
>
>
> You mean besides that one? How about calling
> Ian a "dick" and a "basketcase"?
That's called stating the facts.
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Jay G wrote:
> > He hasn't "followed you into" other groups, which I would
> > classify as posting and harassing you in groups he does
> > not normally frequent.
>
> That explains why he crossposted to alt.horror, right? Or is it because
> he thinks he belongs there because of his incredibly bad writing?
He was posting in alt.horror before you ever did. He
couldn't have followed you if he was there first.
> What do you mean by "questionable", Jay? Are you trying to sound like a
> crawling worm?
You're right, That was perhaps too nice a word to
describe his actions. I've read some back posts,
and Ian himself has condemed some of his actions,
and is a self-proclaimed asshole.
Now, what does that have to do with his writing
again?
-Jay
trotsky
Jay G wrote:
> "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
>
>>Jay G wrote:
>>
>>>He hasn't "followed you into" other groups, which I would
>>>classify as posting and harassing you in groups he does
>>>not normally frequent.
>>
>>That explains why he crossposted to alt.horror, right? Or is it because
>>he thinks he belongs there because of his incredibly bad writing?
>
>
> He was posting in alt.horror before you ever did. He
> couldn't have followed you if he was there first.
So you honestly feel that this is the reason he crossposted? You can't
be this naive.
>>What do you mean by "questionable", Jay? Are you trying to sound like a
>>crawling worm?
>
>
> You're right, That was perhaps too nice a word to
> describe his actions. I've read some back posts,
> and Ian himself has condemed some of his actions,
> and is a self-proclaimed asshole.
>
> Now, what does that have to do with his writing
> again?
Well, first off, you've just negated one of your criticisms. If the guy
is behaving like an asshole, it's kind of hard to expect me to not point
that out. But you're still being intellectually dishonest because
you've already agreed that his writing is less than excellent, and yet
you refuse to provide examples, but rather just whine about mine. Can
you explain yourself, please?
Jay G
"trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> Jay G wrote:
> > "trotsky" <gms...@email.com> wrote ...
> >>Jay G wrote:
> >>
> >>>He hasn't "followed you into" other groups, which I would
> >>>classify as posting and harassing you in groups he does
> >>>not normally frequent.
> >>
> >>That explains why he crossposted to alt.horror, right?
> >
> > couldn't have followed you if he was there first.
>
> So you honestly feel that this is the reason he crossposted? You can't
> be this naive.
No, he probably cross-posted because he thought the story
could fit under the genre of horror, and that it's another
newsgroup where you've generated a group of people who
don't like you. Again, it's not "following" you if he was
there first.
> > You're right, That was perhaps too nice a word to
> > describe his actions. I've read some back posts,
> > and Ian himself has condemed some of his actions,
> > and is a self-proclaimed asshole.
> >
> > Now, what does that have to do with his writing
> > again?
>
> Well, first off, you've just negated one of your criticisms. If the guy
> is behaving like an asshole, it's kind of hard to expect me to not point
> that out.
You've pointed out, numerous times, your opinion of Ian's
character. You've also lobbied insults at him in countless
posts. One would think that you could manage to refrain
from personal attacks in *one* post in the hopes of
appearing unbiased, but you can't even manage that.
> But you're still being intellectually dishonest because
> you've already agreed that his writing is less than excellent, and yet
> you refuse to provide examples, but rather just whine about mine. Can
> you explain yourself, please?
I don't have a problem with his writing, but I do have a problem
with your "criticisms" of it. I also had a problem how you kept
making new posts attempting to flaunt your "unchallenged" post,
acting like a four year old bouncing up and down, screaming
for attention.
-Jay