POLL: Have I Been Overly Malicious To Keith In the Mass Transit Thread?
David V. Loewe, Jr
(many times *literally*) to fight back that biting remark that might
send Keith off into a tizzy. Hell, part of the reasoning behind
responding to some of Andre's posts was to remind Keith what *really*
malicious posts looked like. [1]
Did I misrepresent Keith more or did he misrepresent me more?
When I did, were those misinterpretation shared by many of the other
posters?
Were my misconceptions larger or smaller than Keith's?
For example, Keith claims that I want to end Mass Transit and that just
ISN'T true - Hell, I voted for Mass Transit funding here in St. Louis
County. Moreover, just yesterday, Keith made the accusation that I
think he wants tax payers to pay for his new system and *that* isn't
true, either. I don't *think* anything I may have misconstrued comes
anywhere close to those. Am I wrong about that?
Did I provide links to hard data and the opinions and experiences of
others more or less often than Keith?
I'm trying to see what I could have done, other than to not have been
Keith's main "opponent" in the thread, that would have led to a
different outcome. I'm just at a loss as to how it got *to* this. It
*feels* to me like Keith believes that every (in his eyes)
misinterpretation of his words and positions was done by me and is my
fault and that every post he took as demeaning or malicious came from my
keyboard. [2]
[1] Sadly, at times, I was the only one to ask after the health of his
mother when he said he'd be visiting her. Is that the act of a person
full of malice for another?
[2] I'm not the one, for instance, who told Keith that I had literally
laughed out loud upon reading that Keith believed he was a model of
probity as far as accuracy goes.
--
"Never believe anything until it's officially denied."
- Margaret Atwood
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> Did I misrepresent Keith more or did he misrepresent me more?
In order to answer that question I would have to read through the whole
thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
William December Starr
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
> In article <em7fv4hvkn96fngfs...@4ax.com>,
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Did I misrepresent Keith more or did he misrepresent me more?
>
> In order to answer that question I would have to read through the
> whole thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
What he said.
-- wds
netcat
Kip Williams
Is it over? I'm really surprised that I care enough to even say this
much any more.
Kip W
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
> > In order to answer that question I would have to read through the
> > whole thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
> What he said.
Same, in spades. I don't normally find either Keith or David Loewe
interesting enough that I bother reading their posts. An argument
between them definitely causes cosmic significance underflow.
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
David Loewe, Jr.
<net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>wds...@panix.com says...
>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Did I misrepresent Keith more or did he misrepresent me more?
>> >
>> > In order to answer that question I would have to read through the
>> > whole thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
>>
>> What he said.
>
>What they said.
Frankly, the opinion that would probably do the most good, which means I
probably won't get it out of him, is the opinion of Peter Trei.
That said, it seems to me that you and Professor Friedman did post
enough to (and presumably from that read enough of) the thread to render
a properly caveated ("From what I saw...") opinion. As I said, I'm
trying to see if there was anything I could have reasonably done and
even a partially informed opinion could be helpful.
--
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population
to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
Paul Ehrlich 1969
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> That said, it seems to me that you and Professor Friedman did post
> enough to (and presumably from that read enough of) the thread to render
> a properly caveated ("From what I saw...") opinion. As I said, I'm
> trying to see if there was anything I could have reasonably done and
> even a partially informed opinion could be helpful.
What you should have done was drop out of the exchange long ago, when
the general tone became clear. But I probably wouldn't have done so
either.
As I've probably said before, I admire Keith for his attempt to make
sense of the world with a minimal use of secondary sources, but I regard
it as a quixotic project likely to produce a fair number of mistaken
beliefs.
cryptoguy
> In article <gt8l7b$63...@panix2.panix.com>, wdst...@panix.com says...
>
> > In article <ddfr-E5FAF1.21165428042...@newsfarm.ams.highwinds-media.com>,
> > David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>
> > > In article <em7fv4hvkn96fngfsg2uilitjlom09m...@4ax.com>,
> > > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Did I misrepresent Keith more or did he misrepresent me more?
>
> > > In order to answer that question I would have to read through the
> > > whole thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
>
> > What he said.
>
> What they said.
As one of the principals in this thread I have to say that
I find you, and one or two of the other active participants,
a little over the top. You go beyond pointing out K's
errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations,
and get personally insulting. I try not
not to do that (though I occasionally fail).
I've pretty much given up on changing Keith's mind on
much of anything. I find it entertaining to point
out his errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations,
but I'm more playing to the gallery than anything else.
I think I research my answers more than most of his
interlocuters, and the odd directions that sends
me can be educational and entertaining.
pt
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> Because there was a lot of the time that I bit really hard on my tongue
> (many times *literally*) to fight back that biting remark that might
> send Keith off into a tizzy. Hell, part of the reasoning behind
> responding to some of Andre's posts was to remind Keith what *really*
> malicious posts looked like. [1]
<g> Well, I don't hold my views back, when there is good reason for
them, and I would be happy to say exactly what I have written on these
threads to Keith's face.
Nor am I the only person to have said that Keith is nucking futs.
> Did I misrepresent Keith more or did he misrepresent me more?
Notwithstanding that you and I have had some set-tos in our not
so distant past, I still have to say that Keith has, frequently, and
massively, misrepresented not only your position, but mine, and
many others', as well.
> When I did, were those misinterpretation shared by many of the other
> posters?
Which would make them not be "misinterpretations". No, from what
I have read of this thread, I cannot say that I have ever seen anyone
other than Keith either misrepresent or snip out without comment,
statements posted here.
> Were my misconceptions larger or smaller than Keith's?
Far, far smaller.
> For example, Keith claims that I want to end Mass Transit and that just
> ISN'T true - Hell, I voted for Mass Transit funding here in St. Louis
> County. Moreover, just yesterday, Keith made the accusation that I
> think he wants tax payers to pay for his new system and *that* isn't
> true, either. I don't *think* anything I may have misconstrued comes
> anywhere close to those. Am I wrong about that?
No.
> Did I provide links to hard data and the opinions and experiences of
> others more or less often than Keith?
Many, and you were not the only one.
> I'm trying to see what I could have done, other than to not have been
> Keith's main "opponent" in the thread, that would have led to a
> different outcome. I'm just at a loss as to how it got *to* this. It
> *feels* to me like Keith believes that every (in his eyes)
> misinterpretation of his words and positions was done by me and is my
> fault and that every post he took as demeaning or malicious came from
> my keyboard. [2]
To be blunt, the only way to have avoided this level of disagreement
would have been to simply and uncritically accept and not question
any of his claim, no matter how riotously untrue and willfully
ignorant
they were.
This is not a fair demand to make of anyone, for any reason, on any
topic.
> [1] Sadly, at times, I was the only one to ask after the health of his
> mother when he said he'd be visiting her. Is that the act of a person
> full of malice for another?
No.
> [2] I'm not the one, for instance, who told Keith that I had literally
> laughed out loud upon reading that Keith believed he was a model of
> probity as far as accuracy goes.
I do not recall precisely if I did so, as well (I am willing to be
corrected
on this point, as I am not making a claim, either way.). I do believe
that
I expressed a very strong disagreement with that claim of his. I also
do
recall that no post that I saw included agreement with Keith's self
assessment on this point.
Andre
Keith F. Lynch
> As one of the principals in this thread I have to say that I find
> you, and one or two of the other active participants, a little over
> the top. You go beyond pointing out K's errors, misconceptions, and
> misrepresentations, and get personally insulting.
Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I hope
you also noticed that for weeks I repeatedly responded to rudeness and
misrepresentations with politeness and clarifications. It takes quite
a lot to get me to lose my temper. But David and Doug both finally
got me to do so.
> I've pretty much given up on changing Keith's mind on much of
> anything.
I'm astonished that you would say that, as you have done so on several
occasions. And I know I have changed your mind on several occasions.
We're both here to learn. I'm not sure what David is here for.
> I think I research my answers more than most of his interlocuters,
> and the odd directions that sends me can be educational and
> entertaining.
I'll admit I've done less research than I ought to recently. David
had me between a rock and a hard place. I could respond to maybe
half the points in half his messages without research, or to maybe
a quarter of the points in a quarter of his messages with research.
Roughly speaking, I split the difference. I should have known I
would be flamed either way.
Surprisingly, what seemed to get David most upset was my responding
to *part* of a message rather than all of it. I have no idea why.
I see that he's still implicltly misrepresenting me. Less than an
hour ago he posted a message which implies that I think trains should
keep going if they hit a pedestrian on the tracks. Is there anyone
here who doesn't see that implication in his message? Is there anyone
here who thinks that I *do* think that trains should keep going if
they hit someone?
I suspect that most people don't know, don't care, and wish I would
shut up about it. I can sympathize. But recent posts have implied
that several people here believe I have some really bad and inaccurate
ideas. And, since I do spend lots of time here, the opinions of this
community are important to me.
("David" in the above refers to Loewe, not Friedman.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> As I said, I'm trying to see if there was anything I could have
>> reasonably done and even a partially informed opinion could be
>> helpful.
> What you should have done was drop out of the exchange long ago,
> when the general tone became clear. But I probably wouldn't have
> done so either.
It was largely the sheer *volume* that caused me to give up. When
I returned from Ravencon and caught up on reading this newsgroup, I
had over a hundred "mass transit" messages of his marked as needing
replies. Many of them were quite long, and would have taken hours to
do justice to. And more continued to pour in.
Between that and how insulting they were, and the fact that he *still*
didn't seem to be understanding my positions, caused me to throw in
the towel. The thread wasn't making any progress. We were just going
around in circles, repeating the same points over and over.
> As I've probably said before, I admire Keith for his attempt to make
> sense of the world with a minimal use of secondary sources,
Doesn't everyone prefer primary sources when they're available?
Actually, I do make extensive use of secondary and tertiary sources
such as Wikipedia, the CRC handbook, and the World Almanac. Ideally,
I wouldn't, but would use the sources they use. However there are
only so many hours in the day. And many primary sources are hard
to find.
> but I regard it as a quixotic project likely to produce a fair
> number of mistaken beliefs.
I don't understand why you think that should be.
Keith F. Lynch
> I don't normally find either Keith or David Loewe interesting
> enough that I bother reading their posts. An argument between
> them definitely causes cosmic significance underflow.
I apologize. Now that I've withdrawn from wrestling the pig, I
should be able to find the time to go back to posting some of the
most interesting messages here.
Keith F. Lynch
> Is it over?
That's up to David. As of about an hour ago, he was still posting in
the "mass transit" thread. I won't be replying to his posts in that
thread, not even when he grossly misrepresents me. I trust you and
others to listen to me, not him, on the subject of what I believe. Or
if you don't care what I believe, to please not rely on what others
say about what I believe when deciding whether to post that my beliefs
are wildly inaccurate.
> I'm really surprised that I care enough to even say this much
> any more.
I hope that you and others still care about this newsgroup.
Keith F. Lynch
>>> In order to answer that question I would have to read through the
>>> whole thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
>> What he said.
> What they said.
I agree. My apologies for not dropping it earlier. If I have a
character flaw, it's believing that any disagreement can be resolved
by sufficient communication. Sometimes you have to give up and walk
away, even when not only is "someone wrong on the Internet" but
they are misrepresenting you, and you have evidence that others are
believing those misrepresentations. Sigh.
Kip Williams
> I hope that you and others still care about this newsgroup.
I care about much of the 5% that isn't messages in the "Mass Transit"
thread. I've been in the position of wishing 95% of the messages in the
newsgroup would go away, even knowing that would leave next to nothing.
If this was a plot to make me lose interest entirely, it's been more
effective than I'd ever have expected.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>On Apr 28, 11:59�pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>> [2] �I'm not the one, for instance, who told Keith that I had literally
>> laughed out loud upon reading that Keith believed he was a model of
>> probity as far as accuracy goes.
>
>I do not recall precisely if I did so, as well (I am willing to be
>corrected on this point, as I am not making a claim, either way.). I
>do believe that I expressed a very strong disagreement with that claim
>of his. I also do recall that no post that I saw included agreement
>with Keith's self assessment on this point.
Peter Trei was the poster who told Keith that he literally Laughed Out
Loud upon reading that.
--
"There is a time and a place for tact (and there are times
when tact is entirely misplaced)."
-Laurence VanCott Niven
David Loewe, Jr.
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
As a side note on propagation, this just showed up on my server within
the last two hours (6 PM) while I was out and about (a friend took me to
the store).
>On Apr 29, 6:18�am, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>> wdst...@panix.com says...
>> > David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>> > > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Did I misrepresent Keith more or did he misrepresent me more?
>>
>> > > In order to answer that question I would have to read through the
>> > > whole thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
>>
>> > What he said.
>>
>> What they said.
>
>As one of the principals in this thread I have to say that
>I find you, and one or two of the other active participants,
>a little over the top. You go beyond pointing out K's
>errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations,
>and get personally insulting.
Examples?
I went back through every post in the thread proper once again (the
second time - the first time when I saw Keith declare that he sourced
his data far more than I did).
I thought I took great pains not to provoke Keith. Certainly nothing
like what Doug Berry (not to mention Andre) was doing. Other posters
who were not as prolific as Doug or myself were also rather arch at
minimum - throwing out an "f-bomb" or two in the bargain. For example,
I take a great deal of care to use the words "seems" in a lot of my
dealings with Keith so there would be no question that X was an
impression I got and that I wasn't he was a <fill in the blank> even
though virtually no other poster would be sensitive enough to take it
that way. All in the name of appeasement.
Hell, there were even a number of times I jumped in when I thought
people were being unfair *to* Keith (like when I corrected you over
Metrorail drivers versus Metrorail workers in the desk jobs vs Metrorail
drivers deaths per man-year sub-thread).
I don't really want to get into a tit-for-tat, but let me just say that
I find Keith's continual practice of dismissing arguments by snipping
them away and never dealing with them to be an ongoing personal slap in
the face.
>I try not not to do that (though I occasionally fail).
>I've pretty much given up on changing Keith's mind on
>much of anything. I find it entertaining to point
>out his errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations,
>but I'm more playing to the gallery than anything else.
>
>I think I research my answers more than most of his
>interlocuters, and the odd directions that sends
>me can be educational and entertaining.
I think half of his anger in the thread was over the fact that I kept
replying *to* him, necessitating replies by him - putting him further
and further behind, taking up more and more of his time to reply to
rasff and more and more of his rasff time to respond to me. It's like
he was mad at me for existing in my debilitated (and, thus, stuck mostly
at home - ready and able to post) state.
Keith once wrote that "This thread is increasingly tiresome. And it's
increasingly just you versus everyone else."
<gs0ifb$h7u$1...@panix2.panix.com> I think that the exact opposite was
true. The thread had become Keith "versus everyone else." and he could
no longer deal with being in that position.
The more responses I look at in my re-read of the entire thread, the
more I think that these are the correct answers. Keith complains many
times that he can't catch up on this thread.
Okay...
I've finished a complete re-read of the entire thread (minus posts under
a retitled Subject Header). I just don't see that I was any more or
less personally insulting than anyone else who responded to Keith. I
just responded more often (having more free time). I don't see it -
which is why I asked for examples (which are probably going to decline
to do the same amount of digging I just did in order to get them).
--
"When it is broken down, the philosophy of environmentalism is the
philosophy of life on earth without humanity at all. Green becomes
the color of a forest that grows over unmarked graves."
Michelle Minton
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>I see that he's still implicltly misrepresenting me. Less than an
>hour ago he posted a message which implies that I think trains should
>keep going if they hit a pedestrian on the tracks.
?
<boggle>
EXCUSE ME?
The post explicitly is talking about the fact that some other transit
system thinks it is a good idea to stop all the trains on a line and
wait for medically trained personnel to give clearance before moving the
body.
Where the HELL you get that I think or am implying that you think that
trains should do hit and runs is just beyond me and implies a level of
misrepresentation and bad will on your part that I find astounding.
If this is the level of reflexively paranoid thinking you've sunk to -
Get Help. Get Help Now.
>Is there anyone
>here who doesn't see that implication in his message?
God, I hope no one is that twisted.
>Is there anyone here who thinks that I *do* think that trains
>should keep going if they hit someone?
No.
>I suspect that most people don't know, don't care, and wish I would
>shut up about it. I can sympathize. But recent posts have implied
>that several people here believe I have some really bad and inaccurate
>ideas. And, since I do spend lots of time here, the opinions of this
>community are important to me.
>
>("David" in the above refers to Loewe, not Friedman.)
What about Harmon?
You can call me "Loewe." I won't be offended.
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
Kip Williams
> I thought I took great pains not to provoke Keith. Certainly nothing
> like what Doug Berry (not to mention Andre) was doing. Other posters
> who were not as prolific as Doug or myself were also rather arch at
> minimum - throwing out an "f-bomb" or two in the bargain. For example,
> I take a great deal of care to use the words "seems" in a lot of my
> dealings with Keith so there would be no question that X was an
> impression I got and that I wasn't he was a <fill in the blank> even
> though virtually no other poster would be sensitive enough to take it
> that way. All in the name of appeasement.
A half hour later, David V. Loewe, Jr. wrote [to Keith]:
> ?
>
> <boggle>
>
> EXCUSE ME?
>
...
> Where the HELL you get that I think or am implying that you think
> that trains should do hit and runs is just beyond me and implies a
> level of misrepresentation and bad will on your part that I find
> astounding.
>
> If this is the level of reflexively paranoid thinking you've sunk to
> - Get Help. Get Help Now.
Apparently, someone named "David Loewe" has been taking excessive pains
to be conciliatory and appeasing. Then this "David V. Loewe" jumps in,
saying things like the above, complete with theatrical Usenet putdown
cliches, strings of capital letters, and "get help" implications that he
is mentally unsound.
Perhaps there's also a Keith V. Lynch I haven't noticed who posts to
this thread as if he is angry and sputtering, and not just tired.
Kip W
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>> wds...@panix.com says...
>>> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
>>>> In order to answer that question I would have to read through the
>>>> whole thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
>
>>> What he said.
>
>> What they said.
>
>I agree. My apologies for not dropping it earlier. If I have a
>character flaw, it's believing that any disagreement can be resolved
>by sufficient communication. Sometimes you have to give up and walk
>away, even when not only is "someone wrong on the Internet" but
>they are misrepresenting you, and you have evidence that others are
>believing those misrepresentations. Sigh.
<sarcasm>
Yes, I engaged my Svengali powers to make everyone else believe my
"misrepresentations."
</sarcasm>
Grow up.
--
"A generation that ignores history has no past - and no
future."
-Lazarus Long
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> Is it over?
>
>That's up to David. As of about an hour ago, he was still posting in
>the "mass transit" thread.
You know, you and I aren't the only people who posted to that thread...
Only two of the several posts were follow ups to posts by you and those
were more along the lines of general comments than straight up replies.
It is not all about you.
--
"You can't fix stupid."
Jim White
Former KMOX Late Night Talk Show Host
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
EXCUSE ME...
Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
rile up the ranks, about me.
EXCUSE THE FUCK OUT OF ME if I got a little RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY over that.
>Perhaps there's also a Keith V. Lynch I haven't noticed who posts to
>this thread as if he is angry and sputtering, and not just tired.
HINT: I don't tend to take it well when someone is telling bald-faced
LIES about me, Kip. Especially not when said LIE is designed to make
them look good in an on-going dispute.
Damned hypocrite. You give him a pass on telling a bald-faced LIE and
then take me to task for getting ANGRY (and make no mistake, I am ANGRY)
over being lied about? What kind of person are you?
--
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
- Lenin
Kip Williams
You've been carrying on like this over and over, then you go on about
how pacific and temperate you are. I'm just trying to point out that
your cool demeanor may not be obvious outside your cone of
obliviousness. I'm not making judgments on anybody, but you've leapt
into hyperspin just at having your words pointed out to you. without me
making some kind of equal noise about Keith, who you've been harping
away at for weeks.
Fuck you.
Kip W
cryptoguy
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> >On Apr 28, 11:59 pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
> >wrote:
> >> [2] I'm not the one, for instance, who told Keith that I had literally
> >> laughed out loud upon reading that Keith believed he was a model of
> >> probity as far as accuracy goes.
>
> >I do not recall precisely if I did so, as well (I am willing to be
> >corrected on this point, as I am not making a claim, either way.). I
> >do believe that I expressed a very strong disagreement with that claim
> >of his. I also do recall that no post that I saw included agreement
> >with Keith's self assessment on this point.
>
> Peter Trei was the poster who told Keith that he literally Laughed Out
> Loud upon reading that.
That's correct. I literally did, which is a rare event. Another poster
(who,
I can't remember) said that he did too.
pt
cryptoguy
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:51:12 -0700 (PDT), cryptoguy
>
>
> As a side note on propagation, this just showed up on my server within
> the last two hours (6 PM) while I was out and about (a friend took me to
> the store).
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 29, 6:18 am, netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
> >> wdst...@panix.com says...
> >> > David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> said:
> >> > > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >> > >> Did I misrepresent Keith more or did he misrepresent me more?
>
> >> > > In order to answer that question I would have to read through the
> >> > > whole thread. Judging by the sampling I've done, it isn't worth it.
>
> >> > What he said.
>
> >> What they said.
>
> >As one of the principals in this thread I have to say that
> >I find you, and one or two of the other active participants,
> >a little over the top. You go beyond pointing out K's
> >errors, misconceptions, and misrepresentations,
> >and get personally insulting.
>
> Examples?
Well, I found myself wonderig why you had created this
thread in the first place. What purpose did doing so serve?
pt
Andre Lieven
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:52:13 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> >On Apr 28, 11:59 pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
> >wrote:
> >> [2] I'm not the one, for instance, who told Keith that I had literally
> >> laughed out loud upon reading that Keith believed he was a model of
> >> probity as far as accuracy goes.
>
> >I do not recall precisely if I did so, as well (I am willing to be
> >corrected on this point, as I am not making a claim, either way.). I
> >do believe that I expressed a very strong disagreement with that claim
> >of his. I also do recall that no post that I saw included agreement
> >with Keith's self assessment on this point.
>
> Peter Trei was the poster who told Keith that he literally Laughed Out
> Loud upon reading that.
Ah. Well, that would at least suggest that you and I aren't the only
folks who, shall we say, did not accept Keith's claim re his probity.
Andre
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2009 21:05:20 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I see that he's still implicltly misrepresenting me. Less than an
> >hour ago he posted a message which implies that I think trains should
> >keep going if they hit a pedestrian on the tracks.
>
> ?
>
> <boggle>
>
> EXCUSE ME?
Indeed.
> The post explicitly is talking about the fact that some other transit
> system thinks it is a good idea to stop all the trains on a line and
> wait for medically trained personnel to give clearance before moving the
> body.
>
> Where the HELL you get that I think or am implying that you think that
> trains should do hit and runs is just beyond me and implies a level of
> misrepresentation and bad will on your part that I find astounding.
I will say that, at this point, I am no longer surprised at such a
wild
leap of fiction on Keith's part. It is a part of his pattern at waving
away
issues and views that contradict his, and that he cannot debate/
refute.
> If this is the level of reflexively paranoid thinking you've sunk to -
> Get Help. Get Help Now.
Seconded.
> >Is there anyone
> >here who doesn't see that implication in his message?
>
> God, I hope no one is that twisted.
I will say that I utterly see it not at all the way that Keith
*claims*
to be seeing it. I doubt that my statement is a surprise to anyone.
<g>
> >Is there anyone here who thinks that I *do* think that trains
> >should keep going if they hit someone?
>
> No.
Understatement Of The Week Award.
> >I suspect that most people don't know, don't care, and wish I would
> >shut up about it. I can sympathize. But recent posts have implied
> >that several people here believe I have some really bad and inaccurate
> >ideas.
Not just your "ideas", but the whole way how you arrive at them.
> > And, since I do spend lots of time here, the opinions of this
> >community are important to me.
>
> >("David" in the above refers to Loewe, not Friedman.)
>
> What about Harmon?
>
> You can call me "Loewe." I won't be offended.
Andre
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>You've been carrying on like this over and over, then you go on about
>how pacific and temperate you are. I'm just trying to point out that
>your cool demeanor may not be obvious outside your cone of
>obliviousness. I'm not making judgments on anybody, but you've leapt
>into hyperspin just at having your words pointed out to you. without me
>making some kind of equal noise about Keith, who you've been harping
>away at for weeks.
Keith claims I was "mean" to him *in the thread*. I just re-read the
entire fucking thread. I don't see it - at least no more than anyone
else
That's why I asked for *examples* from *in the thread*.
>Fuck you.
If you can't understand an aggravated, aggrieved reaction to being lied
about, then you can go piss up a rope. Seriously.
--
"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's
safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government
contract."
- Alan Shepherd
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>You've been carrying on like this over and over, then you go on about
>how pacific and temperate you are. I'm just trying to point out that
>your cool demeanor may not be obvious outside your cone of
>obliviousness. I'm not making judgments on anybody, but you've leapt
>into hyperspin just at having your words pointed out to you. without me
>making some kind of equal noise about Keith, who you've been harping
>away at for weeks.
>
>Fuck you.
And another thing. If you don't get how someone could normally be
temperate but get angry when they've been lied about and how those
things are different, then fuck YOU, Kip. You've got no insight that
anyone in his right mind would want if that is the case.
--
"Anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on
the grounds of self-defense."
- Kevin Bold
David V. Loewe, Jr
Part of my point is that, if *I* had done something like that,
observation shows that Keith would likely have let it fester whereas,
from you, he seems to have just blown it off.
Another observation is that he would sometimes take me to task for
something some other poster had said or done - sometimes even with the
quote from the other poster still within the quoted material.
Keith has decided that I'm hostile and any spin to be given is a
malicious one. Witness his reaction to the post about Metrolink
shutting down the system to remove a passenger who was struck by the
train. This is clearly a reference to the Mass Transit thread
discussion about WMATA shutting down Metrorail to remove passengers, yet
he spins it into me making the worst possible kind of accusation against
him. I just have to shake my head and wonder where all this anger is
coming from.
--
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are
wiser than one man.
How's that again? I missed something..."
-Lazarus Long
David V. Loewe, Jr
Introspection.
Introspection is why I went back over the entire thread last night and
this morning - post by post.
Keith made all these allegations during the thread and on the way out
the door. I'm not so self-absorbed that I believe that there *can* be
nothing to them, but I've been the victim of false accusations before.
[1] That is why I want concrete examples. Keith was long on
generalities and short on specifics.
Keith's valedictory to the Mass Transit thread was full of charges and
accusations laid at the feet of Doug Berry and myself (and some at Andre
- amusing, since Andre is in his killfile and you'd think he'd be taking
even quoted text seen from Andre with a grain of salt). Yet, other than
a sense of "I should have bailed out sooner." I see no taking of
responsibility for what happened. Unlike Keith, I know better than to
claim I have no responsibility for what happened. Therefore, I want
solid examples of what I did (and not some nebulous feeling) or did not
do so that I can learn from what happened.
[1] For example, in rec.sport.football.college, when Professor Ward
Churchill got fired from Colorado University, I was listed as one of
several posters in the NG who would be showing "Glee!" The problem was
that I had never mentioned Professor Churchill much less participated in
any bashing (or defense) of him.
--
"Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that
you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who
misunderstand you."
Sir Karl Popper
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:14:32 -0700 (PDT), cryptoguy
>
Well, I might suggest that when I have agreed with you and other
posters on this thread, and included some additional citations for
why I agree, that that would be something that could be considered
at face value.
Not to also mention that, as a frequent driver and a car owner of
about 30 years, I do offer a bit more useful experience about cars
than does Keith...
> Yet, other than
> a sense of "I should have bailed out sooner." I see no taking of
> responsibility for what happened. Unlike Keith, I know better than to
> claim I have no responsibility for what happened. Therefore, I want
> solid examples of what I did (and not some nebulous feeling) or did not
> do so that I can learn from what happened.
>
> [1] For example, in rec.sport.football.college, when Professor Ward
> Churchill got fired from Colorado University, I was listed as one of
> several posters in the NG who would be showing "Glee!" The problem was
> that I had never mentioned Professor Churchill much less participated in
> any bashing (or defense) of him.
That's Usenet for you. :-)
Andre
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
> rile up the ranks, about me.
I have not told any lies.
I await your apology.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
>> rile up the ranks, about me.
>
>I have not told any lies.
You ascribed to me a motive, for making a post, that I do not and did
not have. You stated it as fact. That makes it a lie, Keith. No
matter how you want to slice it, that is a lie.
"Less than an hour ago he posted a message which implies that I think
trains should keep going if they hit a pedestrian on the tracks. Is
there anyone here who doesn't see that implication in his message? Is
there anyone here who thinks that I *do* think that trains should keep
going if they hit someone?"
>I await your apology.
No.
No...
I await YOUR multiple apologies for all the times you have flat out done
the same damned thing to me, Keith.
I await an apology for you claiming that I wanted to force everyone into
a car.
I await an apology for you claiming that I said you wanted the taxpayers
to support mass transit.
I await an apology for your continual accusations of malice (before last
week when you *finally* pissed me off enough to make me finally bear you
ill will).
I await so *damned* many apologies from you that it isn't even funny.
I am sick and tired of letting you walk all over me in the name of amity
in the news group.
This thread is about finding out what I did wrong in the Mass Transit
thread. That's because, although I don't think I'm primarily at fault,
I know that such a situation can't develop in a vacuum. That you showed
no similar contrition in your valedictory to the thread tells me that
you likely don't feel any responsibility for what went on beyond a
possible "I didn't end it soon enough." So, until you show some
introspection and self-awareness and step up to the plate and apologize
for the rather egregious lie that I quote above...
No.
Not EVEN...
--
"Beware the fury of a patient man."
John Dryden
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2009 22:35:53 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
> >David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >> Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
> >> rile up the ranks, about me.
> >
> >I have not told any lies.
>
> You ascribed to me a motive, for making a post, that I do not and did
> not have. You stated it as fact. That makes it a lie, Keith. No
> matter how you want to slice it, that is a lie.
You are mistaken.
A lie is an untruth told with intention to deceive. If Keith believed
what he wrote--and you have offered no reason to think he didn't--then
it was not a lie, whether or not it was untrue.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Harmon
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>On 29 Apr 2009 21:05:20 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
>wrote:
>
>What about Harmon?
I don't have any complaint with the above.
I appreciate Keith trimming quotes to necessary context only.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On 30 Apr 2009 22:35:53 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
>> wrote:
>> >David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
>> >> rile up the ranks, about me.
>> >
>> >I have not told any lies.
>>
>> You ascribed to me a motive, for making a post, that I do not and did
>> not have. You stated it as fact. That makes it a lie, Keith. No
>> matter how you want to slice it, that is a lie.
>
>You are mistaken.
>
>A lie is an untruth told with intention to deceive. If Keith believed
>what he wrote--and you have offered no reason to think he didn't--then
>it was not a lie, whether or not it was untrue.
He stated it as a fact. If he had stated it as an opinion, you might be
on to something.
"Less than an hour ago he posted a message which implies that I think
trains should keep going if they hit a pedestrian on the tracks."
There's no "I *think* it implies" - he flat out states it as *fact*.
REGARDLESS, he can sit and *spin* if he thinks he's getting an apology
without him apologizing first *for as long as I draw breath*.
Is the ANGER getting through, Professor? I can turn it up a notch if it
isn't.
--
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make
him pay cash."
-Lazarus Long
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:22:22 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On 30 Apr 2009 22:35:53 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
> >> >> rile up the ranks, about me.
> >> >
> >> >I have not told any lies.
> >>
> >> You ascribed to me a motive, for making a post, that I do not and did
> >> not have. You stated it as fact. That makes it a lie, Keith. No
> >> matter how you want to slice it, that is a lie.
> >
> >You are mistaken.
> >
> >A lie is an untruth told with intention to deceive. If Keith believed
> >what he wrote--and you have offered no reason to think he didn't--then
> >it was not a lie, whether or not it was untrue.
>
> He stated it as a fact. If he had stated it as an opinion, you might be
> on to something.
If I believe something which happens to be false, and state it as a
fact, I am not lying.
>
> "Less than an hour ago he posted a message which implies that I think
> trains should keep going if they hit a pedestrian on the tracks."
> There's no "I *think* it implies" - he flat out states it as *fact*.
He states what he believes the message implies.
> REGARDLESS, he can sit and *spin* if he thinks he's getting an apology
> without him apologizing first *for as long as I draw breath*.
That's up to you.
> Is the ANGER getting through, Professor? I can turn it up a notch if it
> isn't.
You have made it clear in several recent posts that you are angry, and
you seem willing to be angry at more or less anyone who crosses your
path, or at least disagrees with you here. That isn't a very good way of
persuading people that you are and have been behaving in a calm and
reasonable fashion.
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> In article <fprkv45konpfim9ogt6iteeciio750r...@4ax.com>,
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:22:22 -0700, David Friedman
> > <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >> On 30 Apr 2009 22:35:53 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
> > >> >> rile up the ranks, about me.
>
> > >> >I have not told any lies.
>
> > >> You ascribed to me a motive, for making a post, that I do not and did
> > >> not have. You stated it as fact. That makes it a lie, Keith. No
> > >> matter how you want to slice it, that is a lie.
>
> > >You are mistaken.
>
> > >A lie is an untruth told with intention to deceive. If Keith believed
> > >what he wrote--and you have offered no reason to think he didn't--then
> > >it was not a lie, whether or not it was untrue.
>
> > He stated it as a fact. If he had stated it as an opinion, you might be
> > on to something.
>
> If I believe something which happens to be false, and state it as a
> fact, I am not lying.
But then, you would be violating a basic rule of social intercourse,
which
is not to claim that factual untruths about other people are facts.
That would then be slander. That one may believe the slander doesn't
change the fact that the statement is still false and slanderous.
> > "Less than an hour ago he posted a message which implies that I think
> > trains should keep going if they hit a pedestrian on the tracks."
> > There's no "I *think* it implies" - he flat out states it as *fact*.
>
> He states what he believes the message implies.
Ibid.
> > REGARDLESS, he can sit and *spin* if he thinks he's getting an apology
> > without him apologizing first *for as long as I draw breath*.
>
> That's up to you.
>
> > Is the ANGER getting through, Professor? I can turn it up a notch if it
> > isn't.
>
> You have made it clear in several recent posts that you are angry, and
> you seem willing to be angry at more or less anyone who crosses your
> path, or at least disagrees with you here. That isn't a very good way of
> persuading people that you are and have been behaving in a calm and
> reasonable fashion.
I am almost amused at the idea that I have to agree with Mr. Loewe
pretty much in whole on this point, given that Mr. Loewe and I mixed
it
up pretty hard within the last year.
Were I to be as much someone who makes and takes these issues
personally (As Keith claimed about me, before he killfiled me.), then
I would not be able and/or willing to agree with someone with whom I
had such a history.
Now, one might try to sell the idea that my so called animus towards
Keith is greater than it is supposed to be for Mr. Loewe, so I would
then be agreeing with the one I dislike less, and disagreeing with the
one I dislike more.
The major fly in the ointment of such a proposition is that my
disagreement with Keith on this thread is one where I disagree with
his objective claims. If someone wishes to try to conflate that
kind of disagreement with some kind of personality issue, then
they are the ones who are more interested in dealing with
personality issues over objective factual issues.
And, I will reiterate that Keith's claim that the road and subway
network of *Manhattan* could both be doubled was just so
willfully ignorant that it is rare that I have seen such an amazing
display of that ignorance.
That's what I object to, that that was claimed, not that Keith is who
said it.
Andre
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:22:22 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >> On 30 Apr 2009 22:35:53 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
>> >> >> rile up the ranks, about me.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have not told any lies.
>> >>
>> >> You ascribed to me a motive, for making a post, that I do not and did
>> >> not have. You stated it as fact. That makes it a lie, Keith. No
>> >> matter how you want to slice it, that is a lie.
>> >
>> >You are mistaken.
>> >
>> >A lie is an untruth told with intention to deceive. If Keith believed
>> >what he wrote--and you have offered no reason to think he didn't--then
>> >it was not a lie, whether or not it was untrue.
>>
>> He stated it as a fact. If he had stated it as an opinion, you might be
>> on to something.
>
>If I believe something which happens to be false, and state it as a
>fact, I am not lying.
Merriam-Webster says that my usage is proper, Professor.
-----
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie%5B4%5D
1 b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
true by the speaker
-----
Note the difference between the statement and the act. The statement is
a lie. He made it. Therefore, he told a lie. He may not BE "lying,"
by definition, but I didn't accuse him OF that. I said he "just got
through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE" aka "He *told* a lie."
The usage is a proper one. I use "lie" and not "lying" throughout. Nor
do I call him a "liar." My usage is proper.
>> "Less than an hour ago he posted a message which implies that I think
>> trains should keep going if they hit a pedestrian on the tracks."
>> There's no "I *think* it implies" - he flat out states it as *fact*.
>
>He states what he believes the message implies.
If he truly believes what he claims, then he needs HELP. Reading help
at minimum, psychiatric help at worst.
Anyone with even half brain should have been able to figure out that the
post was a reference to the long-standing sub-text in the Mass Transit
thread where Keith wanted victims of medical emergencies moved within
minutes of the ambulance arriving on scene at Metrorail - when everyone
else told him that stabilization of the victim may take much longer than
he seemed to think was necessary.
But, no, Keith has to spin that into a fanciful bullshit supposition
that I was implying that he thought victims of train collisions should
just lie there - more or less making them victims of hit and run by the
train.
Ludicrous.
>> REGARDLESS, he can sit and *spin* if he thinks he's getting an apology
>> without him apologizing first *for as long as I draw breath*.
>
>That's up to you.
>
>> Is the ANGER getting through, Professor? I can turn it up a notch if it
>> isn't.
>
>You have made it clear in several recent posts that you are angry, and
>you seem willing to be angry at more or less anyone who crosses your
>path, or at least disagrees with you here.
Keith and Kip.
That's not a very long list.
I haven't blow up at you. Nor did I blow up at Peter.
>That isn't a very good way of
>persuading people that you are and have been behaving in a calm and
>reasonable fashion.
You claim that his belief in the truth of a false statement determines
if it is a lie and, yet, you can't distinguish between the mental state
I'm in now and the mental state I was in previously? Color me...
unconvinced.
--
"You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."
Eric Woolfson & Alan Parsons
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >If I believe something which happens to be false, and state it as a
> >fact, I am not lying.
>
> Merriam-Webster says that my usage is proper, Professor.
> -----
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie%5B4%5D
>
> 1 b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
> true by the speaker
> -----
1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
untrue with intent to deceive
(same source)
...
> >You have made it clear in several recent posts that you are angry, and
> >you seem willing to be angry at more or less anyone who crosses your
> >path, or at least disagrees with you here.
>
> Keith and Kip.
> That's not a very long list.
>
> I haven't blow up at you. Nor did I blow up at Peter.
I wouldn't take "Is the ANGER getting through, Professor? I can turn it
up a notch if it isn't" as precisely a friendly comment.
David Friedman
<7c90883c-a766-46e4...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> That would then be slander. That one may believe the slander doesn't
> change the fact that the statement is still false and slanderous.
That's a bit tricky, in part because the definition of slander varies
with jurisdiction and circumstances. Generally, to be slander a
statement is supposed to be both false and malicious. Statements made in
a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are usually not
considered slanders even if false. No doubt you and David L. would argue
that if Keith believed his statement was true the belief was
unreasonable, but I expect he would argue the contrary.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >If I believe something which happens to be false, and state it as a
>> >fact, I am not lying.
>>
>> Merriam-Webster says that my usage is proper, Professor.
>> -----
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie%5B4%5D
>>
>> 1 b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
>> true by the speaker
>> -----
>
>1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
>untrue with intent to deceive
>
>(same source)
Which has nothing to do with whether or not my usage is proper. And my
usage IS proper.
It IS a lie - whether he believes it to be true or not.
>...
>
>> >You have made it clear in several recent posts that you are angry, and
>> >you seem willing to be angry at more or less anyone who crosses your
>> >path, or at least disagrees with you here.
>>
>> Keith and Kip.
>
>> That's not a very long list.
>>
>> I haven't blow up at you. Nor did I blow up at Peter.
>
>I wouldn't take "Is the ANGER getting through, Professor? I can turn it
>up a notch if it isn't" as precisely a friendly comment.
You aren't the target of the anger. Keith is.
--
"Get next to a clue and hope the wind blows, dude."
- Fitzbo
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> 1 b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
> >> true by the speaker
> >> -----
> >
> >1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
> >untrue with intent to deceive
> >
> >(same source)
>
> Which has nothing to do with whether or not my usage is proper. And my
> usage IS proper.
>
> It IS a lie - whether he believes it to be true or not.
And it isn't a lie, if he believes it--by definition 1a. That's the
problem with multiple definitions. But you will note that the dictionary
source you gave offers mine first.
Michael Benveniste
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>That would then be slander. That one may believe the slander doesn't
>change the fact that the statement is still false and slanderous.
<Ob-Spiderman>It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In
print, it�s libel.</Ob-Spiderman>
I make no comment on the underlying controversy.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There
is no substitute for thinking.
Kip Williams
> That's the
> problem with multiple definitions. But you will note that the dictionary
> source you gave offers mine first.
For what it's worth, though, the order of subsenses in a dictionary
entry reflects historical order, at least as far down as the 1a and 1b
level. According to the front matter of Webster's 10th Collegiate,
subsenses below that may not necessarily reflect historical order.
Kip W
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> In article
> <7c90883c-a766-46e4-898c-990dc27e7...@b6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > That would then be slander. That one may believe the slander doesn't
> > change the fact that the statement is still false and slanderous.
>
> That's a bit tricky, in part because the definition of slander varies
> with jurisdiction and circumstances. Generally, to be slander a
> statement is supposed to be both false and malicious. Statements
> made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are
> usually not considered slanders even if false. No doubt you and
> David L. would argue that if Keith believed his statement was true the
> belief was unreasonable, but I expect he would argue the contrary.
Google "Reasonable Man Standard".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
It includes the following caveat:
"The reasonable person standard makes no allowance for the mentally
ill.[17]
Such a refusal goes back to the standard set in Menlove, where
Menlove's
attorney argued for the subjective standard. In the 170 years since,
the law
has kept to the legal judgment of having only the single, objective
standard".
Ergo, if a mental infirmity is not an excuse, then a non mentally
affected
person's personal belief that an untruth is true also is not an
excuse.
I would say that when the topic was the stoppage of trains due to a
medical emergency *inside of one train*, that Keith shifting the
ground
of his point to that of a medical emergency *on the train tracks* is
Unreasonable, and this would and does fail such a test.
Further, Keith's move of the goal posts from a patient *inside* of a
train to a patient *outside of a train, laying on the tracks*, also
fails
to be a good faith argument. So, he'd fail there, as well.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:59:47 -0700, David Friedman
>
> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >> >If I believe something which happens to be false, and state it as a
> >> >fact, I am not lying.
>
> >> Merriam-Webster says that my usage is proper, Professor.
> >> -----
> >>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie%5B4%5D
>
> >> 1 b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
> >> true by the speaker
> >> -----
>
> >1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
> >untrue with intent to deceive
>
> >(same source)
>
> Which has nothing to do with whether or not my usage is proper. And my
> usage IS proper.
I meant to weigh in on this in my last post, but I'll do it here.
All that is necessary for Mr. Loewe's statement to be true is that
there be
ONE accepted definition that his statement fits. That *another*
definition
exists which is different in the area in discussion (Whether or not a
real
belief in an untruth is or is not a lie.) does not change the fact
that the
one cited accepted definition does verify Mr. Loewe's statement.
> It IS a lie - whether he believes it to be true or not.
Exactly.
> >...
>
> >> >You have made it clear in several recent posts that you are angry, and
> >> >you seem willing to be angry at more or less anyone who crosses your
> >> >path, or at least disagrees with you here.
>
> >> Keith and Kip.
>
> >> That's not a very long list.
>
> >> I haven't blow up at you. Nor did I blow up at Peter.
>
> >I wouldn't take "Is the ANGER getting through, Professor? I can turn it
> >up a notch if it isn't" as precisely a friendly comment.
>
> You aren't the target of the anger. Keith is.
Also, that a person making a true argument is "angry" does NOT
necessarily invalidate their argument in of itself.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:10:28 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> >That would then be slander. That one may believe the slander doesn't
> >change the fact that the statement is still false and slanderous.
>
> <Ob-Spiderman>It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In
> print, it’s libel.</Ob-Spiderman>
>
> I make no comment on the underlying controversy.
There's a muddy line between conventional publishing methods,
and many modern conversational on line fora.
I rather lean towards "publishing" covering newspapers, books
and magazines. IOW, there needs to be *actual* print.
It's certainly a debatable point. IOW, I am not asserting my
above standard to be comprehensive or definitive. But, that's my
view.
Andre
cryptoguy
> David V. Loewe, Jr <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
> > rile up the ranks, about me.
>
> I have not told any lies.
>
> I await your apology.
Keith, you have 'not told lies' in the same sense that
Bill Clinton 'did not have sex with that woman.' Both
statements are true in a narrow, legalistic sense, but
made with the apparent intent to created an incorrect
perception in the reader or listener.
When you said 'Metro drivers earn over $100k', you
said it in a way which would cause a reasonable
person to believe that *all* Metro drivers do so.
You did not include the crucial information that this
was true only for a minority of drivers, who did a lot
of overtime. The base salary is about half that.
You have had a lot of trouble with prosecutors who
don't include exculpatory information with their claims.
Here, you are doing the same thing yourself.
pt
Michael Benveniste
> I rather lean towards "publishing" covering newspapers, books
> and magazines. IOW, there needs to be *actual* print.
1. Under common law, publication (ie transmission to a 3rd
party) is also required for slander.
2. The test used to distingish libel from slander is one
of permanence. Libel has not required actual print for over a
century. Libel actions against broadcasters are commonplace,
and the first successful actions for libel based on Usenet posts
date back more than a decade now. (Arguably 1993,
but that one was settled without deciding the form of defamation.)
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Legalize Updoc.
Tim Illingworth
The definitive case on the subject would presumably be Ham v Chicken,
which covers most of the points raised above.
Tim
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >> 1 b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
>> >> true by the speaker
>> >> -----
>> >
>> >1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
>> >untrue with intent to deceive
>> >
>> >(same source)
>>
>> Which has nothing to do with whether or not my usage is proper. And my
>> usage IS proper.
>>
>> It IS a lie - whether he believes it to be true or not.
>
>And it isn't a lie, if he believes it--by definition 1a.
Only if 4.1.a is being used. If 1.6 is used, he's at anchor.
*I* used the word. *I* get to reveal which definition was used. *I*
point to 4.1.b. 4.1.b is valid. That *should* settle things.
I fail to get the point of your mulishness when you've been pointed to a
valid definition. Some time ago, you took me to task for being
unwilling to admit an error. Now, when I have presented a definition
that fully backs up my claim that Keith told a lie, you are unwilling to
admit your error. The shoe is on the other foot, Professor. Recall
your own words to me on that occasion and apply them to yourself.
>That's the problem with multiple definitions. But you will note that
>the dictionary source you gave offers mine first.
An ordering that Kip Williams has already explained. And, of course,
the ordering has nothing to do with the validity of later appearing
definitions.
--
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny
in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
Paul Dormer
t...@bellhouse.org.uk (Tim Illingworth) wrote:
>
> The definitive case on the subject would presumably be Ham v Chicken,
> which covers most of the points raised above.
Was that the one about the sky-writer?
Tim McDaniel
Paul Dormer <p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <tv5mv4hcuqio6l45i...@4ax.com>,
>t...@bellhouse.org.uk (Tim Illingworth) wrote:
>> The definitive case on the subject would presumably be Ham v
>> Chicken, which covers most of the points raised above.
Chicken v. Ham, per <http://www.ansible.co.uk/misc/apherbert.html>,
despite being cited in reverse order in several places.
>Was that the one about the sky-writer?
It's remarkably hard for me to Google details about it.
<http://supremecourtjester.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html>, in
conjunction with the mid-term exam question in re Mike Huckabee's
promise on the Colbert Report to Stephen Colbert to make him Vice
President,
1 (a) (1) Is this promise "in writing" because it was videotaped?
Refer to the holding in A.P. Herbert's imaginary opinion (in his
book the Uncommon Law) in Ham v. Chicken, involving a parrot
trained to repeat an insulting phrase and then recorded on a
gramophone; and whether that is slander because it is spoken, or
libel because it is capable of being repeated and revisited again
like the written word. Ignore the part of the decision in that
case that deals with whether the parrot knew what he was doing and
is capable of slandering and/or libeling someone if you believe
that Mike Huckabee is more intelligent than a parrot.
Another citation said that the difference was significant because, if
it was slander, actual damages had to be proven, but not if it was
libel.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
David Friedman
<50055403-4fdf-4fe4...@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
That isn't what it says. To begin with, it's talking about negligence in
tort law, not about the standard for defamation. Further, the statement
that mental infirmity is not an excuse doesn't mean that a reasonable
but false belief isn't an excuse.
"The reasonable person standard holds: each person owes a duty to behave
as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances."
Reasonable persons sometimes make mistakes.
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:04:13 -0700, David Friedman
> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> 1 b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
> >> >> true by the speaker
> >> >> -----
> >> >
> >> >1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
> >> >untrue with intent to deceive
> >> >
> >> >(same source)
> >>
> >> Which has nothing to do with whether or not my usage is proper. And my
> >> usage IS proper.
> >>
> >> It IS a lie - whether he believes it to be true or not.
> >
> >And it isn't a lie, if he believes it--by definition 1a.
>
> Only if 4.1.a is being used. If 1.6 is used, he's at anchor.
>
> *I* used the word. *I* get to reveal which definition was used. *I*
> point to 4.1.b. 4.1.b is valid. That *should* settle things.
I concede that some dictionaries support your usage as one possible
meaning, as well as mine. But what you wrote was:
"Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
rile up the ranks, about me."
I think that made it clear enough which meaning you intended.
Jette
> "Andre Lieven" <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>> I rather lean towards "publishing" covering newspapers, books
>> and magazines. IOW, there needs to be *actual* print.
>
> 1. Under common law, publication (ie transmission to a 3rd
> party) is also required for slander.
>
> 2. The test used to distingish libel from slander is one
> of permanence. Libel has not required actual print for over a century.
> Libel actions against broadcasters are commonplace,
> and the first successful actions for libel based on Usenet posts date
> back more than a decade now. (Arguably 1993, but that one was settled
> without deciding the form of defamation.)
>
In Scotland we simplify it - it's just "Defamation of Character" and
that covers printed and spoken word.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Paul Dormer
wrote:
>
> >Was that the one about the sky-writer?
>
> It's remarkably hard for me to Google details about it.
> <http://supremecourtjester.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html>, in
> conjunction with the mid-term exam question in re Mike Huckabee's
> promise on the Colbert Report to Stephen Colbert to make him Vice
> President,
>
> 1 (a) (1) Is this promise "in writing" because it was videotaped?
> Refer to the holding in A.P. Herbert's imaginary opinion (in his
> book the Uncommon Law) in Ham v. Chicken, involving a parrot
> trained to repeat an insulting phrase and then recorded on a
> gramophone; and whether that is slander because it is spoken, or
> libel because it is capable of being repeated and revisited again
> like the written word. Ignore the part of the decision in that
> case that deals with whether the parrot knew what he was doing and
> is capable of slandering and/or libeling someone if you believe
> that Mike Huckabee is more intelligent than a parrot.
>
> Another citation said that the difference was significant because, if
> it was slander, actual damages had to be proven, but not if it was
> libel.
OK, that wasn't the one I remember reading.
The one I remember involved a political candidate who hired a sky-writer
to write campaign slogans in smoke above the town. The pilot supported
his opponent and made changes to the slogans that were detrimental to the
candidate. Where these slogans libel, because they were written down, or
slander, because they had no permanency?
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:04:13 -0700, David Friedman
>> <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> > "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> 1 b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed
>> >> >> true by the speaker
>> >> >> -----
>> >> >
>> >> >1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be
>> >> >untrue with intent to deceive
>> >> >
>> >> >(same source)
>> >>
>> >> Which has nothing to do with whether or not my usage is proper. And
>> >> my usage IS proper.
>> >>
>> >> It IS a lie - whether he believes it to be true or not.
>> >
>> >And it isn't a lie, if he believes it--by definition 1a.
>>
>> Only if 4.1.a is being used. If 1.6 is used, he's at anchor.
>>
>> *I* used the word. *I* get to reveal which definition was used. *I*
>> point to 4.1.b. 4.1.b is valid. That *should* settle things.
>
>I concede that some dictionaries support your usage as one possible
>meaning, as well as mine. But what you wrote was:
>
>"Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
>rile up the ranks, about me."
>
>I think that made it clear enough which meaning you intended.
So...
You're claiming ESP now?
Explain to me how his missive - "I see that he's still implicltly
misrepresenting me. Less than an hour ago he posted a message which
implies that I think trains should keep going if they hit a pedestrian
on the tracks. Is there anyone here who doesn't see that implication in
his message? Is there anyone here who thinks that I *do* think that
trains should keep going if they hit someone?" - is not designed to rile
up the ranks. It is a pretty blatant appeal to the news group to
validate his claim for him. As for big, fat and scurrilous, am I to
take it that you have never described something, in the heat of
white-hot anger, using colorful invective?
In response to Andre's musings about slander, you opined that I "would
argue that if Keith believed his statement was true the belief was
unreasonable." I would go further than that and argue that the chances
are better that Keith understands that his belief is unreasonable than
that I was using 4.1.a when I wrote that Keith had told "a big fat
scurrilous LIE."
--
"The moment you abandon the cardinal principle of exacting from all
individuals the same proportion of their income or of their property,
you are at sea without rudder or compass, and there is no amount of
injustice and folly you may not commit . . ."
- JR McCullough
David Loewe, Jr.
<chuckle>
I'm really interested in what Keith's response (or lack of thereof) to
this is going to be.
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
Keith F. Lynch
> When you said 'Metro drivers earn over $100k', you said it in a way
> which would cause a reasonable person to believe that *all* Metro
> drivers do so.
I don't think so, and that was certainly not my intention. I
obviously knew that anyone could look it up, hence obviously wouldn't
have said it if I thought anyone would misinterpret it.
I continue to believe that $100k is an astonishing amount of money for
a subway train driver to make, regardless of overtime, and regardless
of how many other train drivers earn less. Especially since Metro is
chronically starved for funding. That's more than *three times* what
the median American earns -- and plenty of Americans work plenty of
unpaid overtime, especially if their employer is starved for funding.
If you disagree, fine. We should agree to disagree, and move on,
rather than adding another thousand messages to this thread.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Andre Lieven
> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > I rather lean towards "publishing" covering newspapers, books
> > and magazines. IOW, there needs to be *actual* print.
>
> 1. Under common law, publication (ie transmission to a 3rd
> party) is also required for slander.
>
> 2. The test used to distingish libel from slander is one
> of permanence. Libel has not required actual print for over a
> century. Libel actions against broadcasters are commonplace,
> and the first successful actions for libel based on Usenet posts
> date back more than a decade now. (Arguably 1993, but
> that one was settled without deciding the form of defamation.)
All granted, it is just that I didn't see a specific need to deal with
what is essentially the same concept in a medium that doesn't
quite fit with either's classical definition.
My point was that a person putting out falsehoods is not supplied
with a defense if they believed the falsehoods. Further, a willingness
to uncritically both believe and promulgate falsehoods might even
be seen as being worse than just the basic act of slander/libel.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Fri, 1 May 2009 07:05:32 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
What about the amicus brief from Egg, in support of Ham ?
(Yes, I know, that case was Toast.)
Andre
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> In article
> <50055403-4fdf-4fe4-8a57-55f5a59bf...@j18g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
I would say that neither is an excuse. Especially, when in this case,
the offending party (Keith) has been given many citations that
explained his multiple errors and willful ignorances.
Having been given information to correct his errors, the
responsibility
for FAILING to consider the corrections is Keith's alone.
> "The reasonable person standard holds: each person owes a duty to behave
> as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances."
>
> Reasonable persons sometimes make mistakes.
I submit that Keith is NOT a "reasonable person" in this field.
I doubt that you will get a majority to disagree.
Andre
Andre Lieven
>
> >> I rather lean towards "publishing" covering newspapers, books
> >> and magazines. IOW, there needs to be *actual* print.
>
> > 1. Under common law, publication (ie transmission to a 3rd
> > party) is also required for slander.
>
> > 2. The test used to distingish libel from slander is one
> > of permanence. Libel has not required actual print for over a century.
> > Libel actions against broadcasters are commonplace,
> > and the first successful actions for libel based on Usenet posts date
> > back more than a decade now. (Arguably 1993, but that one was settled
> > without deciding the form of defamation.)
>
> In Scotland we simplify it - it's just "Defamation of Character" and
> that covers printed and spoken word.
Yes, that would cover my meaning nicely. Keith defamed David.
Andre
Keith F. Lynch
> <Ob-Spiderman>It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In
> print, it�s libel.</Ob-Spiderman>
If we're going to nitpick, Spider-Man is spelled with a hyphen.
> I make no comment on the underlying controversy.
I wish you, and others, would. People are arguing about whether my
saying that David's message implied that I thought that trains that
strike pedestrians shouldn't stop was a deliberate untruth or an
accidental untruth on my part. This neglects the third, correct,
possibility that it was the truth.
I'll concede that the message in question never mentioned me, so he
has plausible deniability. But in the context of the recent messages
here, his intention is obvious. Here are the relevant parts of his
message:
Apparently, more than one transit system thinks it is a good idea
to shut down the train if there is a passenger who needs medical
assistance (note that the stop is the one for Barnes Hospital).
"An elderly woman walked into the path of a westbound Metrolink
train this afternoon at the Central West End station, police and
Metro spokeswoman Dianne Williams said.
The woman was attempting to cross the tracks about 3:30 p.m. near
the station's platform as a train was approaching, police said. The
train repeatedly honked its horn and passengers yelled at the woman
to warn her, but she kept walking and the train struck her, police
said.
The woman is expected to survive but she suffered serious injuries,
including possible broken bones and severe bruises, police said.
Metrolink trains headed east- and westbound both were delayed for
more than an hour while emergency crews worked at the scene. Buses
were used to transport passengers until trains resumed service."
Why would he post such a thing unless it was to imply that someone
here thought that that train should *not* have stopped? And if that
someone wasn't me, then who?
I have said that if a passenger *on* a train is *ill* -- not injured,
but ill -- that the passenger should be removed from the train at
the next stop, and stabilized in the station, not in the train.
If someone disagrees with my claim there is negligible risk to an
uninjured ill person from moving them a few feet, fine. We can
agree to disagree on that. But that's not what this is about.
If David had simply insisted that he wasn't implying anything about
me in the above message, I would have let it slide. I wouldn't have
believed him, but I wouldn't have said so. I would have let it drop.
But instead he said:
Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
rile up the ranks, about me.
I continue to await David's apology for saying that.
Andre Lieven
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When you said 'Metro drivers earn over $100k', you said it in a way
> > which would cause a reasonable person to believe that *all* Metro
> > drivers do so.
>
> I don't think so, and that was certainly not my intention.
No, that is exactly what you did, and your intention is made clear by
the act of your making it a blanket statement, when the facts showed
the opposite.
Once again, I will point out that spouting errors that one can easily
check before spouting them, and on such a regular basis, indicates
a willful disregard or minimisation of putting out non bullshit.
A "reasonable man" can reasonably conclude that someone who
does such things so often, and then, REFUSES to admit to them
is not a person to be taken at their word on any matter of fact.
> I obviously knew that anyone could look it up, hence obviously
> wouldn't have said it if I thought anyone would misinterpret it.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. The fact is that you DID say what was
factually wrong, and easily checkable as being factually wrong.
Then, you continued to bluster, as if you had NOT spouted
bullshit.
> I continue to believe that $100k is an astonishing amount of money for
> a subway train driver to make, regardless of overtime, and regardless
> of how many other train drivers earn less.
So ? It has already been well established that your personal
experiences are meaningless in this area, and are more likely to
lead you to over-project, thus compounding your errors.
> Especially since Metro is
> chronically starved for funding. That's more than *three times* what
> the median American earns -- and plenty of Americans work plenty of
> unpaid overtime, especially if their employer is starved for funding.
Once again, a claim with NO backing. Ergo, I do NOT believe you at
all on this. Prove it.
> If you disagree, fine. We should agree to disagree, and move on,
> rather than adding another thousand messages to this thread.
Says the guy angling To Set The Rules and To Get The Last Word.
Frankly, you have some serious boundary and impulse control issues,
not including your penchant for pulling bullshit from your ass.
Andre
David Friedman
<7dcca581-b1c7-4640...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > That isn't what it says. To begin with, it's talking about negligence in
> > tort law, not about the standard for defamation. Further, the statement
> > that mental infirmity is not an excuse doesn't mean that a reasonable
> > but false belief isn't an excuse.
>
> I would say that neither is an excuse.
Then you would be mistaken, so far as Anglo-American law is concerned.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When you said 'Metro drivers earn over $100k', you said it in a way
>> which would cause a reasonable person to believe that *all* Metro
>> drivers do so.
>
>I don't think so, and that was certainly not my intention. I
>obviously knew that anyone could look it up, hence obviously wouldn't
>have said it if I thought anyone would misinterpret it.
>
>I continue to believe that $100k is an astonishing amount of money for
>a subway train driver to make, regardless of overtime, and regardless
>of how many other train drivers earn less. Especially since Metro is
>chronically starved for funding. That's more than *three times* what
>the median American earns -- and plenty of Americans work plenty of
>unpaid overtime, especially if their employer is starved for funding.
>
>If you disagree, fine. We should agree to disagree, and move on,
>rather than adding another thousand messages to this thread.
You've gotta love the hypocrisy. I tell Keith that he has told a lie
and he indignantly requests an apology. *Peter* tells Keith that he has
implicitly lied (and in *bad faith*, no less) and Keith tries to explain
it away.
It is to laugh...
--
"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."
- Hannah Arendt
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Michael Benveniste <m...@murkyether.com> wrote:
>> <Ob-Spiderman>It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In
>> print, it�s libel.</Ob-Spiderman>
>
>If we're going to nitpick, Spider-Man is spelled with a hyphen.
>
>> I make no comment on the underlying controversy.
>
>I wish you, and others, would. People are arguing about whether my
>saying that David's message implied that I thought that trains that
>strike pedestrians shouldn't stop was a deliberate untruth or an
>accidental untruth on my part. This neglects the third, correct,
>possibility that it was the truth.
You are delusional.
>I'll concede that the message in question never mentioned me, so he
>has plausible deniability.
No deniability is required. It IS about you - just not in the way you
think.
It is about you wanting to move victims *too quickly* - not that you
want them to just lie there. And that is obvious to anyone who read the
thread and my post.
You are either the most oblivious person on the planet or you are
actively lying.
Which is it?
>But in the context of the recent messages
>here, his intention is obvious.
To everybody BUT you...
>Here are the relevant parts of his
>message:
>
> Apparently, more than one transit system thinks it is a good idea
> to shut down the train if there is a passenger who needs medical
> assistance (note that the stop is the one for Barnes Hospital).
>
> "An elderly woman walked into the path of a westbound Metrolink
> train this afternoon at the Central West End station, police and
> Metro spokeswoman Dianne Williams said.
>
> The woman was attempting to cross the tracks about 3:30 p.m. near
> the station's platform as a train was approaching, police said. The
> train repeatedly honked its horn and passengers yelled at the woman
> to warn her, but she kept walking and the train struck her, police
> said.
>
> The woman is expected to survive but she suffered serious injuries,
> including possible broken bones and severe bruises, police said.
>
> Metrolink trains headed east- and westbound both were delayed for
> more than an hour while emergency crews worked at the scene. Buses
> were used to transport passengers until trains resumed service."
>
>Why would he post such a thing unless it was to imply that someone
>here thought that that train should *not* have stopped? And if that
>someone wasn't me, then who?
The POINT here, oh most oblivious one, is that "Metrolink trains headed
east- and westbound both were delayed for more than an hour while
emergency crews worked at the scene." and you have opined that emergency
responders should move stricken people quicker than that.
Let me emphasize that again - "WERE DELAYED FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR," you
know, the kind of timeframe you were bitching about having to wait while
stricken people were moved off the Metrorail trains.
>I have said that if a passenger *on* a train is *ill* -- not injured,
Watch the goalposts shift again...
>but ill -- that the passenger should be removed from the train at
>the next stop, and stabilized in the station, not in the train.
It has been pointed out to you numerous times that an "ill" passenger
may be having a seizure or just be unconscious on the floor of the train
car with no way for emergency responders to know what is going on with
the victim.
>If someone disagrees
*Everyone* who weighed in disagreed.
*Everyone*.
>with my claim there is negligible risk to an
>uninjured ill person from moving them a few feet, fine. We can
>agree to disagree on that. But that's not what this is about.
>
>If David had simply insisted that he wasn't implying anything about
>me in the above message, I would have let it slide. I wouldn't have
>believed him, but I wouldn't have said so. I would have let it drop.
>But instead he said:
>
> Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
> rile up the ranks, about me.
>
>I continue to await David's apology for saying that.
You won't get one for that.
You owe me many.
--
"Anything a human being does to a LaRouche follower is justifiable on
the grounds of self-defense."
- Kevin Bold
Brett Paul Dunbar
<k...@KeithLynch.net> writes
>I have said that if a passenger *on* a train is *ill* -- not injured,
>but ill -- that the passenger should be removed from the train at
>the next stop, and stabilized in the station, not in the train.
>If someone disagrees with my claim there is negligible risk to an
>uninjured ill person from moving them a few feet, fine. We can
>agree to disagree on that. But that's not what this is about.
>
If a person is seriously ill standard emergency procedure is you don't
move them until you know it is safe to do so, this takes time. While in
many cases if a person has collapsed on a train they can be moved safely
they may have collapsed due to a prior injury or may have been injured
in the fall and in fact not be safe to move. In any event you do not
move them until you know that it is safe, that is also why the train is
stopped as if the person is seriously injured the motion of the train
might cause further injury.
In British English a person who has been injured can be described as
ill. In British English ill is a superset of injured, as I understand it
in American English ill and injured are disjoint sets.
I don't consider you a paragon of accuracy. You tend to elevate your own
anecdotes and prejudices over actual evidence. For example you bluntly
refuse to accept the accounts of how state run health systems actually
work from either statistics or people who have first hand experience of
them. You refuse to accept that you live in an area of exceptionally
high house prices (several times the national average) and that a
typical house is in most areas of the US are affordable on an ordinary
salary.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address
Keith V. Lynch
> Perhaps there's also a Keith V. Lynch I haven't noticed who posts to
> this thread as if he is angry and sputtering, and not just tired.
EXCUSE ME?
Where the HELL you get that I exist? This is an *OUTRAGE*! I have
*NEVER* been so offended! Just for that I'm going to perhanently
killfile you and everyone else on Usenet, sue you for libel, slander,
and intentional infliction of emotional distress, have you arrested for
mopery with intent to gawk, and sell your email address to spammers!
And then I'll taunt you again! See if I don't!
--
Keith V. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Keith F. Lynch
> that I find Keith's continual practice of dismissing arguments by
> snipping them away and never dealing with them to be an ongoing
> personal slap in the face.
> I think half of his anger in the thread was over the fact that I
> kept replying *to* him, necessitating replies by him - putting him
> further and further behind, taking up more and more of his time to
> reply to rasff and more and more of his rasff time to respond to me.
> It's like he was mad at me for existing in my debilitated (and,
> thus, stuck mostly at home - ready and able to post) state.
I have no objection to your posting a lot of messages, or even to your
posting a lot of messages which require responses from me. I *do*
object to your getting offended for my failing to then reply to every
point in every message, with detailed references.
I'm especially baffled that you were more offended by partial replies
("snipping") rather than a complete lack of a reply.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Keith F. Lynch
> Out Loud upon reading that.
Indeed. And he wasn't the only one. That's what leads me to believe
that your misrepresentations of my positions are not harmless, but
that people are believing those really are my positions.
Daniel R. Reitman
wrote:
>In Scotland we simplify it - it's just "Defamation of Character" and
>that covers printed and spoken word.
The entire field of defamation law in the US was crying out for
reform, but that was derailed after the New York Times opinion added a
constitutional overlay. By now, I think we're close enough to
settling those issues that it would be time to take up the
subconstitutional problems.
Dan, ad nauseam
Daniel R. Reitman
<dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 May 2009 11:08:59 -0700, David Friedman
><dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>I concede that some dictionaries support your usage as one possible
>>meaning, as well as mine. But what you wrote was:
>>
>>"Keith just got through telling a big fat scurrilous LIE, designed to
>>rile up the ranks, about me."
>>
>>I think that made it clear enough which meaning you intended.
>
>So...
>
>You're claiming ESP now?
>. . . .
<yawn>
Dan, ad nauseam
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I don't really want to get into a tit-for-tat, but let me just say
>> that I find Keith's continual practice of dismissing arguments by
>> snipping them away and never dealing with them to be an ongoing
>> personal slap in the face.
>
>> I think half of his anger in the thread was over the fact that I
>> kept replying *to* him, necessitating replies by him - putting him
>> further and further behind, taking up more and more of his time to
>> reply to rasff and more and more of his rasff time to respond to me.
>> It's like he was mad at me for existing in my debilitated (and,
>> thus, stuck mostly at home - ready and able to post) state.
>
>I have no objection to your posting a lot of messages,
You certainly complained about it enough.
>or even to your
>posting a lot of messages which require responses from me. I *do*
>object to your getting offended for my failing to then reply to every
>point in every message, with detailed references.
The "detailed references" bit is a product of your fevered imagination.
>I'm especially baffled that you were more offended by partial replies
>("snipping") rather than a complete lack of a reply.
How so? You have been told why *more than once*. Do you think I
wouldn't tell you the truth about why I was offended? What purpose
would that serve?
Once more...
Broadly, it is because you invariably do this to *the* most important
point (IMO) in the post. If this was done to you, you'd be peeved, too.
Specific to the most recent example (although it applies to other
instances as well), the point that was raised was new - it had never
been raised in the thread or in the news group, because no one had the
information before that.
--
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist."
- Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Peter Trei was the poster who told Keith that he literally Laughed
>> Out Loud upon reading that.
>
>Indeed. And he wasn't the only one. That's what leads me to believe
>that your misrepresentations of my positions are not harmless, but
>that people are believing those really are my positions.
Get.
Psychiatric.
Help.
Now.
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
Keith F. Lynch
>> or even to your posting a lot of messages which require responses
>> from me. I *do* object to your getting offended for my failing to
>> then reply to every point in every message, with detailed references.
> The "detailed references" bit is a product of your fevered imagination.
This is a big part of the problem right there -- your inability to
understand plain English. In the paragraphy you quote above, I was
admitting that I did *not* give detailed references. I didn't have
*time* to do so -- not if I was to respond to even half the points in
even half your messages.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> or even to your posting a lot of messages which require responses
>>> from me. I *do* object to your getting offended for my failing to
>>> then reply to every point in every message, with detailed references.
>
>> The "detailed references" bit is a product of your fevered imagination.
>
>This is a big part of the problem right there -- your inability to
>understand plain English. In the paragraphy you quote above, I was
>admitting that I did *not* give detailed references. I didn't have
>*time* to do so -- not if I was to respond to even half the points in
>even half your messages.
No. This is a big part of the problem right *here* - your inability to
follow a post. You say that I was looking for "detailed references."
THAT is a product of your fevered imagination as I was not looking for
those.
--
"It is easier to destroy than to create."
-Laurence VanCott Niven
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> As I said, I'm trying to see if there was anything I could have
>>> reasonably done and even a partially informed opinion could be
>>> helpful.
>
>> What you should have done was drop out of the exchange long ago,
>> when the general tone became clear. But I probably wouldn't have
>> done so either.
>
>It was largely the sheer *volume* that caused me to give up.
I was right.
>When
>I returned from Ravencon and caught up on reading this newsgroup, I
>had over a hundred "mass transit" messages of his marked as needing
>replies. Many of them were quite long, and would have taken hours to
>do justice to. And more continued to pour in.
>
>Between that and how insulting they were, and the fact that he *still*
>didn't seem to be understanding my positions,
It is grimly amusing to me that Keith is so sensitive to
misunderstandings of his positions, yet he is so uncaring about his own
misunderstandings - over fundamental things.
He claims that I want to force everyone into a driver's seat. I have
NEVER said such a thing and have repeatedly told him so and he has NEVER
retracted this claim.
He claims that I believe that he wants tax payers to pay for his Plan. I
have NEVER said such a thing and, in fact, have even pointed out to
other posters that he wants to do away with transit subsidies.
>caused me to throw in
>the towel. The thread wasn't making any progress. We were just going
>around in circles, repeating the same points over and over.
Seemed like every time somebody would discover that your figures or
logic was flawed, you quit addressing that point. Seemed like every
time someone brought up a new point, you wouldn't address *that* point.
Of *course* there was no progress - you were Stonewalling.
>> As I've probably said before, I admire Keith for his attempt to make
>> sense of the world with a minimal use of secondary sources,
>
>Doesn't everyone prefer primary sources when they're available?
>
>Actually, I do make extensive use of secondary and tertiary sources
It doesn't show.
>such as Wikipedia, the CRC handbook, and the World Almanac. Ideally,
>I wouldn't, but would use the sources they use. However there are
>only so many hours in the day. And many primary sources are hard
>to find.
>
>> but I regard it as a quixotic project likely to produce a fair
>> number of mistaken beliefs.
>
>I don't understand why you think that should be.
*I'd* opine that he has observed the results.
--
"People, don't you understand - the child needs a helping hand
Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day."
Scott Davis
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Peter Trei was the poster who told Keith that he literally Laughed
>> Out Loud upon reading that.
>
>Indeed. And he wasn't the only one. That's what leads me to believe
>that your misrepresentations of my positions are not harmless, but
>that people are believing those really are my positions.
<sarcasm>
Behold the awesomeness of my Svengali-like hold over the news group! You
are all but minor Trilbys to my evil greatness.
Bhahahahahahahah!!!!
</sarcasm>
--
"Neon lights, A Nobel Prize
The mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don't have to follow me
Only you can set me free"
Living Colour
David Harmon
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote,
>I continue to believe that $100k is an astonishing amount of money for
>a subway train driver to make, regardless of overtime,
Routinely paying substantial amounts of overtime is itself a sign of bad
management. They should hire enough people to do the job. If safety is
any part of a driver's job, fatigue can have an adverse effect on it.
Jette
Strikes me that there's a lot of defamation going on here - t'ain't
all one sided.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> In article
> <7dcca581-b1c7-4640-abf5-fcb72e97d...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > That isn't what it says. To begin with, it's talking about negligence in
> > > tort law, not about the standard for defamation. Further, the statement
> > > that mental infirmity is not an excuse doesn't mean that a reasonable
> > > but false belief isn't an excuse.
>
> > I would say that neither is an excuse.
>
> Then you would be mistaken, so far as Anglo-American law is concerned.
1) This isn't alt.legal.fandom.
2) If standards of the law are to be invoked, then pretty much every
claim
that Keith has made, being devoid of supporting evidence, and having
been
refuted by more than one person, failed.
3) Such failures of Keith's unsupported claims make the issue of
whether
or not he believes his errors moot.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven wrote:
> > On May 1, 2:43 pm, Jette <bossl...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
> >> Michael Benveniste wrote:
> >>> "Andre Lieven" <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>>> I rather lean towards "publishing" covering newspapers, books
> >>>> and magazines. IOW, there needs to be *actual* print.
> >>> 1. Under common law, publication (ie transmission to a 3rd
> >>> party) is also required for slander.
> >>> 2. The test used to distingish libel from slander is one
> >>> of permanence. Libel has not required actual print for over a century.
> >>> Libel actions against broadcasters are commonplace,
> >>> and the first successful actions for libel based on Usenet posts date
> >>> back more than a decade now. (Arguably 1993, but that one was settled
> >>> without deciding the form of defamation.)
> >> In Scotland we simplify it - it's just "Defamation of Character" and
> >> that covers printed and spoken word.
>
> > Yes, that would cover my meaning nicely. Keith defamed David.
>
> > Andre
>
> Strikes me that there's a lot of defamation going on here - t'ain't
> all one sided.
Saying that a person is being deceitful when they are (Such as
Keith's early claim that "DC Metro train drivers make over $100K",
when it turns out that well under half of the drivers make that, and
that that figure is reached only with loads of overtime pay on top
of the salary.) is NOT "defamation".
Keith's penchant for making grand claims about matters where
he has neither specific knowledge or ANY personal experience
garners him the consequence that those who actually know
will tell him that he is full of it, and why that is true.
None of that rises to the standard of "defamation", which tends
to require, in brief, namecalling someone whose behavior does
NOT merit the names used.
Say, if one is an only child, calling such a person an only child
is not unreasonable. But, calling someone with siblings an only
child would be unreasonable.
Andre
dougberry
the mysterious "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> spoke
thusly in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>On 1 May 2009 22:06:56 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
>wrote:
>
>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> Peter Trei was the poster who told Keith that he literally Laughed
>>> Out Loud upon reading that.
>>
>>Indeed. And he wasn't the only one. That's what leads me to believe
>>that your misrepresentations of my positions are not harmless, but
>>that people are believing those really are my positions.
>
><sarcasm>
>
>Behold the awesomeness of my Svengali-like hold over the news group! You
>are all but minor Trilbys to my evil greatness.
>
>
>Bhahahahahahahah!!!!
>
></sarcasm>
<Torgo> "I await your orders, Master." </Torgo>
--
Douglas E. Berry
dberryOB...@gmail.com http://gridlore.livejournal.com/
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email. Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming
feature.....Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and
imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make half the
world fools and half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the
world."
-Thomas Jefferson
David Loewe, Jr.
<andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>Say, if one is an only child, calling such a person an only child
>is not unreasonable. But, calling someone with siblings an only
>child would be unreasonable.
I'm an only child. I have a brother and two sisters.
I am my mother's only child.
My father also has a son and a daughter by his second wife.
His third wife has a daughter not by him.
--
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."
-Lazarus Long
David Friedman
<d5c927d2-c315-4309...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On May 1, 8:58�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7dcca581-b1c7-4640-abf5-fcb72e97d...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > > That isn't what it says. To begin with, it's talking about negligence in
> > > > tort law, not about the standard for defamation. Further, the statement
> > > > that mental infirmity is not an excuse doesn't mean that a reasonable
> > > > but false belief isn't an excuse.
> >
> > > I would say that neither is an excuse.
> >
> > Then you would be mistaken, so far as Anglo-American law is concerned.
>
> 1) This isn't alt.legal.fandom.
You, however, introduced a cite to legal rules in the belief that it
supported your position--and have now abandoned it after discovering
that it doesn't.
Andre Lieven
> On Sat, 2 May 2009 07:16:29 -0700 (PDT), Andre Lieven
>
> >Say, if one is an only child, calling such a person an only child
> >is not unreasonable. But, calling someone with siblings an only
> >child would be unreasonable.
>
> I'm an only child. I have a brother and two sisters.
>
> I am my mother's only child.
>
> My father also has a son and a daughter by his second wife.
>
> His third wife has a daughter not by him.
OK, so my example, limited as it was to being from within one
biological family, was not perfect, but I trust that my point was
clearer ?
Let me try it this way, then:
"But, calling someone with siblings (Made of their
biological mother *and* biological father.) an only
child would be unreasonable."
Andre
Andre Lieven
wrote:
> In article
> <d5c927d2-c315-4309-b0a7-7af371aa2...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 8:58 pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7dcca581-b1c7-4640-abf5-fcb72e97d...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > That isn't what it says. To begin with, it's talking about negligence in
> > > > > tort law, not about the standard for defamation. Further, the statement
> > > > > that mental infirmity is not an excuse doesn't mean that a reasonable
> > > > > but false belief isn't an excuse.
>
> > > > I would say that neither is an excuse.
>
> > > Then you would be mistaken, so far as Anglo-American law is concerned.
>
> > 1) This isn't alt.legal.fandom.
>
> You, however, introduced a cite to legal rules in the belief that it
> supported your position--and have now abandoned it after discovering
> that it doesn't.
That depends on which jurisdiction one is under.
In any case, the point remains: When one repeatedly states untrue
things, after one has had the correct information provided to them,
one IS then a liar.
Andre
cryptoguy
Just to check if we're drifting into false accusation, I went
back and found the original Feb 4 post from Keith. Here's the
whole paragraph:
- start quote -
Much of the money that goes to transit doesn't benefit the riders at
all, but the transit employees and contractors. Metrorail "drivers"
don't drive, they just announce stations and check to make sure
nobody
gets caught in the train doors when they close. For this unskilled
job they often earn over $100,000 per year. I think all of that
that's in excess of minimum wage should be counted as a benefit to
them, hence not to the passengers.
- end quote -
Keith did not say they all earn over 100k.
pt
Andre Lieven
The problem remains that Keith's qualifier still fails to make at all
clear that it takes a significant amount of overtime in order to hit
the $100K mark, never mind go over it.
Had he either made clear that it DOES take lots of overtime to
hit that number, or that "some earn up to or over $100K" (note
that this new statement requires one change in the qualifier,
and a whole second qualifier.), then he may well not have
caught as much grief for his statement.
Beyond that, he DOES claim, in that quote, that the job of
Metro train driver is "unskilled".
It is THAT connection between "unskilled" (A falsity) AND
the claim that "they OFTEN earn over $100,000 per year"
that makes for a claim that is far more false than it is true.
Because they 1) don't "often" make that money at all, without
lots of overtime (By leaving out the significant overtime that is
why the pay goes up to $100K, Keith implies that that level of
pay can be garnered by normal working hours; Most people
tend to know, if they think of it at the time, that lots of overtime
really boosts pay.), and 2) The job is flat out NOT "unskilled".
So, of those 2 claims of his, at best, one is flat out false, and
one is 50% true and 50% false.
But, when you multiply a half truth by a total untruth, you get
a total untruth.
Thus, Keith's claim, in whole, was totally untrue.
Andre
David Harmon
Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote,
>The problem remains that Keith's qualifier still fails to make at all
>clear that it takes a significant amount of overtime in order to hit
>the $100K mark, never mind go over it.
Jeez, if the problem is that Keith's posts aren't clear, then ask
questions and let him clarify them. You guys aren't interested in
clarity; you're looking for faults you can jump on so that you can play
a round of "I'm right, you're an idiot."
Andre Lieven
> On Sun, 3 May 2009 06:51:10 -0700 (PDT) in rec.arts.sf.fandom, Andre
>
> >The problem remains that Keith's qualifier still fails to make at all
> >clear that it takes a significant amount of overtime in order to hit
> >the $100K mark, never mind go over it.
>
> Jeez, if the problem is that Keith's posts aren't clear, then ask
> questions and let him clarify them.
The "problem" is that he makes widely declarative claims, usually
without one stitch of supporting evidence, includes some tiny and
not close to covering his error qualification, then goes ballistic
*when*
his claims are challenged and debunked with actual evidence.
> You guys aren't interested in
> clarity; you're looking for faults you can jump on so that you can play
> a round of "I'm right, you're an idiot."
No, that's still Keith's gig. When he declares that he has a record of
being accurate, and pretty much everyone involved, well, laughs at
that claim, then the author of his ill fortune is himself.
Andre
Keith F. Lynch
> Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote,
>> The problem remains that Keith's qualifier still fails to make at
>> all clear that it takes a significant amount of overtime in order
>> to hit the $100K mark, never mind go over it.
> Jeez, if the problem is that Keith's posts aren't clear, then ask
> questions and let him clarify them. You guys aren't interested in
> clarity; you're looking for faults you can jump on so that you can
> play a round of "I'm right, you're an idiot."
Indeed, though admittedly I wouldn't have seen if Andre had asked me
such questions.
I'm skeptical of claims that my posts aren't clear. I think a tiny
number of very noisy people are spending enormous amounts of free
time searching for the tiniest ambiguities in my messages, with
the intention of deliberately interpreting them in ways they know
perfectly well that I didn't mean.
I'm not going to play that game anymore. My bending over backwards to
always assume good faith on everyone's part has only managed to fill
this newsgroup with hundreds of hostile messages.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> I'm skeptical of claims that my posts aren't clear. I think a tiny
> number of very noisy people are spending enormous amounts of free
> time searching for the tiniest ambiguities in my messages, with
> the intention of deliberately interpreting them in ways they know
> perfectly well that I didn't mean.
>
You might be right with regard to Andre. As I read it, David L. honestly
believes you are behaving badly, just as you honestly believe he is.
Keith F. Lynch
> You might be right with regard to Andre. As I read it, David
> L. honestly believes you are behaving badly, just as you honestly
> believe he is.
David's main complaint about me seems to be that of his many hundreds
of messages, I didn't take the time to reply to all parts of all
of them -- and what's worse, I mostly answered the *easier* parts,
i.e. the parts that were less time-consuming for me to reply to.
My main complaints about him are that he almost always assumes bad
faith or idiocy on my part, quotes me out of context in order to make
me look bad -- especially when he knows I won't be replying for a
while or have retired from the thread, that he expresses extreme anger
and outrage at me for objecting to any of this, and, worst of all,
that he accuses me of lying.
My inclination was to immediately and permanently killfile him. But
I've decided to give him time to cool off. You clearly think there's
some redeeming social value in his posts. I will wait a few days and
see if I can find any.