Militano Gets Taken; over and over again
Norman Gall
Giovanni Militano wrote:
>
> In <3550B66A...@uwinnipeg.ca> Norman Gall <ga...@uwinnipeg.ca> writes:
>
> >Dueck, you're a little putz with just a little bit of confidence because
> >Militano got scared when you threatened to go to mills and kdc. I thought he
> >had more gumption than that but I was wrong.
>
> Perhaps, but unlike you Gall, I need my university account to do research,
> to program and to communicate.
I need my account for at least two of these things as well.
> Now if I wanted to pull a "Gall" and lose my account to a Perry or Don,
> let me assure you that I can be just as stupid as you and lose it too.
You presume way too much. Perry never approached mills or kdc over the matter
and had no intention of doing so. Kaletzke said and did far more than you did
*and* was complained about more times than I care to think about and they
never cut him off... because it didn't matter.
> So Gall, how long did you lose your account for to the hands of Don?
2 days at UM, not one second at UW (far better administrative procedures --
very few mindless empire-builders unlike UM). The people at UM had a problem
with what I said (insofar as they think that no one should ever swear) but
they admitted that they jumped the gun for yanking my account after my
department head gave them a blast of shit over it.
You got spanked by Perry and he didn't even have a paddle. Your _percieved_
poor relationship with kdc betrayed you; had you just sent him a note, he'd
have let you in on the skinny.
Norm Gall
Walter Krawec
Norman Gall wrote:
>
> Giovanni Militano wrote:
>
> > So Gall, how long did you lose your account for to the hands of Don?
>
> 2 days at UM, not one second at UW (far better administrative procedures --
> very few mindless empire-builders unlike UM). The people at UM had a problem
> with what I said (insofar as they think that no one should ever swear) but
> they admitted that they jumped the gun for yanking my account after my
> department head gave them a blast of shit over it.
The UM discourages swearing ?? What a fucking pity.
Walter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter M. Krawec
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB
umkr...@cc.umanitoba.ca
Grand Lancaster of Manitobah, Lords of the J5V
----------WINNIPEG - HOME OF THE 1998 GREY CUP GAME----------
Norman Gall
Giovanni Militano wrote:
> In <3550F873...@uwinnipeg.ca> Norman Gall <ga...@uwinnipeg.ca> writes:
> >2 days at UM
> Lets see:
>
> mira:~>ident gall
> Userid: gall
> Permission denied on adduser log
> Full Name: Norman Gall
> Status: expired
> Type: normal
> Home Directory: /home/u12/gall
> Last login: 97-10-31
> History ...
> 94-06-28 active by operacc
> 97-04-30 suspended by root
> 97-05-25 active by kdc
> 97-07-31 expired by root
>
> Now Gall, the first number represents the year, the second the month and
> the last number the day of the month.
>
> Now take off your socks (we won't need your calculator that handles
> complex numbers) and count the days between April 30 1997 and May 25
> 1997. You will find that it ammounts to slighty more than two days.
>
> I sure hope that you don't add up your students test marks.
Well, this is entirely fictitious or the records are in error since my account
was suspended by kdc on 18 Feb 97 not April and it is incongruent that I could
have logged into my account 3 months after the account expired.
> >You got spanked by Perry and he didn't even have a paddle. Your _percieved_
> >poor relationship with kdc betrayed you; had you just sent him a note, he'd
> >have let you in on the skinny.
>
> Yup, that could be it, or I don't want to look as stupid as you and get
> my account locked by a clown or I have simply lost intrest.
> GM.
All are possible but the first is the most likely.
Norm Gall
Norman Gall
In article <35573856....@news.pangea.ca>, N...@For.Public.Use (Terry
Johns) wrote:
>As for your account being suspended I believe there were several
>letters of complaint from females on IRC against you, Militano, sent
>to Mills directly if I'm not mistaken.
So, the rumours *were* true. Militano got spanked by people with real beefs.
Well, well, well. I guess Militano's buddies on IRC couldn't help him out.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Norm Gall
--
"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any
book that ever existed." - Thomas Paine
Rene Chaddock
On Thu, 07 May 1998 04:31:54 GMT, N...@For.Public.Use (Terry Johns)
wrote:
>On 7 May 1998 02:40:51 GMT, Giovanni Militano
><ummilit2@%NO_SPAM%cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>mira:~>ident gall
>>Userid: gall
>>Permission denied on adduser log
>>Full Name: Norman Gall
>>Status: expired
>>Type: normal
>>Home Directory: /home/u12/gall
>>Last login: 97-10-31
>>History ...
>>94-06-28 active by operacc
>>97-04-30 suspended by root
>>97-05-25 active by kdc
>>97-07-31 expired by root
>
>Seems your using your position at the U of M to post private
>information. Rose is so bloody stupid he still seems to trust that you
>do your job and do it honestly, lololololololol.
>Terry...
Terry,
Generally most unix systems provide this information group-readable.
Anybody on the Unice systems at the U of M can access this information
on any other U of M user.
bash$ ident gall
Userid: gall
Permission denied on adduser log
Full Name: Norman Gall
Status: expired
Type: normal
Home Directory: /home/u12/gall
Last login: 97-10-31
History ...
94-06-28 active by operacc
97-04-30 suspended by root
97-05-25 active by kdc
97-07-31 expired by root
bash$ ident ummilit2
Userid: ummilit2
Permission denied on adduser log
Full Name: Giovanni Militano
Status: active
Type: normal
Home Directory: /home/u13/ummilit2
Last login: 98-05-06
History ...
94-01-03 active by mills
94-09-14 suspended by mills
94-10-14 active by kdc
94-11-24 suspended by kdc
94-11-25 active by kdc
94-11-25 suspended by kdc
95-01-11 active by kdc
bash$
Sincerely,
Rene
Norman Gall
Giovanni Militano wrote:
>
> In <355136F6...@uwinnipeg.ca> Norman Gall <ga...@uwinnipeg.ca> writes:
>
> >All are possible but the first is the most likely.
>
> wrote me and you said that it was one month.
If you trust what people tell you in e-mail during flame wars, you're dumber
than your inane posts indicate.
> You also said that you got your ass hauled into the deans office.
Well, the Dean of Arts and Science and I had a chat regarding how idiotic
Bayomi's complaint was and the Dean warned me that he might be nuts. We had a
laugh and moved on.
> Who knows, perhaps you were trying to sound "cool".
Your projecting again; I think you need your meds upped again.
Norm Gall
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> Giovanni Militano wrote:
> >
> > In <355136F6...@uwinnipeg.ca> Norman Gall <ga...@uwinnipeg.ca> writes:
> >
> > >All are possible but the first is the most likely.
> >
> > Well, the data is still the same today. I also have an email which you
> > wrote me and you said that it was one month.
>
> If you trust what people tell you in e-mail during flame wars, you're dumber
> than your inane posts indicate.
Are you saying that you deliberately lie in your emails?
Norman Gall
John Ross wrote:
> Norman Gall wrote:
> > If you trust what people tell you in e-mail during flame wars, you're dumber
> > than your inane posts indicate.
> Are you saying that you deliberately lie in your emails?
I am saying that when I am flaming you, you should not take everything I say
as my making a claim that I will stand behind.
For instance, in a flame war, I might make a claim that I do not know to be
false, but I do not know to be true. It is called 'baiting'.
I hope this English lesson helped.
Norm Gall
Chris Lawson
Norman Gall wrote:
>
> I am saying that when I am flaming you, you should not take everything I say
> as my making a claim that I will stand behind.
>
Now it's going to look like I took sides.
<sarcasm>
Please, tell me I'm a clone of Militano, question my parentage and make
light of my percieved level of intelligence.
Or if you're really cool, attack me on any typeing and/or spelling
errors I have made.
</sarcasm>
--
Chris Lawson
Science I, University of Manitoba
"Say, how do you cook a windmill once you've caught one?" -Mitch Stone
Norman Gall
Chris Lawson wrote:
>
> Norman Gall wrote:
> >
> > I am saying that when I am flaming you, you should not take everything I say
> > as my making a claim that I will stand behind.
> >
> In essence, "yes".
In essense, sometimes. Insofar as what you asked was a complex question, I
qualifed my answer. Seeing as you're finishing 1st year, I'll be more specific
(maybe this is what you wanted to hear the first time):
*When* you and I are engaged in a flame war
and
*when* I make claims in an e-mail which partially constitutes that flame war
*then*
You should not count on me standing behind the claims made in the
aforementioned e-mail.
*otherwise*
I will stand behind claims made in e-mail.
> Now it's going to look like I took sides.
>
> <sarcasm>
> Please, tell me I'm a clone of Militano, question my parentage and make
> light of my percieved level of intelligence.
Can't oblige.
> Or if you're really cool, attack me on any typeing and/or spelling
> errors I have made.
> </sarcasm>
I don't slag people for spelling errors, and I salg on grammatical grounds
when it is clear that it isn't a mere typo.
I hope this helps.
Norm Gall
Norman Gall
Giovanni Militano wrote:
> His response, he was lying in his email to me and the UofM accounting
> system is wrong.
>
> Nice.
Your surprise at me not treating you as worthy of candour is astounding: do
you really think I have or had a shred of respect for you?
Norm Gall
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> John Ross wrote:
>
> > Norman Gall wrote:
>
> > > If you trust what people tell you in e-mail during flame wars, you're dumber
> > > than your inane posts indicate.
>
> > Are you saying that you deliberately lie in your emails?
>
> I am saying that when I am flaming you, you should not take everything I say
> as my making a claim that I will stand behind.
>
I see. What about in discussion groups? Do you lie there also?
> For instance, in a flame war, I might make a claim that I do not know to be
> false, but I do not know to be true. It is called 'baiting'.
>
Or lying unknowingly. I might add that making a claim without knowing its truth
implies that you have very little integrity.
> I hope this English lesson helped.
>
I would hardly call it an English lesson. However it does tell us that if the tone
of your posts are insulting then we should count as baseless any claims you might
make.
Norman Gall
John Ross wrote:
> Norman Gall wrote:
> > John Ross wrote:
> > > Norman Gall wrote:
> > > > If you trust what people tell you in e-mail during flame wars, you're dumber
> > > > than your inane posts indicate.
> > > Are you saying that you deliberately lie in your emails?
> > I am saying that when I am flaming you, you should not take everything I say
> > as my making a claim that I will stand behind.
> I see. What about in discussion groups? Do you lie there also?
Nice complex question. Care to rephrase it?
> > For instance, in a flame war, I might make a claim that I do not know to be
> > false, but I do not know to be true. It is called 'baiting'.
> Or lying unknowingly. I might add that making a claim without knowing its truth
> implies that you have very little integrity.
Only if it were *expected* that people involved in flame wars will stand
behind their claims. Since there is no such expectancy, your 'addition' is
without merit.
> > I hope this English lesson helped.
> I would hardly call it an English lesson.
Well, if the complex question you offered above is any indication, you didn't
learn a thing.
> However it does tell us that if the tone
> of your posts are insulting then we should count as baseless any claims you might
> make.
I see that I am correct in that you can't understand simple english sentences.
Allow me: if the tone of my posts is insulting, you shouldn't count on me
standing behind any substantive claims I might make there: some will be true,
some I will stand behind, some will be baseless.
If I call you a indolent witling, you can be pretty sure my purpose in posting
is not to communicate facts.
Norm Gall
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
>
>
> > I see. What about in discussion groups? Do you lie there also?
>
> Nice complex question. Care to rephrase it?
>
If that question is too difficult for you, don't bother straining yourself.
> > > For instance, in a flame war, I might make a claim that I do not know to be
> > > false, but I do not know to be true. It is called 'baiting'.
>
> > Or lying unknowingly. I might add that making a claim without knowing its truth
> > implies that you have very little integrity.
>
> Only if it were *expected* that people involved in flame wars will stand
> behind their claims. Since there is no such expectancy, your 'addition' is
> without merit.
>
People of integrity stand behind their claims and ideals no matter when it is made. Is
this a foreign concept to you?
> > > I hope this English lesson helped.
>
> > I would hardly call it an English lesson.
>
> Well, if the complex question you offered above is any indication, you didn't
> learn a thing.
Why can't you answer a 'complex' question?
> > However it does tell us that if the tone
> > of your posts are insulting then we should count as baseless any claims you might
> > make.
>
> I see that I am correct in that you can't understand simple english sentences.
> Allow me: if the tone of my posts is insulting, you shouldn't count on me
> standing behind any substantive claims I might make there: some will be true,
> some I will stand behind, some will be baseless.
>
If you admit your claims may be baseless and that you sometimes lie, why would anyone
pay attention to your arguments?
> If I call you a indolent witling, you can be pretty sure my purpose in posting
> is not to communicate facts.
>
I am beginning to realize you know little about facts.
Norman Gall
John Ross wrote:
> Norman Gall wrote:
> > > I see. What about in discussion groups? Do you lie there also?
> > Nice complex question. Care to rephrase it?
> If that question is too difficult for you, don't bother straining yourself.
Hahahaha. I wonder why I'm surprised. A Complex queston is a fallacious
interrogation technique also known as 'loaded question'. What you asked was
akin to me asking you 'So, when did you stop beating your wife?'
If you don't have the tools to participate, it would be better for you to
gather them before going on.
> > > > For instance, in a flame war, I might make a claim that I do not know to be
> > > > false, but I do not know to be true. It is called 'baiting'.
> > > Or lying unknowingly. I might add that making a claim without knowing its truth
> > > implies that you have very little integrity.
> > Only if it were *expected* that people involved in flame wars will stand
> > behind their claims. Since there is no such expectancy, your 'addition' is
> > without merit.
> People of integrity stand behind their claims and ideals no matter when it is made.
Ideals were never in question and the statement about claims is simply false;
honest people recant their claims when they are *shown* to be in error, for example.
> Is this a foreign concept to you?
Not at all; it is simply that you don't seem to have the intellect to
understand the sentences I write and I am under no obligation to teach you how
to read and understand relatively simple sentences in English.
> > > > I hope this English lesson helped.
> > > I would hardly call it an English lesson.
> > Well, if the complex question you offered above is any indication, you didn't
> > learn a thing.
> Why can't you answer a 'complex' question?
I don't know, but tell me 'When did you stop sucking the farts out of dead dogs?'
> > > However it does tell us that if the tone
> > > of your posts are insulting then we should count as baseless any claims you might
> > > make.
> >
> > I see that I am correct in that you can't understand simple english sentences.
> > Allow me: if the tone of my posts is insulting, you shouldn't count on me
> > standing behind any substantive claims I might make there: some will be true,
> > some I will stand behind, some will be baseless.
> If you admit your claims may be baseless and that you sometimes lie, why would anyone
> pay attention to your arguments?
There are a number of reasons. Since I rarely get into flame wars (Militano
was the last one; McKinstry was the only one before), and when I am not in a
flame war, I stand behind every claim I make (unless they turn out to be in
error, then I recant them. This has been my practice. Secondly, arguments
stand on their own. Thirdly, I have *in fact* never lied on Usenet; though I
have speculated from time to time - sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.
> > If I call you a indolent witling, you can be pretty sure my purpose in posting
> > is not to communicate facts.
> I am beginning to realize you know little about facts.
Then you are mistaken and miss the point of even your own arguments.
Norm Gall
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> John Ross wrote:
>
> > Norman Gall wrote:
>
> > > > I see. What about in discussion groups? Do you lie there also?
>
> > > Nice complex question. Care to rephrase it?
>
> > If that question is too difficult for you, don't bother straining yourself.
>
> Hahahaha. I wonder why I'm surprised. A Complex queston is a fallacious
> interrogation technique also known as 'loaded question'. What you asked was
> akin to me asking you 'So, when did you stop beating your wife?'
>
Terminology. Complex=rhetorical? Ok, thanks for explaining that. However I don't believe
it was Complex. As you indicate below you have never lied on Usenet which makes your
answer 'No'. I dont see the loading since you have already indicated you make
unsubstantiated claims in emails. Hence I would ignore your email but read your posts.
> If you don't have the tools to participate, it would be better for you to
> gather them before going on.
>
I don't believe people in discussion groups should have to know every nuance of a word.
That is against the spirit of the 'net. If someone uses a term that might be misconstrued
then the misunderstanding is cleared up and we move on. Why resort to petty insults?
> > > > > For instance, in a flame war, I might make a claim that I do not know to be
> > > > > false, but I do not know to be true. It is called 'baiting'.
>
> > > > Or lying unknowingly. I might add that making a claim without knowing its truth
> > > > implies that you have very little integrity.
>
> > > Only if it were *expected* that people involved in flame wars will stand
> > > behind their claims. Since there is no such expectancy, your 'addition' is
> > > without merit.
>
> > People of integrity stand behind their claims and ideals no matter when it is made.
>
> Ideals were never in question and the statement about claims is simply false;
> honest people recant their claims when they are *shown* to be in error, for example.
>
Well from reading the thread it seems like you claimed to have been locked out for 2 days.
Another person claimed you sent an email saying it was a month. Now it seems there are a
few alternatives:
(1) You deliberately lied in your email.
(2) You are lying now and you were in fact locked out for a month.
(3) you made an honest error in your email, in which case you should recant your claim.
Since you said earlier that one should not pay heed to claims you make in a flame war
(meaning 1 is a possiblity) it lead to my statement that a person of integrity does not go
around making false claims. Why is this statement false? If I say 'It is raining outside'
without knowing if it is raining, then if it is sunny I have told a lie.
> > > > However it does tell us that if the tone
> > > > of your posts are insulting then we should count as baseless any claims you might
> > > > make.
> > >
> > > I see that I am correct in that you can't understand simple english sentences.
> > > Allow me: if the tone of my posts is insulting, you shouldn't count on me
> > > standing behind any substantive claims I might make there: some will be true,
> > > some I will stand behind, some will be baseless.
>
Let me rephrase. My point is this: If you admit some claims you make are baseless, then
why would anyone trust any single claim you make? You may be shooting the breeze. One
would be wasting time on an unsubstantiated claim.
> > If you admit your claims may be baseless and that you sometimes lie, why would anyone
> > pay attention to your arguments?
>
> There are a number of reasons. Since I rarely get into flame wars (Militano
> was the last one; McKinstry was the only one before),
A flame is usually considered to be a deliberate insult to the other person. Am I number 3
by your records?
> and when I am not in a
>flame war, I stand behind every claim I make (unless they turn out to be in
> error, then I recant them. This has been my practice. Secondly, arguments
> stand on their own. Thirdly, I have *in fact* never lied on Usenet; though I
> have speculated from time to time - sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.
>
Point 3 answers the question I asked about newsgroups. Now a person can read your
statements on Usenet with your assurance that you have not lied(deliberately).
> > > If I call you a indolent witling, you can be pretty sure my purpose in posting
> > > is not to communicate facts.
>
> > I am beginning to realize you know little about facts.
>
> Then you are mistaken and miss the point of even your own arguments.
That would be difficult wouldn't it? I may not be capable of clearly articulating my point
to your satisfaction but I would hardly misunderstand my own point.
Norman Gall
John Ross wrote:
>
> Norman Gall wrote:
>
> > John Ross wrote:
> >
> > > Norman Gall wrote:
> >
> > > > > I see. What about in discussion groups? Do you lie there also?
> >
> > > > Nice complex question. Care to rephrase it?
> >
> > > If that question is too difficult for you, don't bother straining yourself.
> >
> > Hahahaha. I wonder why I'm surprised. A Complex queston is a fallacious
> > interrogation technique also known as 'loaded question'. What you asked was
> > akin to me asking you 'So, when did you stop beating your wife?'
> Terminology. Complex=rhetorical? Ok, thanks for explaining that.
Sigh. No. Complex <> rhetorical. A complex question is one that combines two
questions in one, then presumes the answer to the first one, For example, the
question' when did you stop beating your wife?' is a comples of the following
two questions: 'Had you been beating your wife?' and 'When did you stop?' The
second question cannot be intelligibly asked unless the first question is
asked in the affirmative. Your question 'Do you lie (in discussion groups)
also' presumes that I _lie_ elsewhere. A rhetorical question is one that is
asked with the purpose of asserting the obvious answer? A rhetorical answer to
a complex question might be 'You don't actually expect me to answer that
question, do you?'
> However I don't believe it was Complex.
See above.
> As you indicate below you have never lied on Usenet which makes your
> answer 'No'. I dont see the loading since you have already indicated you make
> unsubstantiated claims in emails. Hence I would ignore your email but read your posts.
>
> > If you don't have the tools to participate, it would be better for you to
> > gather them before going on.
> I don't believe people in discussion groups should have to know every nuance of a word.
I do, since if they don't they cannot effectively communicate. This is akin
to submitting that words aren't important. You are free to ignore what words
mean at your peril. You will be misunderstood and you will misunderstand what
is said. Why bother posting or reading then?
> That is against the spirit of the 'net. If someone uses a term that might be misconstrued
> then the misunderstanding is cleared up and we move on. Why resort to petty insults?
Well, insofar as the essence of our dispute is grounded in your inability to
understand standard English, I think that my frustration may have expressed
itself in such pettiness. My apologies.
> Well from reading the thread it seems like you claimed to have been locked out for 2 days.
> Another person claimed you sent an email saying it was a month. Now it seems there are a
> few alternatives:
> (1) You deliberately lied in your email.
> (2) You are lying now and you were in fact locked out for a month.
> (3) you made an honest error in your email, in which case you should recant your claim.
You had better brush up on your skills at teasing out possibilities here:
(4) The person claiming I sent an e-mail to that effect was {mistaken|lying|exaggerating|baiting},
is another highly likely possibility.
> Since you said earlier that one should not pay heed to claims you make in a flame war
> (meaning 1 is a possiblity) it lead to my statement that a person of integrity does not go
> around making false claims.
This is not true, sicne a more important moral principle than honesty might be
at stake. I find it highly unlikely that you believe that Honesty is the
highest moral virtue.
> Why is this statement false? If I say 'It is raining outside'
> without knowing if it is raining, then if it is sunny I have told a lie.
No you haven't; you have made a false claim. A lie is a claim made by a
person who believes the claim is false. The truth of the claim is irrelevant.
If I tell you that your car is on fire when I believe that the car is not on
fire, I have lied regardless of whether the car is on fire or not. If it is on
fire then I am correct by accident, as it were. If I tell you your car is on
fire, and I beleive it is on fire and it had been put out by the fire
department 1/2 and hour ago, I am simply mistaken, not lying.
> > > > > However it does tell us that if the tone
> > > > > of your posts are insulting then we should count as baseless any claims you might
> > > > > make.
> > > >
> > > > I see that I am correct in that you can't understand simple english sentences.
> > > > Allow me: if the tone of my posts is insulting, you shouldn't count on me
> > > > standing behind any substantive claims I might make there: some will be true,
> > > > some I will stand behind, some will be baseless.
> >
>
> Let me rephrase. My point is this: If you admit some claims you make are baseless, then
> why would anyone trust any single claim you make?
Because I admit that I do so only in flame wars. But your question is too
unsophisticated. You should only trust a claim I make on the grounds that I am
an expert in the field, have a knowledge of the point in question, and/or you
have no other reason to question the claim. That I admit that I may not stand
behind claims in a flame war is first, not an admission that I knowingly make
claims I believe to be false; and second, no reason to doubt claims I make
when not engaged in a flame war. Ignoring the context is a recipe for
disasterous misunderstanding.
> You may be shooting the breeze. One
> would be wasting time on an unsubstantiated claim.
If I do not substantiate my claims, they ae unsubstantiated whether I am a
paragon of virtue or a Liberal Finance Minister. Substantiation is logically
distinct from the character of the person telling it. If I am shooting the
breeze, then you shoudl check the claims for veracity just as you should if
you were sitting in my class listening to a lecture or reading a book on the
history of the Second World War. Takeing anyting for granted is again a recipe
for disaster.
> > > If you admit your claims may be baseless and that you sometimes lie, why would anyone
> > > pay attention to your arguments?
> >
> > There are a number of reasons. Since I rarely get into flame wars (Militano
> > was the last one; McKinstry was the only one before),
>
> A flame is usually considered to be a deliberate insult to the other person. Am I number 3
> by your records?
Nope, you don't even come close to pissing me off. You're simply in need of
some insstruction in some nuances of english.
> > and when I am not in a
> >flame war, I stand behind every claim I make (unless they turn out to be in
> > error, then I recant them. This has been my practice. Secondly, arguments
> > stand on their own. Thirdly, I have *in fact* never lied on Usenet; though I
> > have speculated from time to time - sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.
> Point 3 answers the question I asked about newsgroups. Now a person can read your
> statements on Usenet with your assurance that you have not lied(deliberately).
No, they can't. I could be lying now, couldn't I? However, it would not be
imprident to take what I say a face value until it can be *shown* that I have
intentionally made a claim I believed to be false.
> > > > If I call you a indolent witling, you can be pretty sure my purpose in posting
> > > > is not to communicate facts.
> >
> > > I am beginning to realize you know little about facts.
> >
> > Then you are mistaken and miss the point of even your own arguments.
>
> That would be difficult wouldn't it? I may not be capable of clearly articulating my point
> to your satisfaction but I would hardly misunderstand my own point.
There is a very common error in reasoning whereby the arguer makes a case for
a particular claim, then either fails to make the claim or makes a contrary
claim. You did so in that you concluded that I know very little about facts,
when your argument actually showed that facts were never in question.
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> > >
> > > Hahahaha. I wonder why I'm surprised. A Complex queston is a fallacious
> > > interrogation technique also known as 'loaded question'. What you asked was
> > > akin to me asking you 'So, when did you stop beating your wife?'
>
> > Terminology. Complex=rhetorical? Ok, thanks for explaining that.
>
> Sigh. No. Complex <> rhetorical. A complex question is one that combines two
> questions in one, then presumes the answer to the first one, For example, the
> question' when did you stop beating your wife?' is a comples of the following
> two questions: 'Had you been beating your wife?' and 'When did you stop?' The
> second question cannot be intelligibly asked unless the first question is
> asked in the affirmative. Your question 'Do you lie (in discussion groups)
> also' presumes that I _lie_ elsewhere. A rhetorical question is one that is
> asked with the purpose of asserting the obvious answer? A rhetorical answer to
> a complex question might be 'You don't actually expect me to answer that
> question, do you?'
The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question
asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the
question asks. I have heard the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question defined several times
as a rhetorical question.
> > I don't believe people in discussion groups should have to know every nuance of a word.
>
> I do, since if they don't they cannot effectively communicate. This is akin
> to submitting that words aren't important. You are free to ignore what words
> mean at your peril. You will be misunderstood and you will misunderstand what
> is said. Why bother posting or reading then?
>
Consider newbies reading say a c++ newsgroup. Because they do not understand all the terms correctly
shouldn't stop them from reading posts. If they send a post that is incorrect then people who are
helpful will say 'look when we say x it can also mean y'. What about foreigners? Should we
disqualify them from participating because their English is not quite up to standard?
> > That is against the spirit of the 'net. If someone uses a term that might be misconstrued
> > then the misunderstanding is cleared up and we move on. Why resort to petty insults?
>
> Well, insofar as the essence of our dispute is grounded in your inability to
> understand standard English, I think that my frustration may have expressed
> itself in such pettiness. My apologies.
>
> > Well from reading the thread it seems like you claimed to have been locked out for 2 days.
> > Another person claimed you sent an email saying it was a month. Now it seems there are a
> > few alternatives:
>
> > (1) You deliberately lied in your email.
> > (2) You are lying now and you were in fact locked out for a month.
> > (3) you made an honest error in your email, in which case you should recant your claim.
>
> You had better brush up on your skills at teasing out possibilities here:
>
I never claimed the alternatives were exhaustive.
> (4) The person claiming I sent an e-mail to that effect was {mistaken|lying|exaggerating|baiting},
> is another highly likely possibility.
Is he?
>
>
> > Since you said earlier that one should not pay heed to claims you make in a flame war
> > (meaning 1 is a possiblity) it lead to my statement that a person of integrity does not go
> > around making false claims.
>
> This is not true, sicne a more important moral principle than honesty might be
> at stake. I find it highly unlikely that you believe that Honesty is the
> highest moral virtue.
Well I don't really have a rating scale for moral virtues. But in the context of usenet what moral
principles would you say allows integrity to take a backseat?
> > Why is this statement false? If I say 'It is raining outside'
> > without knowing if it is raining, then if it is sunny I have told a lie.
>
> No you haven't; you have made a false claim. A lie is a claim made by a
> person who believes the claim is false. The truth of the claim is irrelevant.
Ah, now we get into the nuances of the word. The verb 'to lie' can be defined as 'to create a false
or misleading impression'(webster). I submit that whether or not you believe the claim you make is
true is irrelevant to the definition. The term 'deliberate lie' means something.
> > Let me rephrase. My point is this: If you admit some claims you make are baseless, then
> > why would anyone trust any single claim you make?
>
> Because I admit that I do so only in flame wars. But your question is too
> unsophisticated. You should only trust a claim I make on the grounds that I am
> an expert in the field, have a knowledge of the point in question, and/or you
> have no other reason to question the claim.
When someone makes a claim, most people usually have some factual basis for doing so. If I discover a
person has no factual basis for claims I feel it calls into question their integrity. But perhaps I
am too idealistic.
> That I admit that I may not stand
> behind claims in a flame war is first, not an admission that I knowingly make
> claims I believe to be false; and second, no reason to doubt claims I make
> when not engaged in a flame war. Ignoring the context is a recipe for
> disasterous misunderstanding.
>
> > You may be shooting the breeze. One
> > would be wasting time on an unsubstantiated claim.
>
> If I do not substantiate my claims, they ae unsubstantiated whether I am a
> paragon of virtue or a Liberal Finance Minister. Substantiation is logically
> distinct from the character of the person telling it. If I am shooting the
> breeze, then you shoudl check the claims for veracity just as you should if
> you were sitting in my class listening to a lecture or reading a book on the
> history of the Second World War. Takeing anyting for granted is again a recipe
> for disaster.
Only important things.
>
>
> > > > If you admit your claims may be baseless and that you sometimes lie, why would anyone
> > > > pay attention to your arguments?
> > >
> > > There are a number of reasons. Since I rarely get into flame wars (Militano
> > > was the last one; McKinstry was the only one before),
> >
> > A flame is usually considered to be a deliberate insult to the other person. Am I number 3
> > by your records?
>
> Nope, you don't even come close to pissing me off. You're simply in need of
> some insstruction in some nuances of english.
>
Any deliberate insult is usually called a flame, even though you sent it without being pissed off at
the other person.
> > > and when I am not in a
> > >flame war, I stand behind every claim I make (unless they turn out to be in
> > > error, then I recant them. This has been my practice. Secondly, arguments
> > > stand on their own. Thirdly, I have *in fact* never lied on Usenet; though I
> > > have speculated from time to time - sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.
>
> > Point 3 answers the question I asked about newsgroups. Now a person can read your
> > statements on Usenet with your assurance that you have not lied(deliberately).
>
> No, they can't. I could be lying now, couldn't I? However, it would not be
> imprident to take what I say a face value until it can be *shown* that I have
> intentionally made a claim I believed to be false.
>
Yes, that is the purpose of my question. To know if you stand behind your claims in a discussion
group and thus your claims can be taken at face value by readers.
Norman Gall
Though, I have to say I am amused by Militano's error in idiom in the
subject line.
Norm Gall
--
"The purpose of law is to turn passion into reason."
- F. R. Scott,
Norman Gall
In article <355c052d...@news.pangea.ca>, q59...@Lilos.net wrote:
>On 13 May 1998 01:53:56 GMT, Giovanni Militano
><ummilit2@%NO_SPAM%cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>>Personally, I think that Gall is rather embaressed about the whole
>>suspension situation.
>...and your not? You should be.
I'm embarassed for the administrators at UofM - I know at least one of them is.
Norm Gall
--
"Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools, and the
beacons of wise men." T.H. Huxley
cam and or nenette remove trailing 666
On Sat, 09 May 1998 03:52:56 GMT, w3sp...@wpg.flame added to the
entropy with:
>
>>It is a Civil engineering box with 4 users (including me). Most of the
>>"personal information" would be fortran source code and technical papers.
>
>Fortran? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now thems sum yoosful skillz.
If nobody else knows how to do it, and it is still being used, it *is*
pretty useful and marketable. Case in point - COBOL.
John Ross
T. Johns wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 1998 13:42:32 GMT, John Ross <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Only if it were *expected* that people involved in flame wars will stand
> >> behind their claims. Since there is no such expectancy, your 'addition' is
> >> without merit.
> >>
> >
> >People of integrity stand behind their claims and ideals no matter when it is made. Is
> >this a foreign concept to you?
>
> Let me get this straight, you attack Norm's credibility and integrity
> because of the way he decided to treat Militano's assinine behavior.
> I'm curious how you would treat someone like Militano...with
> respect?????
>
So are you saying that in dealing with asinine behaviour it is justified to compromise one's
integrity? In the heat of emotion saying something you regret is likely but it is not
justified.
gut
>John Ross wrote:
>>TJohns wrote:
>> Let me get this straight, you attack Norm's credibility and >>integrity because of the way he decided to treat Militano's assinine >>behavior. I'm curious how you would treat someone like Militano...with
>>respect?????
> So are you saying that in dealing with asinine behaviour it is >justified to compromise one's integrity? In the heat of emotion saying >something you regret is likely but it is not justified.
This is all well and good, and I am enjoying the discussion....but, as
you Mr. Ross are trying to pin Norm down by asking questions, he has the
integrity to answer them. I notice you have neglected to answer Mr.
John's question. An oversight perhaps?
regards
beergut
--
ICQ # 833152
add the "beer"
to get me by e-mail
John Ross
gut wrote:
I thought I did answer the question. ie I would always try to maintain my integrity, no matter what the circumstances. To expand: If Militano has no integrity or moral virtues(and I don't know of the previous
circumstances) it should not change the way I behave, that would be descending to his level. In anger I may say something I regret, which can happen to anyone, but my anger at his behaviour is a mitigating
factor, not one that justifies compromising my integrity.
gut
John Ross wrote:
>
> gut wrote:
> > This is all well and good, and I am enjoying the discussion....but, as
> > you Mr. Ross are trying to pin Norm down by asking questions, he has the
> > integrity to answer them. I notice you have neglected to answer Mr.
> > John's question. An oversight perhaps?
> >
>
> I thought I did answer the question. ie I would always try to maintain my integrity, no matter what the circumstances.
Try, being the optimum word there. Can you see a possibility of ever
failing at trying?
> To expand: If Militano has no integrity or moral virtues(and I don't know of the previous
> circumstances) it should not change the way I behave,
Should being the optimum word there. Do you agree that the lack of moral
virtues and integrity of some people do indeed affect the way everyone
behaves?
> that would be descending to his level. In anger I may say something I regret, which can happen to anyone, but my anger at his behaviour is a mitigating
> factor, not one that justifies compromising my integrity.
Is it not possible, to actually get one's point across to someone, one
must lower oneself to their level?
P.S. I am sorry for the way I have butchered this post, but I believe
that you can follow it. I am trying to get rid of the long running
lines.
Norman Gall
Giovanni Militano wrote:
>
> In <35585C56...@uwinnipeg.ca> Norman Gall <ga...@uwinnipeg.ca> writes:
>
> >There are a number of reasons. Since I rarely get into flame wars (Militano
>
> What? A flame war? And all this time I thought I was being you pupil.
> Hey hey, look at that! One more spun student to add to your class list! :)
In that case, please forward the tuition of one Critical thinking course to
the philosophy department. Your earned grade is F.
Norm Gall
Norman Gall
John Ross wrote:
> Norman Gall wrote:
> > A rhetorical question is one that is
> > asked with the purpose of asserting the obvious answer? A rhetorical answer to
> > a complex question might be 'You don't actually expect me to answer that
> > question, do you?'
>
> The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question
> asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the
> question asks. I have heard the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question
> defined several times as a rhetorical question.
The person so doing was wrong; the rhetorical question is as I described above.
And you spelled 'described' incorrectly; I hope this helps.
> > > I don't believe people in discussion groups should have to know every nuance of a word.
> >
> > I do, since if they don't they cannot effectively communicate. This is akin
> > to submitting that words aren't important. You are free to ignore what words
> > mean at your peril. You will be misunderstood and you will misunderstand what
> > is said. Why bother posting or reading then?
> Consider newbies reading say a c++ newsgroup. Because they do not understand all
> the terms correctly
> shouldn't stop them from reading posts. If they send a post that is incorrect
> then people who are
> helpful will say 'look when we say x it can also mean y'.
This is a faulty analogy since c++ is a technical subject; if you think the
terms I used were technical you should have asked what they meant before
assuming you knew. This is what the intellectually honest person does in such
cases. I submit that these terms are not technical, but that you simply have a
poorer command of English than can be demaned of an adult Eglish speaker.
> What about foreigners? Should we
> disqualify them from participating because their English is not quite up to standard?
They should use a dictionary or ask rather than blindly go on as if they
understood the word.
> > > That is against the spirit of the 'net. If someone uses a term that might be misconstrued
> > > then the misunderstanding is cleared up and we move on. Why resort to petty insults?
> >
> > Well, insofar as the essence of our dispute is grounded in your inability to
> > understand standard English, I think that my frustration may have expressed
> > itself in such pettiness. My apologies.
> >
> > > Well from reading the thread it seems like you claimed to have been locked out for 2 days.
> > > Another person claimed you sent an email saying it was a month. Now it seems there are a
> > > few alternatives:
> >
> > > (1) You deliberately lied in your email.
> > > (2) You are lying now and you were in fact locked out for a month.
> > > (3) you made an honest error in your email, in which case you should recant your claim.
> >
> > You had better brush up on your skills at teasing out possibilities here:
> >
>
> I never claimed the alternatives were exhaustive.
Insofar as you used only those were Militano was telling the truth, you
illegitimately represented the argument. So either you were being
intellectually dishonest or sloppy; I'll err on the side of sloppy, hence my
comment above.
> > (4) The person claiming I sent an e-mail to that effect was {mistaken|lying|exaggerating|baiting},
> > is another highly likely possibility.
>
> Is he?
I have no idea which of the possibilities in 4 is true, but since none of 1,
2, or 3 is true, the disjunction in 4 seems highly likely; as I pointed out.
> > > Since you said earlier that one should not pay heed to claims you make in a flame war
> > > (meaning 1 is a possiblity) it lead to my statement that a person of integrity does not go
> > > around making false claims.
> >
> > This is not true, sicne a more important moral principle than honesty might be
> > at stake. I find it highly unlikely that you believe that Honesty is the
> > highest moral virtue.
>
> Well I don't really have a rating scale for moral virtues. But in the context of usenet
> what moral principles would you say allows integrity to take a backseat?
Any of them would, if the purpose of the communication was anything but the
honest communication of information
> > > Why is this statement false? If I say 'It is raining outside'
> > > without knowing if it is raining, then if it is sunny I have told a lie.
> >
> > No you haven't; you have made a false claim. A lie is a claim made by a
> > person who believes the claim is false. The truth of the claim is irrelevant.
>
> Ah, now we get into the nuances of the word. The verb 'to lie' can be defined as 'to create a
> false or misleading impression' (webster).
Webster is a piss poor dictionary. Let's go to the OED, 2nd, if we're going to
use a dictionary for authority: Lie, n. an intentionally false statement. Lie,
vi + vt. to tell a lie or lies. Now, if there is no maleficience, there can be
no lie; a lie is something that one can be held morally culpable. It makes no
sense to _morally_ comdemn someone for claiming something they beleive to be
true. If I ask you if you are married, you reply 'yes', then I produce
evidence tot he effect that the Judge that solemnised your marriage was not
authorised to do so and as a result you are in fact not married *and* you had
no idea that any of this was the case, it is inane to say that you *lied* -
you made a false claim that you had no reason to doubt; you were mistaken.
> I submit that whether or not you believe the claim you make is
> true is irrelevant to the definition. The term 'deliberate lie' means something.
It measn no more than 'lie' than 'true fact' means moree than 'fact.'
This is just one reason why dictionaries are poor authorities for this sort of thing.
> > > Let me rephrase. My point is this: If you admit some claims you make are baseless, then
> > > why would anyone trust any single claim you make?
> >
> > Because I admit that I do so only in flame wars. But your question is too
> > unsophisticated. You should only trust a claim I make on the grounds that I am
> > an expert in the field, have a knowledge of the point in question, and/or you
> > have no other reason to question the claim.
>
> When someone makes a claim, most people usually have some factual basis for doing so. If I
> discover a person has no factual basis for claims I feel it calls into question their
> integrity.
Maybe, but ignoring the context is disasterous. If you tell your child that
she cannot have an ice cream, the woman next to you now has 'some factual
basis' for saying that you do not love your child. She is not _lying_ if she
makes the claim and you in fact do love your child; she is mistaken.
> But perhaps I am too idealistic.
You are holding people to an unreaslistic epistemological standard.
> > That I admit that I may not stand
> > behind claims in a flame war is first, not an admission that I knowingly make
> > claims I believe to be false; and second, no reason to doubt claims I make
> > when not engaged in a flame war. Ignoring the context is a recipe for
> > disasterous misunderstanding.
> >
> > > You may be shooting the breeze. One
> > > would be wasting time on an unsubstantiated claim.
> >
> > If I do not substantiate my claims, they ae unsubstantiated whether I am a
> > paragon of virtue or a Liberal Finance Minister. Substantiation is logically
> > distinct from the character of the person telling it. If I am shooting the
> > breeze, then you shoudl check the claims for veracity just as you should if
> > you were sitting in my class listening to a lecture or reading a book on the
> > history of the Second World War. Takeing anyting for granted is again a recipe
> > for disaster.
>
> Only important things.
I have no idea what you mean here.
> > > > > If you admit your claims may be baseless and that you sometimes lie, why would anyone
> > > > > pay attention to your arguments?
> > > >
> > > > There are a number of reasons. Since I rarely get into flame wars (Militano
> > > > was the last one; McKinstry was the only one before),
> > >
> > > A flame is usually considered to be a deliberate insult to the other person. Am I number 3
> > > by your records?
> >
> > Nope, you don't even come close to pissing me off. You're simply in need of
> > some insstruction in some nuances of english.
> >
>
> Any deliberate insult is usually called a flame, even though you sent it without
> being pissed off at the other person.
Perhaps you see no distinction between a flame war and a flame; I submit that
failing to make this distinction weakens your case against me.
> > > > and when I am not in a
> > > >flame war, I stand behind every claim I make (unless they turn out to be in
> > > > error, then I recant them. This has been my practice. Secondly, arguments
> > > > stand on their own. Thirdly, I have *in fact* never lied on Usenet; though I
> > > > have speculated from time to time - sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.
> >
> > > Point 3 answers the question I asked about newsgroups. Now a person can read your
> > > statements on Usenet with your assurance that you have not lied(deliberately).
> >
> > No, they can't. I could be lying now, couldn't I? However, it would not be
> > imprident to take what I say a face value until it can be *shown* that I have
> > intentionally made a claim I believed to be false.
> >
>
> Yes, that is the purpose of my question. To know if you stand behind your claims in a
> discussion group and thus your claims can be taken at face value by readers.
Then I have answered your question.
Cheers,
Norm Gall
Norman Gall
Giovanni Militano wrote:
>
> In <3559d10a....@news.pangea.ca> N...@For.Public.Use (T. Johns) writes:
>
> >Let me get this straight, you attack Norm's credibility and integrity
> >because of the way he decided to treat Militano's assinine behavior.
>
Not in this thread, witling. Keep up with the discussion.
> I asked how long was Gall suspended from his UofM account at the hands of
> Don Bayomi.
>
> His responses (note plural):
>
> In email he said one month. (about a year ago)
I don't keep my sent mail that long. if I did in fact make such a claim, I was exaggerating.
> In here he said two days.
>
> The UofM accounting system shows it is just short of a month.
>
> Personally, I think that Gall is rather embaressed about the whole
> suspension situation.
As I pointed out, not for myself, but for them; their subsequent actions bear
this out.
Norm Gall
Norman Gall
John Ross wrote:
> gut wrote:
> > >John Ross wrote:
> > >>TJohns wrote:
> > >> Let me get this straight, you attack Norm's credibility and
> > >>integrity because of the way he decided to treat Militano's assinine
> > >>behavior. I'm curious how you would treat someone like Militano...with
> > >>respect?????
> > > So are you saying that in dealing with asinine behaviour it is
> > > justified to compromise one's integrity? In the heat of emotion saying
> > > something you regret is likely but it is not justified.
> > This is all well and good, and I am enjoying the discussion....but, as
> > you Mr. Ross are trying to pin Norm down by asking questions, he has the
> > integrity to answer them. I notice you have neglected to answer Mr.
> > John's question. An oversight perhaps?
> I thought I did answer the question.
You didn't; read it again.
> ie I would always try to maintain my integrity, no matter what the circumstances.
> To expand: If Militano has no integrity or moral virtues(and I don't know of the previous
> circumstances) it should not change the way I behave, that would be descending to
> his level. In anger I may say something I regret, which can happen to anyone,
> but my anger at his behaviour is a mitigating
> factor, not one that justifies compromising my integrity.
You are confusing a number of things here. Integrity is the character trait of
being honest; morally sound. Regretting something you have said is a side
issue unless the reason you regret it is that you lied.
In so far as I might say that your mother wear army boots, I am not making a
factual claim and integrity is not an issue. If someone deserves a spanking
then it is morally incumbent upon you to spank them.
Norm Gall
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> John Ross wrote:
>
> > Norman Gall wrote:
>
> > > A rhetorical question is one that is
> > > asked with the purpose of asserting the obvious answer? A rhetorical answer to
> > > a complex question might be 'You don't actually expect me to answer that
> > > question, do you?'
> >
> > The rhetorical question is usually defined as any question
> > asked for a purpose other than to obtain the information the
> > question asks. I have heard the "when did you stop beating your wife?" question
> > defined several times as a rhetorical question.
>
> The person so doing was wrong; the rhetorical question is as I described above.
Well I believe I saw this in a textbook also. So I guess there is a whole bunch of people using this term
incorrectly.
>
>
> And you spelled 'described' incorrectly; I hope this helps.
> > > > I don't believe people in discussion groups should have to know every nuance of a word.
> > >
> > > I do, since if they don't they cannot effectively communicate. This is akin
> > > to submitting that words aren't important. You are free to ignore what words
> > > mean at your peril. You will be misunderstood and you will misunderstand what
> > > is said. Why bother posting or reading then?
>
> > Consider newbies reading say a c++ newsgroup. Because they do not understand all
> > the terms correctly
> > shouldn't stop them from reading posts. If they send a post that is incorrect
> > then people who are
> > helpful will say 'look when we say x it can also mean y'.
>
> This is a faulty analogy since c++ is a technical subject; if you think the
> terms I used were technical you should have asked what they meant before
> assuming you knew. This is what the intellectually honest person does in such
> cases. I submit that these terms are not technical, but that you simply have a
> poorer command of English than can be demaned of an adult Eglish speaker.
You are entitled to your opinion of my English. I feel that 'one swallow does not a flock make'.
>
>
>
> > What about foreigners? Should we
> > disqualify them from participating because their English is not quite up to standard?
>
> They should use a dictionary or ask rather than blindly go on as if they
> understood the word.
However several English words have different meanings. If they think they understand the word then they
should continue on. Otherwise they would be in the dictionary all day. Even if they did use a
dictionary they could get it wrong. After posting, if people wish to ignore them thats ok too.
>
>
> > > > That is against the spirit of the 'net. If someone uses a term that might be misconstrued
> > > > then the misunderstanding is cleared up and we move on. Why resort to petty insults?
> > >
> > > Well, insofar as the essence of our dispute is grounded in your inability to
> > > understand standard English, I think that my frustration may have expressed
> > > itself in such pettiness. My apologies.
> > >
> > > > Well from reading the thread it seems like you claimed to have been locked out for 2 days.
> > > > Another person claimed you sent an email saying it was a month. Now it seems there are a
> > > > few alternatives:
> > >
> > > > (1) You deliberately lied in your email.
> > > > (2) You are lying now and you were in fact locked out for a month.
> > > > (3) you made an honest error in your email, in which case you should recant your claim.
> > >
> > > You had better brush up on your skills at teasing out possibilities here:
> > >
> >
> > I never claimed the alternatives were exhaustive.
>
> Insofar as you used only those were Militano was telling the truth, you
> illegitimately represented the argument. So either you were being
> intellectually dishonest or sloppy; I'll err on the side of sloppy, hence my
> comment above.
ok.
>
>
>
> > > (4) The person claiming I sent an e-mail to that effect was {mistaken|lying|exaggerating|baiting},
> > > is another highly likely possibility.
> >
> > Is he?
>
> I have no idea which of the possibilities in 4 is true, but since none of 1,
> 2, or 3 is true, the disjunction in 4 seems highly likely; as I pointed out.
Maybe he would be so good as to reproduce the email. Although I guess he could forge the header, which
would mean it is his word against yours.
>
>
> > > > Since you said earlier that one should not pay heed to claims you make in a flame war
> > > > (meaning 1 is a possiblity) it lead to my statement that a person of integrity does not go
> > > > around making false claims.
> > >
> > > This is not true, sicne a more important moral principle than honesty might be
> > > at stake. I find it highly unlikely that you believe that Honesty is the
> > > highest moral virtue.
> >
> > Well I don't really have a rating scale for moral virtues. But in the context of usenet
> > what moral principles would you say allows integrity to take a backseat?
>
> Any of them would, if the purpose of the communication was anything but the
> honest communication of information
I guess I'm slow. Can you give an example of how the higher moral virtue come into play here.
>
> > > > Why is this statement false? If I say 'It is raining outside'
> > > > without knowing if it is raining, then if it is sunny I have told a lie.
> > >
> > > No you haven't; you have made a false claim. A lie is a claim made by a
> > > person who believes the claim is false. The truth of the claim is irrelevant.
> >
> > Ah, now we get into the nuances of the word. The verb 'to lie' can be defined as 'to create a
> > false or misleading impression' (webster).
>
> Webster is a piss poor dictionary.
Now there is a claim that you should definitely back up. Is this some sort of universal truth?
> Let's go to the OED, 2nd, if we're going to
> use a dictionary for authority: Lie, n. an intentionally false statement. Lie,
> vi + vt. to tell a lie or lies.
That is another definition yes. However if you did a survey and asked people if a lie could be defined as
in Webster I'm of the opinion a lot of people would say yes.
> Now, if there is no maleficience, there can be
> no lie; a lie is something that one can be held morally culpable. It makes no
> sense to _morally_ comdemn someone for claiming something they beleive to be
> true. If I ask you if you are married, you reply 'yes', then I produce
> evidence tot he effect that the Judge that solemnised your marriage was not
> authorised to do so and as a result you are in fact not married *and* you had
> no idea that any of this was the case, it is inane to say that you *lied* -
> you made a false claim that you had no reason to doubt; you were mistaken.
>
By the webster definition, I lied unintentionally. Which I do not have a problem with.
> > I submit that whether or not you believe the claim you make is
> > true is irrelevant to the definition. The term 'deliberate lie' means something.
>
> It measn no more than 'lie' than 'true fact' means moree than 'fact.'
>
> This is just one reason why dictionaries are poor authorities for this sort of thing.
What is a good authority? Common usage?
>
>
> > > > Let me rephrase. My point is this: If you admit some claims you make are baseless, then
> > > > why would anyone trust any single claim you make?
> > >
> > > Because I admit that I do so only in flame wars. But your question is too
> > > unsophisticated. You should only trust a claim I make on the grounds that I am
> > > an expert in the field, have a knowledge of the point in question, and/or you
> > > have no other reason to question the claim.
> >
> > When someone makes a claim, most people usually have some factual basis for doing so. If I
> > discover a person has no factual basis for claims I feel it calls into question their
> > integrity.
>
> Maybe, but ignoring the context is disasterous. If you tell your child that
> she cannot have an ice cream, the woman next to you now has 'some factual
> basis' for saying that you do not love your child. She is not _lying_ if she
> makes the claim and you in fact do love your child; she is mistaken.
>
Suppose she went around and told all the neighbours. I would say she was spreading a lie.
Well my comment about being number 3 doesn't really have anything to do with my case. I withdraw it.
> > > > > and when I am not in a
> > > > >flame war, I stand behind every claim I make (unless they turn out to be in
> > > > > error, then I recant them. This has been my practice. Secondly, arguments
> > > > > stand on their own. Thirdly, I have *in fact* never lied on Usenet; though I
> > > > > have speculated from time to time - sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.
> > >
> > > > Point 3 answers the question I asked about newsgroups. Now a person can read your
> > > > statements on Usenet with your assurance that you have not lied(deliberately).
> > >
> > > No, they can't. I could be lying now, couldn't I? However, it would not be
> > > imprident to take what I say a face value until it can be *shown* that I have
> > > intentionally made a claim I believed to be false.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that is the purpose of my question. To know if you stand behind your claims in a
> > discussion group and thus your claims can be taken at face value by readers.
>
> Then I have answered your question.
>
Thank You.
> Cheers,
> Norm Gall
John Ross
gut wrote:
> John Ross wrote:
> >
> > gut wrote:
>
> > > This is all well and good, and I am enjoying the discussion....but, as
> > > you Mr. Ross are trying to pin Norm down by asking questions, he has the
> > > integrity to answer them. I notice you have neglected to answer Mr.
> > > John's question. An oversight perhaps?
> > >
> >
> > I thought I did answer the question. ie I would always try to maintain my integrity, no matter what the circumstances.
>
> Try, being the optimum word there. Can you see a possibility of ever
> failing at trying?
>
Of course. By definition try implies the possibility of failure.
> > To expand: If Militano has no integrity or moral virtues(and I don't know of the previous
> > circumstances) it should not change the way I behave,
>
> Should being the optimum word there. Do you agree that the lack of moral
> virtues and integrity of some people do indeed affect the way everyone
> behaves?
>
Yes.
> > that would be descending to his level. In anger I may say something I regret, which can happen to anyone, but my anger at his behaviour is a mitigating
> > factor, not one that justifies compromising my integrity.
>
> Is it not possible, to actually get one's point across to someone, one
> must lower oneself to their level?
If you compromise your integrity in order to get your point across your are treading on a dangerous path. Lowering yourself leaves a sour taste. eg. if I
met a foulmouthed cussbud I would walk away rather than try to outdo him.
>
>
> P.S. I am sorry for the way I have butchered this post, but I believe
> that you can follow it. I am trying to get rid of the long running
> lines.
>
NP.
Norman Gall
James Blatz
w3sp...@wpg.flame wrote in message <355a1ba1....@news.pangea.ca>...
>On Wed, 13 May 1998 07:42:45 GMT, 7173...@ican.net (cam and or
>
>Obviously you're not in the industry.
>
There are a number of companies still kicking fortran around. Especially in
the engineering and mathematics fields. Most of them are just hiding the
numerical engines behind visual interfaces developed with C++, Visual Basic
etc.... Lahey fortran and MS Powerstation allow you to build windows run
time libraries which are really easy to use.
James
cam and or nenette remove trailing 666
On Wed, 13 May 1998 22:23:20 GMT, w3sp...@wpg.flame added to the
entropy with:
>>>
>>>>It is a Civil engineering box with 4 users (including me). Most of the
>>>>"personal information" would be fortran source code and technical papers.
>>>
>>>Fortran? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Now thems sum yoosful skillz.
>>
>>If nobody else knows how to do it, and it is still being used,
>>it *is*
>
>
I stand behind my claim. Regardless if it is Fortran, COBOL, Java, or
ADA, if it's needed and you're one of the few that knows it, you can
write your own ticket until more people learn it or it is no longer
needed.
>>Case in point - COBOL.
>
>COBOL has at most 2-3 yrs left.
So then, you admit i was right - an ancient language is currently
marketable.
> Besides you missed the point entirely;
>any University/CS Dept, that is still teaching programming languages
>who's use has been superseded by better and more suitable ones long
>ago, is run by idiots.
No, i didn't miss the point - you did. There was no claim made that
Fortran was being taught, only that there were Fortran source files on
the system. Further, the claim wasn't made about a CS Dept, but a
tiny civil engineering network in which the point of coding is not
elegance, but number crunching. Their "yoosful skillz", as you put
it, is application of civil engineering principles, not programming.
>Likewise anyone who believes the opposite.
nice troll.
John Ross
T. Johns wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 1998 16:15:07 GMT, John Ross <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >>>> Let me get this straight, you attack Norm's credibility and
> >>>>integrity because of the way he decided to treat Militano's assinine
> >>>>behavior. I'm curious how you would treat someone like Militano...with
> >>>>respect?????
> >>
> >>> So are you saying that in dealing with asinine behaviour it is
> >>>justified to compromise one's integrity? In the heat of emotion saying
> >>>something you regret is likely but it is not justified.
> >>
> >> This is all well and good, and I am enjoying the discussion....but, as
> >> you Mr. Ross are trying to pin Norm down by asking questions, he has the
> >> integrity to answer them. I notice you have neglected to answer Mr.
> >> John's question. An oversight perhaps?
> >>
> >I thought I did answer the question. ie I would always try to maintain my integrity,
> >no matter what the circumstances. To expand: If Militano has no integrity
> >or moral virtues(and I don't know of the previous circumstances) it should not
> >change the way I behave, that would be descending to his level.
> >In anger I may say something I regret, which can happen to anyone, but my anger
> >at his behaviour is a mitigating factor, not one that justifies compromising my integrity.
>
> Actually you didn't answer my question at all. I simply asked if you
> were attacking Norm's credibility and integrity solely based on his
> actions towards Militano's assinine behaviour.
>
If you reread your post you didn't ask that, you made it a statement. Your question was "how
you would treat someone like Militano...with >>>>respect????? "
> I didn't ask whether it was right or wrong, nor did I ask if it met
> your definition of moral virtues or integrity.
>
> If you were having a discussion where the rules were set out and part
> of the rules included that individuals within this discussion were
> allowed to exaggerate, mislead or misinterpreted the facts.
Fine. But on Usenet there are no 'rules' for discussion. When someone writes it is their own
opinions, and the standards they use are their own. That is why we ahve the full range of
people from idiots on upwards.
> Now while
> participating in this discussion you did one or all of the above
> mentioned would your integrity not still be intact, you simple played
> by the rules or guide lines set out before the discussion.
>
Even if there were set rules I don't know if I would agree. For instance, politicians will lie
to get votes. Does that mean it is ok to lie to get votes once you are a politician?
> Now after saying that, and then taking in your statement:
> >(and I don't know of the previous circumstances)
> I can suggest a number of things:
>
> 1. read all information pertaining to the "previous circumstances" and
> make an informed opinion.
>
> 2. re-evaluate your attack on Norm's personal credibility and
> integrity and stick to a discussion on these attributes in a more
> general sense.
>
> 3. drop the discussion altogether.
>
I believe my opinion does not need to be based on whatever happened between him and Militano.
> There are several more points to consider but lets leave that to
> further discussion.....
>
> Remember you started this discussion solely based on a statement made
> by Militano about e-mail sent to him by Norm and Norm's replay to him.
> You have not brought into question Militano's integrity or
> credibility.
You seem to feel, like beergut, that it is ok to respond differently because you are faced with
a person of lower moral character and that you must descend to his level. Doesn't society
place greater value on those who can respond with grace when faced with adversity? Consider
who our heroes are, it is not those who are vigilantes but those who give of themselves when
there is no reason to.If you make unsubstantiated claims, it could turn out to be untrue. You
are seeking to mislead the person you converse with. You may feel this is justifed but a
person of integrity would not go this route. Now Norm Gall said a higher moral virtue could
be in play here, but I fail to see how that applies in a flame war.
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> John Ross wrote:
>
> > gut wrote:
>
> > > >John Ross wrote:
>
> > > >>TJohns wrote:
>
> > > >> Let me get this straight, you attack Norm's credibility and
> > > >>integrity because of the way he decided to treat Militano's assinine
> > > >>behavior. I'm curious how you would treat someone like Militano...with
> > > >>respect?????
>
> > > > So are you saying that in dealing with asinine behaviour it is
> > > > justified to compromise one's integrity? In the heat of emotion saying
> > > > something you regret is likely but it is not justified.
>
> > > This is all well and good, and I am enjoying the discussion....but, as
> > > you Mr. Ross are trying to pin Norm down by asking questions, he has the
> > > integrity to answer them. I notice you have neglected to answer Mr.
> > > John's question. An oversight perhaps?
>
> > I thought I did answer the question.
>
> You didn't; read it again.
>
> > ie I would always try to maintain my integrity, no matter what the circumstances.
> > To expand: If Militano has no integrity or moral virtues(and I don't know of the previous
> > circumstances) it should not change the way I behave, that would be descending to
> > his level. In anger I may say something I regret, which can happen to anyone,
> > but my anger at his behaviour is a mitigating
> > factor, not one that justifies compromising my integrity.
>
> You are confusing a number of things here. Integrity is the character trait of
> being honest; morally sound.
I agree here.
> Regretting something you have said is a side
> issue unless the reason you regret it is that you lied.
>
Not a side issue since I say that an unsubstantiated claim that turns out to be untrue is an
unintentional lie. If I don't know that claim is true, I should not voice it. If I do voice
it, then I would regret it later.
> In so far as I might say that your mother wear army boots, I am not making a
> factual claim and integrity is not an issue. If someone deserves a spanking
> then it is morally incumbent upon you to spank them.
>
Personally I don't feel see any moral value in your flame war with Militano and with your
flames of those who 'deserve a spanking'. I would rather help those who would like to be
helped.
John Ross
g...@ilos.net wrote:
>
>
> Herein lies the difference between Norm and yourself. Norm is capable
> of lowering himself to another person's level to get a point across
> without compromising his integrity, I believe.
I guess everyone has their own integrity.
> You may well be able to
> do so also. The difference is that Norm will spank you if you deserve
> it, you would just ignore Militano
My point is that if in 'spanking' he knowingly makes an unsubstantiated claim he has compromised his integrity.
> ( no easy feat BTW, as he normally
> responds to every thread you post to ).
>
You could use a kill filter. But if that is true I wonder why he has not responded to me?
> I am reminded of the bully in the school yard, taking your lunch money
> and beating you up everyday. After all non violent action has been
> taken by you and the problem still persists, I believe that you would
> have to compromise your morals ( assuming you are non violent ) and
> stand up to the bully and fight. Thus lowering yourself to his level
> to get across the message of "leave me alone".
>
If non-violence was one of your morals you would regret having to resort to such means.
> regards
> beergut
>
> --
>
>
gut
John Ross wrote:
> I guess everyone has their own integrity.
I will agree with this.
> > You may well be able to
> > do so also. The difference is that Norm will spank you if you deserve
> > it, you would just ignore Militano
>
> My point is that if in 'spanking' he knowingly makes an unsubstantiated claim he has compromised his integrity.
This has been addressed by Norm, I see no sense in repeating it.
I will add though that I have said to Militano " you have the brain the
size of a pea". Now I know this is not true in reality, but I also know
that I feel that I have not compromised my integrity. Such are my
interpretations of flame wars and spankings.
>
> > ( no easy feat BTW, as he normally
> > responds to every thread you post to ).
> >
>
> You could use a kill filter.
Nope, he jumps into another persons post that you read and insults you
from there. In the 2 years I have had the misfortune to have to put up
with this tick, I have yet to see him in a serious descission. He just
insults and runs.
> But if that is true I wonder why he has not responded to me?
Because you are defending him. I never said he was that stupid. You may
have missed his last post to Norm where he states " if I hadn't bent
over your desk, I'd have gotten an incomplete grade".
Aside from never being a student of Norms, this insult brings into
question Norm's integrity of gradeing not to mention his sexuality. Do
you still believe this person deserves any consideration in regards to
integrity? I don't.
>
> > have to compromise your morals ( assuming you are non violent ) and
> > stand up to the bully and fight. Thus lowering yourself to his level
> > to get across the message of "leave me alone".
> >
>
> If non-violence was one of your morals you would regret having to resort to such means.
I may regret having to lower myself to his level, but not the act of
fighting itself. I fear I would regret being pummeled daily more.
Sometimes a spanking is necessary, in life and on usenet, to get the
"leave me alone " message across.
Scott L. Balneaves
w3sp...@wpg.flame wrote:
: COBOL has at most 2-3 yrs left.
Dream on. There'll still be production COBOL code around when they bury both
you and I. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if there was still COBOL code around
when the ball drops on 2100.
Trillions of lines of COBOL code ain't gonna disappear anytime soon. And
as long as the code's in production, they'll teach it in University's and
colleges, and fresh computer grads will never be out of a job :-)
Scott
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Balneaves, U of W Unix Support| A right is not what someone gives you;
Email: sbal...@uwinnipeg.ca | it's what no one can take from you.
| -- Ramsey Clark
Norman Gall
>Not a side issue since I say that an unsubstantiated claim that turns out
to be untrue is an
>unintentional lie.
I'm afraid you are just wrong here. Lies are intentional by their very
nature; just as facts are true by their very nature. If a 'lie' turns out
to be true, it is a mistake. If a 'fact' turns out to be false, it is a
false claim. I refer you to any of a dozen introductory spistemology texts
where these sorts of distinctions are clearly explained. I submit that
your English skills are too unsophisticated for these tasks at this time.
There is no information added by certain words: intentional lie, true
fact, round circle, female woman, morally good virtue, etc.
>If I don't know that claim is true, I should not voice it.
Unless there is some other reason to do so other than communicate
information - communication of information isn't the only thing we do by
talking.
>If I do voice it, then I would regret it later.
Probably not. You are missing the context here - again.
>Personally I don't feel see any moral value in your flame war with
Militano and with your
>flames of those who 'deserve a spanking'. I would rather help those who
would like to be
>helped.
Well, that's a warm fuzzy feeling and I thank you for it. However, your
failure to see that people who deserve to get flamed *should* get flamed
is a personal problem and you should get some help for it yourself. I
would argue that you are acting in a morally questionable way in *not*
responding to some of the idiots on here.
Infsofar as 'helping people who would like to be helped', that happens all
the time. But it doesn't absolve you of other moral duties.
Norm Gall
--
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
Norman Gall
>g...@ilos.net wrote:
>> Herein lies the difference between Norm and yourself. Norm is capable
>> of lowering himself to another person's level to get a point across
>> without compromising his integrity, I believe.
>I guess everyone has their own integrity.
This is either a trivially true statement or a nonsense.
>> You may well be able to
>> do so also. The difference is that Norm will spank you if you deserve
>> it, you would just ignore Militano
>My point is that if in 'spanking' he knowingly makes an unsubstantiated
>claim he has compromised his integrity.
Your point is either without merit or a nonsense. An 'unsubstantiated
claim' is a claim that is no backed up by argument or reference to fact in
the argument in which it appears. You have made innumerable claims that
were not argued for in this thread. 'Unsubstantiated' is not a property of
a claim outside of a specific argument; it doesn't mean 'false'.
Now, please take this abortion of a sentence and write it in English.
>> ( no easy feat BTW, as he normally
>> responds to every thread you post to ).
>You could use a kill filter. But if that is true I wonder why he
>has not responded to me?
Because you haven't addressed him?
>> I am reminded of the bully in the school yard, taking your lunch money
>> and beating you up everyday. After all non violent action has been
>> taken by you and the problem still persists, I believe that you would
>> have to compromise your morals ( assuming you are non violent ) and
>> stand up to the bully and fight. Thus lowering yourself to his level
>> to get across the message of "leave me alone".
>If non-violence was one of your morals you would regret having
>to resort to such means.
You have no idea what you are talking about. 'Non-violence' is not a 'moral'.
This is getting worse.
Norm Gall
--
"On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created,
we gain no scientific explanation..." - Charles Darwin
Norman Gall
In article <6jf3ps$jg6$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>, a@a.a (NevermindEAN) wrote:
>>In article <355AF287...@abc.com>, John Ross <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>>If I don't know that claim is true, I should not voice it.
>How can you be certain anything you say is true?
Just so.
Much of what I was arguing was to this point. If you have no reason to
doubt that it is true, and there is at least some reason to believe that
it is true, then you are warranted in making the claim.
Of course, you have to be just as willing to retract the claim; but
'regretting' making the claim is foolish. Much of what we claim turns out
to be true by accident, so to speak; that is, p is true, but we claim that
p, and the reasons we have for asserting p aren't good enough to claim
that p.
Ross is placeing too high a burden on pesons making claims. Much of what
he has claimed is just plain false; by his own standards he should have
kept his mouth shut. But that would be foolish.
Norm Gall
--
"Never ask a man what sort of computer he drives. If it's a Mac,
he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" - Tom Clancy
John Ross
gut wrote:
> John Ross wrote:
>
> > I guess everyone has their own integrity.
>
> I will agree with this.
>
> > > You may well be able to
> > > do so also. The difference is that Norm will spank you if you deserve
> > > it, you would just ignore Militano
> >
> > My point is that if in 'spanking' he knowingly makes an unsubstantiated claim he has compromised his integrity.
>
> This has been addressed by Norm, I see no sense in repeating it.
> I will add though that I have said to Militano " you have the brain the
> size of a pea". Now I know this is not true in reality, but I also know
> that I feel that I have not compromised my integrity. Such are my
> interpretations of flame wars and spankings.
> >
> > > ( no easy feat BTW, as he normally
> > > responds to every thread you post to ).
> > >
> >
> > You could use a kill filter.
>
> Nope, he jumps into another persons post that you read and insults you
> from there. In the 2 years I have had the misfortune to have to put up
> with this tick, I have yet to see him in a serious descission. He just
> insults and runs.
So it seems his purpose is solely to aggravate and his spankings are having no effect.
> > But if that is true I wonder why he has not responded to me?
>
> Because you are defending him.
Nope. In no way do i defend any of his actions.
> I never said he was that stupid. You may
> have missed his last post to Norm where he states " if I hadn't bent
> over your desk, I'd have gotten an incomplete grade".
>
> Aside from never being a student of Norms, this insult brings into
> question Norm's integrity of gradeing not to mention his sexuality. Do
> you still believe this person deserves any consideration in regards to
> integrity? I don't.
My point is that we ourselves should maintain our integrity in response to the Militanos' of the world.
> >
>
> > > have to compromise your morals ( assuming you are non violent ) and
> > > stand up to the bully and fight. Thus lowering yourself to his level
> > > to get across the message of "leave me alone".
> > >
> >
> > If non-violence was one of your morals you would regret having to resort to such means.
>
> I may regret having to lower myself to his level, but not the act of
> fighting itself. I fear I would regret being pummeled daily more.
Your desire for self-defence has overridden your code of non-violence. However if you valued non-violence very, very
highly, you would probably still take the pumelling.
> Sometimes a spanking is necessary, in life and on usenet, to get the
> "leave me alone " message across.
>
Each case has its own merit.
Norman Gall
In article <355B1FA4...@abc.com>, John Ross <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>gut wrote:
>> I may regret having to lower myself to his level, but not the act of
>> fighting itself. I fear I would regret being pummeled daily more.
>Your desire for self-defence has overridden your code of non-violence.
>However if you valued non-violence very, very
>highly, you would probably still take the pumelling.
More highly unsophisticated thinking.
The right to self-defence is an easily defended moral principle. The
principle 'do no harm' is easily trumped in this case.
The way you've phrased it makes it look like buddy is cravenly abandoning
his principles for mere 'self-defence'. This smacks of intellectual
dishonesty.
There is a difference between moral values and moral principles.
Norm Gall
--
"A man cannot be too careful in his choice of enemies." Oscar Wilde
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> In article <355AF57A...@abc.com>, John Ross <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>
> >g...@ilos.net wrote:
>
> >> Herein lies the difference between Norm and yourself. Norm is capable
> >> of lowering himself to another person's level to get a point across
> >> without compromising his integrity, I believe.
>
> >I guess everyone has their own integrity.
>
> This is either a trivially true statement or a nonsense.
There is another possiblity. I could have been making a sarcastic remark about a
sliding integrity scale.
>
>
> >> You may well be able to
> >> do so also. The difference is that Norm will spank you if you deserve
> >> it, you would just ignore Militano
>
> >My point is that if in 'spanking' he knowingly makes an unsubstantiated
> >claim he has compromised his integrity.
>
> Your point is either without merit or a nonsense. An 'unsubstantiated
> claim' is a claim that is no backed up by argument or reference to fact in
> the argument in which it appears.
The claim I am referring to is that you were locked out for a month. Now
initially you did not deny Militano's statement but instead told him he shouldn't
trust anything you say in a flame war which led me to believe you did in fact
make the claim.
> You have made innumerable claims that
> were not argued for in this thread. 'Unsubstantiated' is not a property of
> a claim outside of a specific argument; it doesn't mean 'false'.
>
But it could turn out to be.
> Now, please take this abortion of a sentence and write it in English.
If you emailed you were locked out for a month and you know you did so without
knowing the exact time, you shouldn't have done so. If you knew it was 2 days
and you said a month to 'exaggerate' you shouldn't have done so either. It seems
we agree to disagree on this.
>
>
> >> ( no easy feat BTW, as he normally
> >> responds to every thread you post to ).
>
> >You could use a kill filter. But if that is true I wonder why he
> >has not responded to me?
>
> Because you haven't addressed him?
>
That doesn't seem to stop him from wading in as he feels fit.
> >> I am reminded of the bully in the school yard, taking your lunch money
> >> and beating you up everyday. After all non violent action has been
> >> taken by you and the problem still persists, I believe that you would
> >> have to compromise your morals ( assuming you are non violent ) and
> >> stand up to the bully and fight. Thus lowering yourself to his level
> >> to get across the message of "leave me alone".
>
> >If non-violence was one of your morals you would regret having
> >to resort to such means.
>
> You have no idea what you are talking about. 'Non-violence' is not a 'moral'.
Since it was gut's example I believe you are addressing him. I also realised
this but did not think it a response similar to yours was correct. I took his
example and tried to explain my point. That is the way I respond, it may not be
precise but I don't like flaming every petty mistake someone makes.
>
>
> This is getting worse.
>
I agree.
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> In article <6jf3ps$jg6$1...@neptune.uniserve.com>, a@a.a (NevermindEAN) wrote:
>
> >>In article <355AF287...@abc.com>, John Ross <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>
> >>If I don't know that claim is true, I should not voice it.
>
> >How can you be certain anything you say is true?
There are a few things we can all agree on. eg Norm was locked out, the
question is how long.
> Just so.
>
> Much of what I was arguing was to this point. If you have no reason to
> doubt that it is true, and there is at least some reason to believe that
> it is true, then you are warranted in making the claim.
Keep in mind that the claim we are talking about is the one where you said you
were locked out for a month. Militano states you made this claim and since you
did not deny it initially but said he should ignore any claims you make in a
flame war I assumed you made it.But as you said elsewhere this is getting
worse, I'm done.
Cheers everyone!
John Ross
Norman Gall wrote:
> In article <355B1FA4...@abc.com>, John Ross <a...@abc.com> wrote:
>
> >gut wrote:
>
> >> I may regret having to lower myself to his level, but not the act of
> >> fighting itself. I fear I would regret being pummeled daily more.
>
> >Your desire for self-defence has overridden your code of non-violence.
> >However if you valued non-violence very, very
> >highly, you would probably still take the pumelling.
>
> More highly unsophisticated thinking.
>
> The right to self-defence is an easily defended moral principle. The
> principle 'do no harm' is easily trumped in this case.
I agree. But that isn't my point. gut brought up the example in regards to
integrity. My response indicates that if you highly value integrity you will
do your best not to violate it. Sure there may be other moral principles
involved but you have yet to explain which one you feel you are exercising in
your flame wars.