Fwd: Jason Kodish elected Kook of the Month

23 views
Skip to first unread message

John Angus

unread,
Nov 8, 1994, 2:46:23 PM11/8/94
to


Article 21134 of alt.usenet.kooks:
Xref: freenet.carleton.ca alt.usenet.kooks:10650
Path: freenet.carleton.ca!cunews!nott!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!decwrl!nntp.crl.com!crl5.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: c...@crl.com (Craig Dickson)
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: KotM October: Jason Kodish
Date: 7 Nov 1994 21:58:29 -0800
Organization: KotM Enterprises
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <39n425$3...@crl5.crl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl5.crl.com

October's Kook of the Month is Jason Kodish, who claims to be affiliated
with the "Department of Gravitational Engineering" at the University of
Alberta. He can be found, usually flaming, on soc.culture.canada and the
can.* hierarchy.

Total votes cast: 51

16 for Jason Kodish (jko...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca)
an...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Angus)
Chris Auld <au...@qed.econ.queensu.ca>
as...@freenet.carleton.ca (Jeff Connel)
mp...@cornell.edu (Michael Dolenga)
wi...@macwiley.cuug.ab.ca (Willy Gonnason)
bh...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Rebecca Graham)
gut...@math.upenn.edu (John Guthrie)
tsi...@netcom.com (Sue Irvin)
jen...@cuug.ab.ca (Stephen Jenuth)
mata...@cwis.isu.edu
ap...@freenet.carleton.ca (Taylor Moore)
Paul Phillips <pa...@CERF.NET>
az...@freenet.buffalo.edu (Sean Radford)
ma...@ve6mgs.ampr.ab.ca (Mark G. Salyzyn)
"Daniel P. Slattery" <med...@merlin.beNet.csbsju.edu>
DJY...@CHEMICAL.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Yates)

11 for Ras Mikael Enoch (taf...@netcom.com)
a...@debra.dgbt.doc.ca (Al Black)
ala...@harlech.demon.co.uk ("Iain D. Bowen")
stai...@bga.com (Dwight Brown)
jdu...@netcom.com (Jason Durbin)
si...@netcom.com (Paul Fritschle)
nu...@netcom.com (Bill Newcomb)
Noh...@aol.com
kqu...@tfs.com (Kevin Quinn)
Sharon Roberts <shar...@sfu.ca>
ste...@eskimo.com (Steven Thornton)
Mike Frederick Winter <mfw...@skdad.usask.ca>

10 for Anthony Licalzi (art...@usr1.primenet.com)
"Kelly T. Conlon" <con...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca>
"Paul C. Dickie" <pdi...@bozzie.demon.co.uk>
hal...@mindspring.com (Tripp Cox)
David DeLaney <d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu>
Ron.Du...@launchpad.unc.edu (Ron DuFresne)
"Joel K. Furr" <jf...@acpub.duke.edu>
"James J. Lippard" <lip...@PrimeNet.Com>
ma...@kauai.UCSD.EDU (Kevin E. Maher)
Nathan Raciborski <nat...@PrimeNet.Com>
William Rucklidge <ruck...@parc.xerox.com>

6 for Michael Fullerton (mefu...@acs.ucalgary.ca)
as...@remarque.berkeley.edu (Asya)
Paul Brown <pbr...@postgres.Berkeley.EDU>
hald...@sas.upenn.edu (Gene Haldeman)
mme...@rts.dseg.ti.com (Mark Meyer)
Maurizio MORABITO <b0...@nibh.go.jp>

3 for Kevin Pryor (kev...@rain.org)
gr...@sce.carleton.ca (Greg Franks)
"Christopher R. Maden" <c...@ebt.com>
nmcn...@acs.bu.edu (N.A. McNelly)

3 for Albert Silverman (slv...@netcom.com)
"Mark C. Chu-Carroll" <car...@eecis.udel.edu>
dur...@netcom.com (Bryant Durrell)
Jim Jewett <ji...@eecs.umich.edu>

2 for Fred Cherry (jo...@panix.com)
hol...@mcs.com (Daniel B. Holzman)
GENE WARD SMITH <GSM...@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
--
Craig Dickson <c...@crl.com>
alt.usenet.kooks archives on the Web: ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/ro/cd/auk.html
To receive the a.u.k FAQ, send me email with Subject: send alt.usenet.kooks FAQ

cra...@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca

unread,
Nov 9, 1994, 5:01:29 AM11/9/94
to
Did anybody notice that the first and fourth finishers were
both from Alberta?


Doug Craigen ! 515 Portage Ave.
Dept. of Physics ! Winnipeg, MB
University of Winnipeg ! R3B 2E9 CANADA

Today's LOTTO 6/49 numbers: "Lucky 7's" #2: 7, 17, 27, 37, 47, 14
June 12 1982 until Sep 3 1994
spent on tickets: $1108
prizes won: $613
net loss: $495
(Our best numbers yet, but the five number match on Sept. 4 1982 only won
$393. I guess too many others play '7' combinations.)

Michael Fullerton

unread,
Nov 10, 1994, 6:04:07 AM11/10/94
to
In article <9NOV94....@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca>,

<cra...@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca> wrote:
>Did anybody notice that the first and fourth finishers were
>both from Alberta?

Do you find this in some way significant?

BTW, by definition Einstein and Newton were kooks. They were peculiar
people or oddballs.

God, sheep are so vacuous.

--
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already
earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by
mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice.
-- Albert Einstein on conformity.

Colby Cosh

unread,
Nov 10, 1994, 10:08:00 AM11/10/94
to
mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton) writes:

>BTW, by definition Einstein and Newton were kooks. They were peculiar
>people or oddballs.

Anyone who would consider comparing Jason Kodish to Einstein and
Newton is not qualified to lecture others on terminological accuracy.
A "kook" is not simply "peculiar" or "odd". A kook is someone who
is half nerd, half street-corner preacher; lost in a fantasy world, and
speaking to others in a language of his own device, he babbles
meaninglessly about trivialities while remaining unconscious that no one is
listening to him and that he hasn't bathed in weeks.
Einstein and Newton, not being psychotic in any particular way,
were not "kooks". Timothy Leary is closer, but the real archetypes of
kookdom are all the unmarried women who sent horny letters to Ted Bundy
while he was on death row. Kooks are *crazy*, not just strange.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Kodish on
this richly-merited honor. The first time I found alt.usenet-kooks I
immediately thought of him; it is gratifying that it has only been a few
months, and already the rest of USENET has had him brought to their
attention. Long live the King.

Michael Fullerton

unread,
Nov 12, 1994, 4:33:21 AM11/12/94
to
In article <39td0g$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

Colby Cosh <co...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton) writes:
>
>>BTW, by definition Einstein and Newton were kooks. They were peculiar
>>people or oddballs.
>
> Anyone who would consider comparing Jason Kodish to Einstein and
>Newton is not qualified to lecture others on terminological accuracy.

Jason is a man's name as is Albert and Issac. So according to you
I cannot say these people are comparable in this respect?

> A "kook" is not simply "peculiar" or "odd". A kook is someone who
>is half nerd, half street-corner preacher; lost in a fantasy world, and
>speaking to others in a language of his own device, he babbles
>meaninglessly about trivialities while remaining unconscious that no one is
>listening to him and that he hasn't bathed in weeks.

Where did you get your definition? I thought redefining words was
a symptom of kookness.

> Einstein and Newton, not being psychotic in any particular way,
>were not "kooks". Timothy Leary is closer, but the real archetypes of
>kookdom are all the unmarried women who sent horny letters to Ted Bundy
>while he was on death row. Kooks are *crazy*, not just strange.

Newton was very paranoid. Why do you think he was such an a______e?
There is also evidence he was somewhat schizophrenic. This is not
indicative of psychosis?

Colby Cosh

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 5:42:34 AM11/13/94
to
mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton) writes:

>Jason is a man's name as is Albert and Issac. So according to you
>I cannot say these people are comparable in this respect?

You were speaking specifically of mental functioning. And in that
respect, Kodish is not comparable to Newton or Einstein or anyone else
who can, say, spell "cat", or chew gum without bursting a blood vessel.

>Where did you get your definition? I thought redefining words was
>a symptom of kookness.

No one is "redefining" the word. Ultimately, the definition of a
word like "kook" comes from observing the people who are called "kooks".
If you don't believe that what I say about them is applicable, I invite
you to find the usenet-kooks archive. I think you'll find I've
encapsulated the concept nicely.
The definitions of "kook" I've seen make reference not only to
simple eccentricity, but also to outright insanity, which Kodish evinces
continually. Do you really think Kodish was elected "kook of the month"
just because he's *unusual*, like a peacock with striking plumage? He's
not only unusual; he also happens to be 100% squirrel food.

>Newton was very paranoid. Why do you think he was such an a______e?
>There is also evidence he was somewhat schizophrenic. This is not
>indicative of psychosis?

The point is that no matter how psychotic Newton may have been, no
one is going to write him off as a "kook", because he was a genius (to
understate matters). On the other hand, we are perfectly free to write
Kodish off as a mere kook, because he has none of the intellectual flair
or creativity that excuse extreme delusionality. In fact, it is sheer,
unwarranted effrontery to suggest that Kodish deserves the same tolerance
we hand out to disturbed *geniuses* like Van Gogh or Bing Crosby or Gerard
de Nerval or Kurt Cobain. He's not just a wacko, you know. He's also a
political parrot fond of branding his enemies "nazis", a liar, a
mediocrity, and a twit. You seem to want to characterize him as a
charming oddball, when in fact he is the feces-hurling village idiot of
the "ab" hierarchy. So, please, let's not compare him to Newton or
Einstein. If you want to call him a schizophrenic paranoid, call him one;
don't say he is "like Isaac Newton". I don't go around calling myself "a
singer like K.D. Lang" just because we're both from Alberta.

Colby Cosh

Michael Fullerton

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 7:49:38 AM11/13/94
to
In article <3a4qiq$d...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

Colby Cosh <co...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton) writes:
>
>>Jason is a man's name as is Albert and Issac. So according to you
>>I cannot say these people are comparable in this respect?
>
> You were speaking specifically of mental functioning. And in that
>respect, Kodish is not comparable to Newton or Einstein or anyone else
>who can, say, spell "cat", or chew gum without bursting a blood vessel.

A newborn infant, an adolescent and a genius are comparable in the
sense that they all think. What is not comparable is the degree.

>>Where did you get your definition? I thought redefining words was
>>a symptom of kookness.
>
> No one is "redefining" the word. Ultimately, the definition of a
>word like "kook" comes from observing the people who are called "kooks".
>If you don't believe that what I say about them is applicable, I invite
>you to find the usenet-kooks archive. I think you'll find I've
>encapsulated the concept nicely.
> The definitions of "kook" I've seen make reference not only to
>simple eccentricity, but also to outright insanity, which Kodish evinces
>continually. Do you really think Kodish was elected "kook of the month"
>just because he's *unusual*, like a peacock with striking plumage? He's
>not only unusual; he also happens to be 100% squirrel food.

Then according to you Newton was a kook because he was insane.

>>Newton was very paranoid. Why do you think he was such an a______e?
>>There is also evidence he was somewhat schizophrenic. This is not
>>indicative of psychosis?
>
> The point is that no matter how psychotic Newton may have been, no
>one is going to write him off as a "kook", because he was a genius (to
>understate matters). On the other hand, we are perfectly free to write
>Kodish off as a mere kook, because he has none of the intellectual flair
>or creativity that excuse extreme delusionality. In fact, it is sheer,

So if Newton's work was kept hidden it would have been allright to
call him a kook and ridicule him?

>unwarranted effrontery to suggest that Kodish deserves the same tolerance
>we hand out to disturbed *geniuses* like Van Gogh or Bing Crosby or Gerard
>de Nerval or Kurt Cobain. He's not just a wacko, you know. He's also a
>political parrot fond of branding his enemies "nazis", a liar, a
>mediocrity, and a twit. You seem to want to characterize him as a
>charming oddball, when in fact he is the feces-hurling village idiot of

I am in no way trying to characterize him as such. I don't like him
one bit. He has referred to me in the past as a fascist nazi. That
does not give me or anyone else the right to engage in a mass
persecution of him. What this amounts to is a witch hunt which
I find entirely repulsive.

Darin McBride

unread,
Nov 13, 1994, 9:12:54 PM11/13/94
to
Michael Fullerton (mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
> I am in no way trying to characterize him as such. I don't like him
> one bit. He has referred to me in the past as a fascist nazi. That
> does not give me or anyone else the right to engage in a mass
> persecution of him. What this amounts to is a witch hunt which
> I find entirely repulsive.

Oh lighten up guys. Kodish has earned his reputation here by alot of
hard work on his part. Let's just name him the kook of the month and
next month name someone else kook of the month. We all know that he
is simply not of the same level as Einstein nor Newton - at least not
as of this month. Maybe in the future he will discover something great
to be used by engineers in the emerging field of gravitation... then again
maybe not. But for the moment, he has earned his title and let us all
worship it.

And lighten up.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Darin McBride |Team OS/2 - where the future is.... |
| mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca|Windows: brought to you by the makers of EdLin|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Enjoy each day as if it were your last, care about each moment as if |
| it were your last for one day, one moment, you *will* be right! |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is said that President Bill Clinton is considering changing the
Democratic Party emblem from a donkey to a condom, because it stands
for inflation, protects a bunch of pricks, halts production, and gives
a false sense of security while being screwed.

My opinions? Take 'em as you will. If you wanna blame my employer, and
are stupid enough to do something about them tell me so I can laugh...

Are sigs supposed to be limited to four lines? Damn...

Colby Cosh

unread,
Nov 14, 1994, 1:17:56 AM11/14/94
to
mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton) writes:

>A newborn infant, an adolescent and a genius are comparable in the
>sense that they all think. What is not comparable is the degree.

I have not seen any proof that Kodish *thinks*. Ever.

>> The definitions of "kook" I've seen make reference not only to
>>simple eccentricity, but also to outright insanity, which Kodish evinces
>>continually. Do you really think Kodish was elected "kook of the month"
>>just because he's *unusual*, like a peacock with striking plumage? He's
>>not only unusual; he also happens to be 100% squirrel food.

>Then according to you Newton was a kook because he was insane.

>So if Newton's work was kept hidden it would have been allright to
>call him a kook and ridicule him?

If Newton conspired to keep his epochal brilliance hidden, and if
he could be successful at such a task, then yes, his contemporaries would
be perfectly and obviously right in branding him a "kook" for his bad
behavior. I suppose now you'll tell us Kodish has a damn "Principia" of
Gravitational Engineering up his sleeve. Sheesh.
Incidentally, I have been allowing you to get away with slandering
Newton, because it is a side issue, but now you have referred to him as
being "insane", which is gibberish. Isaac Newton was emotionally disturbed
and exhibited paranoid tendencies, particularly at the end of his life.
Rewriting the universe tends to do that to a person, I suppose. You cannot
in justice brand him truly psychotic or insane, although it would amuse me
if you could find a responsible scholar who would. Hell, maybe he *was* a
kook; that doesn't mean we ought to start inviting psychotics out to tea.
Wise up and understand that it sounds like you are trying to say "Hey,
every wacko is a potential Newton". If you will just concede that this is
an outlandish idea, we have no further argument. I'll say it again: if you
want to call Kodish a nut case, *call* him that. Don't say he's like Isaac
Newton. He is far closer to the guy that writes "REPENT" in felt pen on
Edmonton city buses than he is to Sir Isaac Newton.

>I am in no way trying to characterize him as such. I don't like him
>one bit. He has referred to me in the past as a fascist nazi. That
>does not give me or anyone else the right to engage in a mass
>persecution of him. What this amounts to is a witch hunt which
>I find entirely repulsive.

Mass persecution? Get over it, Fullerton! No one is tossing
kindling at the foot of the stake. He was elected Kook of the Month,
for God's sake, not Heretic of the Decade! I don't hear any of the voters
suggesting he ought to be driven off for being a kook (and if they do,
they are idiots). We are simply pointing out his nature, and having a good
laugh at his expense. We do this *because* we mutually understand that it
is *as much* as we have the right to do.
Do you realize what you are doing? You are lending an unjustified
credence to his rantings about having a powerful and sinister cadre of
right-wingers arrayed against him. Calling him a "kook" is not any kind of
suppression, and by pretending that it is, you are placing yourself in
Kodish's "anyone-who-opposes-me-is-a-Nazi" camp. "Persecution", indeed.
Someone who arrogates that .sig file ought to understand better the
difference between persecution and ridicule. And if you don't understand
it, you might ask for help from one of the Holocaust survivors Kodish
implicitly compares himself to every time he uses the "N" word.

Colby

Michael Fullerton

unread,
Nov 17, 1994, 5:00:46 AM11/17/94
to
In article <3a6vek$r...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

Colby Cosh <co...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton) writes:
>
>>> The definitions of "kook" I've seen make reference not only to
>>>simple eccentricity, but also to outright insanity, which Kodish evinces
>>>continually. Do you really think Kodish was elected "kook of the month"
>>>just because he's *unusual*, like a peacock with striking plumage? He's
>>>not only unusual; he also happens to be 100% squirrel food.
>
>>Then according to you Newton was a kook because he was insane.
>>So if Newton's work was kept hidden it would have been allright to
>>call him a kook and ridicule him?
>
> If Newton conspired to keep his epochal brilliance hidden, and if
>he could be successful at such a task, then yes, his contemporaries would
>be perfectly and obviously right in branding him a "kook" for his bad
>behavior. I suppose now you'll tell us Kodish has a damn "Principia" of
>Gravitational Engineering up his sleeve. Sheesh.

So what if Newton did not conspire to keep his work hidden but his work
was ignored. Would he still be a kook?

I find it very curious that those who respond to my posts here seem
to feel I think Kodish is brilliant in a way comparable to Einstein or
Newton. I have said nothing which could imply that. Your imaginations
appear to be working overtime.

> Incidentally, I have been allowing you to get away with slandering
>Newton, because it is a side issue, but now you have referred to him as
>being "insane", which is gibberish. Isaac Newton was emotionally disturbed
>and exhibited paranoid tendencies, particularly at the end of his life.

Let me get this straight. Saying Newton was insane is "gibberish" yet
you admit he was emotionally disturbed and paranoid. These are symptoms of
insanity are they not?

>Rewriting the universe tends to do that to a person, I suppose. You cannot
>in justice brand him truly psychotic or insane, although it would amuse me
>if you could find a responsible scholar who would. Hell, maybe he *was* a
>kook; that doesn't mean we ought to start inviting psychotics out to tea.
>Wise up and understand that it sounds like you are trying to say "Hey,
>every wacko is a potential Newton". If you will just concede that this is
>an outlandish idea, we have no further argument. I'll say it again: if you
>want to call Kodish a nut case, *call* him that. Don't say he's like Isaac
>Newton. He is far closer to the guy that writes "REPENT" in felt pen on
>Edmonton city buses than he is to Sir Isaac Newton.
>
>>I am in no way trying to characterize him as such. I don't like him
>>one bit. He has referred to me in the past as a fascist nazi. That
>>does not give me or anyone else the right to engage in a mass
>>persecution of him. What this amounts to is a witch hunt which
>>I find entirely repulsive.
>
> Mass persecution? Get over it, Fullerton! No one is tossing
>kindling at the foot of the stake. He was elected Kook of the Month,
>for God's sake, not Heretic of the Decade! I don't hear any of the voters
>suggesting he ought to be driven off for being a kook (and if they do,
>they are idiots). We are simply pointing out his nature, and having a good
>laugh at his expense. We do this *because* we mutually understand that it
>is *as much* as we have the right to do.

What makes you think persecution necesarily involves murder or any sort
of physical torture for that matter?

Skin heads and the KKK simply point out the nature of minorities and
have a good laugh at their expense. They do this because they feel that
it is as much as they have the right to do.

> Do you realize what you are doing? You are lending an unjustified
>credence to his rantings about having a powerful and sinister cadre of
>right-wingers arrayed against him. Calling him a "kook" is not any kind of
>suppression, and by pretending that it is, you are placing yourself in
>Kodish's "anyone-who-opposes-me-is-a-Nazi" camp. "Persecution", indeed.
>Someone who arrogates that .sig file ought to understand better the
>difference between persecution and ridicule. And if you don't understand
>it, you might ask for help from one of the Holocaust survivors Kodish
>implicitly compares himself to every time he uses the "N" word.

The people that harass Kodish are about as bad as he is, maybe worse.
If people stopped responding to Kodish he would go away.

Michael Fullerton

unread,
Nov 17, 1994, 5:05:26 AM11/17/94
to
In article <3a6h36$m...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

Darin McBride <mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Michael Fullerton (mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
>> I am in no way trying to characterize him as such. I don't like him
>> one bit. He has referred to me in the past as a fascist nazi. That
>> does not give me or anyone else the right to engage in a mass
>> persecution of him. What this amounts to is a witch hunt which
>> I find entirely repulsive.
>
>Oh lighten up guys. Kodish has earned his reputation here by alot of
>hard work on his part. Let's just name him the kook of the month and
>next month name someone else kook of the month. We all know that he
>is simply not of the same level as Einstein nor Newton - at least not
>as of this month. Maybe in the future he will discover something great
>to be used by engineers in the emerging field of gravitation... then again
>maybe not. But for the moment, he has earned his title and let us all
>worship it.

Oh I see, it is alright to subject netizens to mass persecution as long
as you choose a different one each week.

Darin McBride

unread,
Nov 17, 1994, 3:19:41 PM11/17/94
to
Michael Fullerton (mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
> In article <3a6h36$m...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
> Darin McBride <mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >Oh lighten up guys. Kodish has earned his reputation here by alot of
> >hard work on his part. Let's just name him the kook of the month and
> >next month name someone else kook of the month. We all know that he
> >is simply not of the same level as Einstein nor Newton - at least not
> >as of this month. Maybe in the future he will discover something great
> >to be used by engineers in the emerging field of gravitation... then again
> >maybe not. But for the moment, he has earned his title and let us all
> >worship it.

> Oh I see, it is alright to subject netizens to mass persecution as long
> as you choose a different one each week.

You are seriously deluded, Micheal, if you think we are partaking in mass
persecution. Unlike your other examples of skin heads and the KKK, we are
not basing our 'name calling' on pure speculation nor on stereotyping.
Jason Kodish has, in fact, acted like a kook and thus we named him as such.
Or are we not allowed to call a spade "a spade"?

Stephen Jenuth 233-2812

unread,
Nov 18, 1994, 1:47:15 PM11/18/94
to
Rather than continuing on this insane thread (I never should
have forwarded the original message), maybe we should
just ask Jason to give an acceptance post and get on
with life.

Austin Hook

unread,
Nov 18, 1994, 10:32:27 PM11/18/94
to
Darin McBride (mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca) wrote:

: Or are we not allowed to call a spade "a spade"?

Years ago, when I used to commute to Columbia University I would get off
the New Haven commuter train at the 125th station stop in the middle of
Harlem, and walk through the area, west until I reached Amsterdam avenue
on the east side of the campus.

What you are suggesting is something that I would have found very
inadvisable back in the days of Malcolm X and his followers.

.....


Austin Hook

Michael Fullerton

unread,
Nov 21, 1994, 6:26:20 AM11/21/94
to
In article <3agdst$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

Darin McBride <mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Michael Fullerton (mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
>> In article <3a6h36$m...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
>> Darin McBride <mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>> >Oh lighten up guys. Kodish has earned his reputation here by alot of
>> >hard work on his part. Let's just name him the kook of the month and
>> >next month name someone else kook of the month. We all know that he
>> >is simply not of the same level as Einstein nor Newton - at least not
>> >as of this month. Maybe in the future he will discover something great
>> >to be used by engineers in the emerging field of gravitation... then again
>> >maybe not. But for the moment, he has earned his title and let us all
>> >worship it.
>
>> Oh I see, it is alright to subject netizens to mass persecution as long
>> as you choose a different one each week.
>
>You are seriously deluded, Micheal, if you think we are partaking in mass
>persecution. Unlike your other examples of skin heads and the KKK, we are
>not basing our 'name calling' on pure speculation nor on stereotyping.
>Jason Kodish has, in fact, acted like a kook and thus we named him as such.
>Or are we not allowed to call a spade "a spade"?

A large group of people nominating someone as kook of the month is mass
persecution. Why do you feel it is not?

How is the conception of "kook" not a stereotype but the conception
of "nigger" is a stereotype?

According to your "logic" a bigot would be perfectly justified in
saying: "because blacks do in fact act like niggers we name them as
such".

Darin McBride

unread,
Nov 21, 1994, 11:17:26 AM11/21/94
to
Michael Fullerton (mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
> In article <3agdst$p...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
> Darin McBride <mcb...@ee.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >Michael Fullerton (mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
> >> Oh I see, it is alright to subject netizens to mass persecution as long
> >> as you choose a different one each week.
> >
> >You are seriously deluded, Micheal, if you think we are partaking in mass
> >persecution. Unlike your other examples of skin heads and the KKK, we are
> >not basing our 'name calling' on pure speculation nor on stereotyping.
> >Jason Kodish has, in fact, acted like a kook and thus we named him as such.
> >Or are we not allowed to call a spade "a spade"?

> A large group of people nominating someone as kook of the month is mass
> persecution. Why do you feel it is not?

Because we have seen him acting and he has fulfilled the definition, in
our minds, of being a kook. Number 2, mass persecution means you are
persecuting en masse - you are acting against alot of people. Let us
assume that you are saying that "the masses are persecuting Kodish"
(which only feeds his delusion that there is a conspiracy against him).

> How is the conception of "kook" not a stereotype but the conception
> of "nigger" is a stereotype?

They are. Your point is? Oh, your logic below, which is faulty, relies
on it. Hold on....

> According to your "logic" a bigot would be perfectly justified in
> saying: "because blacks do in fact act like niggers we name them as
> such".

How does one act like a 'nigger'? If ALL blacks acted in such a way,
then it would no longer be stereotyping but fact. Is it racist of me to
say that "all blacks have black skin"? If you think so, I rest my case
- you are deluded. It is a simple observable fact. In the same way I
can say, "Jason Kodish is a liberal" - if alot of poeple said the same
thing it would mean that the masses are persecuting Kodish if it was not
true, but we would be saying the simple truth if it was (and is) true.
Similarily, unrelated to his liberalness, we have concluded that he is a
kook. Not only that, but this month he is the biggest kook that we know
of on the internet.

(BTW - nigger comes from being Nigerian, I believe. Since not all
blacks come from Nigeria, it is stereotyping. If I replaced "black" by
"Albertan" and "nigger" with "Canadian", it would be fact again: "All
Albertans are Canadians.")

Michael Fullerton

unread,
Nov 22, 1994, 2:23:37 AM11/22/94
to
In article <3ahikd$e...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,

Colby Cosh <co...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Michael Fullerton) writes:
>
>>So what if Newton did not conspire to keep his work hidden but his work
>>was ignored. Would he still be a kook?
>
> No.

>
>>I find it very curious that those who respond to my posts here seem
>>to feel I think Kodish is brilliant in a way comparable to Einstein or
>>Newton. I have said nothing which could imply that. Your imaginations
>>appear to be working overtime.
>
> *You said "hey, don't be so mean to Kodish. Newton and
>Einstein were kooks too". What point *are* you trying to make, exactly?

I said nothing of the sort. The point was that according to the
definition of kook, Newton and Einstein were kooks. The net.sheep
who ridicule certain netizens as kooks would also probably ridicule
these two men.

>That all kooks are created equal? I'm telling you that Kodish does not
>deserve the same treatment we would hand out to these people you
>mentioned. You can either explain why this not so, or you can admit that
>it was silly to bring Einstein and Newton into it.

What a pathetic strawman.

>>> Incidentally, I have been allowing you to get away with slandering
>>>Newton, because it is a side issue, but now you have referred to him as
>>>being "insane", which is gibberish. Isaac Newton was emotionally disturbed
>>>and exhibited paranoid tendencies, particularly at the end of his life.
>
>>Let me get this straight. Saying Newton was insane is "gibberish" yet
>>you admit he was emotionally disturbed and paranoid. These are symptoms of
>>insanity are they not?
>

> Uh..... I think the Net, the psychological community, and anyone
>else with half a brain will back me on this: not everyone with emotional
>problems is insane.

Well son, I have studied psych. In psych. circles it is actually not
PC to call people insane. Instead these people are supposed to be
referred to as emotionally disturbed.

>>What makes you think persecution necesarily involves murder or any sort
>>of physical torture for that matter?
>>Skin heads and the KKK simply point out the nature of minorities and
>>have a good laugh at their expense. They do this because they feel that
>>it is as much as they have the right to do.

Amazing, this boy's post is one entire strawman.

> Let me see if I've got this right. Skinheads and the KKK are
> (1) only in the business of "laughing at" racial minorities, and
>have never been known to, say, brutalize or murder them. They are
>essentially ridiculers, and not violent outlaws.
> (2) a great deal like Jason Kodish's tormentors.

You have quite an imagination son.

> A subnormal child would know better than to make the first claim,
>and a man ought to know better than to make the second. First of all, the
>people who make USENET posts vilifying Kodish have a powerful moral
>advantage over racists: they are *right* about the object of their
>ridicule. Secondly, the groups you mention are not outcasts from society
>primarily because they hate certain other groups; they are evil because
>they act on that hatred, actively physically attacking their enemies
>instead of engaging them in discourse. All *we're* doing is talking.

The KKK and skin heads feel they are right about the object of their
ridicule.

How is attacking people with words not acting on hatred?

When racists insult minorities all they are doing is talking?

> When we burn a cross on Kodish's lawn, you may proceed to make
>this insulting and infantile comparison you are trying to sustain. In the
>meantime, you may put away phrases like "persecution" and "witch hunt".
>No one wants to *do anything to Kodish, can't you see that? We're just
>telling the truth about him. He can take it or leave it, and no one is
>making any attempt to stop up his mouth. It is argument, not persecution.
>No force is involved.

Ad hominem is not argument. I don't understand why declaring
someone loon of the month is not doing something to that person.

>>The people that harass Kodish are about as bad as he is, maybe worse.
>>If people stopped responding to Kodish he would go away.
>

> Congratulations on finally saying something mildly persuasive and
>perceptive. Personally, though, I quit believing long ago that *anything
>was capable of making him go away.
> Colby Cosh

Darin McBride

unread,
Nov 22, 1994, 2:06:36 AM11/22/94
to
Michael Fullerton (mich...@cpsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
> In article <3ahikd$e...@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
> Colby Cosh <co...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> > *You said "hey, don't be so mean to Kodish. Newton and
> >Einstein were kooks too". What point *are* you trying to make, exactly?

> I said nothing of the sort. The point was that according to the
> definition of kook, Newton and Einstein were kooks. The net.sheep
> who ridicule certain netizens as kooks would also probably ridicule
> these two men.

And they would defend themselves to prove their worth. Kodish falls on
self-contradictions and claims to belong to a definitively non-existant
faculty.

> >>> Incidentally, I have been allowing you to get away with slandering
> >>>Newton, because it is a side issue, but now you have referred to him as
> >>>being "insane", which is gibberish. Isaac Newton was emotionally disturbed
> >>>and exhibited paranoid tendencies, particularly at the end of his life.
> >
> >>Let me get this straight. Saying Newton was insane is "gibberish" yet
> >>you admit he was emotionally disturbed and paranoid. These are symptoms of
> >>insanity are they not?
> >
> > Uh..... I think the Net, the psychological community, and anyone
> >else with half a brain will back me on this: not everyone with emotional
> >problems is insane.

> Well son, I have studied psych. In psych. circles it is actually not
> PC to call people insane. Instead these people are supposed to be
> referred to as emotionally disturbed.

But the name is still the same.

(Some of us couldn't care less what is and what is not PC.)

> >>What makes you think persecution necesarily involves murder or any sort
> >>of physical torture for that matter?
> >>Skin heads and the KKK simply point out the nature of minorities and
> >>have a good laugh at their expense. They do this because they feel that
> >>it is as much as they have the right to do.

> Amazing, this boy's post is one entire strawman.

> > Let me see if I've got this right. Skinheads and the KKK are
> > (1) only in the business of "laughing at" racial minorities, and
> >have never been known to, say, brutalize or murder them. They are
> >essentially ridiculers, and not violent outlaws.
> > (2) a great deal like Jason Kodish's tormentors.

> You have quite an imagination son.

Well, if an analogy be used, it better be accurate....

> > A subnormal child would know better than to make the first claim,
> >and a man ought to know better than to make the second. First of all, the
> >people who make USENET posts vilifying Kodish have a powerful moral
> >advantage over racists: they are *right* about the object of their
> >ridicule. Secondly, the groups you mention are not outcasts from society
> >primarily because they hate certain other groups; they are evil because
> >they act on that hatred, actively physically attacking their enemies
> >instead of engaging them in discourse. All *we're* doing is talking.

> The KKK and skin heads feel they are right about the object of their
> ridicule.

They also stereotype based on non-evidence. We have the advantage of
only talking about one person, not a group of people, of whom we do
have alot of evidence about. We do not make the fallacy that because
one member of this groups does something they all do it. Nor do we
make the fallacy that if most of the group does something, this member
of that group must do it. Kodish is a group of one - if he does it,
he does it, if he doesn't, he doesn't. And he DOES act like a kook.

> How is attacking people with words not acting on hatred?

We're acting on his words. And we have no malice when calling him
a kook.

> When racists insult minorities all they are doing is talking?

Now you're talking about groups of larger than one where stereotyping
comes into play. You said you studied psych? You missed the logic
portion of that courseload, then.

> > When we burn a cross on Kodish's lawn, you may proceed to make
> >this insulting and infantile comparison you are trying to sustain. In the
> >meantime, you may put away phrases like "persecution" and "witch hunt".
> >No one wants to *do anything to Kodish, can't you see that? We're just
> >telling the truth about him. He can take it or leave it, and no one is
> >making any attempt to stop up his mouth. It is argument, not persecution.
> >No force is involved.

> Ad hominem is not argument. I don't understand why declaring
> someone loon of the month is not doing something to that person.

We are arguing ABOUT the person - we are not sidetracking the issue by
attacking Kodish because Kodish's person IS what we are discussing!
The two people above are not attacking EACH OTHER in their argument.
Thus it IS an argument. You know some latin, true. But you don't know
what it means.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages