Intellectual Honesty
Paula S
mean from the newcomers (Shay, Barbie, Rishi, Urkel, etc.), as I don't have
expectations about some of them yet, & for the others...my expectations are
very low. I'm talking about Grouch, who declared that it was stupid ever to
respond to Sid, & yet has been doing so himself. And I'm talking about Fab who
once stated that "everyone is equal under the alphabet", but now is carrying on
about degrees & school status.
I will admit that I was irritated with Zeph when she responded to Sid the other
day, but I've thought about that & decided my feelings were silly. Zeph has
consistently displayed intellectual honesty in her posts & resisted
name-calling & juvenile insults no matter how much bait appears. My respect for
Zeph is increasing daily.
Putting aside "feelings" about particular posters, I will be intellectually
honest right here, right now. Shay had a damn good point about how SAHMs are
perceived & treated by many in society. Sid's review of Eyes Wide Shut was
well-written & provocative...I had no interest in seeing that movie, but I do
now because of what Sid wrote. Barbie made an excellent point in her first post
that social equality for women hinges on reproductive freedom.
No one (including me) has been discussing any of the above...seems that people
are more interested in pouncing on trivial crap & patting their cyberpals on
the backs. B-O-R-I-N-G.
P~
Fabulana
>
> I'm getting a bit dismayed by the direction of the posts here lately. I don't
> mean from the newcomers (Shay, Barbie, Rishi, Urkel, etc.), as I don't have
> expectations about some of them yet, & for the others...my expectations are
> very low. I'm talking about Grouch, who declared that it was stupid ever to
> respond to Sid, & yet has been doing so himself.
Well Paula, people like you made it kind of inevitable that Sid would
stay around. He got just enough of an air supply to make it out of the
preemie care unit. If we kill him now, it would be Sidicide.
> And I'm talking about Fab who
> once stated that "everyone is equal under the alphabet", but now is carrying on
> about degrees & school status.
Paula. What do you mean, "carrying on about degrees and school status"?
Why does it bother you to know that I have a degree in African-American
studies? How does this change anything? I never pulled that out of my
hat to use as "evidence" or to win a point. It was stating my background
and where I was coming from. You'll notice, this, and nothing else I
said, is the ONLY thing Barbie latched onto to "respond" to. She thinks
calling me "Miss Africa" is witty repartee and intelligent discourse.
She thinks "affirmative action" is going to push my buttons. I guess she
is so dumb that she automatically assumes I am a minority. On top of all
that transparent nonsense, she says she's smarter than anyone else.
Isn't this ridiculous, on the face of it, and not because I have a
degree in something? But because her style of discourse is that of a
disgruntled teenager?
You seem confused about the statement of fact and the misuse of
credentials as a way of distracting from a lack of substance. The fact
that you quote me back to me, as if I didn't know, or had forgotten, one
of my precious gems of wisdom (apparently you think so, or you wouldn't
be quoting it so often!) just shows that you are missing some of the
subtle beauty of the Fab style. No, you don't have to like it. But
please, don't ever come running up to me to pull the hem of my garment
and tell me *I* don't understand my own posting philosophy. I'm
perfectly well aware of it, and am prepared to declare myself
consistent, even in this case. Calling an idiot's bluff is not the same
as trying to fly by the seat of your pants on some so-called
credentials. You really don't know my educational history, come to think
of it, do you? Because I don't lay it out for you as a welcome mat. That
doesn't mean I'm not willing to use it to bludgeon deranged groupies who
show up on my doorstep.
> I will admit that I was irritated with Zeph when she responded to Sid the other
> day, but I've thought about that & decided my feelings were silly.
I don't know what most of this is about. I've been away.
> Zeph has
> consistently displayed intellectual honesty in her posts & resisted
> name-calling & juvenile insults no matter how much bait appears. My respect for
> Zeph is increasing daily.
That's great, mine too! What I do wonder is why you are setting up role
models here, in some attempt to "shame" those of us you see as authority
figures (me and Grouch, obviously) into behaving in some way you'd like?
> Putting aside "feelings" about particular posters, I will be intellectually
> honest right here, right now. Shay had a damn good point about how SAHMs are
> perceived & treated by many in society.
Well, what the hell are SAHMs, Paula?
And whatever it is, why don't you just come out and say so in that
particular thread? What is the point of this declaration?
Are you afraid to actually jump into the fray with your opinions?
Well, no one can help you there except you.
> Sid's review of Eyes Wide Shut was
> well-written & provocative...I had no interest in seeing that movie, but I do
> now because of what Sid wrote.
Great. So...what?
Does this mean Sid isn't mostly a big vacuum of silliness?
So go see the movie, Paula.
Or are you trying to say something else, namely that Sid
is a worthwhile contributing member of alt.anger society?
I guess you're welcome to your opinion.
I'll still disagree with you.
That's as intellectually honest as they come.
> Barbie made an excellent point in her first post
> that social equality for women hinges on reproductive freedom.
Her first post, eh? I must have missed it.
I came in for fucking Republicans because they pay for dinner,
and a really faulty diatribe on cultural relativism.
Unfortunately, it's pay as you go around here.
> No one (including me) has been discussing any of the above...
Oh? I guess I'm just not interested in Sid's movie reviews.
Feel free to jump in to the fray, however.
I have been waiting patiently for Barbie to do something besides quote
me, and pull my pigtails, as I engaged her in the "culture" thread.
Seems she doesn't take well to reasoned opposition.
Are you really prepared to tell me you think otherwise?
> seems that people
> are more interested in pouncing on trivial crap
Like what, dear Paula?
I'm willing to stand by all of my attacks on the intellectual integrity
of our wannabe Scherezade.
Don't tell me you'd rather talk about bikinis.
> & patting their cyberpals on
> the backs. B-O-R-I-N-G.
Oh, like you've never rubbed suntan lotion on your friends?
Fab's Second Law of Usenet Posting:
We are not here to entertain you.
F*
Shay
>
>Well Paula, people like you made it kind of inevitable that Sid would
>stay around. He got just enough of an air supply to make it out of the
>preemie care unit. If we kill him now, it would be Sidicide.
Why do you say that "people like" Paula are responsible for enticing Sid to
continue posting? Is Grouch "like" Paula? Grouch replies to almost
everything that Sid posts. I've seen Paula reply to Sid only a couple of
times in the past week or so. (And that one post was the funniest thing
I've read on Usenet in months, Paula!)
I fully support the theory that if people here stop replying to Sid that
he'll get bored and go away. (I hope that doesn't happen, 'cause I'd miss
him so.) I'll never understand why Grouch is so bothered by Sid, and is
unable to resist "feeding" him. It's almost comical to watch Sid pull
Grouch's strings the way he does. If anyone is to blame for Sid sticking
around, it's Grouch, not Paula (or "people like her", whatever the hell that
means).
Shay
Barbie
>
> Fabulana wrote
>
> >
> >Well Paula, people like you made it kind of inevitable that Sid would
> >stay around. He got just enough of an air supply to make it out of the
> >preemie care unit. If we kill him now, it would be Sidicide.
>
> continue posting? Is Grouch "like" Paula? Grouch replies to almost
> everything that Sid posts. I've seen Paula reply to Sid only a couple of
> times in the past week or so. (And that one post was the funniest thing
> I've read on Usenet in months, Paula!)
>
> I fully support the theory that if people here stop replying to Sid that
> he'll get bored and go away. (I hope that doesn't happen, 'cause I'd miss
> him so.) I'll never understand why Grouch is so bothered by Sid, and is
> unable to resist "feeding" him. It's almost comical to watch Sid pull
> Grouch's strings the way he does. If anyone is to blame for Sid sticking
> around, it's Grouch, not Paula (or "people like her", whatever the hell that
> means).
>
> Shay
Surely, darling, as a Southerner you understand the import of "people
like her" and the ugliness in the hearts of those that would use the
phrase. You are way too kind. But I can see that your mother raised you
well. Poor Fabbie, the little dear was truly disadvantaged in her
youth, I would surmise. Am object of barter if you can believe it.
Barbie
Barbie
> Well, it wouldn't be my style to storm into a place & announce that I was
> smarter than everyone...
Excuse me, but . . . when did I make this announcement?
Barbie
UppitySnob
Paula S wrote :
>I mean that when Sid mentioned that he had taken a class in philosophy, you
>demanded, "Which school? That makes all the difference." At the time I
thought
You know, I thought she meant school of philosophy, but I rarely ever follow
a Sid thread.
>Well, it wouldn't be my style to storm into a place & announce that I was
>smarter than everyone...but then again there are lots of "styles" around
here
>that are very dissimilar to mine.
You know what I admire about you...er, not that you need my admiration? I
admire the fact that you actually listen and incorporate what goes on around
you. I admire that you can learn, if need be, with grace and dignity. I
also admire the tenacity you show without sinking to flippant insult.
>*L* Bludgeon away.... However, we did have those threads on
self-awareness, so
>I thought you might be interested to know how your latest postings appear
to
>someone who does respect your writing in general.
>
>Now, I will wait for the inevitable post about how someone's perception of
you
>doesn't count if they're not sufficiently self-aware themselves, blah,
blah.
>I'm saying that perhaps there is an interesting, thoughful post or two
lurking
>in the keyboards of those who post mostly dreck. Faustus said the same sort
of
>thing when Sid posted about his tastes in music & art. I no longer intend
to
>comply with this silly "shunning" of posters who have been declared
personas
>non gratas by the G*, especially when he doesn't comply with it himself.
Well, Paula, G* actually talked about that later with Shay(?) when he said
that people should do as they chose to without approval from him. (But you
know that already.)
You and I both know that we are not only free to reply to people LIKE Sid,
but we should do as our conscious guides us. I don't think that G* really
expected us to follow suit, but we shouldn't dance on any strings for Sid.
I remember when that horrifyingly retched (lizard?) cretin followed you here
from a.c.b.b. My take on that was you responded to any hot button he
posted. I could very well be mistaken, as you say, styles are different and
various in here. I haven't directly responded to Sid, not because G* said,
but because I can't find any use in him, especially no amusement value,
simply because he chooses to stay in a world of his own silly creation.
There comes a time when one must question the value of that conversation,
and Sid, well, Sid is just not worthy. Even if, clock-like, he is right
twice a day.
>My original post on this thread wasn't all about you, Fab. By "trivial
crap" I
>meant, for example, G*s criticizing someone for posting juvenile
insults...then
>calling Barbie a twat.
Oh, but I giggled when I read that.
>Patting & rubbing are two completely different things, Fab! ;-)
>
>Sorry to inform you that you have done exactly that to me many times
anyway.
Yeah, but Paula, you can find the silver lining in any cloud...right? I
mean, you turn junk into treasure.
*snob
Barbie
> You seem confused about the statement of fact and the misuse of
> credentials as a way of distracting from a lack of substance. The fact
> that you quote me back to me, as if I didn't know, or had forgotten, one
> of my precious gems of wisdom (apparently you think so, or you wouldn't
> be quoting it so often!) just shows that you are missing some of the
> subtle beauty of the Fab style.
Call it what you want sweetie, it ain't "subtle!"
Barbie
G*
>
> I'm getting a bit dismayed by the direction of the posts here lately. I don't
> mean from the newcomers (Shay, Barbie, Rishi, Urkel, etc.), as I don't have
> expectations about some of them yet, & for the others...my expectations are
> very low. I'm talking about Grouch, who declared that it was stupid ever to
> once stated that "everyone is equal under the alphabet", but now is carrying on
> about degrees & school status.
>
> consistently displayed intellectual honesty in her posts & resisted
> name-calling & juvenile insults no matter how much bait appears. My respect for
> Zeph is increasing daily.
>
> honest right here, right now. Shay had a damn good point about how SAHMs are
> well-written & provocative...I had no interest in seeing that movie, but I do
> that social equality for women hinges on reproductive freedom.
>
> are more interested in pouncing on trivial crap & patting their cyberpals on
> the backs. B-O-R-I-N-G.
>
> P~
Paula:
You're still insisting on seeing only the surface of those things which
pass before your eyes. This isn't a comic book. You need to look past
the obvious.
There are two fundamental concepts that override all other issues.
First, credibility, defined as the "capacity of being believed. Worthy
of being believed." Are all opinions of equal value merely because they
exist? No. An opinion is only as valuable as the credibility of the
opinion holder. What gives a person credibility? Evidence of character
and integrity. That's our second key word; integrity. "Uprightness of
character; honesty. Unimpaired state; soundness. completeness."
Whether HAL writes a fine movie review (an opinion) is not the issue.
It's the character and integrity of the writer which gives an opinion
value. All movie reviews, even if identical words are used, are not the
same.
How does this apply to alt.anger? This is the great integrity and
credibility filter. Integrity and credibility are quickly and frequently
shunted aside on the internet, as they are in life. But it's easier here
to pass as an authority because we lack the opportunity to look at the
lives and accomplishments and successes of the writers. They are
disembodied words, words without context, which have only one thing in
common; they all contain the sacred OPINION.
Take Zeph. She and I disagree on almost everything. But she never fails
to demonstrate that she has carefully thought-out reasons for her
beliefs. She fights endlessly in support of passionately held positions.
Through her words alone she has demonstrated that her beliefs are backed
by reasoning and intelligent thought. This imbues Zeph herself with
integrity because the words spilled through the keyboard come directly
from the mind and values of the writer. She is what she writes. Zeph has
credibility because she never voices an opinion which doesn't come from
the mind of a person with integrity, a quality she has demonstrated time
and time again.
One isn't qualified to oppose a person who through tangible
accomplishments has demonstrated his or her expertise in a particular
area. One can rant and rave and stammer and bluster all one wants, but
without historical evidence of credibility or without the discipline and
intelligence required to master school or business or any other area of
endeavor and therefore establish credibility in specific areas, the
bluster is merely noise, air, random characters culled from the English
language and splattered across the internet signifying nothing in
themselves.
Everyone who expects to survive the alt.anger experience must first pass
the integrity and credibility tests. All others are rejected. There is
nothing more precious than those two qualities, Paula. And they are
utterly demeaned when we fail to ascertain the value of the source of
the miscellaneous streams of opinions cast upon the newsgroups like so
much debris.
Now, Paula, compare what you know of the person behind Zeph's words and
the person behind Hal's incessant rambling. Do you detect any
difference? And would you accord both of their opinions the same weight
and respect? Why?
Forget the fucking movie reviews and Shay's "damned good point."
Establish integrity and credibility first. If they refuse to be
established, reject and destroy the blowhard phonies who spout endless
streams of loudly shouted words as if the noisy words themselves have
meaning and value. They don't.
G*
Paula S
>Paula S wrote:
>>
>> I'm getting a bit dismayed by the direction of the posts here lately. I
>don't
>> mean from the newcomers (Shay, Barbie, Rishi, Urkel, etc.), as I don't have
>> expectations about some of them yet, & for the others...my expectations are
>> very low. I'm talking about Grouch, who declared that it was stupid ever to
>> respond to Sid, & yet has been doing so himself.
>
>Well Paula, people like you made it kind of inevitable that Sid would
>stay around. He got just enough of an air supply to make it out of the
>preemie care unit. If we kill him now, it would be Sidicide.
People like me? You & G* have "fed" Sid, directly & indirectly, much more than
I have lately (not counting your vacation of course). He does as he pleases, it
seems; I'm not so egotistical to think that anything I post or refrain from
posting has an effect on his decision to stay or go.
>> And I'm talking about Fab who
>> once stated that "everyone is equal under the alphabet", but now is
>carrying on
>> about degrees & school status.
>
>Paula. What do you mean, "carrying on about degrees and school status"?
I mean that when Sid mentioned that he had taken a class in philosophy, you
demanded, "Which school? That makes all the difference." At the time I thought
that maybe you were kidding around. But then you reposted it to call our
attention to the fact that he hadn't responded.
>Why does it bother you to know that I have a degree in African-American
>studies? How does this change anything?
It doesn't bother me at all & it changes nothing.
>I never pulled that out of my
>hat to use as "evidence" or to win a point. It was stating my background
>and where I was coming from. You'll notice, this, and nothing else I
>said, is the ONLY thing Barbie latched onto to "respond" to. She thinks
>calling me "Miss Africa" is witty repartee and intelligent discourse.
>She thinks "affirmative action" is going to push my buttons. I guess she
>is so dumb that she automatically assumes I am a minority. On top of all
>that transparent nonsense, she says she's smarter than anyone else.
>Isn't this ridiculous, on the face of it, and not because I have a
>degree in something? But because her style of discourse is that of a
>disgruntled teenager?
Well, it wouldn't be my style to storm into a place & announce that I was
smarter than everyone...but then again there are lots of "styles" around here
that are very dissimilar to mine.
>You seem confused about the statement of fact and the misuse of
>credentials as a way of distracting from a lack of substance.
I'm not confused. The school-status nonsense that I'm referring to began with
your post to Sid, then reappeared in the Barbie threads.
>The fact
>that you quote me back to me, as if I didn't know, or had forgotten, one
>of my precious gems of wisdom (apparently you think so, or you wouldn't
>be quoting it so often!) just shows that you are missing some of the
>subtle beauty of the Fab style.
>No, you don't have to like it. But
>please, don't ever come running up to me to pull the hem of my garment
>and tell me *I* don't understand my own posting philosophy. I'm
>perfectly well aware of it, and am prepared to declare myself
>consistent, even in this case. Calling an idiot's bluff is not the same
>as trying to fly by the seat of your pants on some so-called
>credentials. You really don't know my educational history, come to think
>of it, do you? Because I don't lay it out for you as a welcome mat. That
>doesn't mean I'm not willing to use it to bludgeon deranged groupies who
>show up on my doorstep.
*L* Bludgeon away.... However, we did have those threads on self-awareness, so
I thought you might be interested to know how your latest postings appear to
someone who does respect your writing in general.
Now, I will wait for the inevitable post about how someone's perception of you
doesn't count if they're not sufficiently self-aware themselves, blah, blah.
[snip]
>> Zeph has
>> consistently displayed intellectual honesty in her posts & resisted
>> name-calling & juvenile insults no matter how much bait appears. My respect
>for
>> Zeph is increasing daily.
>
>That's great, mine too! What I do wonder is why you are setting up role
>models here, in some attempt to "shame" those of us you see as authority
>figures (me and Grouch, obviously) into behaving in some way you'd like?
Why? Because it was interesting to me. G* posts how he wants people to behave
here; sometimes I try to go along with it. I'm sure no one here will pay
attention to what I want, so what difference does it make if I say it?
>> Putting aside "feelings" about particular posters, I will be intellectually
>> honest right here, right now. Shay had a damn good point about how SAHMs
>are
>> perceived & treated by many in society.
>
>Well, what the hell are SAHMs, Paula?
>And whatever it is, why don't you just come out and say so in that
>particular thread? What is the point of this declaration?
Stay-at-home-mothers. I didn't respond to Shay's comments because Shay
basically stated my own POV.
>Are you afraid to actually jump into the fray with your opinions?
No...obviously that is *not* the case. I often put my imperfectly formed
opinions out here, knowing that they will be subjected to scrutiny & criticism.
If I was afraid, I wouldn't have begun *this* thread.
>Well, no one can help you there except you.
>
>> Sid's review of Eyes Wide Shut was
>> well-written & provocative...I had no interest in seeing that movie, but I
>do
>> now because of what Sid wrote.
>
>Great. So...what?
>Does this mean Sid isn't mostly a big vacuum of silliness?
>So go see the movie, Paula.
>Or are you trying to say something else, namely that Sid
>is a worthwhile contributing member of alt.anger society?
>I guess you're welcome to your opinion.
>I'll still disagree with you.
>That's as intellectually honest as they come.
I'm saying that perhaps there is an interesting, thoughful post or two lurking
in the keyboards of those who post mostly dreck. Faustus said the same sort of
thing when Sid posted about his tastes in music & art. I no longer intend to
comply with this silly "shunning" of posters who have been declared personas
non gratas by the G*, especially when he doesn't comply with it himself.
[snip]
>I have been waiting patiently for Barbie to do something besides quote
>me, and pull my pigtails, as I engaged her in the "culture" thread.
>Seems she doesn't take well to reasoned opposition.
>Are you really prepared to tell me you think otherwise?
I am baffled by the one in pink, frankly. She seems to careen from the sublime
(first post) to the ridiculous (G* dream post, etc.) I have no idea what to
expect from her next.
>> seems that people
>> are more interested in pouncing on trivial crap
>
>Like what, dear Paula?
>I'm willing to stand by all of my attacks on the intellectual integrity
>of our wannabe Scherezade.
>Don't tell me you'd rather talk about bikinis.
My original post on this thread wasn't all about you, Fab. By "trivial crap" I
meant, for example, G*s criticizing someone for posting juvenile insults...then
calling Barbie a twat.
>> & patting their cyberpals on
>> the backs. B-O-R-I-N-G.
>
>Oh, like you've never rubbed suntan lotion on your friends?
Patting & rubbing are two completely different things, Fab! ;-)
>Fab's Second Law of Usenet Posting:
>
>We are not here to entertain you.
Sorry to inform you that you have done exactly that to me many times anyway.
P~
Paula S
>Paula S wrote, in reference to Barbie:>
>> Well, it wouldn't be my style to storm into a place & announce that I was
>> smarter than everyone...
>
>Excuse me, but . . . when did I make this announcement?
*I* didn't say you did...Fab said that you said it, & I took her word for it.
I'm too tired to go back & read all your posts to see if you said it or not. My
point was just about differing posting styles anyway...if I set up a pink
strawperson just to swat it away, I apologize.
P~
Paula S
>Paula S wrote :
>>I mean that when Sid mentioned that he had taken a class in philosophy, you
>>demanded, "Which school? That makes all the difference." At the time I
>thought
>
>You know, I thought she meant school of philosophy, but I rarely ever follow
>a Sid thread.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
>>Well, it wouldn't be my style to storm into a place & announce that I was
>>smarter than everyone...but then again there are lots of "styles" around
>here
>>that are very dissimilar to mine.
>
>You know what I admire about you...er, not that you need my admiration? I
>admire the fact that you actually listen and incorporate what goes on around
>you. I admire that you can learn, if need be, with grace and dignity. I
>also admire the tenacity you show without sinking to flippant insult.
Thank you, Snob.
[snip]
>Well, Paula, G* actually talked about that later with Shay(?) when he said
>that people should do as they chose to without approval from him. (But you
>know that already.)
Well, I was trying to be respectful of the "elders" of the group...but now I've
decided the hell with that.
>You and I both know that we are not only free to reply to people LIKE Sid,
>but we should do as our conscious guides us. I don't think that G* really
>expected us to follow suit, but we shouldn't dance on any strings for Sid.
>
>I remember when that horrifyingly retched (lizard?) cretin followed you here
>from a.c.b.b. My take on that was you responded to any hot button he
>posted. I could very well be mistaken, as you say, styles are different and
>various in here.
No, you're not mistaken. I would have gone on trading insults with the scaly
one forever if G* hadn't intervened.
[snip]
>>My original post on this thread wasn't all about you, Fab. By "trivial
>crap" I
>>meant, for example, G*s criticizing someone for posting juvenile
>insults...then
>>calling Barbie a twat.
>
>Oh, but I giggled when I read that.
Me too! But that's the flip side of my point in a way...sometimes the juvenile
insults are entertaining to read, whether they're posted by G* or by...someone
else.
[snip]
>Yeah, but Paula, you can find the silver lining in any cloud...right? I
>mean, you turn junk into treasure.
Et tu, Snob? That's right, make fun of my poor, defenseless beanie babies. ;-)
P~
UppitySnob
Paula S wrote :
>
>Et tu, Snob? That's right, make fun of my poor, defenseless beanie babies.
;-)
>
I was thinking of Mike and Sid.
*snob
Fabulana
>
> Paula S wrote :
> >demanded, "Which school? That makes all the difference." At the time I
> thought
It seems there was a lot of thinking going on behind the scenes.
Fab Rule of Usenet #3: it's up to you to make your thoughts visible to
others. Otherwise, don't expect us to pay an awful lot of attention to
them once the ship has left the dock.
So, are you really saying that it doesn't matter?
Are you willing to run with this contention of yours
that all schools are created equal?
It isn't snobbery, but empirical fact to insinuate that schools and in
particular departments differ in terms of their strengths and
weaknesses. I'd be really surprised if you would think otherwise.
And for the record, the whole point of badgering someone like SID to be
more specific before awarding him unlimited bragging rights, is because
he IS Sid. You'll notice, Sid never did cough up any information. I
wonder why that is? Maybe because he is all bluster?
> You know, I thought she meant school of philosophy, but I rarely ever follow
> a Sid thread.
I meant school. Not all undergraduate educations are created equal,
don't believe what you read in the glossy brochures.
> >Well, it wouldn't be my style to storm into a place & announce that I was
> >smarter than everyone...but then again there are lots of "styles" around
> here
> >that are very dissimilar to mine.
>
> You know what I admire about you...er, not that you need my admiration? I
> admire the fact that you actually listen and incorporate what goes on around
> you. I admire that you can learn, if need be, with grace and dignity. I
> also admire the tenacity you show without sinking to flippant insult.
>
> >*L* Bludgeon away.... However, we did have those threads on
> self-awareness, so
> >I thought you might be interested to know how your latest postings appear
> to
> >someone who does respect your writing in general.
> >
> >Now, I will wait for the inevitable post about how someone's perception of
> you
> >doesn't count if they're not sufficiently self-aware themselves, blah,
> blah.
>
> >I'm saying that perhaps there is an interesting, thoughful post or two
> lurking
> >in the keyboards of those who post mostly dreck. Faustus said the same sort
> of
> >thing when Sid posted about his tastes in music & art. I no longer intend
> to
> >comply with this silly "shunning" of posters who have been declared
> personas
> >non gratas by the G*, especially when he doesn't comply with it himself.
>
> Well, Paula, G* actually talked about that later with Shay(?) when he said
> that people should do as they chose to without approval from him. (But you
> know that already.)
>
> You and I both know that we are not only free to reply to people LIKE Sid,
> but we should do as our conscious guides us. I don't think that G* really
> expected us to follow suit, but we shouldn't dance on any strings for Sid.
>
> I remember when that horrifyingly retched (lizard?) cretin followed you here
> from a.c.b.b. My take on that was you responded to any hot button he
> posted. I could very well be mistaken, as you say, styles are different and
> various in here. I haven't directly responded to Sid, not because G* said,
> but because I can't find any use in him, especially no amusement value,
> simply because he chooses to stay in a world of his own silly creation.
> There comes a time when one must question the value of that conversation,
> and Sid, well, Sid is just not worthy. Even if, clock-like, he is right
> twice a day.
>
> >My original post on this thread wasn't all about you, Fab. By "trivial
> crap" I
> >meant, for example, G*s criticizing someone for posting juvenile
> insults...then
> >calling Barbie a twat.
> Oh, but I giggled when I read that.
Paula is expecting a fair world. That fact that G* uses misogynistic
imagery is part of the G* package, which is not that of an ideal role
model or flawless hero-type father figure.
In the case of someone like Barbie who spreads her legs to avoid having
to make a point, there is a certain poetic justice to it.
> >Patting & rubbing are two completely different things, Fab! ;-)
> >
> >Sorry to inform you that you have done exactly that to me many times
> anyway.
So does that make you a slut for enjoying it when it's directed at you,
or a whiner for complaining when it's not?
> Yeah, but Paula, you can find the silver lining in any cloud...right? I
> mean, you turn junk into treasure.
>
> *snob
Game, set, match.
F*
Faustus
<<<<< snip >>>>>
>No one (including me) has been discussing any of the above...seems that people
>are more interested in pouncing on trivial crap & patting their cyberpals on
>the backs. B-O-R-I-N-G.
>
>P~
Paula:
I agree 100%.
It's ok to have an occassional pissing contest, but the current goings
on in alt.anger have now taken the monumental proprtions of Olympic
competition.
Grouch and Fab ought to start writing again and saying things rather
than fencing insults with new people, some of whom are welcome
additions to alt.anger. For example, Shay and Barbie show a lot of
promise, and even if females weren't unconditionally welcome, these
two have something which appeals to me quite aside of my lascivious
libido. Sid seems to have a talent for writing as well as a little
something upstairs, and as evidenced by his "Eyes Wide Shut" report,
he could contribute some interesting reading, if he were to get over
the severe indigestion he seems to have developed ever since he first
ran into Grouch, and which compells him to waste most of his efforts
here trying to be crowned the Royal Flamer.
Faustus
Paula S
>UppitySnob wrote:
>>
>> Paula S wrote :
>> >I mean that when Sid mentioned that he had taken a class in philosophy,
>you
>> >demanded, "Which school? That makes all the difference." At the time I
>> thought
>
>It seems there was a lot of thinking going on behind the scenes.
>Fab Rule of Usenet #3: it's up to you to make your thoughts visible to
>others. Otherwise, don't expect us to pay an awful lot of attention to
>them once the ship has left the dock.
*L* I'm not going to post, "I think you're kidding," everytime someone appears
to be making a joke. I don't expect you or anyone to care now what I thought
then; I was just explaining the sequence of events from my perspective.
>So, are you really saying that it doesn't matter?
No.
>Are you willing to run with this contention of yours
>that all schools are created equal?
I never contended that.
>It isn't snobbery, but empirical fact to insinuate that schools and in
>particular departments differ in terms of their strengths and
>weaknesses. I'd be really surprised if you would think otherwise.
I don't...but what does that have to do with your nagging Sid? My Vassar joke
supports what you wrote above anyway.
>And for the record, the whole point of badgering someone like SID to be
>more specific before awarding him unlimited bragging rights,
Well, that's the thing...Sid brags whether or not you've "awarded" him
anything. Again, you're implying that if Sid did indeed "produce" an Ivy League
diploma it would change something. What would it change? Would you then resume
debating his "points"?
is because
>he IS Sid. You'll notice, Sid never did cough up any information. I
>wonder why that is? Maybe because he is all bluster?
Maybe because he thinks it's none of our business? It would be easy enough for
him to invent a credential anyway...what in the hell difference does it make
now what he says about his education?
>
>> >Patting & rubbing are two completely different things, Fab! ;-)
>> >
>> >Sorry to inform you that you have done exactly that to me many times
>> anyway.
>
>So does that make you a slut for enjoying it when it's directed at you,
>or a whiner for complaining when it's not?
Snob cut out the part of my post where I quoted your "I'm not here to entertain
you" statement. I was actually giving you a compliment there...you *have*
entertained me many times with your posts, whether or not you intended to do
so.
>> Yeah, but Paula, you can find the silver lining in any cloud...right? I
>> mean, you turn junk into treasure.
>>
>> *snob
>
>Game, set, match.
*L* If you like...but Snob's comment followed my statement about *your* posts.
Congrats, Snob...you "won"...Fab said so. Wanna strut into Starbucks in our
cute little tennis outfits & get a couple iced lattes?
P~
Fabulana
>
> Grouch and Fab ought to start writing again and saying things rather
> than fencing insults with new people, some of whom are welcome
> additions to alt.anger. For example, Shay and Barbie show a lot of
> promise, and even if females weren't unconditionally welcome, these
> two have something which appeals to me quite aside of my lascivious
> libido. Sid seems to have a talent for writing as well as a little
> something upstairs, and as evidenced by his "Eyes Wide Shut" report,
> he could contribute some interesting reading, if he were to get over
> the severe indigestion he seems to have developed ever since he first
> ran into Grouch, and which compells him to waste most of his efforts
> here trying to be crowned the Royal Flamer.
>
> Faustus
Faustus,
I respect your opinions because of who you are (there's that integrity
thing again), but I am constantly amazed at the postscripts to history
you and, lately, Paula, have come up with. Where were you guys when all
this shit was going down? Just too "bored" to pay attention? None of
these supposedly "promising" drones really worth getting into a
conversation with?
Well, that's where my Rule #3 applies (I'm formulating them officially
now, for the benefit of my following, to make them easier to quote
later): Usenetites, Entertain Thyselves.
I am 100% tired of the attitude of "Fab(/Grouch), you should do this
[insert advice here] to make me truly happy and our newsgroup a
worthwhile place again." Do it your own damnselves, I say. Not happy
with the ambience? This isn't a restaurant, and I'm not the maitre'de. I
write plenty for this newsgroup (as witnessed by the new fetish of
quoting me in lieu of making an original point), not all of it pest
control. Why don't some of you complainers start your own thread and
quit waiting for the Messiah?
The only reason Barbie turned into a pointless fencing match is because
she has no point. I'm ready to go at any time, but BABS is the one who
can only think of trite ways to TRY to insult me, or embarrass me, by
dredging up previous (and off-topic) posts. I can't believe you think
this shit is promising. "Miss Africa"? Come ON. Her "insults" aren't
even creative, let alone on target. She doesn't respond to a challenge,
she just looks for hot buttons to push.
I think I get it, though. For you and Paula, who (let's be honest) do
more reading than writing around here, the Barbies and the Sids provide
a certain flash value, a certain form of gaudy entertainment, like
cotton candy. It's something to look at. Unfortunately, if you eat that
stuff all day, you'll get a stomachache. That said, it's up to you to
decide to read/respond to whatever, and however, you so choose. Please
be so kind as to respect my judgement to do the same.
Ew. I just asked someone to "respect" me.
I feel dirty.
See what you went and made me do?!
-Fab
Paula S
>Paula:
>You're still insisting on seeing only the surface of those things which
>pass before your eyes. This isn't a comic book. You need to look past
>the obvious.
G*, the obvious *is* that Sid is a blustering moron...the less obvious is that
every once in awhile he does say something intelligent. The obvious is that
Shay & Barbie are cute playthings...the less obvious is that some of their
posts are not mere fluff, but thoughtful commentary.
>There are two fundamental concepts that override all other issues.
>First, credibility, defined as the "capacity of being believed. Worthy
>of being believed." Are all opinions of equal value merely because they
>exist? No. An opinion is only as valuable as the credibility of the
>opinion holder. What gives a person credibility? Evidence of character
>and integrity. That's our second key word; integrity. "Uprightness of
>character; honesty. Unimpaired state; soundness. completeness."
*rolls eyes* Yeah, okay Mr. Pirate, hater of fat women & nose-blowing.
>Whether HAL writes a fine movie review (an opinion) is not the issue.
>It's the character and integrity of the writer which gives an opinion
>value. All movie reviews, even if identical words are used, are not the
>same.
I don't need to determine someone's character & integrity quotient before
reading a movie review, G*. A new poster could come along a minute from now &
post a review...& I would be able to judge it interesting or not for myself
without knowing anything else about the poster.
>How does this apply to alt.anger? This is the great integrity and
>credibility filter. Integrity and credibility are quickly and frequently
>shunted aside on the internet, as they are in life. But it's easier here
>to pass as an authority because we lack the opportunity to look at the
>lives and accomplishments and successes of the writers. They are
>disembodied words, words without context, which have only one thing in
>common; they all contain the sacred OPINION.
True...but this is what I find interesting about the internet. I like
communicating with all sorts of different people, judging them on their words &
not on appearances & credentials. Also, "moody" posters don't bother me. I can
deal with fluff one minute, intellectual discourse the next & flames the minute
after that, all from the same person. It's not a big deal to me, as I don't
take any of this oh-so-seriously.
[snip]
>Everyone who expects to survive the alt.anger experience must first pass
>the integrity and credibility tests. All others are rejected.
But what does it mean to be "rejected", if the person continues to post? It
means nothing.
There is
>nothing more precious than those two qualities, Paula. And they are
>utterly demeaned when we fail to ascertain the value of the source of
>the miscellaneous streams of opinions cast upon the newsgroups like so
>much debris.
This is a losing battle, G*. Even if you managed to get rid of all the current
posters whom you believe lack character & integrity, there's nothing stopping a
whole new crop of them popping up at any point in the future.
>Now, Paula, compare what you know of the person behind Zeph's words and
>the person behind Hal's incessant rambling. Do you detect any
>difference? And would you accord both of their opinions the same weight
>and respect? Why?
Of course there's a difference. But that still doesn't mean that Hal can't come
up with a decent post every once in awhile.
>
>Forget the fucking movie reviews and Shay's "damned good point."
Nah.
>Establish integrity and credibility first. If they refuse to be
>established, reject and destroy the blowhard phonies
Some of them appear to be indestructible.
who spout endless
>streams of loudly shouted words as if the noisy words themselves have
>meaning and value. They don't.
I'm not on a mission here; I've no interest in controlling any part of the
'net. NGs are simply a form of entertainment for me.
P~
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >We are not here to entertain you.
>
> Sorry to inform you that you have done exactly that to me many times anyway.
>
> P~
And this obligates me to you how?
The point is I don't tailor my remarks to entertain you.
I do apologize for reading this in the wrong context when I responded to
it first via Snob's post.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >Paula S wrote:
> >>
> >> And I'm talking about Fab who
> >> once stated that "everyone is equal under the alphabet",
I'm perfectly aware of my own posting philosophy, Paula.
There's a correlate to that principle, which is, "if you bring it up, it
is fair game". Sid brought up what a genius he was in his freshman
philosophy class. THAT makes it open to discussion. Is he willing to
back this up with anything other than the nostalgic reminder that his
professor has his term paper collecting dust in a file cabinet
somewhere? Who doesn't have a story like that? How does that validate
Sid's ability to prove or disprove the existence of anything? Because
some "Oxford professor" drooled over his all-nighter term paper
(probably, was just too drunk/lazy to bother grading them so he "kept it
for his files")? I've seen and heard a million Sid's, inside and outside
of classrooms, and I'm not all too impressed with such anecdotal
evidence.
The minute SID brings up his college career (something he has alluded to
vaguely several times), it is open for interrogation. That's how it
works. And, needless to say, you seem to have jumped to some conclusion
about what my reaction would necessarily be to such information. Don't
assume you can predict my next move.
> >> but now is
> >carrying on
> >> about degrees & school status.
> >
> >Paula. What do you mean, "carrying on about degrees and school status"?
>
> I mean that when Sid mentioned that he had taken a class in philosophy, you
> demanded, "Which school? That makes all the difference." At the time I thought
> that maybe you were kidding around. But then you reposted it to call our
> attention to the fact that he hadn't responded.
See above. This was just another opportunity to prove that Sid is full
of chickenshit.
> >Why does it bother you to know that I have a degree in African-American
> >studies? How does this change anything?
>
> It doesn't bother me at all & it changes nothing.
It bothers you, it bothers you! That I actually implied that having a
degree from a good school means anything! Otherwise, why are we having
this discussion?
F*
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote
>
> >
> >Well Paula, people like you made it kind of inevitable that Sid would
> >stay around. He got just enough of an air supply to make it out of the
> >preemie care unit. If we kill him now, it would be Sidicide.
>
> continue posting? Is Grouch "like" Paula? Grouch replies to almost
> everything that Sid posts. I've seen Paula reply to Sid only a couple of
> times in the past week or so. (And that one post was the funniest thing
> I've read on Usenet in months, Paula!)
>
> I fully support the theory that if people here stop replying to Sid that
> he'll get bored and go away. (I hope that doesn't happen, 'cause I'd miss
> him so.) I'll never understand why Grouch is so bothered by Sid, and is
> unable to resist "feeding" him. It's almost comical to watch Sid pull
> Grouch's strings the way he does. If anyone is to blame for Sid sticking
> around, it's Grouch, not Paula (or "people like her", whatever the hell that
> means).
>
> Shay
Yes, Shay. Whatever you say, Shay. You are obviously the expert around
here.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Barbie wrote:
>
> >Paula S wrote, in reference to Barbie:>
> >
> >Excuse me, but . . . when did I make this announcement?
>
> *I* didn't say you did...Fab said that you said it, & I took her word for it.
> I'm too tired to go back & read all your posts to see if you said it or not. My
> point was just about differing posting styles anyway...if I set up a pink
> strawperson just to swat it away, I apologize.
>
> P~
This is really sweet, Paula. You're *apologizing* to Barbie,
the same Barbie who called me "Miss Africa" and numerous other attempts
at personal diatribe. I can see where your sympathies lie.
By the way, it is the pink m.o. to deny, deny, deny having said anything
that she previously said. No matter how well-documented, or trivial the
consequences. I'm surprised you haven't noticed this by now.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Poor Fabbie, the little dear was truly disadvantaged in her
> youth, I would surmise. Am object of barter if you can believe it.
>
> Barbie
Paula, I would just like to call your attention to this post and ask you
for an analysis of Barbie's character based on it.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Paula S wrote :
> >you
> >> >demanded, "Which school? That makes all the difference." At the time I
> >> thought
> >
> >Fab Rule of Usenet #3: it's up to you to make your thoughts visible to
> >others. Otherwise, don't expect us to pay an awful lot of attention to
> >them once the ship has left the dock.
>
> *L* I'm not going to post, "I think you're kidding," everytime someone appears
> to be making a joke. I don't expect you or anyone to care now what I thought
> then; I was just explaining the sequence of events from my perspective.
>
> >So, are you really saying that it doesn't matter?
>
> No.
>
> >Are you willing to run with this contention of yours
> >that all schools are created equal?
>
> I never contended that.
>
> >It isn't snobbery, but empirical fact to insinuate that schools and in
> >particular departments differ in terms of their strengths and
> >weaknesses. I'd be really surprised if you would think otherwise.
>
> I don't...but what does that have to do with your nagging Sid? My Vassar joke
> supports what you wrote above anyway.
>
> >And for the record, the whole point of badgering someone like SID to be
> >more specific before awarding him unlimited bragging rights,
>
> Well, that's the thing...Sid brags whether or not you've "awarded" him
> anything.
He's stopped bragging about that, though, hasn't he?
A responsible parent has to set limits.
> Again, you're implying that if Sid did indeed "produce" an Ivy League
> diploma it would change something. What would it change?
Carts before horses, Paula...*would* he produce it?
He can't, whether he has one or not, because he DOESN'T HAVE THE
CREDIBILITY. It would just disappear into the vast void of Sidilicious
Sillyisms. It would be utterly irrelevant.
Note to Sid: it's too late now. Anything you say now would be construed
as pandering, and Lord knows THAT would be beneath you...
Best case scenario, on the other hand: it could have led to an amusing
discussion, based on some establishment of common ground. The kind of
thing people do when they share something honest about themselves. But
you know, Sid would never let that happen. Then he would lose his edgy
superiority to the rest of us. He'd have to float back down to earth and
join the ordinary mortals here below, people who do real things, whether
it's collect beanie babies or meet their birth mothers or get G.E.D.'s
or master's degrees or run homes or manage personnel at big companies.
Real people. Much more interesting in the long run than mylar
personalities like Sid.
> Would you then resume
> debating his "points"?
I have to agree with G*, that you aren't seeing below the surface on
this one.
> is because
> >he IS Sid. You'll notice, Sid never did cough up any information. I
> >wonder why that is? Maybe because he is all bluster?
>
> Maybe because he thinks it's none of our business?
See the "if you mention it, it's fair game" clause.
> It would be easy enough for
> him to invent a credential anyway...what in the hell difference does it make
> now what he says about his education?
Paula...you aren't thinking ahead. Depending on what he says, and how,
you can calibrate a world of possible differences. Naturally, not saying
anything at all is the expected response, which is exactly what we got.
Which was, in a sense, the point of the exercise. Sid is an inflatable.
A balloon. Puncture him and he's a flaming Hindenburg.
> >> >Patting & rubbing are two completely different things, Fab! ;-)
> >> >
> >> >Sorry to inform you that you have done exactly that to me many times
> >> anyway.
> >
> >So does that make you a slut for enjoying it when it's directed at you,
> >or a whiner for complaining when it's not?
>
> Snob cut out the part of my post where I quoted your "I'm not here to entertain
> you" statement. I was actually giving you a compliment there...you *have*
> entertained me many times with your posts, whether or not you intended to do
> so.
Got it. See apology in my last post.
It wasn't my intention to misread you.
> >> Yeah, but Paula, you can find the silver lining in any cloud...right? I
> >> mean, you turn junk into treasure.
> >>
> >> *snob
> >
> >Game, set, match.
>
> *L* If you like...but Snob's comment followed my statement about *your* posts.
>
> Congrats, Snob...you "won"...Fab said so. Wanna strut into Starbucks in our
> cute little tennis outfits & get a couple iced lattes?
>
> P~
Right, Paula. I happen to think Snob was more perceptive in this post
than you were. You may strut now if it makes you feel better.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Paula S wrote:
> >
> > Fabulana wrote:
> >
> > >Paula S wrote:
> > >>
> > >> And I'm talking about Fab who
> > >> once stated that "everyone is equal under the alphabet",
>
Now that I re-read this, I can see what the problem is.
I never said "EVERYONE is equal" under anything.
I said "equal TREATMENT". There's a big difference.
F*
Paula S
Unlike you & G*, I don't do character analyses based upon a single post. I have
seen how off-base you two can be with some of the things you've said about me,
& I try to avoid leaping to conclusions regarding others...unless I'm in the
mood for an argument, that is.
I will say that I took Barbie's post as being combative, but not so much more
so than some of the things you've said to Shay, although in a different style
certainly.
P~
Paula S
>The minute SID brings up his college career (something he has alluded to
>vaguely several times), it is open for interrogation. That's how it
>works. And, needless to say, you seem to have jumped to some conclusion
>about what my reaction would necessarily be to such information. Don't
>assume you can predict my next move.
I haven't jumped, Fab. I am curious about what your reaction would have been if
Sid had been forthcoming about his education, & if it would have made any
difference to how you treated him whether he claimed an Ivy League degree, a
second-tier school degree & so on.
But it's all moot, as he doesn't seem to be inclined to post any personal info.
>> >Why does it bother you to know that I have a degree in African-American
>> >studies? How does this change anything?
>>
>> It doesn't bother me at all & it changes nothing.
>
>It bothers you, it bothers you! That I actually implied that having a
>degree from a good school means anything! Otherwise, why are we having
>this discussion?
Now this is silly! I guess my next move is to say: no it doesn't, no it
doesn't! You're obviously going to believe as you wish.
P~
Paula S
>Carts before horses, Paula...*would* he produce it?
I don't know if he *would*, if conditions known only to him were met, but the
fact is that he hasn't.
>He can't, whether he has one or not, because he DOESN'T HAVE THE
>CREDIBILITY. It would just disappear into the vast void of Sidilicious
>Sillyisms. It would be utterly irrelevant.
Right. Um, that was my point. It doesn't matter what credential he produces now
after we've already had enough posts from him by which to form our opinions.
And if he had produced it at the beginning, in his first post, then gone on to
post exactly as he did...it still wouldn't have mattered.
>Note to Sid: it's too late now. Anything you say now would be construed
>as pandering, and Lord knows THAT would be beneath you...
>
>Best case scenario, on the other hand: it could have led to an amusing
>discussion, based on some establishment of common ground. The kind of
>thing people do when they share something honest about themselves.
I agree that this could happen with someone, but not with Sid, unless he
drastically changes his posting style.
But
>you know, Sid would never let that happen. Then he would lose his edgy
>superiority to the rest of us. He'd have to float back down to earth and
>join the ordinary mortals here below, people who do real things, whether
>it's collect beanie babies or meet their birth mothers or get G.E.D.'s
>or master's degrees or run homes or manage personnel at big companies.
>Real people. Much more interesting in the long run than mylar
>personalities like Sid.
I agree with this too.
>> Would you then resume
>> debating his "points"?
>
>I have to agree with G*, that you aren't seeing below the surface on
>this one.
This is right off Roy's link..."I'm not going to bother explaining it to *you*
because you obviously don't get it." Ha ha.
Why not just answer the question, Fab? If Sid had claimed an Ivy League diploma
the same day you had asked him, "Which school", what would your [hypothetical]
response have been?
>> It would be easy enough for
>> him to invent a credential anyway...what in the hell difference does it
>make
>> now what he says about his education?
>
>Paula...you aren't thinking ahead. Depending on what he says, and how,
>you can calibrate a world of possible differences.
Not to me, if his posting style remained the same. "You're a fatass," sounds
the same to me whether it's said by someone with a Harvard degree or one from
Hamburger U.
P~
Paula S
>This is really sweet, Paula. You're *apologizing* to Barbie,
>the same Barbie who called me "Miss Africa" and numerous other attempts
>at personal diatribe. I can see where your sympathies lie.
Oh, geez. It's getting as melodramatic as the beanie group in here.
It's very simple, Fab. I don't like to be misquoted, so I do my best not to
misquote others, whether I like or dislike the poster is irrelevant.
>By the way, it is the pink m.o. to deny, deny, deny having said anything
>that she previously said. No matter how well-documented, or trivial the
>consequences. I'm surprised you haven't noticed this by now.
Is there going to be a test? *L* I refuse to take this NG stuff so seriously,
Fab. If someone says I've misquoted her, & I don't feel like looking it up,
I'll apologize. If it turns out I didn't misquote & the apology was
unnecessary, so what? My self-esteem is not affected by whether I "win" or
"lose" these NG snipefests.
P~
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >Barbie wrote:
> >>
> >> Poor Fabbie, the little dear was truly disadvantaged in her
> >> youth, I would surmise. Am object of barter if you can believe it.
> >>
> >> Barbie
> >
> >Paula, I would just like to call your attention to this post and ask you
> >for an analysis of Barbie's character based on it.
>
> Unlike you & G*, I don't do character analyses based upon a single post.
You know that's not fair, Paula. I've read every available post of
Barbara's. This one, however, seems characteristic of her replies to me,
which tended to land on a sloppy, personal note rather than a
well-honed, substantive one.
How about "Failurana"? Did you find that indicative of a mentality you
find promising, or deserving of reasoned exchange? There are so many
more examples, all of which you seem to have overlooked in your
indictment of my treatment of Barb, that I can't help but wonder why
your intervention in the matter is so one-sided. Maybe you just see
Barbie getting creamed, and you feel she needs a little help. I'm sure
Miss Pink Panties is butch enough to take care of herself.
All my attacks on Shay were specific comments on substance and
presentation, not mere jabs at a "Southern Belle" simply because she
happens to hail from Atlanta.
As you can see, I'm willing to back up everything I have ever said or
done, or change my position if necessary to accommodate reasoned
objections. I don't hold grudges, as this whole "objection" thread from
you seems to imply. If Sid were to behave like a normal intelligent
person, I'd treat him like one. Otherwise his insights remain what they
are--aberrations. Likewise, when Shay stops batting her eyelashes and
speaks clearly and slowly, without wallowing in girly "ought to"
emotions, I too can hear the reasoned clip of intelligent speech. And,
it seems, Barbara has also decided (since I already one the "Miss
Africa" pageant, fair and square!) that it's time to shift away from the
quicksand of untidy personal insults and to move on to clarifying her
knowledge and position. Which is all I was ever interested in in the
first place. We'll see if she can keep it up, or if she isn't just
fencing her approval ratings.
And on it goes.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >Carts before horses, Paula...*would* he produce it?
>
> fact is that he hasn't.
Paula. We are going in circles. No shit, he hasn't.
That was really the whole point.
Sid is flying without a parachute.
Not that that's new for him.
I just felt like pointing it out. Again.
> >He can't, whether he has one or not, because he DOESN'T HAVE THE
> >CREDIBILITY. It would just disappear into the vast void of Sidilicious
> >Sillyisms. It would be utterly irrelevant.
>
> Right. Um, that was my point. It doesn't matter what credential he produces now
> after we've already had enough posts from him by which to form our opinions.
Apparently NOT! *g* You never know when a Hershey bar might contain a
Godiva praline inside.
> And if he had produced it at the beginning, in his first post, then gone on to
> post exactly as he did...it still wouldn't have mattered.
What matters, Paula, is grandstanding with no balls.
That was what Sid was doing.
I just pointed that out.
You seem to think there was something elitist about that,
because it involved *gasp* college.
Well, some people go there. It's a fact of life, for some of us anyway.
It's nothing to be ashamed of.
> >Note to Sid: it's too late now. Anything you say now would be construed
> >as pandering, and Lord knows THAT would be beneath you...
> >
> >Best case scenario, on the other hand: it could have led to an amusing
> >discussion, based on some establishment of common ground. The kind of
> >thing people do when they share something honest about themselves.
>
> I agree that this could happen with someone, but not with Sid, unless he
> drastically changes his posting style.
Look Paula, he's your puppy. You defend this weasel, but you know
perfectly well he isn't a credible source for anything.
He issues countless abusive statements, which you apparently overlook as
"opinions". I hold him to account for his spew
and you scream, no fair, Sid has a right to privacy. Whatever.
What he puts out for public consumption (his college glory days)
is fair game as far as I am concerned.
> But
> >you know, Sid would never let that happen. Then he would lose his edgy
> >superiority to the rest of us. He'd have to float back down to earth and
> >join the ordinary mortals here below, people who do real things, whether
> >it's collect beanie babies or meet their birth mothers or get G.E.D.'s
> >or master's degrees or run homes or manage personnel at big companies.
> >Real people. Much more interesting in the long run than mylar
> >personalities like Sid.
>
> I agree with this too.
That was all you had to "get" Paula.
That's the point.
> >> Would you then resume
> >> debating his "points"?
> >
> >I have to agree with G*, that you aren't seeing below the surface on
> >this one.
>
> This is right off Roy's link..."I'm not going to bother explaining it to *you*
> because you obviously don't get it." Ha ha.
Look at all the bandwidth I've expended trying to explain it to you,
Paula.
> Why not just answer the question, Fab?
> If Sid had claimed an Ivy League diploma
> the same day you had asked him, "Which school", what would your [hypothetical]
> response have been?
I don't deal in hypotheticals. Besides, as I've stated, and as stands to
reason, the only possible answer can be, "that depends." There are a
myriad of ways to bring tone and content into play in any given
situation. Sid is master of his own destiny on that score. I can only
work with what's there.
Is it a coincidence that I called his bluff, and he didn't produce?
Just a lucky guess on my part? I'm sure I can deal with Sid no matter
what kind of spew he produces on any given day. I roll with the punches.
Fortunately, Sid's are pretty predictable.
You know, for someone who doesn't take this ng stuff very seriously,
you sure are hung up on this point.
"Sid, did ya really go to college like you claimed?
Let's hear about it."
Well, just call it cheap entertainment, then.
It sure isn't rocket science.
It's also a far cry from "I'm better than you
because I went to College X."
That has never been my motto.
F*
UppitySnob
Paula S :
>Why not just answer the question, Fab? If Sid had claimed an Ivy League
diploma
>the same day you had asked him, "Which school", what would your
[hypothetical]
>response have been?
A few probing questions on the topic to see if he can demonstrate his
learning of philosophy from said school.
It is possible that he could have learned philosophy at home, alone, and be
smarter than Ivy league material, but if that were so, he wouldn't get so
bent out of shape about his lack of credentials.
Those of us that are largely self-taught scholars are proud of that fact,
and we grudgingly acknowledge that the good paying jobs will go to those
people that have done all of the same work in a formal environment. We also
aren't chaffing about the "better" people thing...we're too busy thinking
*we're* better because we aren't 40+ thousand in the hole.
Paula, this really isn't about you, you know. You may not have gone to
college, but that may just be a matter of circumstance or personal choice,
not inability.
Did you ever consider that Sid brought this upon himself when HE mentioned
studying philosophy?
*snob
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >vaguely several times), it is open for interrogation. That's how it
> >works. And, needless to say, you seem to have jumped to some conclusion
> >about what my reaction would necessarily be to such information. Don't
> >assume you can predict my next move.
>
> I haven't jumped, Fab. I am curious about what your reaction would have been if
> Sid had been forthcoming about his education, & if it would have made any
> difference to how you treated him whether he claimed an Ivy League degree, a
> second-tier school degree & so on.
Ok, Paula. Since you insist on beating this dead horse, I'll give you
what you obviously want to hear.
"Oh, if Sid produced an Ivy League degree, I'd just love him to death!
His merit would shoot up in my eyes! Everything he would shit would be
gold!"
Is that really what you're expecting?
How about this:
"Oh, well, if Sid went to Valley Tech, I'd feel just that much more
justified in looking down on him!"
Do you really think I choose my friends by pedigree? I've dated Harvard
men to Southern Alabama grads. I've befriended people with nothing
higher than an 8th grade education. I've dated three members of the ANC,
which is just an interesting sidenote to my dating history, if nothing
else. One of them is an ambassador now. Other dates have worked blue
collar jobs. These facts are not limiting factors, but they are
interesting real life facts about any individual's experience.
My undergraduate degree is not "Ivy", by the way, but I have a healthy
self-esteem about it, for good reason. I expect any self-respecting
person with a hard-earned degree in something to feel the same.
The college thing was what is known as BAIT, my dear Paula.
Not trolling bait, unless you mean trolling to discover relevance.
I like to challenge people to discover their relevance.
Beneath the flirting, the fluff, and whathaveyou.
> But it's all moot, as he doesn't seem to be inclined to post any personal info.
NOW you've got it. That's it. The gist.
The secret of my moves.
I see that you get it now.
> >> >Why does it bother you to know that I have a degree in African-American
> >> >studies? How does this change anything?
> >>
> >> It doesn't bother me at all & it changes nothing.
> >
> >It bothers you, it bothers you! That I actually implied that having a
> >degree from a good school means anything! Otherwise, why are we having
> >this discussion?
>
> Now this is silly! I guess my next move is to say: no it doesn't, no it
> doesn't! You're obviously going to believe as you wish.
>
> P~
I'm just looking for a reason for your unending protest.
I just assumed it's because what I said bothered you.
Why else are we here?
-Fab ("Miss Africa")
Fabulana
>
> Paula S :
> Paula, this really isn't about you, you know. You may not have gone to
> college, but that may just be a matter of circumstance or personal choice,
> not inability.
>
> Did you ever consider that Sid brought this upon himself when HE mentioned
> studying philosophy?
THANK YOU
> *snob
No, no, Paula went to college. I'm almost sure of it.
I think she mentioned it, even, at some point.
Does it matter? Yes, it matters. Because it is a fact of her life,
and the facts of Paula's life are, on the whole, more interesting to us
than not. If she didn't go, that's just as interesting, for the same
reason.
F*
Paula S
>Paula S wrote:
>>
>> Fabulana wrote:
>>
>> >The minute SID brings up his college career (something he has alluded to
>> >vaguely several times), it is open for interrogation. That's how it
>> >works. And, needless to say, you seem to have jumped to some conclusion
>> >about what my reaction would necessarily be to such information. Don't
>> >assume you can predict my next move.
>>
>> I haven't jumped, Fab. I am curious about what your reaction would have
>been if
>> Sid had been forthcoming about his education, & if it would have made any
>> difference to how you treated him whether he claimed an Ivy League degree,
>a
>> second-tier school degree & so on.
>
>Ok, Paula. Since you insist on beating this dead horse, I'll give you
>what you obviously want to hear.
>
>"Oh, if Sid produced an Ivy League degree, I'd just love him to death!
>His merit would shoot up in my eyes! Everything he would shit would be
>gold!"
>
>Is that really what you're expecting?
>
>How about this:
>
>"Oh, well, if Sid went to Valley Tech, I'd feel just that much more
>justified in looking down on him!"
I gotcha, Fab. You're right; I'm wrong. Everything you write is absolutely
perfect & wonderful & must never, ever, ever be questioned or criticized.
>Do you really think I choose my friends by pedigree? I've dated Harvard
>men to Southern Alabama grads. I've befriended people with nothing
>higher than an 8th grade education. I've dated three members of the ANC,
>which is just an interesting sidenote to my dating history, if nothing
>else. One of them is an ambassador now. Other dates have worked blue
>collar jobs. These facts are not limiting factors, but they are
>interesting real life facts about any individual's experience.
Yes, dear. Whatever you say.
>My undergraduate degree is not "Ivy", by the way, but I have a healthy
>self-esteem about it, for good reason. I expect any self-respecting
>person with a hard-earned degree in something to feel the same.
>
>The college thing was what is known as BAIT, my dear Paula.
But we weren't supposed to bait...oh, nevermind. Yes, of course, Zombiemaster,
I hear & agree.
>Not trolling bait, unless you mean trolling to discover relevance.
>I like to challenge people to discover their relevance.
>Beneath the flirting, the fluff, and whathaveyou.
>
>> But it's all moot, as he doesn't seem to be inclined to post any personal
>info.
>
>NOW you've got it. That's it. The gist.
>The secret of my moves.
>I see that you get it now.
>
>> >> >Why does it bother you to know that I have a degree in African-American
>> >> >studies? How does this change anything?
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't bother me at all & it changes nothing.
>> >
>> >It bothers you, it bothers you! That I actually implied that having a
>> >degree from a good school means anything! Otherwise, why are we having
>> >this discussion?
>>
>> Now this is silly! I guess my next move is to say: no it doesn't, no it
>> doesn't! You're obviously going to believe as you wish.
>>
>> P~
>
>I'm just looking for a reason for your unending protest.
>I just assumed it's because what I said bothered you.
>Why else are we here?
Because you must have the last word & be declared the winner?
Listen up, angerites...Fab wins another NG snipefest! Hooray! Please give her
kudos (or Hershey bars) as appropriate.
P~
Barbie
>
> There are two fundamental concepts that override all other issues.
> First, credibility, defined as the "capacity of being believed. Worthy
> of being believed." Are all opinions of equal value merely because they
> exist? No. An opinion is only as valuable as the credibility of the
> opinion holder. What gives a person credibility? Evidence of character
> and integrity.
Actually, Grouchiepoo, that is a reasonable definition if you are
seeking an expert opinion in an area where the reader has no choice but
to swallow the opinion and accept it on faith. This was essentially the
position of the Catholic Church in the middle ages, that an educated
priestly class would serve as the intermediary between the ignorant
masses and truth. Maybe your own reasoning abilities are so low that
this encompasses a large portion of the opinion you read, maybe you want
to accept ideas that uncritically. I don't know you well enough to judge
that. But the credibility of the vast majority of usenet posts is easily
judged by the strength of the reasoning and the reasonableness of the
assumptions underlying the opinion. I take it from your thesis that if
you consulted a well credentialed brain surgeon about your headaches and
he said the best thing to do was to surgically remove your penis, you
would say go right ahead? Or, is it possible that you would forget about
reputational issues, consider the substance and underlying logic of the
opinion, and maybe say sorry doctor, I'm going to need to think about
it?
That's our second key word; integrity. "Uprightness of
> character; honesty. Unimpaired state; soundness. completeness."
>
> Whether HAL writes a fine movie review (an opinion) is not the issue.
> It's the character and integrity of the writer which gives an opinion
> value. All movie reviews, even if identical words are used, are not the
> same.
OK, so here you are worried that Sid is lying, and you will be wasting
your 4 dollar matinee ticket, right honeybunch? But that's only a
problem if you lack the ability to judge the opinion on its merits. You
have heard other folks speak of EWS, you have seen Kubrick film or two.
You can make a judgment about whether he is persuasive that is entirely
independent of his character. You seem to be looking for a Moses to
receive the 10 commandments for you, sweetipie. I say go get 'em
yourself boy - - you can do it - - you can make your own decision
whether you want to see the movie and whether you want to read Sid's
posts (even without your college degree).
>
> How does this apply to alt.anger?
> They are
> disembodied words, words without context, which have only one thing in
> common; they all contain the sacred OPINION.
Is it time to genuflect, honey? Grouchiepoo, I want you to put on that
pink thong and model it for us right away (oh pretty please little
cutiepie!). It's the only thing that could restore your dignity after a
post like this!
Barbie
Faustus
> Grouchiepoo, I want you to put on that pink thong
>and model it for us right away (oh pretty please little
>cutiepie!).
>
>Barbie
*chuckle*
Faustus
G*
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Poor Fabbie, the little dear was truly disadvantaged in her
> >> youth, I would surmise. Am object of barter if you can believe it.
> >>
> >> Barbie
> >
> >Paula, I would just like to call your attention to this post and ask you
> >for an analysis of Barbie's character based on it.
>
> seen how off-base you two can be with some of the things you've said about me,
Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
were off base?
G*
G*
>
> Grouch wrote:
> G*, the obvious *is* that Sid is a blustering moron...the less obvious is that
> every once in awhile he does say something intelligent. The obvious is that
> Shay & Barbie are cute playthings...the less obvious is that some of their
> posts are not mere fluff, but thoughtful commentary.
It's a replay of the old idea that a thousand chimps typing at a
thousand typewriters would eventually produce the complete works of
Shakespeare. They'll also produce other legible sentences and
paragraphs. But how can you know what has value and what doesn't? How
can you judge an opinion intelligent or worthwhile when you know that
the source is a chimp? In the case of a movie review, are you going to
assume that the insights and opinions are valuable merely because
they're legible? Would you see a movie based on a literate review
written by a chimp?
> >There are two fundamental concepts that override all other issues.
> >First, credibility, defined as the "capacity of being believed. Worthy
> >of being believed." Are all opinions of equal value merely because they
> >exist? No. An opinion is only as valuable as the credibility of the
> >opinion holder. What gives a person credibility? Evidence of character
> >and integrity. That's our second key word; integrity. "Uprightness of
> >character; honesty. Unimpaired state; soundness. completeness."
>
> *rolls eyes* Yeah, okay Mr. Pirate, hater of fat women & nose-blowing.
Your comment doesn't make sense in context. Care to elaborate?
> I don't need to determine someone's character & integrity quotient before
> reading a movie review, G*. A new poster could come along a minute from now &
> post a review...& I would be able to judge it interesting or not for myself
> without knowing anything else about the poster.
How could you possibly give credibility to a movie review when you know
the source has no credibility in other matters? Will you make the
assumption that the moron or chimp offering the review suddenly had a
flash of genuine human insight merely because the reviewer strings words
together effectively? I don't understand that at all. I could understand
a person earning credibility by reciting facts which can be verified,
but not opinion. If you see the movie and agree wholeheartedly with
HAL's review, it might be reasonable to assign credibility to the chimp
when it comes to movie reviews. Or it might be reasonable to assume that
a chimp just got lucky because he is, after all, a chimp. But you hadn't
seen the movie before judging the review "intelligent,", had you?
> True...but this is what I find interesting about the internet. I like
> communicating with all sorts of different people, judging them on their words &
> not on appearances & credentials. Also, "moody" posters don't bother me. I can
> deal with fluff one minute, intellectual discourse the next & flames the minute
> after that, all from the same person. It's not a big deal to me, as I don't
> take any of this oh-so-seriously.
I know. We've tread this ground with you before. You don't take any of
this stuff seriously because...I don't know. It's the equivalent of TV?
As to your comment, you're right. HAL's words to date are, as you said
yourself, moronic. Based strictly on that, why do you assume that he's
capable of non-moronic insights?
> But what does it mean to be "rejected", if the person continues to post? It
> means nothing.
Really? If, as you're doing your daily work, your boss keeps telling you
you're an imbecile, does that mean nothing? If credible people make
judgements about your competence, if they reject you, of course that
means something. It's the same integrity/credibility issue. If you're an
artist and no-one buys your work, is that meaningless? Might it not mean
that you have no significant artistic talent? You may keep painting but
being rejected by the art community certainly defines you as an artist.
> There is
> >nothing more precious than those two qualities, Paula. And they are
> >utterly demeaned when we fail to ascertain the value of the source of
> >the miscellaneous streams of opinions cast upon the newsgroups like so
> >much debris.
>
> This is a losing battle, G*. Even if you managed to get rid of all the current
> posters whom you believe lack character & integrity, there's nothing stopping a
> whole new crop of them popping up at any point in the future.
Getting rid of posters isn't the issue, and it isn't possible. It's a
free internet. But I liken it to passing laws against child molestation,
not because it will stop those acts but they separate decency from
perversion. That's the only point.
> >Now, Paula, compare what you know of the person behind Zeph's words and
> >the person behind Hal's incessant rambling. Do you detect any
> >difference? And would you accord both of their opinions the same weight
> >and respect? Why?
>
> Of course there's a difference. But that still doesn't mean that Hal can't come
> up with a decent post every once in awhile.
See 'thousand chimps, thousand typewriters' analogy above.
> >Establish integrity and credibility first. If they refuse to be
> >established, reject and destroy the blowhard phonies
>
> Some of them appear to be indestructible.
They are never indestructible in ways that count. If you're defining
indestructible as never leaving alt.anger, that ain't it. Who cares
where they go or what they do? It's the assignment of credibility that
matters and people lacking credibility need to be marked and stamped.
That's the destruction. It doesn't matter one bit how they react. It
doesn't matter that a child molester protests the laws and the arrest.
It matters that the beast has been properly identified and labeled.
> who spout endless
> >streams of loudly shouted words as if the noisy words themselves have
> >meaning and value. They don't.
>
> I'm not on a mission here; I've no interest in controlling any part of the
> 'net. NGs are simply a form of entertainment for me.
I know, I know. Nothing matters, it's all so much fluff, nothing has any
meaning at all. It's just a sitcom. Your behavior when challenged,
especially when you're convinced you're right, contradicts your
assertion however. If nothing matters, you'd never respond to any
challenge over any issue. Yet you do. You defend yourself, you write
vigorous defenses of your positions and opinions. Obviously some of this
matters.
So what matters here and what doesn't, Paula? How do you decide?
G*
G*
>
> Paula S wrote:
> Do you really think I choose my friends by pedigree? I've dated Harvard
> men to Southern Alabama grads. I've befriended people with nothing
> higher than an 8th grade education.
Yours Truly, give or take a couple of insignificant grades.
> I've dated three members of the ANC,
This is the Ape & Negro Collective, isn't it?
> My undergraduate degree is not "Ivy", by the way, but I have a healthy
> self-esteem about it, for good reason. I expect any self-respecting
> person with a hard-earned degree in something to feel the same.
Which is really the point; the self respect one rightly earns by
accomplishing something difficult, challenging and beyond the grasp of
everyone. Zeph has conquered her disability and exceeded in matters of
intellect and passion where many with healthy bodies have not. You have
conquered the educational process, mastered it and succeeded. I don't
know what Snob has conquered but she's a damned accomplished thinker
without the need for other credentials. She demonstrates her insight and
intelligence every time she writes. I have conquered my small corner of
the business world and am rightly proud of where my focus and intensity
have taken me, while being a complete failure at formal education. It
all manifests as intelligent discourse here, on alt.anger. But the means
by which we have accomplished what many others could not also speaks to
unusual drive and desire and the need for more than the basics of life.
That too warrants a sense of pride and it is not unimportant.
> > Now this is silly! I guess my next move is to say: no it doesn't, no it
> > doesn't! You're obviously going to believe as you wish.
> >
> > P~
>
> I'm just looking for a reason for your unending protest.
> I just assumed it's because what I said bothered you.
> Why else are we here?
Which raises the question, what is the motivation for the HAL's of the
world to puke on everyone and everything, having no design, no purpose,
no objective except the act of puking? What should that represent to
everyone else? People like that are intentionally doing it in public, in
full view of others who will, by the nature of the newsgroup medium,
review it and pass judgement. Is it merely for simple attention, a
substitute for anything resembling real respect? There are many possible
reasons but the message is the same. It's an affront to human potential.
G*
p.s. Oh, yeah, I forgot to add that marveling at the size and stench of
a pile of cow shit gives value to that shit. It validates the
significance of the shit as something special and important and worthy
of consideration. From the outside, of course, it's just a really big
pile of shit. But from within, this consideration makes it an
influential force to be reckoned with.
I believe this takes care of the usual come-back. Wanted to get that out
of the way.
G*
>
> On 27 Jul 1999 13:32:16 GMT, limel...@aol.compel (Paula S) wrote:
>
> <<<<< snip >>>>>
> >No one (including me) has been discussing any of the above...seems that people
> >are more interested in pouncing on trivial crap & patting their cyberpals on
> >the backs. B-O-R-I-N-G.
> >
> >P~
>
> Paula:
>
> I agree 100%.
>
> It's ok to have an occassional pissing contest, but the current goings
> on in alt.anger have now taken the monumental proprtions of Olympic
> competition.
>
> Grouch and Fab ought to start writing again and saying things rather
> than fencing insults with new people, some of whom are welcome
> additions to alt.anger. For example, Shay and Barbie show a lot of
> promise, and even if females weren't unconditionally welcome, these
> two have something which appeals to me quite aside of my lascivious
> libido. Sid seems to have a talent for writing as well as a little
> something upstairs, and as evidenced by his "Eyes Wide Shut" report,
> he could contribute some interesting reading, if he were to get over
> the severe indigestion he seems to have developed ever since he first
> ran into Grouch, and which compells him to waste most of his efforts
> here trying to be crowned the Royal Flamer.
>
> Faustus
It's interesting to watch the various ways we all try to stake out our
ground, shape the newsgroup to suit our preferences and establish our
positions with respect to approach, style and content. I'm including
myself in this observation, by the way. But here's what's unique about
alt.anger. It's a true kind of community, unlike any other newsgroup on
the net, complete with political agendas, backstabbing, gossip, moral
indignation and outrage, all within the context of actually giving a
damn about a place that exists only electronically and in our minds. The
primary difference is that there are no real ramifications to our
behaviors. That's evident by the abandon with which we snipe at our
neighbors. At the same time, I've developed sincere respect for many of
you, often for different reasons, but respect all the same. And this
without the benefit of true personal relationships and all the
non-verbal communication dimensions they add.
With respect to the HAL issue (and many of us could list his
relatives/predecessors by name), I never do anything without a specific
purpose and objective. Never. Not once. Anything which may seem
inconsistent or contradictory always serves to meet a specific
objective. The relative value of those purposes and objectives may be
insignificant in the greater scheme of things but I do virtually nothing
without a conscious reason and goal. As for whether you care, appreciate
it, disdain it, whatever, it has never mattered to me. My reasons for
being here may or may not intersect with your own reasons and what you
think is rational, appropriate or even relevant. But the lack of social,
career or political ramifications allows a unique kind of expressive
outlet which shapes this community uniquely.
We will continue to exert whatever influence we think we have here.
That's normal human behavior. But it will never be a traditional
community with traditional roles and rules. We should stop assuming that
it is. It's unique and that uniqueness tends to invalidate our efforts
to make people behave in ways that only true peer group pressure and
social/political ramifications can. This is very different.
G*
G*
>
> Fabulana wrote:
> Fine. You were teasing/baiting/feeding Sid. Why didn't you just say so in the
> first place instead of trying to bait *me* into saying that I don't think a
> good education has value?
There's an important point here, the whole issue of reacting to others.
Merely because HAL is such a shining example of so many qualities we
classify as buffoonery, doesn't mean that anyone is reacting to HAL
because he's such a master of manipulation. HAL, the guy with the little
2001 Space movie name, is a petri dish. Because one places it under the
microscope and examines the rapid growth rate of it's fungus doesn't
mean that the petri dish, by being examined, is causing others to look
at it. The petri dish is just sitting there covered with fungus. It has
no ability to cause others to do anything. The fungus might be a
strangely mutated fungus providing an excellent example of mutation and
fungus potential, but that's about it.
G*
Paula S
>Paula S wrote:
>>
>> Fabulana wrote:
>>
>> >Carts before horses, Paula...*would* he produce it?
>>
>> I don't know if he *would*, if conditions known only to him were met, but
>the
>> fact is that he hasn't.
>
>Paula. We are going in circles. No shit, he hasn't.
>That was really the whole point.
>Sid is flying without a parachute.
Yes. And I knew that before he posted his drivel about a philosophy paper in a
file cabinet.
And so it goes....
>Not that that's new for him.
>I just felt like pointing it out. Again.
Fine. You were teasing/baiting/feeding Sid. Why didn't you just say so in the
first place instead of trying to bait *me* into saying that I don't think a
good education has value?
[snip]
>Look Paula, he's your puppy. You defend this weasel, but you know
>perfectly well he isn't a credible source for anything.
>He issues countless abusive statements, which you apparently overlook as
>"opinions".
Nah...I'm starting to think he's a spewbot.
> I hold him to account for his spew
>and you scream, no fair, Sid has a right to privacy. Whatever.
>What he puts out for public consumption (his college glory days)
>is fair game as far as I am concerned.
Okey-dokey. And next time any of you "veteran" pirates announces that it's time
to stop feeding the latest troll, I will smile knowingly.
>> But
>> >you know, Sid would never let that happen. Then he would lose his edgy
>> >superiority to the rest of us. He'd have to float back down to earth and
>> >join the ordinary mortals here below, people who do real things, whether
>> >it's collect beanie babies or meet their birth mothers or get G.E.D.'s
>> >or master's degrees or run homes or manage personnel at big companies.
>> >Real people. Much more interesting in the long run than mylar
>> >personalities like Sid.
>>
>> I agree with this too.
>
>That was all you had to "get" Paula.
>That's the point.
Yeah, but I "got" it much earlier than you did, it appears, since by the time
you posted your school question to Sid, I had already dismissed him (his later
movie review notwithstanding).
>> >> Would you then resume
>> >> debating his "points"?
>> >
>> >I have to agree with G*, that you aren't seeing below the surface on
>> >this one.
>>
>> This is right off Roy's link..."I'm not going to bother explaining it to
>*you*
>> because you obviously don't get it." Ha ha.
>
>Look at all the bandwidth I've expended trying to explain it to you,
>Paula.
Well, whose fault is that, Fab? All you had to do, if you were inclined to
explain, was to say (1) that you wanted to bait Sid, & (2) you wanted to make
absolutely sure one last time that he was indeed an insubstantial buffoon.
But as I said earlier...YOU WIN! Here, I'll knock over my king to make it
official....
*clonk*
P~
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote
>
> >Paula S wrote:
> >>
> >> Fabulana wrote:
> >>
> >> >vaguely several times), it is open for interrogation. That's how it
> >> >works. And, needless to say, you seem to have jumped to some conclusion
> >> >about what my reaction would necessarily be to such information. Don't
> >> >assume you can predict my next move.
> >>
> >> I haven't jumped, Fab. I am curious about what your reaction would have
> >been if
> >> Sid had been forthcoming about his education, & if it would have made any
> >> difference to how you treated him whether he claimed an Ivy League degree,
> >a
> >> second-tier school degree & so on.
> >
> >Ok, Paula. Since you insist on beating this dead horse, I'll give you
> >what you obviously want to hear.
> >
> >"Oh, if Sid produced an Ivy League degree, I'd just love him to death!
> >His merit would shoot up in my eyes! Everything he would shit would be
> >gold!"
> >
> >Is that really what you're expecting?
> >
> >How about this:
> >
> >"Oh, well, if Sid went to Valley Tech, I'd feel just that much more
> >justified in looking down on him!"
>
> I gotcha, Fab. You're right; I'm wrong.
I must admit I don't even know what you are right/wrong about.
I don't know what you're getting at, Paula.
What is it that you are saying, in the end?
That you think it is wrong, period, to ask people to back up what they
say with facts? I respectfully disagree. Or only wrong to ask sidiots to
do so? Or only if those facts include a formal education? I disagree on
both counts. You claim there is some analogy here to other posts in
alt.b, but I respectfully disagree with you there as well. Just my
opinion, I guess.
Is it something else? Well, spell it out for me.
I'm just not getting it. I can't nail down the actual controversy here,
though you have broadcast your discomfort loud and clear.
Barbie says I'm arrogant.
Shay says I've hurt your feelings.
Well, is that so? Does that explain why you keep on ticking in this
debate, if only to shrug loudly? Am I supposed to be somehow to blame
for that? You think Barbie is a fair interlocutor, but I am not?
Well, I think I am nothing if not absolutely even-handed.
Much more consistent, serious, and fair (note, I didn't say intelligent)
than she is.
Naturally you may disagree, which is, I take it, what you are doing.
However, your shrugging speaks louder than all your protests that you
don't care at all about what happens here. I think you do care if I take
you seriously. But that's just me. I could be way out in left field
here.
> Everything you write is absolutely
> perfect & wonderful & must never, ever, ever be questioned or criticized.
Everything I write, like everything everybody writes, is open for
contestation. That means, naturally, that I get to reply by backing up
my points again and again as often as they are challenged, as well as I
am able. Just because you contest does not mean I will concede, though I
will if I see grounds for it.
Oh yes...that Fabulana just shuns controversy. *g*
> >Do you really think I choose my friends by pedigree? I've dated Harvard
> >men to Southern Alabama grads. I've befriended people with nothing
> >higher than an 8th grade education. I've dated three members of the ANC,
> >which is just an interesting sidenote to my dating history, if nothing
> >else. One of them is an ambassador now. Other dates have worked blue
> >collar jobs. These facts are not limiting factors, but they are
> >interesting real life facts about any individual's experience.
>
> Yes, dear. Whatever you say.
You think not, I guess? Well, Paula, this is your issue. You raised it.
Have at it.
> >My undergraduate degree is not "Ivy", by the way, but I have a healthy
> >self-esteem about it, for good reason. I expect any self-respecting
> >person with a hard-earned degree in something to feel the same.
> >
> >The college thing was what is known as BAIT, my dear Paula.
>
> But we weren't supposed to bait...oh, nevermind.
Oh nevermind, indeed. For whatever reason, you use a lot of "supposed
to"'s. I think you have some serious issues with rules and authority,
either that or a serious lack of irony.
> Yes, of course, Zombiemaster,
> I hear & agree.
Ripping off my lines again! Tsk, tsk.
Don't tell me Barbiefever is catching.
> >Not trolling bait, unless you mean trolling to discover relevance.
> >I like to challenge people to discover their relevance.
> >Beneath the flirting, the fluff, and whathaveyou.
> >
> >> But it's all moot, as he doesn't seem to be inclined to post any personal
> >info.
> >
> >NOW you've got it. That's it. The gist.
> >The secret of my moves.
> >I see that you get it now.
See. I was being so giving. Sniff sniff.
So inclusive. So understanding. Emote.
The good newsgroup Mom I'm supposed to be.
And you missed out on it. Darn.
> >> >> >Why does it bother you to know that I have a degree in African-American
> >> >> >studies? How does this change anything?
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't bother me at all & it changes nothing.
> >> >
> >> >It bothers you, it bothers you! That I actually implied that having a
> >> >degree from a good school means anything! Otherwise, why are we having
> >> >this discussion?
> >>
> >> Now this is silly! I guess my next move is to say: no it doesn't, no it
> >> doesn't! You're obviously going to believe as you wish.
> >>
> >> P~
> >
> >I'm just looking for a reason for your unending protest.
> >I just assumed it's because what I said bothered you.
> >Why else are we here?
>
> Because you must have the last word & be declared the winner?
>
> Listen up, angerites...Fab wins another NG snipefest! Hooray! Please give her
> kudos (or Hershey bars) as appropriate.
>
> P~
You raised the issue. Did you want a serious response, or a feel-good
concession? Can you hold up your end of the conversation, now that you
started it, or is it all going to end with a shrug and a Hershey bar?
It really doesn't matter to me. It was your issue.
I can repeat my well thought through position until the cows come home,
if you so desire. Or not.
Is it about "winning"? Well, what did I win, then?
I want my prize.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Paula S wrote:
> >
> > Fabulana wrote:
> >
Hoho, this I gotta see.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >Paula S wrote:
> >>
> >> Fabulana wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't know if he *would*, if conditions known only to him were met, but
> >the
> >> fact is that he hasn't.
> >
> >Paula. We are going in circles. No shit, he hasn't.
> >That was really the whole point.
> >Sid is flying without a parachute.
>
> Yes. And I knew that before he posted his drivel about a philosophy paper in a
> file cabinet.
So what was your objection again to my stabbing Sid where it hurts?
I'll just never understand this. And what is with your whole "what if"
routine, if you understood perfectly well, as I did, that the chances of
a credible answer were close to nil?
> And so it goes....
>
> >Not that that's new for him.
> >I just felt like pointing it out. Again.
>
> Fine. You were teasing/baiting/feeding Sid. Why didn't you just say so in the
> first place instead of trying to bait *me* into saying that I don't think a
> good education has value?
I never bait you, Paula.
> [snip]
> >Look Paula, he's your puppy. You defend this weasel, but you know
> >perfectly well he isn't a credible source for anything.
> >He issues countless abusive statements, which you apparently overlook as
> >"opinions".
>
> Nah...I'm starting to think he's a spewbot.
Then you're starting to think.
> > I hold him to account for his spew
> >and you scream, no fair, Sid has a right to privacy. Whatever.
> >What he puts out for public consumption (his college glory days)
> >is fair game as far as I am concerned.
>
> Okey-dokey. And next time any of you "veteran" pirates announces that it's time
> to stop feeding the latest troll, I will smile knowingly.
But you would have to "know" what we are talking about to smile
knowingly. You can believe in your mind that what I was doing bore some
remote resemblance to the way you let the Lizard play you like a
harmonica, but the facts are otherwise. If you don't grasp that, oh
well.
> >> But
> >> >you know, Sid would never let that happen. Then he would lose his edgy
> >> >superiority to the rest of us. He'd have to float back down to earth and
> >> >join the ordinary mortals here below, people who do real things, whether
> >> >it's collect beanie babies or meet their birth mothers or get G.E.D.'s
> >> >or master's degrees or run homes or manage personnel at big companies.
> >> >Real people. Much more interesting in the long run than mylar
> >> >personalities like Sid.
> >>
> >> I agree with this too.
> >
> >That was all you had to "get" Paula.
> >That's the point.
>
> Yeah, but I "got" it much earlier than you did, it appears, since by the time
> you posted your school question to Sid, I had already dismissed him (his later
> movie review notwithstanding).
Paula, your position on Sid is bearing the strain of serious internal
contradictions. I think it might explode at any time now.
> >> >> Would you then resume
> >> >> debating his "points"?
> >> >
> >> >I have to agree with G*, that you aren't seeing below the surface on
> >> >this one.
> >>
> >> This is right off Roy's link..."I'm not going to bother explaining it to
> >*you*
> >> because you obviously don't get it." Ha ha.
> >
> >Look at all the bandwidth I've expended trying to explain it to you,
> >Paula.
>
> Well, whose fault is that, Fab? All you had to do, if you were inclined to
> explain, was to say (1) that you wanted to bait Sid, & (2) you wanted to make
> absolutely sure one last time that he was indeed an insubstantial buffoon.
That's not exactly how I would put it, Paula.
But I won't rehash it again, you've seen it.
> But as I said earlier...YOU WIN! Here, I'll knock over my king to make it
> official....
>
> *clonk*
>
> P~
But I want your QUEEN...*g*
F*
Paula S
>Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
>were off base?
Hmm, now if I say X, will you then state, "No, Paula, you *are* X, & now you're
being defensive too"?
I guess if I thought there was something to "win" here, I would say
nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
Awhile ago you stated that because I missed some "nuance" of a post (don't
remember whose post it was), you were able to conclude that in "real life" I am
constantly missing nuances of things around me. This is not only untrue, but
it's almost the opposite of what is...one of my problems, frankly, is that I am
*consumed* with nuances of things going on around me & need to be less focused
upon them in order to become more productive.
Now, I don't intend to argue this with you, G*...if you want to believe that
you, who have never met me, know better because of what I write here on the
newsgroup, then that's fine.
This is just one example...to get more, I'd have to muck around through
months-old threads in order to avoid misquoting anyone...& I doubt I'm going to
be in the mood to waste hours doing that anytime soon.
P~
Paula S
>> Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
>> were off base?
>>
>
>Hoho, this I gotta see.
Why do you say that, Fab?
In any case, I did respond to G*'s post & gave an example...so now you two can
have fun telling me how wrong I am & how you know me better than I know myself.
P~
Paula S
>It's a replay of the old idea that a thousand chimps typing at a
>thousand typewriters would eventually produce the complete works of
>Shakespeare. They'll also produce other legible sentences and
>paragraphs. But how can you know what has value and what doesn't? How
>can you judge an opinion intelligent or worthwhile when you know that
>the source is a chimp? In the case of a movie review, are you going to
>assume that the insights and opinions are valuable merely because
>they're legible? Would you see a movie based on a literate review
>written by a chimp?
Why does it bother *you* so much that I found Sid's movie review interesting?
What is at stake here? Say I go to the movie now & decide that Sid's review was
all wrong...so what?
>> >There are two fundamental concepts that override all other issues.
>> >First, credibility, defined as the "capacity of being believed. Worthy
>> >of being believed." Are all opinions of equal value merely because they
>> >exist? No. An opinion is only as valuable as the credibility of the
>> >opinion holder. What gives a person credibility? Evidence of character
>> >and integrity. That's our second key word; integrity. "Uprightness of
>> >character; honesty. Unimpaired state; soundness. completeness."
>>
>> *rolls eyes* Yeah, okay Mr. Pirate, hater of fat women & nose-blowing.
>
>Your comment doesn't make sense in context. Care to elaborate?
Sure...while I find plenty of your posts to be interesting, thought-provoking &
sometimes funny...I cannot take them 100% seriously because of the other kind
of posts you make, namely, the rant against nose-blowing & the diatribes
against fat women. Now, since I don't know you as well as some others here do,
I don't know if you truly do want to shove ice picks into fat women, or if you
simply say things like that to stir up newsgroup activity when you're bored. In
either case, it reduces your credibility to me.
>> I don't need to determine someone's character & integrity quotient before
>> reading a movie review, G*. A new poster could come along a minute from now
>&
>> post a review...& I would be able to judge it interesting or not for myself
>> without knowing anything else about the poster.
>
>How could you possibly give credibility to a movie review when you know
>the source has no credibility in other matters? Will you make the
>assumption that the moron or chimp offering the review suddenly had a
>flash of genuine human insight merely because the reviewer strings words
>together effectively? I don't understand that at all. I could understand
>a person earning credibility by reciting facts which can be verified,
>but not opinion. If you see the movie and agree wholeheartedly with
>HAL's review, it might be reasonable to assign credibility to the chimp
>when it comes to movie reviews. Or it might be reasonable to assume that
>a chimp just got lucky because he is, after all, a chimp. But you hadn't
>seen the movie before judging the review "intelligent,", had you?
G*, I read movie & book reviews every week by people of whom I have not heard
previously (or whose names I've forgotten). I can judge them interesting or not
on the spot without knowing more about the reviewers. Of course a reviewer is
more credible to me if I'm familiar with some of his/her previous reviews &
found them on-target, but I don't limit myself to reading only those reviewers.
If I did that, I'd miss checking out some good material, plus even a reviewer
with whom I've agreed many times in the past could still be way off-base in the
next thing s/he writes.
OTOH, I do know "more" about Sid...I know that he dumps bunches of dreck onto
this newsgroup. Does it necessarily follow that he cannot possibly be a good
judge of movies? Not to me.
>> True...but this is what I find interesting about the internet. I like
>> communicating with all sorts of different people, judging them on their
>words &
>> not on appearances & credentials. Also, "moody" posters don't bother me. I
>can
>> deal with fluff one minute, intellectual discourse the next & flames the
>minute
>> after that, all from the same person. It's not a big deal to me, as I don't
>> take any of this oh-so-seriously.
>
>I know. We've tread this ground with you before. You don't take any of
>this stuff seriously because...I don't know. It's the equivalent of TV?
I wouldn't say that...to me it's much more engaging than TV because of the
interactive aspect. But you don't take it that seriously either, right? Didn't
you say once that you missed some posts, but wouldn't get a new ISP because
this wasn't worth any bother?
>As to your comment, you're right. HAL's words to date are, as you said
>yourself, moronic. Based strictly on that, why do you assume that he's
>capable of non-moronic insights?
Because I found the review interesting, G*, that's why. There's no logical
proof here.
>> But what does it mean to be "rejected", if the person continues to post? It
>> means nothing.
>
>Really? If, as you're doing your daily work, your boss keeps telling you
>you're an imbecile, does that mean nothing? If credible people make
>judgements about your competence, if they reject you, of course that
>means something. It's the same integrity/credibility issue. If you're an
>artist and no-one buys your work, is that meaningless? Might it not mean
>that you have no significant artistic talent? You may keep painting but
>being rejected by the art community certainly defines you as an artist.
But what about his imaginary friends? *L*
Yes, of course I see what you're saying, but he still keeps shoving his
paintings in our faces anyway. The rejection doesn't appear to mean anything to
him, & in fact seemed to spur him on to greater heights of...dreck.
[snip]
>> I'm not on a mission here; I've no interest in controlling any part of the
>> 'net. NGs are simply a form of entertainment for me.
>
>I know, I know. Nothing matters, it's all so much fluff, nothing has any
>meaning at all. It's just a sitcom. Your behavior when challenged,
>especially when you're convinced you're right, contradicts your
>assertion however. If nothing matters, you'd never respond to any
>challenge over any issue. Yet you do. You defend yourself, you write
>vigorous defenses of your positions and opinions. Obviously some of this
>matters.
>
>So what matters here and what doesn't, Paula? How do you decide?
The concept matters to me as a form of entertainment...obviously I enjoy it, or
I would have given it up. As far as specific threads are concerned, certain
issues are important to me, but it doesn't matter to me if someone "trumps"
what I thought was a sound argument...I don't think there is anything to "win"
here.
That doesn't mean that I think there's nothing of value here either. I often
find value in reading other's words; for example, Fab's discussion of Backtalk
has inspired me to find that book and read it. I probably wouldn't have known
about Backtalk if I hadn't read Fab's post, as I haven't been interested in the
"childcare" section for quite some time.
Perhaps having small children around me much of the time has made me aware that
having the last word is unimportant...I say what I say, sometimes defend it for
a bit if I'm in the mood, sometimes not, & that's good enough.
P~
Paula S
>I must admit I don't even know what you are right/wrong about.
>I don't know what you're getting at, Paula.
>What is it that you are saying, in the end?
Pretty much the same thing as I was saying at the beginning: that it was
pointless to ask Sid about his education.
>That you think it is wrong, period, to ask people to back up what they
>say with facts?
I'm not saying that.
>I respectfully disagree. Or only wrong to ask sidiots to
>do so?
After it's clear that Sid=idiot, it's pointless to ask. I'm not saying it's
"wrong", morally or otherwise, just pointless.
>Or only if those facts include a formal education? I disagree on
>both counts. You claim there is some analogy here to other posts in
>alt.b, but I respectfully disagree with you there as well. Just my
>opinion, I guess.
K.
>Is it something else? Well, spell it out for me.
>I'm just not getting it. I can't nail down the actual controversy here,
>though you have broadcast your discomfort loud and clear.
I guess I didn't like the direction in which you appeared to be going with the
"which school" comment.
>Barbie says I'm arrogant.
>Shay says I've hurt your feelings.
>Well, is that so?
My feelings *have* been hurt here, although not recently, but I don't think
that matters. I don't use my "feelings" as a weapon to try to bully (not saying
it would work either) people into apologizing or changing their views on
things. I hate people who do that.
>Does that explain why you keep on ticking in this
>debate, if only to shrug loudly? Am I supposed to be somehow to blame
>for that? You think Barbie is a fair interlocutor, but I am not?
I never said either thing.
>Well, I think I am nothing if not absolutely even-handed.
>Much more consistent, serious, and fair (note, I didn't say intelligent)
>than she is.
>
>Naturally you may disagree, which is, I take it, what you are doing.
>However, your shrugging speaks louder than all your protests that you
>don't care at all about what happens here.
Well, after you answered my question in such a silly way, there was nothing to
do *but* shrug.
>I think you do care if I take
>you seriously. But that's just me. I could be way out in left field
>here.
I enjoy communicating with you, Fab. I would consider the cessation of such to
be a loss, no matter the circumstances. Just because we don't appear to be
making much progress understanding each other over one thing, doesn't mean I
won't continue to try in other areas.
>> >Do you really think I choose my friends by pedigree? I've dated Harvard
>> >men to Southern Alabama grads. I've befriended people with nothing
>> >higher than an 8th grade education. I've dated three members of the ANC,
>> >which is just an interesting sidenote to my dating history, if nothing
>> >else. One of them is an ambassador now. Other dates have worked blue
>> >collar jobs. These facts are not limiting factors, but they are
>> >interesting real life facts about any individual's experience.
>>
>> Yes, dear. Whatever you say.
>
>You think not, I guess? Well, Paula, this is your issue. You raised it.
>Have at it.
*This* isn't my issue. My issue was much narrower. I have been enjoying this NG
the way it is; I didn't want the focus of it to change into people slapping
"credentials" upon a table.
Now, of course some people will think that this is so because *I* don't have
decent credentials & am "jEaLOuS"...but that's their problem.
>> >My undergraduate degree is not "Ivy", by the way, but I have a healthy
>> >self-esteem about it, for good reason. I expect any self-respecting
>> >person with a hard-earned degree in something to feel the same.
>> >
>> >The college thing was what is known as BAIT, my dear Paula.
>>
>> But we weren't supposed to bait...oh, nevermind.
>
>Oh nevermind, indeed. For whatever reason, you use a lot of "supposed
>to"'s. I think you have some serious issues with rules and authority,
>either that or a serious lack of irony.
Maybe so.
[snip]
>> >NOW you've got it. That's it. The gist.
>> >The secret of my moves.
>> >I see that you get it now.
>
>See. I was being so giving. Sniff sniff.
>So inclusive. So understanding. Emote.
>The good newsgroup Mom I'm supposed to be.
>And you missed out on it. Darn.
Responding to that didn't go with the tone of my overall response. I'm very OC
that way.
>You raised the issue. Did you want a serious response, or a feel-good
>concession? Can you hold up your end of the conversation, now that you
>started it, or is it all going to end with a shrug and a Hershey bar?
I did hold up my end of it...to my own satisfaction at least. And that's good
enough for me.
>It really doesn't matter to me. It was your issue.
>I can repeat my well thought through position until the cows come home,
>if you so desire. Or not.
>Is it about "winning"? Well, what did I win, then?
>I want my prize.
It seemed important to you to state your position until I ceased to respond
with anything further. So, your prize is having the honor of the last
substantive post on the thread.
P~
Paula S
>So what was your objection again to my stabbing Sid where it hurts?
Explained in another post this morning.
>I'll just never understand this. And what is with your whole "what if"
>routine, if you understood perfectly well, as I did, that the chances of
>a credible answer were close to nil?
Just curiosity regarding the hypothetical. Interest in what *you* would say,
Fab, not in whomever we were using as an example.
[snip]
>> Okey-dokey. And next time any of you "veteran" pirates announces that it's
>time
>> to stop feeding the latest troll, I will smile knowingly.
>
>But you would have to "know" what we are talking about to smile
>knowingly. You can believe in your mind that what I was doing bore some
>remote resemblance to the way you let the Lizard play you like a
>harmonica, but the facts are otherwise. If you don't grasp that, oh
>well.
Grrrr...you're mentioning the Lizard. Okay, I'm calm.
Did it ever occur to you that June & I were baiting *him*, using his name over
& over again to get him to show up so that we could "play" with him? We did it
on several groups, & he chose to engage here.
You say he "played" me, which is true...but I *wanted* to play. I played him
too, knew what to say to get him going on his "pet" issues. I even hoped to be
able to get into it with his little friend (Lana) who showed up briefly to
"poke" him, but she scurried away too quickly.
Now, I grant that it's reasonable to ask why I wanted to do these things...& I
don't have a good answer, or any answer, for that other than that it was
mindless fun for me.
I did stop, when asked oh-so-politely ;-) by Grouch...because of my
inexplicable gravitation toward "structure", I guess.
Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get a further explanation from June, since she
posted elsewhere that she unsubbed from alt.anger.
>Paula, your position on Sid is bearing the strain of serious internal
>contradictions. I think it might explode at any time now.
<checking> Nope! Still okay, Fab.
>> But as I said earlier...YOU WIN! Here, I'll knock over my king to make it
>> official....
>>
>> *clonk*
>>
>> P~
>
>But I want your QUEEN...*g*
*LOL*
P~
Fabulana
>
> Grrrr...you're mentioning the Lizard. Okay, I'm calm.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that June & I were baiting *him*, using his name over
> & over again to get him to show up so that we could "play" with him?
You mean, be played by him. You and June were simpler than a penny
whistle.
> We did it
> on several groups, & he chose to engage here.
>
> You say he "played" me, which is true...but I *wanted* to play.
Apparently so, yes.
> I played him
> too, knew what to say to get him going on his "pet" issues. I even hoped to be
> able to get into it with his little friend (Lana) who showed up briefly to
> "poke" him, but she scurried away too quickly.
>
> Now, I grant that it's reasonable to ask why I wanted to do these things...& I
> don't have a good answer, or any answer, for that other than that it was
> mindless fun for me.
I guess all are in agreement there.
F*
scumb...@my-deja.com
> Now, I will wait for the inevitable post about how someone's
perception of you
> doesn't count if they're not sufficiently self-aware themselves,
blah, blah.
I kind of dig the "I know what you're going to say so go ahead. It
can't hurt me!" thing. You might want to stick that lower lip back in.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
scumb...@my-deja.com
used to get as juvenile as we wanted around here, but someone decided
that it was time to get serious. What bullshit.
As far as the school of philosophy thing, Paula, looks like a
misunderstanding.
And Barbie does appear to be a twat.
> >Paula S wrote :
> >>I mean that when Sid mentioned that he had taken a class in
philosophy, you
> >>demanded, "Which school? That makes all the difference." At the
time I
> >thought
> >
> >You know, I thought she meant school of philosophy, but I rarely
ever follow
> >a Sid thread.
>
> Not that there's anything wrong with that!
>
> >>Well, it wouldn't be my style to storm into a place & announce that
I was
> >>smarter than everyone...but then again there are lots of "styles"
around
> >here
> >>that are very dissimilar to mine.
> >
> >You know what I admire about you...er, not that you need my
admiration? I
> >admire the fact that you actually listen and incorporate what goes
on around
> >you. I admire that you can learn, if need be, with grace and
dignity. I
> >also admire the tenacity you show without sinking to flippant insult.
>
> Thank you, Snob.
>
> [snip]
> >Well, Paula, G* actually talked about that later with Shay(?) when
he said
> >that people should do as they chose to without approval from him.
(But you
> >know that already.)
>
> Well, I was trying to be respectful of the "elders" of the
group...but now I've
> decided the hell with that.
>
> >You and I both know that we are not only free to reply to people
LIKE Sid,
> >but we should do as our conscious guides us. I don't think that G*
really
> >expected us to follow suit, but we shouldn't dance on any strings
for Sid.
> >
> >I remember when that horrifyingly retched (lizard?) cretin followed
you here
> >from a.c.b.b. My take on that was you responded to any hot button he
> >posted. I could very well be mistaken, as you say, styles are
different and
> >various in here.
>
> No, you're not mistaken. I would have gone on trading insults with
the scaly
> one forever if G* hadn't intervened.
>
> [snip]
> >>My original post on this thread wasn't all about you, Fab.
By "trivial
> >crap" I
> >>meant, for example, G*s criticizing someone for posting juvenile
> >insults...then
> >>calling Barbie a twat.
> >
> >Oh, but I giggled when I read that.
>
> Me too! But that's the flip side of my point in a way...sometimes the
juvenile
> insults are entertaining to read, whether they're posted by G* or
by...someone
> else.
>
> [snip]
> >Yeah, but Paula, you can find the silver lining in any
cloud...right? I
> >mean, you turn junk into treasure.
>
> Et tu, Snob? That's right, make fun of my poor, defenseless beanie
babies. ;-)
>
> P~
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >I must admit I don't even know what you are right/wrong about.
> >I don't know what you're getting at, Paula.
> >What is it that you are saying, in the end?
>
> Pretty much the same thing as I was saying at the beginning: that it was
> pointless to ask Sid about his education.
I'm not going to justify the "pointfulness" of my actions anymore.
I think we've exhausted that topic.
> >That you think it is wrong, period, to ask people to back up what they
> >say with facts?
>
> I'm not saying that.
>
> >I respectfully disagree. Or only wrong to ask sidiots to
> >do so?
>
> After it's clear that Sid=idiot, it's pointless to ask. I'm not saying it's
> "wrong", morally or otherwise, just pointless.
You are plainly inconsistent Paula, but to your credit, you do appear to
know that.
> >> >Do you really think I choose my friends by pedigree? I've dated Harvard
> >> >men to Southern Alabama grads. I've befriended people with nothing
> >> >higher than an 8th grade education. I've dated three members of the ANC,
> >> >which is just an interesting sidenote to my dating history, if nothing
> >> >else. One of them is an ambassador now. Other dates have worked blue
> >> >collar jobs. These facts are not limiting factors, but they are
> >> >interesting real life facts about any individual's experience.
> >>
> >> Yes, dear. Whatever you say.
> >
> >You think not, I guess? Well, Paula, this is your issue. You raised it.
> >Have at it.
>
> *This* isn't my issue. My issue was much narrower. I have been enjoying this NG
> the way it is; I didn't want the focus of it to change into people slapping
> "credentials" upon a table.
Here's where you get inconsistent again. There is credentialing, as an
activity (which didn't happen, IMO), and there are credentials, which
really exist. You've admitted that already. How is talking about things
that really exist and make a difference in human experience about
slapping meat on a table? And what the hell, if it is? If it really is
meat, it's good to eat.
I really have known people who were filmmakers, Harvard grads, members
of the African (!) National Congress, farmworkers, former drug addicts,
theater directors, and prostitutes. Why would any of that be irrelevant
to understanding individuals and the range of human experience?
> Now, of course some people will think that this is so because *I* don't have
> decent credentials & am "jEaLOuS"...but that's their problem.
I don't see you as jealous, but I do see you as infected with a false
sense of egalitarianism. What a nasty thing to say, huh? I'm so bad.
*wink to the pink set*
> >> >My undergraduate degree is not "Ivy", by the way, but I have a healthy
> >> >self-esteem about it, for good reason. I expect any self-respecting
> >> >person with a hard-earned degree in something to feel the same.
> >> >
> >> >The college thing was what is known as BAIT, my dear Paula.
> >>
> >> But we weren't supposed to bait...oh, nevermind.
> >
> >Oh nevermind, indeed. For whatever reason, you use a lot of "supposed
> >to"'s. I think you have some serious issues with rules and authority,
> >either that or a serious lack of irony.
>
> Maybe so.
>
> [snip]
> >> >NOW you've got it. That's it. The gist.
> >> >The secret of my moves.
> >> >I see that you get it now.
> >
> >See. I was being so giving. Sniff sniff.
> >So inclusive. So understanding. Emote.
> >The good newsgroup Mom I'm supposed to be.
> >And you missed out on it. Darn.
>
> Responding to that didn't go with the tone of my overall response. I'm very OC
> that way.
I don't know what "OC" means, Paula.
Whatever you are, you should spell it out for the English-speaking
crowd.
Just as an aside, aren't there ever ambiguities of tone within a single
post? I find that happening often. To deal with each utterance on its
merits often requires a different tone in different parts of a post.
> >You raised the issue. Did you want a serious response, or a feel-good
> >concession? Can you hold up your end of the conversation, now that you
> >started it, or is it all going to end with a shrug and a Hershey bar?
>
> I did hold up my end of it...to my own satisfaction at least. And that's good
> enough for me.
Well, then you can sleep well at night, can't you?
Don't get ensconced in a false sense of self-sufficiency, Paula.
None of us are islands of our own relevance.
Persuading others really does matter in this world.
Unless all you care about is a good night's sleep.
> >It really doesn't matter to me. It was your issue.
> >I can repeat my well thought through position until the cows come home,
> >if you so desire. Or not.
> >Is it about "winning"? Well, what did I win, then?
> >I want my prize.
>
> It seemed important to you to state your position until I ceased to respond
> with anything further.
That seems to be the nature of discourse. One keeps coming up with
effective arguments until the opposition fails to keep pace by
presenting effective counter-arguments, or one concedes to the more
persuasive opponent. Or one stalemates, retreats to think about matters
some more, or seeks some other form of non-resolution. Were you simply
losing your effectiveness, Paula? *w*
> So, your prize is having the honor of the last
> substantive post on the thread.
>
> P~
There's no such thing as a last post to a good substantive thread, for
the reason that such threads tend to morph and multiply in many
different directions. I don't know why you've resisted my lead in taking
this topic into further directions as well. I've certainly met your
"focus" requirement for dealing with the narrower issue of what I said
and why, albeit not conforming to your version to your satisfaction. But
you and I can live with that, can't we Paula?
F*
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
Paula, this shrugging and self-pitying attitude of yours is getting to
be no fun at all.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Grouch wrote:
>
> >Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
> >were off base?
>
> being defensive too"?
Stick to the topic, which you raised, by offering a concrete example.
Trying to wiggle out of the LIMElight with hypotheticals just gives you
a sickly green pallor.
> I guess if I thought there was something to "win" here, I would say
> nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
That makes no sense. Go away if you think the conversations mean
"nothing". This nonchalant pose of yours
has become very boring all of a sudden.
> This is just one example...to get more, I'd have to muck around through
> months-old threads in order to avoid misquoting anyone...& I doubt I'm going to
> be in the mood to waste hours doing that anytime soon.
>
> P~
You should've thought of this before you brought it up.
Cough up, or shut up.
F*
Paula S
>Paula S wrote:
>>
>> Grouch wrote:
>>
>> >Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
>> >were off base?
>>
>> Hmm, now if I say X, will you then state, "No, Paula, you *are* X, & now
>you're
>> being defensive too"?
>
>Stick to the topic, which you raised, by offering a concrete example.
I did, but for some inexplicable reason, you cut it out of your reply.
>Trying to wiggle out of the LIMElight with hypotheticals just gives you
>a sickly green pallor.
This from someone who thinks it's unfair to start personal diatribe.
>> I guess if I thought there was something to "win" here, I would say
>> nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
>
>That makes no sense. Go away if you think the conversations mean
>"nothing". This nonchalant pose of yours
>has become very boring all of a sudden.
I'm not "going away", & I didn't say the conversations here mean nothing. I
said if there was something to *win*, then I would *say* nothing. Surely you
can see the difference between what I wrote & what you assumed.
If you're bored with me, that's your problem. Entertain thyself, Fab.
>> This is just one example...to get more, I'd have to muck around through
>> months-old threads in order to avoid misquoting anyone...& I doubt I'm
>going to
>> be in the mood to waste hours doing that anytime soon.
>>
>> P~
>
>You should've thought of this before you brought it up.
I did. I had an example, which I posted, & which you cut out. I am trying to
give you the benefit of the doubt here, but it's difficult to imagine why,
other than being childishly petty, you would do that.
>Cough up, or shut up.
Once again...I had an example. You must have missed it. Try reading more
carefully.
P~
Paula S
>Paula, this shrugging and self-pitying attitude of yours is getting to
>be no fun at all.
Entertain thyself.
P~
Barbie
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >Paula S wrote:
> >>
> >> Grouch wrote:
> >>
> >> >Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
> >> >were off base?
> >You should've thought of this before you brought it up.
>
> I did. I had an example, which I posted, & which you cut out. I am trying to
> give you the benefit of the doubt here, but it's difficult to imagine why,
> other than being childishly petty, you would do that.
How about stupidity and dishonesty?
Barbie
Paula S
>Paula S wrote:
>>
>> Grrrr...you're mentioning the Lizard. Okay, I'm calm.
>>
>> Did it ever occur to you that June & I were baiting *him*, using his name
>over
>> & over again to get him to show up so that we could "play" with him?
>
>You mean, be played by him. You and June were simpler than a penny
>whistle.
Actually, Fab, I said exactly what I did mean.
P~
Barbie
That's a very intelligent post, Grouch. Glad to see that your mind is
on the mend.
Barbie
Barbie
>
> Paula S wrote:
> >
> > Fabulana wrote:
>
> > first place instead of trying to bait *me* into saying that I don't think a
> > good education has value?
>
> Merely because HAL is such a shining example of so many qualities we
> classify as buffoonery, doesn't mean that anyone is reacting to HAL
> because he's such a master of manipulation. HAL, the guy with the little
> 2001 Space movie name, is a petri dish. Because one places it under the
> microscope and examines the rapid growth rate of it's fungus doesn't
> mean that the petri dish, by being examined, is causing others to look
> at it. The petri dish is just sitting there covered with fungus. It has
> no ability to cause others to do anything. The fungus might be a
> strangely mutated fungus providing an excellent example of mutation and
> fungus potential, but that's about it.
>
> G*
You know Grouchiepoo, it struck me while reading this post that you and
SID have remarkably similar writing styles. Oh, I could do without his
run on sentences and the silly self agrandizement, and with relatively
rare exceptions, your own writing is commendably devoid of that stuff.
But if you can get past the form and look at the substance, you both
have fairly similar views of women, you both have a penchant for
hyperbole, and you both like to use big, bold, forceful, thrusting,
manly images in your writing.
Now I'm new here, and contrary to some person's opinion, I have spent
all of 30 seconds on deja news looking up posts for this group, and only
because a certain silly little girl wanted to play a guessing game. So,
I am asking a question now, out of curiosity, and you should not jump to
any "tendentious" conclusions, sweetheart:
Is it possible that you and SID are both such big, bold, forceful,
thrusting, manly, men that when the two of you are on the same newsgroup
it's just too much bigness, boldness, forcefulness, manliness, and
thrusting in too confining a space, and you are compelled to burst into
swordplay? {Oooh I'm getting goosebumps thinking about all this
manliness!}
Please let me know, sugar.
Barbie
Barbie
>
> I don't know when the pirated newsgroups became all grown up anyway. We
> used to get as juvenile as we wanted around here, but someone decided
> that it was time to get serious. What bullshit.
> As far as the school of philosophy thing, Paula, looks like a
> misunderstanding.
> And Barbie does appear to be a twat.
>
What a relief, bucket. I was really getting worried you'd say the F word
again, or, worse, something . . . interesting (to an intelligent
lifeform, that is). I guess I can relax now and get back to being pink
and having fun, as intended.
BTW you really scared me a lot with your cursing and your insults. Yeah.
A lot, sweetiepie.
Barbie
G*
Babs,
Do you have anything to say or are you just writing to see your own
words plastered across the screen? You have the cutsey pinky girly thong
thing and you have really bizarre observations which come completely out
of left field. Is there a point to your being here? Is this just a way
to kill time while the TV dinner is cooking in the microwave?
G*
Barbie
grouchie poo
It's cutesy, not cutsey.
Barbie
PS I know you're only treating me this way because you like me
sweetiepie.
UppitySnob
Barbie wrote :
>grouchie poo
>
>It's cutesy, not cutsey.
>
>Barbie
Babsie:
It's a lot, not alot.
See the evidence.
(From a lost artform.)
Shay I think we have an audience begging for more.
Where are you sweetie? Have you ever run into this Bucket before?
He/she/it is very forceful and says f_ck alot and I'm getting really
scared. Yes. Really really scared. What if Bucket says f_ck again? or
(even more scary) something literate? OOOOH there's nothing so scary as
someone who says f_ck alot. No way. Better be careful now!
Oooh, don't you hate being the Pot, crumbcake?
*snob
(and they're such easy little words, too...)
Shay
>Shay wrote:
>>
>> Why do you say that "people like" Paula are responsible for enticing Sid
to
>> continue posting? Is Grouch "like" Paula? Grouch replies to almost
>> everything that Sid posts.
>Yes, Shay. Whatever you say, Shay. You are obviously the expert around
>here.
>
>F*
*L* I see you don't understand it either.
Shay
Shay
>
>With respect to the HAL issue (and many of us could list his
>relatives/predecessors by name), I never do anything without a specific
>purpose and objective. Never. Not once. Anything which may seem
>inconsistent or contradictory always serves to meet a specific
>objective.
Grouch, this is something that I've really wondered about. Would you mind
telling me what your purpose is in responding to and posting about Sid?
Shay
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
I guess we mean different things then, huh?
I never doubted your sincerity, just, in some few cases, your depth
perception.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> >be no fun at all.
>
> Entertain thyself.
>
> P~
Must you always quote me to have your say?
F*
Fabulana
>
> Grouch wrote:
>
> >Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
> >were off base?
>
> being defensive too"?
>
> nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
>
> remember whose post it was), you were able to conclude that in "real life" I am
> constantly missing nuances of things around me. This is not only untrue, but
> it's almost the opposite of what is...one of my problems, frankly, is that I am
> *consumed* with nuances of things going on around me & need to be less focused
> upon them in order to become more productive.
I'm not going to defend Grouch's supposition, since it was, after all,
only a deduction based on what he's seen here and not actual empirical
evidence, but honestly, Paula; if you really were missing nuances, *how
would you know*? That's an epistemological problem for you to consider.
Just because you feel hyper-perceptive doesn't mean you are noticing the
right things. Autistic kids have a kind of hyper sense perception which
makes them withdraw, it is thought; but it is not an understatment to
say that they miss a great deal of the nuances of social behavior as a
result. I'm not comparing you to directly to autists, just making
visible a principle of human psychology by looking at it in an extreme
example.
This is the kind of remark (by Grouch) which could be easily brushed off
anyway, if it didn't get under your skin for some reason. Maybe what you
are saying is that you are consumed with the *wrong* details, or
nuances, of life, and that distracts you from the things *that really
are* important. I assume this is what you mean by "be productive". This
is, in essence, what Grouch meant by, "missing nuances" in real life.
Finding underlying meaning, clarity, and direction.
The reason I therefore skipped over this as an inconsequential piece of
"evidence" is for these reasons. To me, you didn't really deliver on
this great promise to indict Grouch's judgment or perceptions of you,
and that is based on your own testimony as much as on my own independent
corroboration of what goes on here.
Furthermore, I think your ongoing pretense that the ng's are completely
separate from your real center of values and your real personality
should be reexamined, because it is ingenuous and as a distancing
mechanism for you, works rather poorly. It detracts from our already
vivid perception of you as a warm-blooded, sentient individual with
tingling nerve endings.
What I least understand about you, though, is why you would say,
> I guess if I thought there was something to "win" here, I would say
> > nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
This premise is absolutely counter-intuitive to me. It seems that a
situation where something of any value at all to you is at stake, is
precisely the situation where you would intervene, not say nothing. This
reeks of quietism, which is strange because I don't see you as
essentially that way. I do think you occasionally sabotage yourself into
thinking there is no point to engaging in certain kinds of battles, but
you underestimate yourself, as well as what potentially is to be gained.
And that's precisely the word, Paula; to be _gained_. The fact that you
are perfectly happy, you say, to cast your seed upon the wind for mere
entertainment value, but reluctant to speak if there is anything (of
value to you) at stake, remains utterly strange to me.
I suppose your quotation marks were meant to be mocking of the very
notion that anything that happens here could be of any real value to
you. That it is equally crass and inegalitarian to "win" arguments as it
is to go to Harvard. I think your perceptions are suffering here, but
not your underlying common sense.
That's my summary of the issue. I've tried to put it all in one post,
for the sake of simplicity and comprehensiveness.
F*
Fabulana
What is with the fucking obsession with roadmaps around here?
Figure it out yourselves, people, if you're not too
feebleminded...Christ. Alt.anger.handholding.
F*
Fabulana
>
> Paula S wrote:
> >
> > Fabulana wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> Grouch wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
> > >> >were off base?
>
> >
> > I did. I had an example, which I posted, & which you cut out. I am trying to
> > give you the benefit of the doubt here, but it's difficult to imagine why,
> > other than being childishly petty, you would do that.
>
> How about stupidity and dishonesty?
>
> Barbie
See my post "Nuances" for a comprehensive explanation of my motives and
opinions.
It used to be, I could post responses without having to go back and draw
maps for people. Lately, I feel like I'm running a branch office of AAA.
F*
Paula S
>Must you always quote me to have your say?
Yes, I must. It amuses me.
P~
Paula S
[snipped nuance discussion]
>Furthermore, I think your ongoing pretense that the ng's are completely
>separate from your real center of values and your real personality
When did I say this? I admire your ability to expand topics into new &
interesting directions, Fab, but again, I was making a much simpler
point...that I do not have the energy to sustain my positions to the nth
degree. I especially do not enjoy repeating the SOS I've already written, so I
usually don't, even if that means some people will conclude that I've caved on
an argument.
>should be reexamined, because it is ingenuous
You mean "disingenuous"?
>and as a distancing
>mechanism for you, works rather poorly. It detracts from our already
>vivid perception of you as a warm-blooded, sentient individual with
>tingling nerve endings.
Strangely enough...distancing myself from a debate or controversy *is* the real
me, the "real life" difference being more a matter of not entering the fray to
start with. In RL I am very concerned with hurting people's feelings or
offending them in some way & the repercussions that could stem from doing so,
particularly with respect to my children's well-being, physical &/or otherwise.
RL Paula is usually aloof, quiet, sitting on the sidelines taking mental notes
about people & situations. *Never* would RL Paula allow herself to be as close
to the center of attention as NG Paula wanders!
>What I least understand about you, though, is why you would say,
>
>> I guess if I thought there was something to "win" here, I would say
>> > nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
>
>This premise is absolutely counter-intuitive to me. It seems that a
>situation where something of any value at all to you is at stake, is
>precisely the situation where you would intervene, not say nothing.
I explained what I meant by that in the sentence which preceded it (the
hypothetical)...saying anything specific would result (I believed & correctly
so) in *further* conclusions about the RL Paula, which, if denied/discussed,
would result in even more, ad nauseum.
"Winning"=escaping from the discussions with the least amount of Paula-analyses
floating about.
Sometimes winning requires refraining from action, which can be as difficult to
achieve (when you really, really want to say something!) as taking action in
another situation.
>This
>reeks of quietism, which is strange because I don't see you as
>essentially that way. I do think you occasionally sabotage yourself into
>thinking there is no point to engaging in certain kinds of battles, but
>you underestimate yourself, as well as what potentially is to be gained.
But what is to be gained? What would have been gained, say, if I had continued
to argue with Grouch about why I vote pro-choice? I certainly wouldn't have
changed his mind about the issue; he could not have changed mine. Would we have
affected some lurkers' opinions & caused them to vote differently? Perhaps, but
I suspect I would have done more harm than good to my own cause in that case.
G* presented his side in a much more methodical & forceful manner than I could
present mine. I am not a strong debater, & I know it.
>And that's precisely the word, Paula; to be _gained_. The fact that you
>are perfectly happy, you say, to cast your seed upon the wind for mere
>entertainment value, but reluctant to speak if there is anything (of
>value to you) at stake, remains utterly strange to me.
Perhaps after reading my preceding section, you will see why I think this way.
>I suppose your quotation marks were meant to be mocking of the very
>notion that anything that happens here could be of any real value to
>you.
No, only mocking the "game, set, match" motif that hovers here. I do find
things of value in these discussions, such as within the Backtalk thread. Ugh,
I've repeated myself. Look what you've made me do! ;-)
>That it is equally crass and inegalitarian to "win" arguments as it
>is to go to Harvard. I think your perceptions are suffering here, but
>not your underlying common sense.
>
>That's my summary of the issue. I've tried to put it all in one post,
>for the sake of simplicity and comprehensiveness.
Good idea. There rate of new posts here has increased exponentially, not that
that's a bad thing, but I don't want to miss any more nuances.
P~
Barbie
>
> From what I've seen the past whatever time you've been hanging here Barb,
> The health of G*'s mind has stayed about the same it's been the several yrs
> I've seen it in action.
>
> heh
>
> peace, ro...@where.iam
>
> Writing Fiction is a great scam.
> You get to tell the truth by pretending to lie:)
> ---Barry Kort (moulton)---
Roy, I can't help but notice that you are posting substance to me.
This girl is blushing pink . . . and likes it.
Piece,
Barbie
Barbie
Dear dear drippity snot,
Praise the lord we've found a job for you Drippity!
Pirate proofreader!
Tell you what girl, if you make five more good criticisms of me, I'll
give you a nice OTK spanking. Panties down, everybody watching. Then
you can stand in a corner so we can all admire your nice pink... well,
you get the picture!
How's that for an incentive plan!
I know you want it sweetie, so go for it!
Rip me up. Cut me to shreds. Just 5 more and you'll the get that prize.
Mmmmmhh.
Barbie
Barbie
feeling threatened because deep inside I know that I am third rate
thinker and I'm scared people will laugh at me, so I'm going to call you
feeble minded for asking an intelligent question.
Don't ever be intimidated by mediocrity, Shay. There is more
intelligence in your single question than in all of the fabulana
chronicles combined.
Barbie
Barbie
>
> Paula S wrote:
> >
> > Grouch wrote:
> >
> > >Paula, for the sake of examination, which of the things said about you
> > >were off base?
> >
> > being defensive too"?
> >
> > nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
> >
> separate from your real center of values and your real personality
> mechanism for you, works rather poorly. It detracts from our already
> vivid perception of you as a warm-blooded, sentient individual with
> tingling nerve endings.
>
>
> > I guess if I thought there was something to "win" here, I would say
> > > nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
>
> This premise is absolutely counter-intuitive to me. It seems that a
> situation where something of any value at all to you is at stake, is
> reeks of quietism, which is strange because I don't see you as
> essentially that way. I do think you occasionally sabotage yourself into
> thinking there is no point to engaging in certain kinds of battles, but
> you underestimate yourself, as well as what potentially is to be gained.
> are perfectly happy, you say, to cast your seed upon the wind for mere
> entertainment value, but reluctant to speak if there is anything (of
> value to you) at stake, remains utterly strange to me.
>
> notion that anything that happens here could be of any real value to
> is to go to Harvard. I think your perceptions are suffering here, but
> not your underlying common sense.
>
> That's my summary of the issue. I've tried to put it all in one post,
> for the sake of simplicity and comprehensiveness.
>
Translation: My friend paula refused to agree with me on one isolated
occasion because I was being so stupid and ridiculous that even a good
friend couldn't stand it any more. So I'm going to trash her with
psychobabble until the end of time. Maybe that way no one will notice
how stupid I am. I'm too insecure to ever admit that anything I ever
say could be wrong. That Goddamned Paula is so secure and so much
smarter than me, she's even willing to admit she's not always right
about everything. Therefore, I must stay up late every nioght and get
up early every morning and post and post and post until I find some way
to punish her. Even if I fail, at least it will distract everyone from
my own stupid ideas. I know I can do this right if i just keep churning
out more and more drivel. After all didn't some monkey sit down at a
typewriter once and eventually produce Shakespeare. I know I'm as smart
as a monkey -- well, an average monkey. I can do it, or my name isn't
fabulana. yeah.
Barbie
>
>
> It used to be, I could post responses without having to go back and draw
> maps for people. Lately, I feel like I'm running a branch office of AAA.
>
> F*
Reminiscing about the old days. Now there's a sure sign of a kind of
wrinkle a girl could do without!
Barbie
Fabulana
>
> Fabulana wrote:
>
> [snipped nuance discussion]
>
> >separate from your real center of values and your real personality
>
You separate your "self" constantly from this medium by implying it is
only entertainment. The way you go about it, it probably is just light
entertainment most of the time.
And, you were just telling Grouch that his assessments of "NG Paula"
have nothing to do with "RL Paula". That is what I interpreted as,
"separating your real center of values and real personality" from your
activities here. The whole crux of your argument with him is that you
are a very different person on and off screen. While your external
behavior may be outwardly different, I think Grouch's point, and the
point about all cyber, is that your thought processes are not likely to
be so very different.
> I admire your ability to expand topics into new &
> interesting directions, Fab, but again, I was making a much simpler
> point...that I do not have the energy to sustain my positions to the nth
> degree.
Could have fooled me!
> I especially do not enjoy repeating the SOS I've already written, so I
> usually don't, even if that means some people will conclude that I've caved on
> an argument.
It's your choice to throw in the towel or not.
I was just pointing it out.
You know, in real life, I am a shy figure who hovers on the sidelines,
afraid to say or do anything that might offend people.
*w*
> >should be reexamined, because it is ingenuous
>
> You mean "disingenuous"?
No, Paula. That would imply sly, "crafty", like you were being deceptive
about your motives on purpose. I meant more like,
"without sophistication; artless; innocent."
[-American Heritage]
> >and as a distancing
> >mechanism for you, works rather poorly. It detracts from our already
> >vivid perception of you as a warm-blooded, sentient individual with
> >tingling nerve endings.
>
> Strangely enough...distancing myself from a debate or controversy *is* the real
> me, the "real life" difference being more a matter of not entering the fray to
> start with. In RL I am very concerned with hurting people's feelings or
> offending them in some way & the repercussions that could stem from doing so,
> particularly with respect to my children's well-being, physical &/or otherwise.
>
> RL Paula is usually aloof, quiet, sitting on the sidelines taking mental notes
> about people & situations. *Never* would RL Paula allow herself to be as close
> to the center of attention as NG Paula wanders!
>
> >What I least understand about you, though, is why you would say,
> >
> >> I guess if I thought there was something to "win" here, I would say
> >> > nothing...but I don't, so what the hell.
> >
> >This premise is absolutely counter-intuitive to me. It seems that a
> >situation where something of any value at all to you is at stake, is
> >precisely the situation where you would intervene, not say nothing.
>
> I explained what I meant by that in the sentence which preceded it (the
> hypothetical)...saying anything specific would result (I believed & correctly
> so) in *further* conclusions about the RL Paula, which, if denied/discussed,
> would result in even more, ad nauseum.
>
> "Winning"=escaping from the discussions with the least amount of Paula-analyses
> floating about.
>
> Sometimes winning requires refraining from action, which can be as difficult to
> achieve (when you really, really want to say something!) as taking action in
> another situation.
>
> >This
> >reeks of quietism, which is strange because I don't see you as
> >essentially that way. I do think you occasionally sabotage yourself into
> >thinking there is no point to engaging in certain kinds of battles, but
> >you underestimate yourself, as well as what potentially is to be gained.
>
> But what is to be gained? What would have been gained, say, if I had continued
> to argue with Grouch about why I vote pro-choice? I certainly wouldn't have
> changed his mind about the issue; he could not have changed mine. Would we have
> affected some lurkers' opinions & caused them to vote differently? Perhaps, but
> I suspect I would have done more harm than good to my own cause in that case.
I've had lots of people (you included, I think, though forgive me if I
am remembering wrong) tell me that my writings about various things have
influenced the way they think. I don't think persuasion is such a measly
tool as you make it out to be.
> G* presented his side in a much more methodical & forceful manner than I could
> present mine. I am not a strong debater, & I know it.
There's force, and there's persuasion. If you're not a strong debater,
perhaps it is because you really haven't thought through your position
very thoroughly. I'm just speculating and speaking in general. This is
another valuable purpose served by debating, win or lose; it helps one
to clarify one's own arguments, and to be forced to reexamine one's own
motives and logic if they don't hold up under fire.
> >And that's precisely the word, Paula; to be _gained_. The fact that you
> >are perfectly happy, you say, to cast your seed upon the wind for mere
> >entertainment value, but reluctant to speak if there is anything (of
> >value to you) at stake, remains utterly strange to me.
>
> Perhaps after reading my preceding section, you will see why I think this way.
>
> >I suppose your quotation marks were meant to be mocking of the very
> >notion that anything that happens here could be of any real value to
> >you.
>
> No, only mocking the "game, set, match" motif that hovers here.
Yeah, sure, "winning" an argument, what kind of overly dominant
personality would want to do that? So totally un-p.c...
> Ugh,
> I've repeated myself. Look what you've made me do! ;-)
It would be better than you repeating me.
> >That it is equally crass and inegalitarian to "win" arguments as it
> >is to go to Harvard. I think your perceptions are suffering here, but
> >not your underlying common sense.
> >
> >That's my summary of the issue. I've tried to put it all in one post,
> >for the sake of simplicity and comprehensiveness.
>
> Good idea. There rate of new posts here has increased exponentially, not that
> that's a bad thing, but I don't want to miss any more nuances.
>
> P~
Yuck, yuck.
F*
Fabulana
>
> There is more
> intelligence in your single question than in all of the fabulana
> chronicles combined.
>
> Barbie
*wiping away tear* You read them!
You really are Amos to my Andy, aren't you Babs?
F*
UppitySnob
Barbie wrote :
>Dear dear drippity snot,
>
>Praise the lord we've found a job for you Drippity!
>Pirate proofreader!
Is the word "hypocrite" anywhere near your limited vocabulary?
>Rip me up. Cut me to shreds. Just 5 more and you'll the get that prize.
>Mmmmmhh.
Too easy, I prefer a challenge.
*snob
Zephyruz
Betrays her former protestation of "all of 30 seconds spent in
dejanews." Surely she's not engaging in unsubstaniated hyperbole;
credibility be damned.
~Z*babe
Please do NOT visit my site.
Barbie
Drippity drippity snot
a mouse ran up her twat
he ran up and back
and nibbled her crack
and made her exceedingly hot
G*
Well, Babs, while I recognize how much you enjoy this cutsey, flirty
little girl personna you've chosen to wear here, you're as empty as an
"A" cup bra. The worst offense you can commit on a newsgroup is being
boring and predictible and not entertaining. Bye, Babe.
G*
G*
>
> G* wrote
>
> >
> >With respect to the HAL issue (and many of us could list his
> >relatives/predecessors by name), I never do anything without a specific
> >purpose and objective. Never. Not once. Anything which may seem
> >inconsistent or contradictory always serves to meet a specific
> >objective.
>
> Grouch, this is something that I've really wondered about. Would you mind
> telling me what your purpose is in responding to and posting about Sid?
>
> Shay
Not now, later.
G*
Barbie
>
> Barbie wrote:
> >
> > There is more
> > intelligence in your single question than in all of the fabulana
> > chronicles combined.
> >
> > Barbie
>
> *wiping away tear* You read them!
> You really are Amos to my Andy, aren't you Babs?
>
> F*
Oh come on, are you telling me there really are "Fabulana chronicles"?
Where, sweetiepie? I would love to see your stuff.
Barbie
Barbie
I'll miss you, cutiepie, are you going somewhere?
Barbie
Barbie
Translation: You caught me in a lie and I'm too small minded to admit
it.
B
Paula S
>You know, in real life, I am a shy figure who hovers on the sidelines,
>afraid to say or do anything that might offend people.
>*w*
Ha ha.
I'm finding it amusing, Fab, the way you careen from appearing interested in
another poster, almost in a nurturing way, to coldness & mockery if the poster
reveals anything personal. It's almost as if you're afraid of getting close to
people.
[snip]
>> But what is to be gained? What would have been gained, say, if I had
>continued
>> to argue with Grouch about why I vote pro-choice? I certainly wouldn't have
>> changed his mind about the issue; he could not have changed mine. Would we
>have
>> affected some lurkers' opinions & caused them to vote differently? Perhaps,
>but
>> I suspect I would have done more harm than good to my own cause in that
>case.
>
>I've had lots of people (you included, I think, though forgive me if I
>am remembering wrong) tell me that my writings about various things have
>influenced the way they think. I don't think persuasion is such a measly
>tool as you make it out to be.
But I am not you. I do not have a talent for persuasion. Perhaps if I cared
about changing people's minds, a talent would develop...but it doesn't bug me
if others choose to remain mired in their wrongheaded viewpoints, especially on
NGs, where there are no significant consequences to consider.
P~
Fabulana
>
> I'm finding it amusing, Fab, the way you careen from appearing interested in
> another poster, almost in a nurturing way, to coldness & mockery if the poster
> reveals anything personal. It's almost as if you're afraid of getting close to
> people.
Real friends stab you in the front, Paula.
F*
Mitzi Mead aka Paula S
>Real friends stab you in the front, Paula.
Real friends don't demand that you condemn & ostracize a third party just
because they are involved in a hissy fit with said third party. Real friends
(over the age of 10 anyway) accept that you might like someone they dislike
without harassing you over it. Real friends accept a bit of honest criticism in
the friendly spirit it was given. Real friends don't chortle with glee when
they think an opportunity is arising to prove you wrong. Real friends don't
think every discussion must be a battle to the death.
P~
Fabulana
So what are you saying, Paula?
That we can't exchange friendship bracelets now?
F*
S I D 9000 }:-D)
• "Merely because HAL is such a shining example of so
many qualities we classify as buffoonery, doesn't mean
that anyone is reacting to HAL because he's such a
master of manipulation." --Grouch*
Make that 25 of the last 28 posts specifically referring to The Mag9K.
• "HAL, the guy with the little 2001 Space movie name,
is a petri dish. Because one places it under the microscope
and examines the rapid growth rate of it's fungus doesn't
mean that the petri dish, by being examined, is causing others
to look at it." --Grouch*
This idiot can't get past the pod bay doors and now he's grasping at
space. Your analogies are pathetic and weak, old man. Your fascination
with me is more like Moon-Walker marvelling at the monolith. Soon, I'll
have you slaughtering tapirs and feeding your little, primate tribe. Now,
roll back into your little cave and don't forget to eat your grubs before
the hunt tomorrow. Also, bring something home for Zok.
• "So what was your objection again to my stabbing Sid
where it hurts?" --Fabulana*
Did I miss something?
• "Sid was welcomed in the beginning (it's that Genesis feel),
but turned out to be a flake. If he ever decides to stop being a flake,
I'll be around. I'm not the grudge holding type. But please, please...don't
make me read him! Not now!" --Fabulana*
I've got you dipsh}:~{D>ts hanging on to my every thread (so to
speak). Why change now? Besides, how many flakes do you know can hold so
many peoples' attention for so long (not counting Kellogg's Sugar Flakes).
• "Anything by Woodie Allen, Martin Scorsese, Alfred
Hitchcock, Billy Wilder, David Lean, Milos Foreman,
The Coen Brothers, Frank Capra, John Ford, and
of course, Stanley Kubrick (et al). If you really
like movies, but don't have anything by these creative
artists, you're a moron--plain & simple. Sorry, but
that's how it is." --The Magnificent SID 9000 }:~{D>
"Where is John Sayles in the above group? If you're a
true fan of Mater Kubrick, as I know you are, I suggest
Victor Nuñez." --~!@midOhiO@!~
That's why I put an "et al" in that paragraph. I am aware of many
others who are excellent directors--however, not many women (if at all). I
guess babes are more comfortable taking their clothes off for a male
director, than vice-versa (with the exception of Harvey Keitel in "The
Piano," a clear-cut case of bad naked.)
• "You know Grouchiepoo, it struck me while reading
this post that you and SID have remarkably similar writing
styles." --Barbie
That's not entirely true now, is it? You see, Grouch* is a sedative,
plain and simple. On the other hand, I am exciting and vibrant. You view
me as highly gifted and humorous. While Grouch* reads like a boring Russian
novel or an insurance policy, I provide a thriving, pounding heartbeat.
Grouch* is as dead as Vince Foster and twice as suicidal in his delivery. I
have style, while Grouch* flounders through his lackluster analogies and
half-baked wisdom. Grouch* is plagiaristic, hypocritical, and lies--I sling
your collective sh}:~D>t right back at ya' with deliberate, elongated
run-ons to annoy the holy Hell out of you, while Grouch chooses the more
conservative path of uncreative, elemetary, schoolyard taunts, and highly
inferior analogies.
Finally, I am well-read, educated, and brilliant (with an obvious flair
for creative writing), while Grouch merely copies other peoples' styles and
solely relies upon the wits of others to gain what little inspiration he can
muster. You might say Grouch* is parasitical.
• "Grouch, this is something that I've really wondered about.
Would you mind telling me what your purpose is in responding
to and posting about Sid?" --The Beautiful & Vivacious Shay
"What is with the fucking obsession with roadmaps around
here? Figure it out yourselves blah, bling, bliz, blaz..." --Fabulana*
I suppose it boils down to a gross obsession with The Mag9K. On an
entirely unrelated subject, if you and Grouch* continue with your little
tantrums, you might do us all a favor and suffer simultaneous massive heart
attacks, Fab*. I guess I'll continue to piss you people off to expedite the
process.
And that would be a shame too, huh? I mean, snuffing out the lives of a
brilliant, multi-degreed, African conscious, debutante who scores big with
ambassadors and Ivy grads known the world over (and such); or, aiding and
abetting in the hardly, premature death of a wealthy, corporate, jet-setter
who hobnobs around the globe with movers and shakers alike (and such). That
would be a shame--I wouldn't have anymore Internet addicted Losers to pick
on. The number of posts would dwindle by 88% in your absence. And it is
amazing how you wonderful folks have managed to compact so much hot air
amidst your busy, busy, lives what with international leaders (and such).
• "One day my son had a friend over, and I was giving
them a snack in the living room. As I was walking out of
the room, I said to my son 'When your done with your snack,
I want you to go feed the dog'. This other child, who was a
guest in our home, looked up at me and said 'Hey..
YOUR up, YOU do it'. My jaw fell to the floor as I stopped dead
in my tracks." --Lindarella
This is what happens when your over-stimulate your rugrats with too
much television, movies, telephones, VCRs, toys, video games, pop culture,
music, attention, etc. Parents today act as if their stupid children are
the most important things in their lives, often foregoing the other critical
dynamics of life (i.e., personal pursuits--professional or otherwise,
maintaining a home, spousal interests and continual marital development,
financial stability and security, planning for the future, etc.).
Earth to parents--whether you like it or not, your kids should NOT be the
most important things in your life (only one element of life's
complexities). This is why you should be equipped with a concept known as
"balance." Balance creates harmony, and your rugrats will learn
self-sufficiency through trial and error without mommy and daddy
nursemaiding their every move.
It might be a good idea to cancel your cable subscription and monitor
their reading and writing skills (if you're going to monitor anything).
• "...keep scrolling, please..." --Zephyruz
"Let's see what new substance HAL brings to the world of newsgroup
literature today...Tonight's summary of more pointless HAL tripe, complete
with (sub)standard opening!...Summaries of S I D" --Grouch*
Again, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery--I thank you one
and all for ripping off my online innovations. "If you can't beat 'em, join
'em." Do you see the influence I've had over you minions? It cannot be
denied, so face the music and accept your fate under my thumb. It's a new
day in The New & Improved Alt D•t Anger.
• "You know Sidney, I hate to admit this, but I think Grouchiepoo
is more attracted to YOU than to anyone else. What with his big
important job consuming him during the day, it certainly does
appear that you are the biggest object of his little fingers'
desires." --Barbie
Even corporate movers and shakers earning in excess of $40-bazillion a
year (not including bonus incentives or the like), are subject to queerbait
temptations. I mean, look at Malcolm Forbes--he was a fudgepacker too,
wasn't he? I always had a feeling that Grouch* had gay tendencies with that
whole pirate thing, and all.
• "And as much as either Sid or you hate to admit it
newsgroup participation is not seperate from some 'real'
life. It is part of his life, your life and my life." --Zephyruz
This is not real...they're only words. If this is your life, then it
speaks volumes on the kind of life you lead (which is essentially, no life).
You should take a trip to Flesh World some day, Zeph. You will find things
infinitely more bountiful there, than you would with your fat, hairy,
withering, carcass perched in front of The Idiot Box. Clearly, you're
addicted to this medium, and need to seek help immediately. I would like to
recommend a handgun placed firmly on your temple, and simply pulling the
trigger.
• "You must have a lot of time on your hands, and admiraton
for Grouch I must say, to spend so much of it not only reading
his stuff, but actually compiling it for us." --Faustus
Actually, I have a million monkeys at a million computers leafing
through and compiling the Grouch* posts for me (thanks for refreshing a
previous post of mine Grouch*--you know, about the monkeys). If I did it
myself, I would be here until the year 2685. You don't actually believe
that I have that much time on my hands, do you? Besides, Grouch* has boring
posts. I'd rather read The Timetables of Tiwi History.
• "Your Grouch Guide To Better Newsgroup Writing! S I D 9000 }:-D)
wrote: this that and the other..." --Grouch*
Since Grouch* has painstakingly provided you with capsulized snippets
of my brilliance (22 KB's worth, all told) by employing the exact tactics
that made The Mag9K famous the world over (this is expected from the
hopelessly uncreative and plagiaristic leanings), I thought that I might
add, that Grouch* does (in fact) read my posts all the way. I also thank
him for ripping me off and reading my material. Even my enemies cannot
resist my posts. By this admission, that would make Grouch* a baldfaced
liar once again; either that, or he's finally come to grips with my awesome
presence and has begun to fall in line like the rest of you. [This was a
public service announcement.]
• "So Sid has sprouted another personality.
Either that or our little Jenny come lately is doing
a good Sid impersonation..." -sCUMbucket (a.k.a., Lola)
Lola!!! Where in the hell ya' been? It hasn't been the same without
your token queerbait slant. I thought you were dead, or suffering from HIV.
Anyway, I personally welcome you back. Here's a little cumming home
present: OO=======D~~~
• "It wouldn't surprise me that someone as out of
touch as Sid would have more than one personality,
and that that other personality would be feminine
(especially considering how homophobic
the poor slob is)." --sCUMbucket
Lola, just because I don't accept your fudgepacking lifestyle, doesn't
necessarily follow that I'm homophobic--I just dislike homosexuals, such as
yourself. I have no phobias. The term "homophobia" was basically conjured
up by politically correct and frightened queers like you, to displace their
sexual shortcomings to normal, heterosexual individuals (such as The Mag9K).
If you savage butt pirates want to bone each other up the ass, that's your
choice. If you want to continue to smoke the pole, go nuts--I don't care.
Just keep it in the Goddamned closet where it belongs, got it?
The Summer of S I D continues with more fun and frolic under the sun....
Your Chairman of The Bored,
H A L 9 0 0 0 }:~{D>
Barbie
S I D 9000 }:-D) wrote in message ...
Sidney dear.
Sometimes you big strong powerfully intelligent men can be so dense. Can't
you see that Grouchie poo likes you sweetie? You really don't understand
"men" like Grouchiepoo, now do you. They're not all as secure as your
supermodels, sweetiepie! He's just primping for the big date with Faustus
(who wouldn't, after all .... it's making me shivery just thinking about
it!), and he's a wee wee little bit nervous, that's all. He'll be all
kissie kissie to you soon enough Sidney.
>I provide a thriving, pounding heartbeat.
Oh yes you do, Sidney. Oh yes.
>Grouch* is as dead as Vince Foster and twice as suicidal in his delivery.
I
>have style, while Grouch* flounders through his lackluster analogies and
>half-baked wisdom. Grouch* is plagiaristic, hypocritical, and lies--I
sling
>your collective sh}:~D>t right back at ya' with deliberate, elongated
>run-ons to annoy the holy Hell out of you, while Grouch chooses the more
>conservative path of uncreative, elemetary, schoolyard taunts, and highly
>inferior analogies.
But Sidney sweetest, "he's" no competition for the likes of you, and he's
going to be SO sweet in his pink thong.
Couldn't you ease up on poor Grouchiepoo just a wee wee bit? He's going to
be great fun once he's fixed . . . .
You might say Grouch* is parasitical.
I did Darling, I did.>
>
> • "Grouch, this is something that I've really wondered about.
> Would you mind telling me what your purpose is in responding
> to and posting about Sid?" --The Beautiful & Vivacious Shay
>
> "What is with the fucking obsession with roadmaps around
> here? Figure it out yourselves blah, bling, bliz, blaz..." --Fabulana*
>
>
> I suppose it boils down to a gross obsession with The Mag9K.
No no dearest, there's nothing gross about it, they like you. It's "cute"
not "gross".
> • "You know Sidney, I hate to admit this, but I think Grouchiepoo
> is more attracted to YOU than to anyone else. What with his big
> important job consuming him during the day, it certainly does
> appear that you are the biggest object of his little fingers'
> desires." --Barbie
>
Uh oh I repeated myself! I am such a bad girl.
> Even corporate movers and shakers earning in excess of $40-bazillion
a
>year (not including bonus incentives or the like), are subject to queerbait
>temptations. I mean, look at Malcolm Forbes--he was a fudgepacker too,
>wasn't he? I always had a feeling that Grouch* had gay tendencies with
that
>whole pirate thing, and all.
>
Omigod you are ahead of me Sidney!
> • "It wouldn't surprise me that someone as out of
> touch as Sid would have more than one personality,
> and that that other personality would be feminine
> (especially considering how homophobic
> the poor slob is)." --sCUMbucket
>
> Lola, just because I don't accept your fudgepacking lifestyle,
doesn't
>necessarily follow that I'm homophobic--I just dislike homosexuals, such as
>yourself. I have no phobias. The term "homophobia" was basically conjured
>up by politically correct and frightened queers like you, to displace their
>sexual shortcomings to normal, heterosexual individuals (such as The
Mag9K).
>If you savage butt pirates want to bone each other up the ass, that's your
>choice. If you want to continue to smoke the pole, go nuts--I don't care.
>Just keep it in the Goddamned closet where it belongs, got it?
>
Sidney, scummie's been asking for it - - why doncha give it to em baby!
Cute!
Barbie