The Goddess speaks
Diane Holt
>Gosh, I....I'm sorry Diane.
That's good. That's as it should be.
>I really don't know what else to say.
You could say, "And I promise to try very hard to never ever ever do it
again. And I promise to try very hard to stop being locked into a
silly corner I've painted myself into; admit to my mistakes -- at least,
as much as I can; start thinking like a rational, reasonable person;
actually acquire some knowledge and insight; widen my perspective;
be bright -- at least, as well as I can. And if I can't do all of that,
I'll at least try very hard to remember to wear my special T-shirt that
says, "Ignore me -- I'm an idiot", every day for ever and ever ah-men."
>Here, let me make it up to you.
No thanks. Trying to "make up" for things usually just exacerbates the
problem. Best to just get past it, and move on.
>I am going to FIND and KILL this horrible person that is making you read
>our "toe-curling" postings.
You will only be able to accomplish this if you do it in the right order --
if you kill yourself first and then try to kill Sean... Well, I'm sure you
see the problem.
But, don't do anything drastic, silly -- just stop writing those ridiculous
articles. See, I don't just "dismiss" anyone -- I'm an incurable (apparently
-- though I continue working on it) optimist; I keep giving people chances --
at least to the extent of hitting the first space-bar, which gives me about
20 lines to quickly scan and get the general gist of the article. Now, I
can do that part very fast, but the time it takes to paint the screen with
those 20 lines is extremely irritating, when the end result of waiting for
that to happen is that *dreck* you and whats-his-ass have been trying to
pass off as "superior English"; so, not only have I wasted my time, I've
also had to witness yet again the sorry evidence of just how wretched your
language skills really are (even when you're *trying* to be at your "best").
Unless you have some actual dysfunctional problem, there's no excuse for
that. None. (Laziness and a complete disregard count as reasons -- not
excuses.)
But, that's all over and done with now, right?
>Then you won't have *anything* to worry about, ok?
I never do, anyway. What *would* I have to worry about? (Just curious.)
(No, my finding your ignorance distasteful isn't a "worry", merely a reaction.)
>"Welcome to alt.flame.when.it.please.the.goddess"
Oooh -- that does have a nice notion behind it. Hmmm...mod.alt.flame...
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"You'll thank me for this someday."
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
and writes and writes and writes and writes...:
>In article <89298.200...@PSUVM.BITNET> SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>>I am going to FIND and KILL this horrible person that is making you read
>>our "toe-curling" postings.
>
>You will only be able to accomplish this if you do it in the right order --
>if you kill yourself first and then try to kill Sean... Well, I'm sure you
>see the problem.
Yeah, I see it. The problem is nobody is making you read our postings.
It's just your own bitchy attitude (OOOOH! SEXISM!) that makes you re-
spond to our little flame skirmish.
>Now, I
>can do that part very fast, but the time it takes to paint the screen with
>those 20 lines is extremely irritating, when the end result of waiting for
>that to happen is that *dreck* you and whats-his-ass have been trying to
>pass off as "superior English";
Ok, Goddess, if you show me *ONE* example of where I was trying to show that
*I* use "superior English", I will person grab the next available mode of
transportation togryphon, and lick the soles of your shoes clean. Other-
wise, shut the fuck up. (I mean that in the nicest, non-sexist way possi-
ble, of course).
Now, mind you, I mean where I claim I was some sort of English grammar
wizard, as opposed to showing Seany to be the idiot he is (which is my
*actual* meaning, but I guess you were too busy uncurling your toes to
notice).
Steve Murray
SXM101@PSUVM
"Quite a case of writer's diarrhea ya got there, Mz. H"
Diane Holt
>Yeah, I see it. The problem is nobody is making you read our postings.
No, sxm -- that's not a problem at all. If someone _were_ making me
read your postings, then that'd be a problem. See?
>It's just your own bitchy attitude (OOOOH! SEXISM!) that makes you re-
>spond to our little flame skirmish.
Sorry. Wrong again. But I explained all of this before. See:
>>Now, I can do that part very fast, but the time it takes to paint the screen
>>with those 20 lines is extremely irritating, when the end result of waiting
>>for that to happen is that *dreck* you and whats-his-ass have been trying
>>to pass off as "superior English";
You didn't get it. Everybody else did. What does that tell you?
>Ok, Goddess, [...] show me *ONE* example of where I was trying to show that
>*I* use "superior English", [...]
You don't save all your own articles? Too bad. I save mine. Afterall,
you never know when someone will threaten to bring suit (and the ensuing
imminent demise of Usenet as we know it that will result from that), so
it's best to plan ahead.
Your articles have already (thankfully) expired on gryphon. Even if they
hadn't, it's hardly worth my time to go schlepping around, digging them
up for you. If you feel you've been misjudged, if you feel you've been
misrepresented, then it's your choice to offer evidence to the contrary.
Or not. Up to you. Go for it.
>I will person grab the next available mode of transportation togryphon,
>and lick the soles of your shoes clean.
No thanks. It's bad enough having dog piss and wino barf on them.
(BTW, sxm -- the problem's not "diarrhea"; it's the exact opposite. The Net is
the avoidance technique.)
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"Whoever heard of a middle-name that starts with X?"
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
>Sporto you still didn't get it ... but if you didn't spend all
>your time trying to think up new ways to belittle others and
>started just maybe started to look for a little deeper which
>isn't actually deeper, actually it's right there on the
>surface but you're to f'n stoopid to see it, meaning that
>may just make you laugh or twiddle or enjoy alt.flame all
>the more instead of continuing to vomit into this newsgroup
>diatribes that find their primary existance as putdowns
>coming form somebody who is incapable of putting someone
>else down simply based on the fact and related criteria
>that he takes his existance *far* *far* too seriously
>and the groups existance just as that.
Aaaaahhhh!!!! It's Psyche 101 - CMU style!
Hey, maybe I should sue for copyright privileges; I was told
before that only PSUVM users were allowed to do this stupid
analization shit. Don't worry about my mental state, Sean.
Try and remember: USENET is *not* real life (does this need
a (tm) jfh?). Again, I know, it's a complicated concept,
especially for you, but hey, I'm always up for enlightening
the incredibly stupid.
Then again, just for you, maybe I should make it obvious...
NOBODY TAKES THIS SERIOUSLY.
Now, go off somewhere and grow up.
-------
Steve Murray
SXM101@PSUVM
"No, no, it *looks* like PSUVM,
but it's actually pronounced throat-wobbler mangrove" G.C. (RIP)
Asmodeus
>You didn't get it. Everybody else did. What does that tell you?
This *was* a rhetorical question, was it not? Considering
that _he_ didn't get it when everyone else did, Diane, you
can hardly expect him to be capable of gleaning the slightest
glimpse of a clue from it, can you?
Just curious. And the chicken, btw, was great.
--
"I am not criticizing you -- I am making fun of you, little geek.
I am doing it out of sheer malice."
-- Oleg Kiselev
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
>>Yeah, I see it. The problem is nobody is making you read our postings.
>
>No, sxm -- that's not a problem at all. If someone _were_ making me
>read your postings, then that'd be a problem. See?
Hmmm....I would've thought that you knew I meant the problem was in
your logic. Do you perhaps lack certain perception skills?
>You didn't get it. Everybody else did. What does that tell you?
Oh, don't worry, Diane. I got it. I completely understood what you
were trying to say. But see, I didn't agree with it. I know this is
terribly complicated logic, so I'll try to put it in more practical
terms:
1) I flame Sean 1) WHILE (not irritating_Goddess) DO begin
2) Sean flames me 2) I flame Sean
3) Goto 1 3) Sean flames me
4) End
Now, one of these is normal alt.flame procedure, and one of these is how you
want it to be. See if you can find a problem with that.
I find certain people "irritating" too, Mz. Holt. But I don't tell them
not to post anymore. Is this sinking in yet?
>>Ok, Goddess, [...] show me *ONE* example of where I was trying to show that
>>*I* use "superior English", [...]
>
>Your articles have already (thankfully) expired on gryphon. [...]
That's ok. I didn't expect you to be able to do it.
Wow, this is the second person from gryphon who has backed down after I
asked them to offer proof for their statements....amazing.
>[...] If you feel you've been misjudged, if you feel you've been
>misrepresented, then it's your choice to offer evidence to the contrary.
No, I simply feel your reading comprehension skills leave something to be
desired. If you feel you've been misjudged, blah blah....you know the rest.
>(BTW, sxm -- the problem's not "diarrhea"; it's the exact opposite. The Net is
> the avoidance technique.)
Ha. I would hardly call your two to three hundred all-too-common articles
examples of "constipation."
>"Whoever heard of a middle-name that starts with X?"
Not me. But Penn State likes it.
Sean Donovan
>In article <21...@gryphon.COM>, dia...@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) writes:
>>In article <89300.191...@PSUVM.BITNET> SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>>>Yeah, I see it. The problem is nobody is making you read our postings.
>>No, sxm -- that's not a problem at all. If someone _were_ making me
>>read your postings, then that'd be a problem. See?
>
>Oh, don't worry, Diane. I got it. I completely understood what you
>were trying to say. But see, I didn't agree with it. I know this is
>terribly complicated logic, so I'll try to put it in more practical
>terms:
>
> 1) I flame Sean 1) WHILE (not irritating_Goddess) DO begin
> 2) Sean flames me 2) I flame Sean
> 3) Goto 1 3) Sean flames me
> 4) End
Sporto you still didn't get it ... but if you didn't spend all
your time trying to think up new ways to belittle others and
started just maybe started to look for a little deeper which
isn't actually deeper, actually it's right there on the
surface but you're to f'n stoopid to see it, meaning that
may just make you laugh or twiddle or enjoy alt.flame all
the more instead of continuing to vomit into this newsgroup
diatribes that find their primary existance as putdowns
coming form somebody who is incapable of putting someone
else down simply based on the fact and related criteria
that he takes his existance *far* *far* too seriously
and the groups existance just as that.
"Get serious twit-diddley-do-do"
--
Sean Donovan Dept.'s of Computer Science and Mathematics Carnegie-Mellon
sd...@andrew.cmu.edu
sd...@andrew.Bitnet
Salit
>>>Ok, Goddess, [...] show me *ONE* example of where I was trying to show that
>>>*I* use "superior English", [...]
>>Your articles have already (thankfully) expired on gryphon. [...]
>That's ok. I didn't expect you to be able to do it.
>Wow, this is the second person from gryphon who has backed down after I
>asked them to offer proof for their statements....amazing.
Diane claimed that you had a little flame war with another Pennsylvania
kid about "superior English".
Please read the following paragraphs and *try* to understand why you gave
us this impression.
In article <89304.214...@PSUVM.BITNET> SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
%Wow....do you write your own material or do you
%just hang around elementary school playgrounds
%all day?
In article <89297.220...@PSUVM.BITNET> SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
#In article <66...@pt.cs.cmu.edu>, sdon...@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Sean Donovan) says:
#>You can't construct a meaningful sentence and you can't spell either.
............................................................................
#>Another prime example of the inability you have to construct a sentence
#>that conveys any meaning.
#
#Oh, I see. You weren't happy with typo flames. Or even just a plain old
#grammar flame. Or even an *ambiguous* grammar flame. You had to go for
#an INCORRECT ambiguous grammar flame. I'm in awe.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"The past cannot be changed, not even by Constitutional amendment." -- wharf rat
Elton Wildermuth
computing:
SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET: [...] I know this is
>terribly complicated logic, so I'll try to put it in more practical
>terms:
> 1) I flame Sean 1) WHILE (not irritating_Goddess) DO begin
> 2) Sean flames me 2) I flame Sean
> 3) Goto 1 3) Sean flames me
> 4) End
How quaint. But like I said earlier about that Kant Fool Dolan thing, you
won't begin to put any intelligence into the exercise until you learn to say
(let ((irritating_Goddess nil))
(proclaim (special irritating_Goddess))
(do ((participants ('Steve 'Sean) (nreverse participants)))
(irritating_Goddess (values))
(apply #'flame participants)))
-- Elton
+++
Truly worthwhile statements require a language older than you are.
Patricia O Tuama
>Wow, this is the second person from gryphon who has backed down after I
>asked them to offer proof for their statements....amazing.
Whatever are you talking about, Miz Murray? Don't you keep copies of
your own articles, dear?
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
Tuama) says:
>>Wow, this is the second person from gryphon who has backed down after I
>>asked them to offer proof for their statements....amazing.
>
>Whatever are you talking about, Miz Murray? Don't you keep copies of
>your own articles, dear?
"Miz Murray"?? Are you implying that calling me a female is an insult?
Is your opinion of women that low? Well, this is a first...a female MCP.
But, getting back to the original point...
In article <89299.142...@PSUVM.BITNET> I wrote:
>In article <21...@gryphon.COM>, ol...@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) says:
>>Add to that your scorn of homosexual life style and non-main stream sexual
>>practices which you so readily consider to be "disgusting"...
>$20 if you show me where I called it "disgusting"...
Of course I save my articles; they're automatically saved by VM.
Have *you* seen a response, Mz. Tuama?
NO??????
Well, hell, thanks for proving my point....
Patricia O Tuama
>"Miz Murray"?? Are you implying that calling me a female is an insult?
I didn't call you a female, dear. I merely used the same nonsensical
form of address for you that you used for Ms. Holt.
>Of course I save my articles; they're automatically saved by VM.
Then why do you demand that other people prove that you did or did not
write something? You are certainly behaving as though you expect every-
one else to keep copies of your postings.
>Have *you* seen a response, Mz. Tuama?
But Mz. Urray, Oleg accused you of bigotry based on his overall impres-
sion of your articles. What were you expecting him to do? Repost all
of your homophobic tripe? You're not really that stupid are you?
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
>>Of course I save my articles; they're automatically saved by VM.
>
>Then why do you demand that other people prove that you did or did not
>write something? You are certainly behaving as though you expect every-
>one else to keep copies of your postings.
Because *they* brought it up, Trish. Now, I'm sure you're just being smart-
ass about this to try and frustrate me (and you're very good at it, DJ is
the perfect example), but your logic is really fucked. Let's look at it
this way:
Trish, you're a feminist nazi.
Now, you have to come up with *every* *single* article you ever wrote that
shows you aren't. And if you aren't really a feminist nazi, that means
you now have to reproduce *every* *single* article you ever wrote, period.
Get it yet?
>>Have *you* seen a response, Mz. Tuama?
>
>But Mz. Urray, Oleg accused you of bigotry based on his overall impres-
>sion of your articles. What were you expecting him to do? Repost all
>of your homophobic tripe? You're not really that stupid are you?
No, but apparently you are. Oleg accused me of calling homosexuality
"disgusting". See this ==> " ? It's called a quotation mark. Which means
he's quoting me. All he has to do is tell me where I called it "disgusting".
Now you expect me to come up with every article where I *didn't* call it
disgusting? No, of course you don't; you're just being a bitch.
Oleg never even responded. I win. He loses. Of course, that's to be
expected with dealing with anybody with a gryphon acct...
Patricia O Tuama
>>Then why do you demand that other people prove that you did or did not
>>write something? You are certainly behaving as though you expect every-
>>one else to keep copies of your postings.
>Because *they* brought it up, Trish.
It was part of an on-going conversation, yes? You know, posting back
and forth? It should have been a simple matter for you to explain why
what you had just written was not homophobic. But you couldn't do it.
>Now you expect me to come up with every article where I *didn't* call it
>disgusting? No, of course you don't; you're just being a bitch.
Well, of course, that goes without saying. My being a bitch does not,
however, excuse the fact that what you are saying here is utter garbage.
Oleg based his comments on a series of articles you wrote. If you had
some relevant, solid response to what he was saying then you would have
posted it. Obviously, you didn't.
>Oleg never even responded.
Well, why should he? He clearly had you backed in a corner, your only
defense was to play semantic games with him, just like you're continuing
to do now.
I win. He loses. Of course, that's to be
>expected with dealing with anybody with a gryphon acct...
You didn't win anything, Steve. You failed to answer Oleg's charges.
He won, you lost. Of course, that's to be expected in dealing with
anybody with a gryphon account...
Blair P. Houghton
> but it's actually pronounced throat-wobbler mangrove" G.C. (RIP)
No, no, it *looks* like PSUVM, but it's actually pronounced
a load of computo-puppies physically segregated from the rest of the world
and mistakenly given Internet access.
--Blair
"Mistakes can be
rectified."
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
>>>Then why do you demand that other people prove that you did or did not
>>>write something? You are certainly behaving as though you expect every-
>>>one else to keep copies of your postings.
>>Because *they* brought it up, Trish.
>
>It was part of an on-going conversation, yes? You know, posting back
>and forth?
No, Trish, you're very, very wrong, and you just proved that you have no
idea what you're talking about. Let me set the scenario for you, since
you're so obviously lost.
SeanD and I were flaming each other; I asked when Hong would "stick his
yellow nose in", Charles accused me of being a racist, I laughed at him,
and Oleg stuck *his* nose in and accused me of calling homosexuality
"disgusting". He put "disgusting" in quotes in his posting, implying that
he was quoting me. All he had to do was tell me where I did this. Easy.
There was no "on-going conversation", no "posting back and forth".
>My being a bitch does not,
>however, excuse the fact that what you are saying here is utter garbage.
How ironic.
>Oleg based his comments on a series of articles you wrote.
Bullshit. You're lying your ass off, trish, and the sad part is, you might
not even know it.
I had only posted two articles prior to this thread concerning homosex-
uality, and no "bright" person would have thought I was a homophobe from
them (well, Charles did, but that just proves my point ;-), and I definitely
never called them "disgusting". Of course I'm not going to repost both of
them here; that would be a waste of bandwith. If you *really* want a copy,
I'll e-mail them to you.
>>Oleg never even responded.
>
>Well, why should he? He clearly had you backed in a corner, your only
>defense was to play semantic games with him, just like you're continuing
>to do now.
It's pretty obvious you're the one playing games, trish.
>You didn't win anything, Steve. You failed to answer Oleg's charges.
>He won, you lost. Of course, that's to be expected in dealing with
>anybody with a gryphon account...
Ok, Trish, I have just proven without a doubt that you're completely
wrong. I win, you lose (and I know how you hate to lose). Now
shut the fuck up.
No, I don't expect you to; you'll pick the most irrelevant point you
can find in this posting, and try to use that to flame me, knowing
that I'll see how stupid it is and get frustrated and then we'll be
completely off the subject and then you'll sit back and smile at how
clever you are....
Sorry, ain't gonna work.
-------
Steve Murray
SXM101@PSUVM SCM@PSUECLX
"And two weeks ago I was thinking about
how I hadn't been flamed by a female..."
Dave Hill
>
> Oleg never even responded. I win. He loses. Of course, that's to be
> expected with dealing with anybody with a gryphon acct...
Oh gosh SXM101@PSUVM ... you're sooo sooo studly.
What a tough guy!
Of course it NEVER EVER entered your wrinkley little pea-brain
that maybe Oleg was busy or maybe out of town?
Or that you are such an insignificant piece of fluff that you didn't
even rate a quick 'Now FUCK OFF'?
Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
Or was that some other PSUVMPUKE? Hard to tell... you're all
just such a waste of bandwidth.
Go fuck a hot exhaust pipe ya' bleedin' bonehead.
Dave
Diane Holt
>Let me set the scenario for you, since you're so obviously lost.
Almost right -- you got the "lost" part right -- it's the "you're" that
should've been "I'm" that you got wrong. But keep working on it.
>SeanD and I were flaming each other; I asked when Hong would "stick his
>yellow nose in", Charles accused me of being a racist, I laughed at him,
>and Oleg stuck *his* nose in and accused me of calling homosexuality
>"disgusting".
Sorry. Wrong. Wrong, wrong-o, wrong.
Trust me on this one. I've got this memory, you see, that just keeps
things -- all kinds of things -- regardless of how incredibly insignificant
they are. It's actually kind of a bitch, but I have managed to tone it
down somewhat over the years, so it's a bit more livable, but still...
...I do end up remembering some pretty ridiculously useless things -- like
what went on that sparked Oleg's comment about you. It didn't have anything
at all to do with the "yellow nose" stuff; it had to do with your making
remarks about some peoples' "disgusting" sexual activities. Oleg even
responded to that particular article, asking you why you should even care
what two adults choose to do in the privacy of their sexuality. I was
thinking of responding to his question by commenting about the psychology
behind that type of concern, but I got sidetracked and ended up just letting
it go by, deciding that it probably wouldn't be worth it to go back to it,
since you'd only feel a need to get defensive anyway, so why bother.
If you don't recall that particular article, I suppose I could get my
friend at decwrl to try to exhume it, but really, you should just have
a copy of it, right? I mean, you got this big ol' blue hunka metal
there, saving each and every article automagically for you, right?
You've been given the opportunity to vindicate yourself, so do it already,
or give up and shut up.
>He put "disgusting" in quotes in his posting, implying that
>he was quoting me.
Oh, that's right -- you're also that idiot who doesn't understand English.
Let me explain this to you in such simple terms that even you might get it;
I'm not giving that possibility real good odds, though.
Hey -- wait a second -- I just remembered -- I explained this very same
thing to Hillel not long ago. Remember? ... imagine someone standing there,
arms bent at the elbow, first two fingers bending in a quick "dip-dip"
motion, saying "quote"...
Oleg quoted the word "disgusting" not to indicate that it was the word
you'd used (though I think you may have -- either that or "repulsive";
it was certainly something very much like that ... we'll see what it
actually was when you repost that portion of that article, assuming
you do -- if not, we'll see it from the retrieved article out of decwrl),
but to indicate a "dip-dip -- quote: disgusting". Get it?
>All he had to do was tell me where I did this. Easy.
He probably had better things to do; including not even reading alt.flame.
He's a very popular fellow, you know.
>I had only posted two articles prior to this thread concerning homosex-
>uality, [...] Of course I'm not going to repost both of them here; that
>would be a waste of bandwith.
On the contrary -- we're all dying to see them. You needn't repost the
entire articles -- just the relevant parts ... you know, where you wrote
about other peoples' "disgusting" sexual activities.
>If you *really* want a copy, I'll e-mail them to you.
You and T!d got together for lunch, right?
>>>Oleg never even responded.
Well of course not -- he probably had something far more interesting to do.
There's every possibility he never even saw your silly article trying to
"call" [<--"dip-dip -- quote: call"] him on this nonsense. I'd give that
possibility real strong odds.
>Ok, Trish, I have just proven without a doubt that you're completely
>wrong. I win, you lose (and I know how you hate to lose).
Not yet, sxm. But you can, legitimately, very easily. Or you can pull
a T!d and try to chicken-shit dance your way around it till even Trish
loses interest. Of course, given her tenaciousness, that may take quite
some time.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"I'm not a coward, and I'm not a hero. I'm somewhere in the middle."
"A cringing vermin?"
"That's approximately the spot."
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <89310.135...@PSUVM.BITNET>, SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>>
>> Oleg never even responded.
>
>that maybe Oleg was busy or maybe out of town?
No. It's more along the lines of how one never responds to the
faint echo of one's own flatulence in a public restroom.
--Blair
"For several reasons, none
of which can Steve fathom."
Thomas A. Dowe
>Not yet, sxm. But you can, legitimately, very easily. Or you can pull
>a T!d and try to chicken-shit dance your way around it till even
>loses interest. Of course, given her tenaciousness, that may take quite
>some time.
Ok, Diane, I guess that you don't ever avoid answering leading questions,
e.g., "Have you stopped masturbating with your garden rake, yet? Or,
why are you lying about me like this, Diane?
I understand your devotion to ; after all, you-all need to stick
together in this cold, cruel world for protection. However, supporting
your idol in this particular instance is just stupid. I mean, "Have
you stopped beating your kitten, yet?
Why don't you go take some RNA or something, huh?
Patricia O Tuama
>you're so obviously lost.
No, I'm not "lost," dear and nothing you have written here in any way
refutes the fact that Oleg made his comments about you in reference to
certain articles you had written and that the only way you could think
to answer his charges was to play some stupid game about quotes.
>I had only posted two articles prior to this thread concerning homosex-
>uality, and no "bright" person would have thought I was a homophobe from
>them (well, Charles did, but that just proves my point ;-), and I definitely
>never called them "disgusting".
You sure sounded homophobic to me in those postings and obviously you
sounded homophobic to Oleg as well which is why he flamed you, you
stupid twit. The fact that you may or may not have used the term "dis-
gusting" is entirely irrelevant and the fact that your entire argument
is based on this only demonstrates what an asinine imbecile you are.
>>Well, why should he? He clearly had you backed in a corner, your only
>>defense was to play semantic games with him, just like you're continuing
>>to do now.
>It's pretty obvious you're the one playing games, trish.
And what game is this, dear? I asked you a simple question which you
have failed miserably to answer and every time you open your mouth
about this all you do is dig yourself in even deeper.
> I win, you lose (and I know how you hate to lose).
Our little friend Stevie here recently sent me what looked like a mass
mailing questionnaire asking why those of us who post to here do so.
I thought it was a fairly innocent question myself, but it now appears
from what he has written here that his sole purpose in doing this was
to garner personal information about other netters for his use in flam-
ing us. I strongly advise anyone else who has received a copy of this
questionnaire to ignore it.
You lose, Steve, and in a big way.
Now
>shut the fuck up.
Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what to do, you stupid little
whiny underaged dipshit? Blow it out your ass, child.
Allan Gyorke
netget
In article <21...@gryphon.COM>, da...@gryphon.COM (Dave Hill) says:
>
>Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
>Or was that some other PSUVMPUKE? Hard to tell... you're all
>just such a waste of bandwidth.
>
Gee, what an intelligent guy you are...you figured out that every-
one of us Penn State'ers are alike. Now why don't you stereotype some other
group of people like Jews or African Americans you fucking Nazi.
______________________________________________________________________
_ ASG102 at Penn State * Avast yee hardees...There she blows!!! _
_ Allan Gyorke * -Author of "Parabolas Hyperbolas and _
_ -Better known as EVIL * Toiletbolas" _
________________________*_____________________________________________
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
>Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
Does any display of physical prowess scare you this much, or is
it just when it comes from somebody at PSUVM?
-------
Steve Murray
SXM101@PSUVM
Christopher K Davis
Allan> netget
Wassamatta? Menu-driven posting broken again?
In article <21...@gryphon.COM>, da...@gryphon.COM (Dave Hill) says:
Dave> Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
Dave> Or was that some other PSUVMPUKE? Hard to tell... you're all
Dave> just such a waste of bandwidth.
>>>>> On 9 Nov 89 19:15:19 GMT, ASG...@PSUVM.BITNET (Allan Gyorke) proved
>>>>> that the stereotype fits him:
Allan> Gee, what an intelligent guy you are...you figured out that
Allan> every- one of us Penn State'ers are alike. Now why don't you
Allan> stereotype some other group of people like Jews or African Americans
Allan> you fucking Nazi.
And I see you've taken PSU FL 101, "The Art Of Calling People Nazis."
Y'know, this posting did more to perpetuate the PSUVM stereotype than
Dave's did...
Allan> ______________________________________________________________________
Allan> _ ASG102 at Penn State * Avast yee hardees...There she blows!!! _
Allan> _ Allan Gyorke * -Author of "Parabolas Hyperbolas and _
Allan> _ -Better known as EVIL * Toiletbolas" _
Allan> ________________________*_____________________________________________
Gotta love them PSUVM .signature files, too.
--
Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <c...@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smg...@buacca.bitnet>
"Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."
Allan Gyorke
>In article <21...@gryphon.COM>, da...@gryphon.COM (Dave Hill) says:
>
>Dave> Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
>Dave> Or was that some other PSUVMPUKE? Hard to tell... you're all
>Dave> just such a waste of bandwidth.
>
>>>>>> On 9 Nov 89 19:15:19 GMT, ASG...@PSUVM.BITNET (Allan Gyorke) proved
>>>>>> that the stereotype fits him:
>
>Allan> Gee, what an intelligent guy you are...you figured out that
>Allan> every- one of us Penn State'ers are alike. Now why don't you
>Allan> stereotype some other group of people like Jews or African Americans
>Allan> you fucking Nazi.
>
>And I see you've taken PSU FL 101, "The Art Of Calling People Nazis."
>
it at lease has some meaning (Unlike you calling Keith a 'pinhead' as in your
post Re: Freedom to Keep Away from Gays).
Therefore we can conclude that not only are you a boring simple-minded
closet lesbian who doesn't know what he's talking about, but you also post
such articles because you get your rocks off on replying to articles just to
make a few stupid insults that we've all heard ten billion times before. Try
to be more creative next time (Maybe you can go out on a limb and call someone
a jerk or something.)
Let's face it:
1) Nobody cares what you think.
2) Nobody loves you.
3) Do us all a favor, if you can think of nothing better than calling
someone a 'pinhead', restrict your postings to alt.basket weaving.
______________________________________________________________________
_ ASG102 at Penn State * Avast yee hardees...There she blows!!! _
_ Allan Gyorke * -Author of "Parabolas Hyperbolas and _
_ -Better known as EVIL * Toiletbolas" _
________________________*_____________________________________________
You have no right to say anything about my signature considering that
yours could put a rabid bitch in heat to sleep.
Jeff Vogel
As you recall, last week's lesson was on stereotypes. We used PSU as an
example, because, of course, the stereotype is true. We aren't sure what
it is about PSU. Maybe the water. But, anyway.
Lesson 3: Basic namecalling.
In article <89313.201...@PSUVM.BITNET> ASG...@PSUVM.BITNET (Allan Gyorke) writes:
>>Allan> Gee, what an intelligent guy you are...you figured out that
>>Allan> every- one of us Penn State'ers are alike. Now why don't you
>>Allan> stereotype some other group of people like Jews or African Americans
>>Allan> you fucking Nazi.
Allan Gyorke is one of our more promising students. Note the extra, subtle
dig he gets in there. The person to whom he refers is not just a "Nazi",
but a "fucking Nazi". Wowza. Gotta' watch out for those fucking Nazis.
They'll mess you up.
> I can call people whatever I want.
Exactly. My lesson for today. The word whatever is very important. Just
expel an adjective, and your flame will have all the more power.
> Therefore we can conclude that not only are you a boring simple-minded
>closet lesbian who doesn't know what he's talking about, but you also post
It is alright to call someone a lesbian; we all know how bad homosexuality
is. However, he has failed to note that only women can be lesbians.
This is, alas, the "Look Mommy, I Learned a New Word!" syndrome. But, don't
worry. He'll be over it in a few days and will be calling people
lesbians much more efficiently in the future.
>make a few stupid insults that we've all heard ten billion times before. Try
Now, now. You've shown quite well that there's no such thing as a stupid
insult. Although, I must point out, people have been called Nazi's here
at least 10,000,000,000 times.
Assignment 2: (due 11/18/89)
1. Use each of the following insults in a flame:
a. fag
b. boring
c. Nazi
d. PSU idiot
2. Write at least one page on why someone should be reduced to startled
dumbness by being called a (Gasp!) Nazi! Include one reference.
--
| Jeff Vogel, Harvey Mudd College, CA: jvo...@jarthur.claremont.edu |
Diane Holt
(Well, don't give it me.)
>I completely understood what you were trying to say.
Let's just see, shall we?
>But see, I didn't agree with it.
Well of course you didn't -- how could you agree with something you didn't
even comprehend?
>I find certain people "irritating" too, Mz. Holt. But I don't tell them
>not to post anymore. Is this sinking in yet?
Oh, yes, definitely. Sunk right in. Airhead.
Read the "But I don't tell them..." sentence, twink. Read it several times.
Now, see if you can read what I actually wrote. (I'm reposting this because
it's really obvious to me that you require multiple iterations of something
before there's even the remotest possibility that you might actually get it.
Get it?)
Article 12609 of alt.flame:
Path: gryphon!dianeh
From: dia...@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: PSU or CMU -- Turn 'em upside, they're all the same...
Message-ID: <21...@gryphon.COM>
Date: 25 Oct 89 09:22:12 GMT
References: <you don't want to know>
Reply-To: dia...@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt)
Organization: In Spirit -- Binky, Inc.
Lines: 22
In article <66...@pt.cs.cmu.edu> sdon...@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Sean Donovan)
writes:
-and-
In article <89297.131...@PSUVM.BITNET> SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
Both of them keep trying to write "flames" of each other's "literacy".
Trust me on this one, boys, neither one of you is qualified.
Please, go back to calling each other dickheads or something -- watching
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [Emphasis
added.]
you massacre the English language in your incredibly inane (and
unbelievably fucking *error-ridden*) attempts at "one-ups-manship" on
"spelling, grammar, clarity" and the like is making my toes curl. It's
making my teeth ache. It is not making me laugh.
Take it to the poolhall.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"Two-ball, in the side-pocket."
----------
Now, perhaps you took my closing quote a bit too much to heart, and your
eyesight isn't what it could be.
Either that, or it's "'Tell me, twinkie' Time" ... as in, "Tell me, twinkie,
how do you get from my telling you to *post* [<--get it? huh? POST] articles
calling each other dickheads to my telling you not to post anymore?"
>Wow, this is the second person from gryphon who has backed down after I
>asked them to offer proof for their statements....amazing.
Fool. Fucking, double-fucking fool. I have *my* articles handy and ready
for re-posting -- *as I already fucking _explained_ to you* <jesus> -- but
I'm sure as fuck not going to save *your* incredibly stoopid stuff; that's
up to *you* to do. Get it?
Here, let some more of my words get reiterated -- maybe it'll get a little
closer to comprehension this time:
>>[...] If you feel you've been misjudged, if you feel you've been
>>misrepresented, then it's your choice to offer evidence to the contrary.
Ta-da.
Your accusing me of telling you not to post anymore was a misrepresentation;
I've chosen to offer evidence to the contrary. Get it?
>No, I simply feel your reading comprehension skills leave something to be
>desired.
God, you're such a jackass. Don't you *know* that by now? You make a
blithering fool of yourself every fucking time you hit the send key.
But I'd never tell you not to. (What an insecure little whiner you are.)
>>(BTW, sxm -- the problem's not "diarrhea"; it's the exact opposite. The Net is
>> the avoidance technique.)
>
>Ha. I would hardly call your two to three hundred all-too-common articles
>examples of "constipation."
Clearly, you have the same sort of learning disabilities with arithmetic as
you do with reading and writing.
You, like, work at PSU, right, not go to school there? Like, something in
the Custodial Department ... or maybe Groundskeeping? No, that can't be right;
I'm almost certain you have to be able to understand and follow instructions
even for those tasks.
So maybe you're just some kind of, like, bag-lady or something, and you sneak
into the terminal-room at night to sleep...
Nah. Bag-ladies might be crazy, but they're not stoopid.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"It's a puzzle, all right."
Diane Holt
[ and others have written, as well ]
>
>Try and remember: USENET is *not* real life (does this need
>a (tm) jfh?).
In what way isn't it?
My little 'puter here certainly appears to exist in reality. I know I do.
I'm sitting here, typing this in, and that certainly has all the qualities
of real-ness about it.
Are newspapers "not real life", just because you read them? How about
books? Magazines? The backs of cereal boxes?
What's "not real" about Usenet?
Now, if one were to say it's not *everything* in life (although for some, it
probably comes close), I'd certainly agree. Nothing is *everything*. And
certainly the Net isn't all that much -- if it weren't for bouts of insomnia,
and the never-ending stack of undesirable dishes, and the occassional need
for a ploy to distract certain people from certain other ideas about what we
should be doing instead, and the somewhat perverted curiosity about what
incredible stupidity abounds in the world, I'd probably never find any time
for the Net. But that doesn't make it "not real".
So, what's "not real" about it?
>NOBODY TAKES THIS SERIOUSLY.
Of course you do, twink. If you didn't, you wouldn't be so head-up about
"bitches" and "liars".
Now, if you'd said "There are some people who don't take this stuff seriously,"
I'd agree with you. Up to a point. "Seriously" is a relative term, you see.
(Uh, do you know what "a relative term" means? Just checking.)
Now, in my case (and probably the case of most of the core of alt.flame
personnel), I take it as seriously as is required to keep things straight,
to not let people go too far off the rope, until, of course, they trip all
over the tangled mess and hang themselves on it.
The effort required for me to do that, though, is trivial. I keep things
straight quite easily. And the emotional investment in it is very nearly
nil. "Very nearly" because I do get amused by a lot of what goes on here,
and that's an emotional response. I also sometimes get completely
astonished by just how apparently incredibly dumb so many people are.
That, too, is an emotional response. (BTW: I'm still not certain if it's
just a real, physical lack of brain-power, or if there's just something
terribly wrong with the way people are educated, never being taught how
to actually *think*).
But, do I *care*, in the sense of investing any sort of *personal concern*
over, whether, say, someone like you feels a need to resort to mindless
babbling and calling me a lying bitch or any other ridiculous, pathetic
desperation-time epithet, or whether someone like, say, V*jk or whats-his-ass,
Brain, tries to contend that I'm "not very bright", or any of the other
nonsense that tries to get asserted about me?
Not one little dust-mote's worth. Why should I? You're nobody to me.
Which, I guess, may be what you mean by "not real life". But it's the
wrong way to put it. Usenet is quite real. The ongoing "conversations"
carried out here are quite real. Take that for all it's worth.
Off the Net, you and I would never engage in a conversation.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"Tell me something real..."
Dave Hill
>
> netget
> In article <21...@gryphon.COM>, da...@gryphon.COM (Dave Hill) says:
> >
> >Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
> >Or was that some other PSUVMPUKE? Hard to tell... you're all
> >just such a waste of bandwidth.
>
> Gee, what an intelligent guy you are...you figured out that every-
> one of us Penn State'ers are alike. Now why don't you stereotype some other
> group of people like Jews or African Americans you fucking Nazi.
Ah yes the 'you fucking Nazi' ploy.
Kid you just proved my point. A perfect 10 of an example.
Let's just say that (except for the Porthole which is in a class
by itself) PSUVM.BITNET posters have shown themselves, time and
time and fucking time again, to be the largest collection of
talentless, tasteless, brainless, soulless, humorless, clueless,
idiotic, inane, insipid, boorish waste of human resource on
the planet.
Dave
Dave Hill
> In article <21...@gryphon.COM>, da...@gryphon.COM (Dave Hill) says:
> >Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
>
> Does any display of physical prowess scare you this much, or is
> it just when it comes from somebody at PSUVM?
What? Say SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET, why don't you go down to the clinic
and see if they can jump start your brain.
Physical prowess? You mean putting on the little suit and ear
muffs and jumping someone on a rubber mat? That's not physical
prowess, SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET, that's foreplay.
Physical prowess is being able to do something extraordinary...
like getting through one of your postings without falling asleep.
Dave
Alex Katz
>Why should I bother being creative flaming someone who wouldn't appreciate
>it
Why should you bother to post?!?
P.S. For millitary personnel: if you're just trying to fit into whatever
he's expecting from you - discover a new
world of personal communications
and *email* away!
Hope you get it now ;-)
P.P.S. And if being creative is very tiresome for you
don't bother typing in 133 lines either.
....................................................
Alex Katz ak...@mizar.usc.edu
kmd...@mvsa.usc.edu
....................................................
Alex Katz
>the planet. ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
Hey Dave, it's "resource of waste" !
Christopher K Davis
Dave> Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
Dave> Or was that some other PSUVMPUKE? Hard to tell... you're all
Dave> just such a waste of bandwidth.
>>>>> On 9 Nov 89 19:15:19 GMT, ASG...@PSUVM.BITNET (Allan Gyorke) proved
>>>>> that the stereotype fits him:
Allan> [In reference to Dave Hill, da...@gryphon.com]
Allan> Now why don't you stereotype some other group of people like Jews or
Allan> African Americans you fucking Nazi.
In article <42...@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, c...@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher K Davis) says:
Chris> And I see you've taken PSU FL 101, "The Art Of Calling People Nazis."
>>>>> On 10 Nov 89 01:13:29 GMT, ASG...@PSUVM.BITNET (Allan Gyorke) said:
Allan> I can call people whatever I want. Calling him a Nazi was
Allan> accurate and it at lease has some meaning (Unlike you calling Keith
Allan> a 'pinhead' as in your post Re: Freedom to Keep Away from Gays).
I don't know; 'pinhead' was pretty accurate, after all. It's small,
pointed on top, and is good for sticking into things (in Keith's case, his
own rectum). And calling him a Nazi was accurate? How? I didn't see any
swastikas in his signature, anti-Semitic header lines, or small mustaches
in his posting.
Okay, I'll call you a PSUVM-poster-who-apparently-has-a-broken-comma-key.
That's accurate, since you don't seem to use them very often when typing
your puerile postings.
Allan> Therefore we can conclude that not only are you a boring
Allan> simple-minded closet lesbian who doesn't know what he's talking
^^^^^^^ ^^^^
You're quite confused, Allan. You need to get a dictionary. I'm sure the
fine folks at the PSU bookstore will be eager to sell you one. They might
even be nice and take the shrink wrap off of it before you leave the store,
so you won't have to go through all the mental gymnastics involved.
Allan> about, but you also post such articles because you get your rocks
Allan> off on replying to articles just to make a few stupid insults that
Allan> we've all heard ten billion times before. Try to be more creative
Allan> next time (Maybe you can go out on a limb and call someone a jerk or
Allan> something.)
Why should I bother being creative flaming someone who wouldn't appreciate
it (cf. the "Generic Flame"). The fact that you suffer from delusions of
grandeur in flaming, making you feel that you're actually worth my time to
come up with pithy, witty insults for you, does not (in itself) engender
any obligation on my part to oblige you. If I were to flame Oleg, or Tom
Maddox, or Clay, yes, I would spend time honing my verbal blade. But for
you, "snicker-snack." If you catch the punning reference, which I doubt.
Allan> Let's face it:
Allan> 1) Nobody cares what you think.
Indeed? Shall we take another net.poll, or do you claim to speak for all
of USENET? Generalizations are dangerous, and absolute generalizations are
absolutely frightening; Dave generalized about "PSUVMPUKE[s]," and, since
he coined the term, he can use it as a generalization quite easily. It
would appear that he defines "PSUVMPUKE" as "one of those PSUVM posters who
all seem alike to me" which would make his statement a tautology--not that
you'd recognize a tautology if Clay Bond rammed it up your colon with his
fist, mind you.
Allan> 2) Nobody loves you.
Indeed? Shall we take a worldwide poll? Remember--any absolute
generalization can be falsified by *one* counter example. This is basic
application of the scientific method. For example, the hypothesis "some
UFOs are alien spacecraft" is unfalsifiable, since for every UFO which is
identified *not* to be such, the UFO searchers can simply say, "Yes, but
the next one might be." However, the hypothesis "No UFO is an alien
spacecraft" is easily falsifiable by simply producing proof that one UFO
is, in fact, an alien spacecraft.
Allan> 3) Do us all a favor, if you can think of nothing better than
Allan> calling someone a 'pinhead', restrict your postings to alt.basket
Allan> weaving.
Again, why should I waste the effort? If alt.flame were only for literary
excellence in flaming, it would be a *much* lower volume group--and many
people could toss out the lines in ~/News/alt/flame/KILL that read
"/PSUVM/h:j". If you aren't going to put forth the effort, I see no reason
to do so.
Allan> You have no right to say anything about my signature
Allan> considering that yours could put a rabid bitch in heat to sleep.
Ooh... a "boring .signature" flame! How original! And if a rabid bitch in
heat were to walk into the lab at this moment, I would hope that my
.signature could, in fact, be used to subdue her and allow the animal
control authorities to remove her. Soporificness can be a virtue, you
realize.
And I have the right to say the following things about your signature
(which I will now dissect for the alt.flame.viewing.audience):
Allan> ______________________________________________________________________
The separator line. Used by those who assume the entire universe is, in
fact, as stupid as they are, and might not realize that the signature is
beginning.
Allan> _ ASG102 at Penn State * Avast yee hardees...There she blows!!! _
To the left, the "completely useless and invalid" form of net address,
where the userid (ASG102, how evocative!) is used with not a BITNET
nodename, not an Internet hostname, no, not even a UUCP bang-path, but a
statement of the institution he attends. I note that this fine
institution, when queried with nslookup, has 938 different hosts, and he
has managed to give us *no* hint in his .signature as to which one (except,
of course, to those who recognize a PSUVMPUKE when they see one, and can
then guess that his userid probably represents a PSUVM account).
To the right, and continued below, the traditional "stupid and insipid quote."
Allan> _ Allan Gyorke * -Author of "Parabolas Hyperbolas and _
Allan> _ -Better known as EVIL * Toiletbolas" _
Above, we see the "nickname," a form of address used by people who might
actually be within earshot, such as most of the other PSUVMPUKES who are,
presumably, at adjacent terminals.
Allan> ________________________*_____________________________________________
And, finally, the *closing* separator line, for those too stupid to realize
(without this help) that the prompt "End of article ### - what next?" means
that the end of the article has been reached.
In short, a fine example of Usenetius psuviempucus--collect the whole set.
Salit
#a (tm) jfh?).
In article <22...@gryphon.COM> dia...@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes:
>What's "not real" about Usenet?
The Pennsylvania kid did not understand the proof. The original axiom was:
"The Usenet is not the real world. The Usenet usually does not even
resemble the real world." -- Gene Spafford
I accept this axiom, do you accept it?
>and the somewhat perverted curiosity about what
>incredible stupidity abounds in the world,
You can find better examples for incredible stupidity in alt.sex...
>That, too, is an emotional response. (BTW: I'm still not certain if it's
>just a real, physical lack of brain-power, or if there's just something
>terribly wrong with the way people are educated, never being taught how
>to actually *think*).
The later.
>Not one little dust-mote's worth. Why should I? You're nobody to me.
Seems to me like a great line for one of the alt.sex.bondage stories...
>Off the Net, you and I would never engage in a conversation.
Why?
In a conversation you will be able to collect all the data that you get from
the postings on the net, and it will be *much* faster...
>Diane Holt
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"don't underestimate the juvenile attitude of some of the net." -- Gene Spafford
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
>In article <89313.143...@PSUVM.BITNET>, SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>> Does any display of physical prowess scare you this much, or is
>> it just when it comes from somebody at PSUVM?
>
>What? Say SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET, why don't you go down to the clinic
>and see if they can jump start your brain.
Yup, I thought so.
Jay you ignorant splut! Maynard
I truly don't understand the PUSVMers' problem with this being pointed
out, especially since they've truly demolished the old record holders:
*@gryphon.com. They've even surpassed that (large) subset known as the
Zealots of Richard.
Truly an amazing achievement.
To think of all that stoopidity(tm) packed into one VM system, too. Most
IBMs, having a sense of pride, would ABEND the supervisor at the
approach of even a small fraction of the PUSVM users. I'd like to meet
this truly remarkable computer sometime.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? - Brandon Allbery
Dave Hill
> In article <46...@ccicpg.UUCP>, da...@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) says:
> >In article <89313.143...@PSUVM.BITNET>, SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
> >> Does any display of physical prowess scare you this much, or is
> >> it just when it comes from somebody at PSUVM?
> >
> >What? Say SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET, why don't you go down to the clinic
> >and see if they can jump start your brain.
>
> Yup, I thought so.
You thought so what?
You thought you were a maggot but found out you were
just a maggot dropping?
You thought anyone but 'Fifi' would be intimidated by
your half inch of throbbing manhood?
You're pathetic. Even for a PSUMpholer.
Dave
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
>> >> Does any display of physical prowess scare you this much, or is
>> >> it just when it comes from somebody at PSUVM?
>> >
>> >What? Say SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET, why don't you go down to the clinic
>> >and see if they can jump start your brain.
>>
>> Yup, I thought so.
>
>You thought so what?
Not only are you a little whiney geek, but you also cannot read?
What a pitiful life.
>You thought anyone but 'Fifi' would be intimidated by
>your half inch of throbbing manhood?
Ah. A "dick-size" flame. I am *so* humbled. Why don't you tell
us about your "ten-inch manly whopper" now, hmm?
What's next, "your mother's a whore!"?
>You're pathetic. Even for a PSUMpholer.
And you could make a 12-year-old look like a flame master.
Grow up. Go lift. Get laid. Do something, but just get
*rid* of this damn complex you have. Please.
Sean Donovan
>What's next, "your mother's a whore!"?
Hey stevie, YOUR MOTHER IS A WHORE!
>Steve Murray SXM101@PSUVM
Sean
Dave Hill
>
> Not only are you a little whiney geek, but you also cannot read?
I can READ just fine. You can't WRITE.
Nothing you have ever written here has made any sense at all.
It seems you can't READ either, because every time someone asks
you to explain something you 'wrote' you just say 'duh?'.
Or 'I didn't write that, you can't read'.
Let me clue you in, ace... when no one can understand
what you've written, you've got the problem.
Maybe if we just 'barked' you'd understand.
> Grow up. Go lift. Get laid. Do something, but just get
> *rid* of this damn complex you have. Please.
Grow up? Gee thanks for the advice Mr. I'm 18 and Know-It-ALL.
You really are the very model of the Modern Major Assbite, aren't you?
I laugh in your pimply weasel face.
Ha.
Dave
Piccadilly Line Exile
>
>netget
Que?!
> Gee, what an intelligent guy you are...you figured out that every-
>one of us Penn State'ers are alike. Now why don't you stereotype some other
>group of people like Jews or African Americans you fucking Nazi.
>______________________________________________________________________
>_ ASG102 at Penn State * Avast yee hardees...There she blows!!! _
>_ Allan Gyorke * -Author of "Parabolas Hyperbolas and _
>_ -Better known as EVIL * Toiletbolas" _
>________________________*_____________________________________________
M'lud, I rest my case. Self-incrimination. The "Nazi" diversion. Etc.
(They just can't help it can they? I'd write it off to irony if it
hadn't come from PSUVM, but it always looks more like cancer from this
distance... Look, is PSUVM doing some sort of experiment in Artificial
Stupidity? Or are we all being put through some sort of intelligence
or tolerance test we're all failing dismally?)
Hamish
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
It's 10 o'clock, do you know what newsgroup you're in? (tm)
>It seems you can't READ either, because every time someone asks
>you to explain something you 'wrote' you just say 'duh?'.
>Or 'I didn't write that, you can't read'.
I would take the time to explain this all to you, but you're even
more tiresome than trish was. I *knew* she wasn't serious, but
you just might be stupid enough to believe all this crap.
>Let me clue you in, ace... when no one can understand
>what you've written, you've got the problem.
Figures you would take a simplistic approach like that.
>Maybe if we just 'barked' you'd understand.
I'm sure you would feel more comfortable with it. Go for it.
>Grow up? Gee thanks for the advice Mr. I'm 18 and Know-It-ALL.
No problem Mr. Who-Gives-A-Fuck-How-Old-You-Are and Don't-Have-A-Clue
>I laugh in your pimply weasel face.
>
>Ha.
Gee, Mr. Manly, I am cowering beneath my desk, afraid to ever show
my face after being publicly humilated by such an obviously superior
man. Now are you happy? Do you feel good about yourself? Good.
Damn, you're boring. Another flame thread cut short.
Alex Katz
>In article <89313.141...@PSUVM.BITNET> ASG...@PSUVM.BITNET (Allan Gyorke) writes:
>>_ Allan Gyorke * -Author of "Parabolas Hyperbolas and _
>>_ -Better known as EVIL * Toiletbolas" _
> Look, is PSUVM doing some sort of experiment in Artificial
> Stupidity?
Artificial?
You can't be serious.
Diane Holt
>Ok, Diane, I guess that you don't ever avoid answering leading questions, [...]
You mean like that one?
>e.g., "Have you stopped masturbating with your garden rake, yet?
It was stolen. Someone was seen running off with it, gibbering and
drooling and mumbling something like, "Hoot mon, b'gosh and begorra,
shit, man, am I Scottish or Irish? -- fuck."
That's okay, though, 'cause we only ever used it to rake around the
compost pile. That's probably what attracted the thief to it in the
first place.
>Or, why are you lying about me like this, Diane?
Like what? You mean you didn't actually post, some time back, all
about this hearing that was looming over your head, threatening to
take away your posting privileges, and all because Trish tried to
get you to stop sending her e-mail but you wouldn't so she finally
sent something to your Sysadmin, and you thought that was really
unfair because, while, yeah, you had been somewhat at <dip,dip, quote>
"fault", too, you guessed, kind of, in a small way, still...
And that since then, she's been asking you a mind-bogglingly incredibly
simple question that you've adamantly refused to do anything but just
chicken-shit dance around instead of answering?
You mean *that* kind of lying?
>I understand your devotion to ; [...]
I'm fond of space, but I don't think I could be called devoted to it.
>after all, you-all [...]
That hyphen affliction is getting worse. Now might be a good time to
seek that help you've been putting off.
>[...] need to stick together in this cold, cruel world for protection.
And you've still got that nasty problem with resentment towards people
who are liked and have friends. Please, do consider seeking help.
>However, supporting your idol in this particular instance is just stupid.
Damn, you're dumb. Truly.
Do you think I say that just to try to "cut you down"? Yes, you probably do.
That's what you do. But calling someone dumb who isn't, who obviously isn't,
who no one who also isn't would ever think was, is just schoolyard
neener-neenerism; it's meaningless.
If someone who obviously isn't dumb ever tells me I am, I'll listen.
I'll wonder why. I'll try to take it as meaningful and look into it,
see if there's something I'm missing.
You wouldn't . You don't. And neither does anyone else who posts here
who so fully demonstrates that they genuinely are. That's one of the
things that makes you, and them, dumb.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"Some chose to ride the Merry-go-Round. But it doesn't do anything.
It just goes 'round and 'round."
Diane Holt
> "The Usenet is not the real world. The Usenet usually does not even
> resemble the real world." -- Gene Spafford
>
>I accept this axiom, do you accept it?
Only in that I have "conversations" with people here whom I'd never have
conversations with off the Net. In that sense, yes, I agree completely.
But that doesn't make it "not real". These "conversations" are real,
as I've already said; they occur; they exist. That they wouldn't
occur off the Net doesn't make them suddenly not real.
>>and the somewhat perverted curiosity about what
>>incredible stupidity abounds in the world,
>
>You can find better examples for incredible stupidity in alt.sex...
I was referring to the Net, not just one newsgroup. The only places you're
likely to not find major stupidity is in those groups that are primarily
informational -- such as sci.aquaria.
>>Off the Net, you and I would never engage in a conversation.
>
>Why?
Because I don't bother engaging in conversations with people who aren't
bright enough to bother with, who have nothing about which I could relate
to them, who are, in a word, jerks.
Do you?
>In a conversation you will be able to collect all the data that you get from
>the postings on the net, and it will be *much* faster...
But the only information I'd need would be so near-instantaneously
gathered that I probably wouldn't even need a single word, much less
a conversation, to determine it; namely, that someone isn't worth my time.
Some people don't mind spending their time talking to people they don't
even like. I do. I bother with it on the Net because the Net is a
worldwide forum, read by far more people than it's posted to by; some
things get said that should not go uncountered, so, I counter. It's
the size of the audience that makes the difference here.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"I will not go gently into that dark Net..."
Patricia O Tuama
>I would take the time to explain this all to you, but you're even
>more tiresome than trish was. I *knew* she wasn't serious, but
>you just might be stupid enough to believe all this crap.
No, dear, I was completely serious. I asked you a question and you
waffled around for awhile before you gave up and started playing
childish games with quote marks in an effort to prove that you aren't
a bigot. You have never dealt with the substance or content of any
of the postings denouncing you.
You kick and scream about people not being educated enough or intell-
gent enough to understand you when the truth is that you simply don't
make very much sense. You seem to think that because you didn't use
the exact words Oleg attributed to you that this somehow erases the
fact that you are a bigot. You took what should have been an extremely
minor point and have tried desperately to construct an entire argument
around it.
Face it, hon -- you fucked up.
ps: keep your hate.mail to yourself and out of my mailbox, junior.
You have now been warned twice -- I don't put up with shit like that
from anyone least of all from tiresome twits such as yourself. My
mentioning this will of course result in tad sending you a barage of
lies about his posting privileges (assuming of course that he hasn't
already done this) but that's your problem.
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
Tuama) says:
>You seem to think that because you didn't use
>the exact words Oleg attributed to you that this somehow erases the
>fact that you are a bigot. You took what should have been an extremely
>minor point and have tried desperately to construct an entire argument
>around it.
>
>Face it, hon -- you fucked up.
Oh, this *is* tiresome. For the last time, trish, WHAT ARTICLES?
When I was making that big deal about "disgusting" (in quotes), I
thought you were talking about the two articles I wrote in .startrek,
neither of which had that quote *OR* that idea in them. Now, since it's
obvious that's *not* what you're talking about, I would like to know just
what the hell you are talking about. You claim to know what these two
alleged articles are about. Like I said before, I'm not asking you to
reprint the articles, since I know you don't waste time saving my postings.
All I'm asking for (FOR THE SECOND TIME) is a general idea of what they
are about, since I have no idea, because I never wrote them. I'm really
curious as to what you and diane are talking about.
>ps: keep your hate.mail to yourself and out of my mailbox, junior.
"hate.mail"???????? You must be joking. I complimented you in that
note, hon. You're just too paranoid and WAY too serious about all
of this.
>You have now been warned twice -- I don't put up with shit like that
>from anyone least of all from tiresome twits such as yourself.
Twice?? When was the other time you warned me about sending you mail?
D. J. McCarthy ~
>I can call people whatever I want.
>Calling him a Nazi was accurate and it at lease has some meaning...
>... you [are] a boring simple-minded closet lesbian ...
>... my signature ... could put a rabid bitch in heat to sleep.
I can't STAND it anymore!
Why oh why oh WHY did I have to discontinue FWU before this guy
showed up? Arrrrgh!!!
at that point deej, rueing the day
Salit
>But that doesn't make it "not real". These "conversations" are real,
>as I've already said; they occur; they exist. That they wouldn't
>occur off the Net doesn't make them suddenly not real.
The keyword is not "real" but "real world". These conversations exist,
but they are not similar to "real world" conversations.
>>>and the somewhat perverted curiosity about what
>>>incredible stupidity abounds in the world,
>>You can find better examples for incredible stupidity in alt.sex...
>I was referring to the Net, not just one newsgroup.
If that is your reason for reading the Net, then alt.flame is not the best
group (there are many more Pennsylvania kids in alt.sex).
>The only places you're
>likely to not find major stupidity is in those groups that are primarily
>informational -- such as sci.aquaria.
For the benefit of the people who don't know how "primarily information" group
is look likes I quote article 1 (in my site) from sci.aquaria:
% This group is by its name a science group. What should be
%posted here is information on aquarium science, *not* hobbyist
%crap about your aquarium. That goes for you, Mr. Sexton, as well
%as the rest of you clown-fish.
%
% Post and be flammed.
>Because I don't bother engaging in conversations with people who aren't
>bright enough to bother with, who have nothing about which I could relate
>to them, who are, in a word, jerks.
"Stupid" and "jerk" are not equivalent.
>Do you?
I believe in "know the enemy".
>Some people don't mind spending their time talking to people they don't
>even like. I do.
Talking with these people have two advantages:
1) I can flame them in person (flaming in real time is more fun).
2) It's better to know what they are up to, so I can be careful about it.
>I bother with it on the Net because the Net is a
>worldwide forum, read by far more people than it's posted to by; some
>things get said that should not go uncountered, so, I counter.
And you do it quite well...
>It's the size of the audience that makes the difference here.
The audience in alt.flame is rather small compare to soc.singles...
>Diane Holt
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"Extremes," said the Controller, "meet. For the good reason that they were
made to meet." ("Brave News World", Aldox Huxley)
Dave Hill
>
> I would take the time to explain this all to you, but you're even
> more tiresome than trish was. I *knew* she wasn't serious, but
> you just might be stupid enough to believe all this crap.
You don't *know* shit, kid.
And then you crawl into the refuge of the totally whipped:
'It was just a joke'.
You're a shoe-in for the PSUMphole poster child of the year award.
Dave
Thomas A. Dowe
>>Ok, Diane, I guess that you don't ever avoid answering leading questions, [...]
>You mean like that one?
Of course, like that one, stupid.
>>Or, why are you lying about me like this, Diane?
>Like what?
"Like what?"? What a dunce. Just a little trouble with your
reading comprehension, hmmm? Well, dear, the question was
rhetorical and referenced "leading questions"; remember now?
This is absolutely the last time I am going to assist you
with your inability to understand. Next time, try working
it out for yourself; try a butter knife.
>You mean you didn't actually post, some time back, all
>about this hearing that was looming over your head, threatening to
>take away your posting privileges, and all because Trish tried to
>get you to stop sending her e-mail but you wouldn't so she finally
>sent something to your Sysadmin, and you thought that was really
>unfair because, while, yeah, you had been somewhat at <dip,dip, quote>
>"fault", too, you guessed, kind of, in a small way, still...
See, Di, like this; a rhetorical question, duh....
>And that since then, she's been asking you a mind-bogglingly incredibly
>simple question that you've adamantly refused to do anything but just
>chicken-shit dance around instead of answering?
What question is that, hmmmm?
>You mean *that* kind of lying?
Right, you're catching on now, cement-for-brains.
>>I understand your devotion to ; [...]
>
>I'm fond of space, but I don't think I could be called devoted to it.
Right, space-for-brains, herself. Anyway, fond, devoted, a rose....
>>after all, you-all [...]
>
>That hyphen affliction is getting worse. Now might be a good time to
>seek that help you've been putting off.
What help is that, dear, hmmmm?
>>[...] need to stick together in this cold, cruel world for protection.
>And you've still got that nasty problem with resentment towards people
>who are liked and have friends. Please, do consider seeking help.
Help for what, hon?
>Damn, you're dumb. Truly.
>Do you think I say that just to try to "cut you down"? Yes, you probably do.
>That's what you do. But calling someone dumb who isn't, who obviously isn't,
>who no one who also isn't would ever think was, is just schoolyard
>neener-neenerism; it's meaningless.
Then why did you do it?
>If someone who obviously isn't dumb ever tells me I am, I'll listen.
Fat chance.
>I'll wonder why. I'll try to take it as meaningful and look into it,
>see if there's something I'm missing.
And I'll say, "Fuck off."
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <10...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, ri...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O
>Tuama) says:
>>
>>Face it, hon -- you fucked up.
>
>Oh, this *is* tiresome. For the last time, trish, WHAT ARTICLES?
You never will get it, will you, whipping boy?
--Blair
"Turn over. This side is done."
Dave Hill
>
> Oh, this *is* tiresome. For the last time, trish, WHAT ARTICLES?
On the contrary, SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET...
Bashing you, watching you squirm and wriggle, watching you sink
in a cesspool of your own words is fun, not tiresome.
> "hate.mail"???????? You must be joking. I complimented you in that
> note, hon. You're just too paranoid and WAY too serious about all
> of this.
You really don't have a clue, do you? What a shame.
Heres one, just for you, SXM101@etc.:
When you write compliments and they are taken as hate mail
or
When you write articles and everyone who reads them says "WHAT?"
or
When you write articles and everyone who reads them says
"what a load of racist homophobic sexist tripe"
then maybe just maybe you should get a fucking clue that
that career as a journalist is probably out of the question.
It's not really Manly work anyway. No heavy lifting.
Dave
Patricia O Tuama
>what the hell you are talking about. You claim to know what these two
>alleged articles are about.
-Two- alleged articles? What are you babbling about, Steve?
since I know you don't waste time saving my postings.
>All I'm asking for (FOR THE SECOND TIME) is a general idea of what they
I also don't waste time remembering every single thing you've ever
posted to any and all newsgroups. Suffice it to say, dear, that what
Diane, Oleg and I remember about you was based on several different
articles you wrote. Oleg challenged your statements and you were un-
able to refute what he wrote.
And you can play stupid little games about quotation marks and you
can change the subject as much as you like, but nothing will ever
change the fact that you were unable to refute what Oleg said about
you in his posting.
>"hate.mail"???????? You must be joking. I complimented you in that
>note, hon. You're just too paranoid and WAY too serious about all
>of this.
A very backhanded "compliment", dear, and one you wouldn't have bothered
to send if you yourself weren't taking "this WAY too serious" (sic).
>Twice?? When was the other time you warned me about sending you mail?
Go read the headers of that message, dear. And do try and pay attention
this time -- it's not that hard, hon.
Diane Holt
Well then, stop *doing* it.
>For the last time, trish, WHAT ARTICLES?
Fucking-a diddy-baggers, sxm, I've done everything but quote the actual
article. I've described and (near-verbatim) paraphrased the comments
made in it (at least in Oleg's response to it) about a hundred zillion
times now.
Why do you keep insisting on having *Trish* reiterate what I've already
written about it?
Geez -- have a beer.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"But it's five o'clock in the morning..."
"Yeah. Surprise!"
Diane Holt
So, like there's two "worlds"? Or maybe there's even more than two?
Like, spending Thanksgiving with your family's kind of unreal, right?
>These conversations exist, but they are not similar to "real world"
>conversations.
Maybe yours aren't, but mine certainly are. I guess if you'd not been
so worried about looking me up while you were still in LA you'd have a
better idea about all that, huh?
Oh well, in lieu of that, just ask anyone who has talked to me -- I write
pretty much the way I speak; I even use semicolons (and parentheses --
lots and lots of parentheses ... and elipsis -- dashes, too).
>If [perverted curiosity about stupidity] is your reason for reading the Net,
>then alt.flame is not the best group (there are many more Pennsylvania kids
>in alt.sex).
One of the reasons, Hillel -- *one*. Do you understand the concept of
"many-faceted"?
>"Stupid" and "jerk" are not equivalent.
And "bright" (the word *I* used) is not an antonym for "stupid". I already
explained what I mean by "bright"; don't make me do it again. It wasn't a
one-shot deal -- it means that all the time.
And someone who's not very bright, will be a jerk -- no way around it.
A narrow perspective, a myopic world-view, a self-focused attention
is bound to lead to jerkishness. The evidence abounds.
>I believe in "know the enemy".
Why do you have to know them on a personal basis? I mean, if you happen
upon a pile of dog-shit, and you know it for dog-shit because you can see
it and smell it, do you really feel a need to get personal with it, just
to make sure that's what it is?
>Talking with these people have two advantages:
>1) I can flame them in person (flaming in real time is more fun).
I thought you said the conversations here didn't at all resemble the
conversations you'd have in "the real world". Are you changing that
statement now?
>2) It's better to know what they are up to, so I can be careful about it.
You can know what people are up to simply by observing what's going on
around you; you needn't get to know the individuals involved.
>>It's the size of the audience that makes the difference here.
>
>The audience in alt.flame is rather small compare to soc.singles...
Yes, but the audience there is comprised, for the most part, of some
of the dullest, most straight-assed conservative bores one would ever
not want to meet. They're relatively harmless, when left to themselves
(although they do tend to eventually propogate, which is kind of a
scary thought), but having access to a worldwide forum for their
twisted presentation of the world is something I still have a hard
time letting slide. (The current "harmless revenge" thread is a
typical example. [Yes, I spot-check the group from time-to-time.])
But, burn-out hits even the best of us, so, until I get a new
environment-suit and can work over there without worrying about
contamination, I'll leave it to whatever few sane people might still
want to try to refute their broken perspectives.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"But I have to go to work today..."
"Yeah. Surprise!"
Diane Holt
[ More inane blathering -- but what the hell ... pop another Pacifico,
and let's have it at.]
>In article <22...@gryphon.COM> dia...@binky.UUCP (Diane Holt) writes:
>>You mean like that one?
>
>Of course, like that one, stupid.
See? Told you you'd try to call me dumb. Told you it'd just be
neener-neener-neenerism. Told you not to bother. Boy, are you
ever dumb.
>"Like what?"? What a dunce. Just a little trouble with your
>reading comprehension, hmmm? Well, dear, the question was
>rhetorical and referenced "leading questions"; remember now?
What a load of crap. Your "lying" remark referenced my comment
about your chicken-shit dancing around Trish's question about
the outcome of your "posting-priveleges hearing". You know it.
I know it. Everybody who reads this group and hasn't already
put a Kill file on you knows it. Boy, are you ever dumb.
>See, Di, like this; a rhetorical question, duh....
Right. My asking you if you meant you'd never posted all that
trash about a hearing and how it was Trish's fault was rhetorical.
The fact that you've seen it for that, and admitted that you've
seen it for that, qualifies as an admission on your part that
you *did* write all that shit, even though you've been trying
to suggest lately that you didn't. Boy, are you ever dumb.
>>And that since then, she's been asking you a mind-bogglingly incredibly
>>simple question that you've adamantly refused to do anything but just
>>chicken-shit dance around instead of answering?
>
>What question is that, hmmmm?
Why, what happened at the "hearing", of course.
Listen, would you rather we wrote to the system administrator there at
tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM and ask them?
>>You mean *that* kind of lying?
>
>Right, you're catching on now, cement-for-brains.
But you've already admitted that it's *not* "lying" -- so, what exactly
is it you're pitching that we're all supposed to be catching on to now?
>Right, space-for-brains, herself.
It's so fucking useless -- don't you know that by now, T!d? It's
meaningless in the extreme to call someone stupid who isn't. It's
like saying, "Einstein was a moron." I mean, yeah, sure, you *can*
say that if you choose to, but unless you've got some kind of supporting
evidence to back the statement up with, it's just so much noise.
>>That hyphen affliction is getting worse. Now might be a good time to
>>seek that help you've been putting off.
>
>What help is that, dear, hmmmm?
Why, help with that ridiculous *thing* you have where you feel-this-need
to hyphenate words together that just-don't-need-it.
>>And you've still got that nasty problem with resentment towards people
>>who are liked and have friends. Please, do consider seeking help.
>
>Help for what, hon?
Why, help with your problems of feeling that it's a "cold, vicious"
world out there, and with your problem of feeling so much resentment
towards people who actually have friends, of course.
>>Do you think I say that just to try to "cut you down"? Yes, you probably do.
>>That's what you do. But calling someone dumb who isn't, who obviously isn't,
>>who no one who also isn't would ever think was, is just schoolyard
>>neener-neenerism; it's meaningless.
>
>Then why did you do it?
"I know you are, but what am I?" It's 2nd-grade stuff, T!d. It's not
clever; it's not witty; it's not bright; it's very nearly not even worth
bothering with -- and if I wasn't going for a record for most articles
posted to alt.flame in a single day, I'd probably not have bothered with
this article of yours at all. You're such a yutz.
>>If someone who obviously isn't dumb ever tells me I am, I'll listen.
>
>Fat chance.
Think what you choose, but I've already done so, in response to both
Schwartz's and Bovis' contention that I was "oblivious". Schwartz
never did post any kind of expose', proving his assertion, and Bovis
wrote me something in e-mail, which I read, thought about what he had
to say, and may respond to in 6 or 7 months.
You're provided the same opportunity to backup your assertion. You've
called me "stupid" and "cement-for-brains" -- provide evidence to
support that. I've an open mind; I'll look at what you pull together.
If it looks like you've got a good case, I'll pay for your first
therapy session -- how's that?
>>I'll wonder why. I'll try to take it as meaningful and look into it,
>>see if there's something I'm missing.
>
>And I'll say, "Fuck off."
Exactly. Which is why you're so fucking *dumb*.
You're trapped in it now, and you see no way out. You're even stupider
than sxm, who struggled for a long time with pumping out mindless
articles that he (misguidedly) thought were what he was "supposed" to
be writing, not understanding that it's not the "fucking moron" or the
"dipshit" aspects of the articles here that are important (it's just
nice that you can say those things without worrying about some bozo
saying, "I don't see why you have to get so nasty. Take it to alt.flame."),
but rather the *content* of the article that's important.
Yours have very little. In fact, the only articles you've ever written
that had much of anything that could even slightly resemble content were
the ones you wrote about your "upcoming hearing".
So, what did happen at that hearing, T!d?
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"Peanut?"
Salit
>So, like there's two "worlds"? Or maybe there's even more than two?
Have you ever heard about the "third world"? 1/2 :-)
>>These conversations exist, but they are not similar to "real world"
>>conversations.
>Maybe yours aren't, but mine certainly are.
One of soc.singles posters (sorry I didn't save article) claimed after you had
flamed him to crisp that he got e-mail from someone who knows you
and described you "a sweet person" or something like this and told him not that
get a wrong impression from your postings...
>I guess if you'd not been
>so worried about looking me up while you were still in LA you'd have a
>better idea about all that, huh?
I sent you several e-mails (to ashtate) but I did not get any response
when I was in L.A. I see no point in trying to meet
someone who does not answer my e-mails.
>And someone who's not very bright, will be a jerk -- no way around it.
>A narrow perspective, a myopic world-view, a self-focused attention
>is bound to lead to jerkishness. The evidence abounds.
Think about the torturer in "1984", or the Controller in "New Brave World".
These people are smart, have a wide perspective, they are *not* self-focused,
they can guess the word the hero forgot, and they are very very dangerous.
The point is that one can understand *exactly* how bad is what one does,
and still do it. That's the real nihilism.
>>I believe in "know the enemy".
>Why do you have to know them on a personal basis? I mean, if you happen
I have to know some of them on personal basis. There is no need
to know all of them, but it's not a good idea to ignore all of them.
They may be stupid, but they are dangerous.
>>Talking with these people have two advantages:
>>1) I can flame them in person (flaming in real time is more fun).
>I thought you said the conversations here didn't at all resemble the
>conversations you'd have in "the real world". Are you changing that
>statement now?
I did not say that the conversations here "didn't at all resemble..." The
people who play are the same, but the rules of the game are different.
>>2) It's better to know what they are up to, so I can be careful about it.
>You can know what people are up to simply by observing what's going on
>around you; you needn't get to know the individuals involved.
May be you're smarter than me; it takes me a *long*
time to understand people who enjoy things that I despise.
>scary thought), but having access to a worldwide forum for their
>twisted presentation of the world is something I still have a hard
>time letting slide. (The current "harmless revenge" thread is a
>typical example. [Yes, I spot-check the group from time-to-time.])
I have a "live file" to soc.singles of the people I want to read
(you and wharfie are there BTW).
>But, burn-out hits even the best of us, so, until I get a new
When I feel burn-out in the "real world" I read the net more...
>Diane Holt
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"Burt, the box-boy. Nancy and Alice and Linda. Sid, the failure. John, who
walked with a rolling motion. And the doctor, the juke box repairman, the
pizza cook, the use car salesman, the swinging couple who swapped partners,
the babyfat discotheque dancer... all of them.
They came for him." -- ("Try a Dull Knife", Harlan Ellison)
Steve Murray
>>what the hell you are talking about. You claim to know what these two
>>alleged articles are about.
>
>-Two- alleged articles? What are you babbling about, Steve?
Hell, I'll be amazed if you can come up with something about one article.
You're lying, you know it, and your attempts at back-pedaling and accusing
me of ignoring the subject is pathetic.
>I also don't waste time remembering every single thing you've ever
>posted to any and all newsgroups.
Oh, this is a classic. First, you remember the articles, and you remember
why you thought I was a homophobe, and you remember what Oleg allegedly
said to me, but now, you can't even give a *general* idea what they were
about. Do you actually think anybody out there is falling for this spew
you're typing?
Do you always form opinions on things that you can't remember?
>And you can play stupid little games about quotation marks [...]
Uh, sorry to spring this on ya, but I dropped the subject of quota-
tion marks about 6 postings ago. You, of course, are still grasping
desperately to anything that will help you, no matter how insipid and
off the subject.
>A very backhanded "compliment", dear, and one you wouldn't have bothered
>to send if you yourself weren't taking "this WAY too serious" (sic).
Logic process is as warped as ever, eh trish?
>>Twice?? When was the other time you warned me about sending you mail?
>
>Go read the headers of that message, dear. And do try and pay attention
>this time -- it's not that hard, hon.
Sorry, I discarded it as soon as it appeared in my mailbox.
Now, would you like to tell me when was the other time you warned me
about sending you mail, hon?
Oh, nevermind, I don't expect you to come up with an answer for this
anymore than I expect an answer for anything else I've asked you or
accused you of. Congratulations, trish, you've managed to raise "I
know you are but what am I?" to an art form.
Piss off.
-------
Steve Murray SXM101@PSUVM
Do you ever get tired of the waiting?
Do you ever get tired of being in there?
Don't worry, nobody lives forever... D. Gilmour
Thomas A. Dowe
/See? Told you you'd try to call me dumb. Told you it'd just be
/neener-neener-neenerism. Told you not to bother. Boy, are you
/ever dumb.
<-:
/What a load of crap. Your "lying" remark referenced my comment
/about your chicken-shit dancing around Trish's question about
/the outcome of your "posting-priveleges hearing". You know it.
/I know it. Everybody who reads this group and hasn't already
/put a Kill file on you knows it. Boy, are you ever dumb.
You are sure concerned about this, aren't you. Sounds as if you
might even have a 1st person interest. Don't tell me you are
just another of herself's psuedos; how sad that would make Barry
and Steve. Perhaps the near hysterical tone of your writing is
another clue(?)
/Right. My asking you if you meant you'd never posted all that
/trash about a hearing and how it was Trish's fault was rhetorical.
/The fact that you've seen it for that, and admitted that you've
/seen it for that, qualifies as an admission on your part that
/you *did* write all that shit, even though you've been trying
/to suggest lately that you didn't. Boy, are you ever dumb.
Or, maybe you are Pott'ys psuedo; you are certainly repetitious
enough to be.
>>>And that since then, she's been asking you a mind-bogglingly incredibly
>>>simple question that you've adamantly refused to do anything but just
>>>chicken-shit dance around instead of answering?
The question mark might indicate some doubt about your characterization?
Anyway, I find it very interesting that you and herself used the same
epithet on the same day: "chicken-shit dance around."
/Listen, would you rather we wrote to the system administrator there at
/tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM and ask them?
Why not? Why don't you mention that you like to call people chicken-shits,
liers, dumb, etc. Mention that it is a wonder that Tek would hire such a
stupid employee and that they would be better served by firing him -- that
would be a compliment to the style of your heroes.
>>>You mean *that* kind of lying?
>>Right, you're catching on now, cement-for-brains.
/But you've already admitted that it's *not* "lying" -- so, what exactly
/is it you're pitching that we're all supposed to be catching on to now?
Oh, no. I told you last time that I wouldn't explain, again. Figure it
out for yourself, cry-in-the-dark-for-help.
>>Right, space-for-brains, herself.
/It's so fucking useless -- don't you know that by now, T!d? It's
/meaningless in the extreme to call someone stupid who isn't. It's
/like saying, "Einstein was a moron." I mean, yeah, sure, you *can*
/say that if you choose to, but unless you've got some kind of supporting
/evidence to back the statement up with, it's just so much noise.
Exactly. Perhaps there is help for you after all.
>>>That hyphen affliction is getting worse. Now might be a good time to
>>>seek that help you've been putting off.
>>What help is that, dear, hmmmm?
/Why, help with that ridiculous *thing* you have where you feel-this-need
/to hyphenate words together that just-don't-need-it.
Why-do-you-think-I-don't-need-it, h-m-m-m-m?
>>>And you've still got that nasty problem with resentment towards people
>>>who are liked and have friends. Please, do consider seeking help.
Isn't projection wonderful, little-miss-I-don't-have-a-clue-so-help-me?
>>Help for what, hon?
/Why, help with your problems of feeling that it's a "cold, vicious"
/world out there, and with your problem of feeling so much resentment
/towards people who actually have friends, of course.
My friends know that I don't want, or need, any help with the likes of
you and herself. Now, with Gene "I can ruin your reputation" Smith, that
might be another matter; although I doubt it.
>>>Do you think I say that just to try to "cut you down"? Yes, you probably do.
>>>That's what you do. But calling someone dumb who isn't, who obviously isn't,
>>>who no one who also isn't would ever think was, is just schoolyard
>>>neener-neenerism; it's meaningless.
>>Then why did you do it?
/"I know you are, but what am I?" It's 2nd-grade stuff, T!d. It's not
/clever; it's not witty; it's not bright; it's very nearly not even worth
/bothering with -- and if I wasn't going for a record for most articles
/posted to alt.flame in a single day, I'd probably not have bothered with
/this article of yours at all. You're such a yutz.
Thank you. If you knew how much your comments pleased me, I am sure that
you would have a hissy fit.
>>>If someone who obviously isn't dumb ever tells me I am, I'll listen.
>>Fat chance.
/Think what you choose, but I've already done so, in response to both
/Schwartz's and Bovis' contention that I was "oblivious". Schwartz
/never did post any kind of expose', proving his assertion, and Bovis
/wrote me something in e-mail, which I read, thought about what he had
/to say, and may respond to in 6 or 7 months.
I have tried to tell you directly that I am quixotic, but you just won't
listen. Stuff like this is just the pitiful creaking of a windmill and
which I see as dragon nature. The saddest part is that you don't realize
that you are just emphasizing how Mz Space-for-brains is wrong.
/You're provided the same opportunity to backup your assertion. You've
/called me "stupid" and "cement-for-brains" -- provide evidence to
/support that.
Ho, ho! You and herself call me a lier without evidence and then demand
proof when I insult you? Can you say cement-for-brains hypocrit?
/I've an open mind; I'll look at what you pull together.
/If it looks like you've got a good case, I'll pay for your first
/therapy session -- how's that?
When I started the process of losing my self-importance, I gave up
seeking outside help. You are the one who keeps projecting the
need for "help." Really, Di, I can't help you, except to try and
show you how really stupid it is to misrepresent and pretend to
reason. If you won't, though, you won't....
/[...]but rather the *content* of the article that's important.
Sigh.
/"Peanut?"
Ooooh no thanks. It seems to have trunk snot all over it!
Dave Hill
> In article <10...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, ri...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O
> Tuama) says:
>
> >I also don't waste time remembering every single thing you've ever
> >posted to any and all newsgroups.
>
> Oh, this is a classic. First, you remember the articles, and you remember
> why you thought I was a homophobe, and you remember what Oleg allegedly
> said to me, but now, you can't even give a *general* idea what they were
> about.
You're fucking flashed again, ace.
I believe the key words here are 'EVERY SINGLE THING'.
No one said they can't remember the *general* idea of what you wrote.
When you post articles claiming that all commie nigger chink bitches
are faggots and should be shot on sight it's not important to remember
the particulars.
It's enough to remember that you write racist homophobic sexist trash.
Dave
Richard Sexton
*plonk*
(Would you do me a favour and put ``PSU'' somewhere in the header
of your articles so my kill file can weed you out in 1 pass, instead
of 2 ? Thanks)
--
``He is good with numbers, but I keep having to tell him how to
work the VCR over and over again'' -- Rajan Mahadevan's roommate
ric...@gryphon.COM {routing site}!gryphon!richard
Steve Murray
>> >I also don't waste time remembering every single thing you've ever
>> >posted to any and all newsgroups.
>>
>> Oh, this is a classic. First, you remember the articles, and you remember
>> why you thought I was a homophobe, and you remember what Oleg allegedly
>> said to me, but now, you can't even give a *general* idea what they were
>> about.
>
>You're fucking flashed again, ace.
>
>I believe the key words here are 'EVERY SINGLE THING'.
>
>No one said they can't remember the *general* idea of what you wrote.
Do you like making an ass out of yourself, shit-for-brains?
Here's what was originally written:
SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET:
>Patricia O Tuama:
>>All I'm asking for (FOR THE SECOND TIME) is a general idea of what they
>
>I also don't waste time remembering every single thing you've ever
>posted to any and all newsgroups. Suffice it to say, dear, that what
So let's see that again:
>No one said they can't remember the *general* idea of what you wrote.
Uh-huh. Sure they didn't Dave. I should've known it would be too much
for you to remember two whole articles at one time.
Fool.
Blair P. Houghton
>In article <10...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, ri...@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O
>Tuama) says:
>>In article <89317.141...@PSUVM.BITNET> SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>>>obvious that's *not* what you're talking about, I would like to know just
>>>what the hell you are talking about. You claim to know what these two
>>>alleged articles are about.
>>
>>-Two- alleged articles? What are you babbling about, Steve?
>
>Hell, I'll be amazed if you can come up with something about one article.
>You're lying, you know it, and your attempts at back-pedaling and accusing
>me of ignoring the subject is pathetic.
Bullshit.
You've been evading and dissembling since Oleg nailed you. Now
you're so fucking confused you don't know who's confused anymore.
Give it up, unplug your account, and let PSU have its reputation
back.
--Blair
"Does Paterno make PSUVM
users wear those black
shoes, too, is that it?
Congenital style damage?"
Thomas A. Dowe
>You're right.
Of course, I am.
>*plonk*
In this case, shouldn't that be *boink*?
>(Would you do me a favour and put ``PSU'' somewhere in the header
>of your articles so my kill file can weed you out in 1 pass, instead
>of 2 ? Thanks)
Done.
Hank Bovis
#In article <47...@ccicpg.UUCP>, da...@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) says:
#>You're fucking flashed again, ace.
#>No one said they can't remember the *general* idea of what you wrote.
#
#Do you like making an ass out of yourself, shit-for-brains?
#
#Here's what was originally written:
#SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET:
#>Patricia O Tuama:
#>>All I'm asking for (FOR THE SECOND TIME) is a general idea of what they
#>I also don't waste time remembering every single thing you've ever
#>posted to any and all newsgroups. Suffice it to say, dear, that what
#So let's see that again:
Yeah, let's do, this time with a little more context:
SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET, <89317.141...@PSUVM.BITNET>:
All I'm asking for (FOR THE SECOND TIME) is a general idea of what they
are about, since I have no idea, because I never wrote them.
Now really, Steve.... you asked for general info about something you
claimed NOT to have written.... the quote you repost above does NOT
suggest that anyone has forgotten the general idea of what YOU wrote.
#Fool.
#-------
#Steve Murray SXM101@PSUVM
Interesting signature....
hb
--
Hank Bovis (h...@Virginia.EDU, h...@Virginia.BITNET)
SXM...@psuvm.bitnet
says:
>#SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET:
>#>Patricia O Tuama:
>#>>All I'm asking for (FOR THE SECOND TIME) is a general idea of what they
>#>I also don't waste time remembering every single thing you've ever
>#>posted to any and all newsgroups. Suffice it to say, dear, that what
>#So let's see that again:
>
>Yeah, let's do, this time with a little more context:
>
>SXM...@PSUVM.BITNET, <89317.141...@PSUVM.BITNET>:
> All I'm asking for (FOR THE SECOND TIME) is a general idea of what they
> are about, since I have no idea, because I never wrote them.
>
>Now really, Steve.... you asked for general info about something you
>claimed NOT to have written....
Well, gee Hank, if I had written them, then I wouldn't need info about them,
now would I?? Duh.
Trish claims that I wrote them, and claims to know what they are about,
and when I ask her, she says, "Uh, uh, I don't remember."
God, you are such a bore. { Gonna make another witty
------- { flame out of these three
Steve Murray SXM101@PSUVM { lines, Hank?
Diane Holt
>Perhaps the near hysterical tone of your writing [...]
I don't think any comment is really necessary, do you?
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"I don't nag -- your muther naaaags."
Diane Holt
Well of course you didn't save it -- afterall, it wasn't one of mine.
>[...] claimed after you had flamed him to crisp that he got e-mail from
>someone who knows you and described you "a sweet person" or something like
>this and told him not that get a wrong impression from your postings...
But, Hillel, do you see that as some kind of contradiction? (And, by
the way, the person's remarks about "wrong impressions" indicates they
didn't get it, either.)
I've told you for*ever* over in soc.snorkles that just because people
choose to hear my "Fuck you" as angry doesn't mean it is. Oh, it can
be -- but rarely when written in an article for the Net. Same is true
for all the rest of the (erroneously) so-called "bad" words. I mean,
it's just a question of what people associate certain words with, dontchaknow.
For some, any use of "four-letter words" associates immediately to anger.
For others, such as myself, they're merely that many more pieces to my
vocabulary -- and they're useful, and expressive, and rich with all kinds
of variations.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've actually gotten angry
while writing an article for the Net.
I'm one of the most reasonable (yes, and "sweet") people I know.
>I sent you several e-mails (to ashtate) but I did not get any response
>when I was in L.A. I see no point in trying to meet
>someone who does not answer my e-mails.
Oh no! I'm sorry, Hillel, but I'm trying really hard not to laugh...
Do you have any idea how totally fucked up mail was in and out of that
two-bit machine? You should have posted one of those "Sorry to have
to post this to the Net..." things. I'd have written you back; I'd
have done lunch; I'd have brought along my dog, of course -- but, hey...
>Think about the torturer in "1984", or the Controller in "New Brave World".
>These people are smart, have a wide perspective, they are *not* self-focused,
>they can guess the word the hero forgot, and they are very very dangerous.
They are also not "jerks"; they are "evil". There's a big difference
between the two. In fact, a "jerk" could never really be an evil person --
he's too much of jerk to be.
The term "jerk" is short for "jerk-off". Does that help?
>I did not say that the conversations here "didn't at all resemble..."
I thought that was a basic element of GWS's axiom...
>The people who play are the same, but the rules of the game are different.
What rules are those? (Seriously.)
>>You can know what people are up to simply by observing what's going on
>>around you; you needn't get to know the individuals involved.
>
>May be you're smarter than me; it takes me a *long*
>time to understand people who enjoy things that I despise.
Huh? You can understand things intellectually without having to relate
to them emotionally.
>I have a "live file" to soc.singles of the people I want to read
>(you and wharfie are there BTW).
Oh well -- one out two isn't bad. (BTW: Why would you have thought Rat
worth reading? He was one of the all-time biggest jerk-offs ever to
post. Certainly one of the all-time most self-deluded, myopic, narrowly
focused people I've ever read.)
>When I feel burn-out in the "real world" I read the net more...
Yugh. When I feel burn-out, I do far more pleasant things. I read the
net when I've got ongoing insomnia (such as now) and dishes (also such as
now) and when I'm involved in ongoing threads (such as now) ... and
occassionally, I actually read it because it seems an interesting thing
to do -- but the term "interesting" is open for interpretation, as
the Chinese have pointed out to us in their oft-quoted curse.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"A fish-stick is neither a fish nor a stick; it is a fungus."
John Woods
> In article <21...@gryphon.COM>, da...@gryphon.COM (Dave Hill) says:
> >Nahh. Not Mister Studly Meet you in the Gym SXM101@PSUVM.
>
> Does any display of physical prowess scare you this much, or is
> it just when it comes from somebody at PSUVM?
Due to having recently recovered from surgery, Dave is afraid that laughing
that hard will cause him to cough up a lung or two.
Please refrain from unleashing the total power of your idiocy until his
stitches heal. Medical science thanks you, and the net thanks you.
Heaven's Bouncer
>God, you are such a bore. { Gonna make another witty
>------- { flame out of these three
>Steve Murray SXM101@PSUVM { lines, Hank?
Now, now, Steve.... you've already blasphemed the Goddess....
And you see what that's gotten you....
Don't provoke me, too....
God
Thomas A. Dowe
>>Perhaps the near hysterical tone of your writing [...]
>I don't think any comment is really necessary, do you?
No, of course not, Diane. You will never receive another from me, after
this one.
Blair P. Houghton
>
Do you raise your hands in a three-fingered or two-fingered salute
when you utter this oath?
(Go ahead. "One-fingered." You know where that finger goes, too,
sluice-butt...)
>Trish claims that I wrote them, and claims to know what they are about,
>and when I ask her, she says, "Uh, uh, I don't remember."
No, she says, "Steve you utter fucking moron, how could you be so
fucking stupid as to think it really matters exactly what they said
so long as they were insipid enough to make the ordinarily-thick-skinned
Oleg Kiselev call you a homophobic, subhuman, pigeon-eating, playground-
haunting, un-American dogfucker."
--Blair
"And she's right."
Patricia O Tuama
>Trish claims that I wrote them, and claims to know what they are about,
>and when I ask her, she says, "Uh, uh, I don't remember."
Now, now, Steve, tell the truth -- that's not what I said, either with
or without quotes.
Try again, dear, and this time read what I actually wrote. And then go
read Oleg's article of a few days ago.
And then, well, it'll probably be time for you to run away to study hall
or gym class or something.
Oleg Kiselev
>... make the ordinarily-thick-skinned
>Oleg Kiselev call you a homophobic, subhuman, pigeon-eating, playground-
>haunting, un-American dogfucker."
This is NOT TRUE. I have never called anyone either "pigeon-eating" or
"un-American". Never. And will not. Pigeon-eating is a disgusting thing.
Don't ever bring it up again. Especially after dinner.
--
"No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan
Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc....@seas.ucla.edu, ol...@gryphon.COM
(213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
Diane Holt
>Summary: [...] but let's limit the distribution to la.
But, Hillel, I've already told you -- I bother to post because of the
audience involved. If you reduce that, then you might as well go e-mail
with it, and you *know* what that means, right?...
(Besides -- you're not in LA ... or are you? ... Hillel -- what are you
keeping from us, hmmm?)
>I use "fuck you" when I want to anger, regardless of my state of mind.
>I have a feeling that you use "fuck you" for similar reasons...
And I've told you your feeling is simply wrong. Just what will it take
to convince you -- using those fucking *smiley faces*?
>*You* can express your ideas without using the "four-letter words".
<buh-doe-dee-oh-boe> I can *not* _express_ myself by limiting my vocabulary.
I know; there are situations where that's necessary, and I always feel
restrained and compromised by having to edit things I say during those.
I mean, there are some people whose "sensibilities" you care to take into
consideration, so, if you know (or just suspect) they'd be "offended" by
"certain words" (even though you, personally, think that's incredibly silly),
you can choose to do some quick mental-shuffling and avoid using them.
In this forum, there's no reason at all to do that, since I could give
a good goddam about anyone else's fucking "sensibilities" here.
The times I choose to not use "those words" are those times when it's simply
not appropriate for what I want to express.
>IMO you use them to cause certain reactions in the readers (anger for example).
And I've told you your opinion is simply wrong. I feel neither anger
myself, nor the need to anger someone else. Maybe you just hang out
with a really conservative crowd?
>>I'm one of the most reasonable (yes, and "sweet") people I know.
>
>I agree with the "sweet", but let's agree to disagree about "reasonable".
Sorry. I am quite reasonable (no quotes). Why don't you tell me where you
think I've been _un_reasonable and see what we can figure out from that?
>3) A real nerd does not admit in public that he can't find a path... 1/2 :-)
Well, quit being a real nerd, then. What's stopping you?
>Is "The Night Stalker" a jerk or an evil? (IMO both.)
Who's "The Night Stalker"?
>I don't see someone who "jerks-off" as a stupid person
>(and I have a feeling that you would agree with me.)
Of course. But if "jerk" was exactly synonomous with "stupid", we wouldn't
have two different words. Really, there are no such things as synonyms; each
word carries with it its own particular twist. "Jerk" isn't someone who's just
stupid -- or someone who just masturbates (an activity for which I hold no
disdain whatsoever); rather, it's someone who is perceived as doing little
else -- and masturbation can take many forms other than simply manually
stimulating one's sexual organs to the point of orgasm.
>>I thought that was a basic element of GWS's axiom...
>
>You're right, I forgot the exact wording.
But of course I was right. Really, Hillel -- have you ever known me
to be wrong?
>>What rules are those? (Seriously.)
>
>We don't know too much about each other and therefore we (not Diane, just most
>of the rest) can speak more freely.
So, the "impersonal" nature of discourse on the Net allows you to feel freer
to say things you'd otherwise not say in person to someone? That's sort of
silly, isn't it, Hillel?
>We can use "four-letters words", but we don't have any real danger of physical
>violence (at least as long as we stay away from Pennsylvania).
I've used "four-letter words" for a long, long time outside the Net, and I've
never felt any threat of physical danger from anyone as a result of my having
done that. Have you? If you have, maybe it's because you're using them only
in anger (or *to* anger)?
>The talks can be limited (like Trish's "I'm willing to debate with you over
>the net but don't to send any e-mail to me").
Yes, well, as I've said, the one bad thing about e-mail is that you don't
have the option of having an unlisted number. The next best thing is to
let someone you really *don't* want to hear from know that's the case.
>The bottom line is that we are not bounded by the regular "rules of engagement"
>and therefore we can act more freely.
And these "rules of engagement" are what? -- like what Mass Media uses?
Reduce to the lowest common denominator and aim for that? Like, if
Mrs. Grundy in Racine, Wisconsin might be offended, then play it for her,
keep it "safe"? Why? I don't happen to agree with her "sensibilities" --
I happen to think her being "offended" is a bunch of shit. I have no
need to help to perpetuate her "sensibilities"; I happen to think the
whole notion of "offensive" words is utter nonsense -- and, more often
than not, usually sprinkled with a liberal dose of hypocrisy (you know,
like the person who'll angrily shout "Fudge!", with the same [or possibly
even more] amount of emotionalism behind it than someone shouting "Fuck!",
yet they somehow think *their* word is okey-dokey and the other person's
isn't. What a load of crap.)
You should, however, keep in mind that, although it might seem that way
to you (since, apparently, these types of words jump out at you more),
I write, and have written, lots and lots and lots of articles that don't
have any of "those words" in them at all. When I use them, I do so for the
express purpose of expressing myself in the way that best suits what it is
I'm trying to express. (yikes! -- that's a hell of a sentence, isn't it?)
I'm sorry you associate them only with anger -- they're so much richer than
that, and you're missing so much by not being able to see that. Like the
few I've used in this article -- I've used them quite intentionally, and
certainly not to anger, but rather to amuse ... and underscore certain points
about their use by using them to do that.
>Some of us use this freedom, and some of us abuse it, but the final mixture
>is different from what we see in the "real world".
Certainly for those who "abuse it" -- the ones saying things here they'd
never dream of saying to someone in person. And I really don't see the
point. But, at least it's usually pretty obvious who's doing that and
who isn't, so getting past it isn't usually a problem. But it still
seems ridiculous to me.
>>Huh? You can understand things intellectually without having to relate
>>to them emotionally.
>
>I can't. :-(
Well, you should work on that. It's not really all that difficult to do.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you probably already can do that to
some degree -- it's probably only for things about which you have emotional
reactions already that you find it difficult to separate the emotional from
the intellectual understanding. Just work on being able to stand back
from that.
>Wharfie is a left over of the hippie's era that still hold some of the old
>believes.
Rat has never shown any evidence of ever having been a real hippie. Just
because someone's gotten (or even still gets) loaded, doesn't mean
they're not straight.
>Sometimes he has gems, and he is not a bad guy.
Rat is an unenlightened, straight-ass, moralizing, self-deluded, hypocritcal
moron.
Diane Holt
(dia...@binky.UUCP)
"Je ne regrette rein."
Hillel Gazit
>But, Hillel, I've already told you -- I bother to post because of the
>audience involved. If you reduce that, then you might as well go e-mail
>with it, and you *know* what that means, right?...
Sure.
BTW do you miss the Pennsylvania kids so much? 1/2 :-)
>(Besides -- you're not in LA ... or are you? ... Hillel -- what are you
No I'm not in L.A., but my SO will visit that sunny place next week...
>>*You* can express your ideas without using the "four-letter words".
><buh-doe-dee-oh-boe> I can *not* _express_ myself by limiting my vocabulary.
I did not say "by", I tried to say "despite".
>I know; there are situations where that's necessary, and I always feel
>restrained and compromised by having to edit things I say during those.
Sure, but you can still achieve almost the same final result, and
almost is good enough when you deal with these people...
>I mean, there are some people whose "sensibilities" you care to take into
>consideration, so, if you know (or just suspect) they'd be "offended" by
>"certain words" (even though you, personally, think that's incredibly silly),
>you can choose to do some quick mental-shuffling and avoid using them.
I can do it in Hebrew, but my English is not that good.
>And I've told you your opinion is simply wrong. I feel neither anger
>myself, nor the need to anger someone else. Maybe you just hang out
Have you ever written a flame without those "four-letters-words"?
>with a really conservative crowd?
I don't know. I'm still looking for someone who had voted for J. Helms...
>Sorry. I am quite reasonable (no quotes). Why don't you tell me where you
>think I've been _un_reasonable and see what we can figure out from that?
Someone tried to talk with you about these subjects and you told him:
#This is *the* final word on this. You post something trying to claim
#"accuracy" on your part, and you'll be laughed from here to Betelguese.
#(Hmmm...come to think of it -- post -- post.)
So I don't see any point in opening the subject once again...
Another subject that we have debated too many times is:
$What I've yet been able to figure out is: Why are people STILL being
$motivated by things that no longer EXIST in their world?
You had a real problem to understand something that almost
every first year psychology student understands...
IMO you are not reasonable in the sense that you don't accept the fact that
*some* people have an emotional structure which is different than yours.
You really can't understand why the nerds feel like nerds, why the Wendies feel
jealousy, why Carole and STella enjoy bondage games, etc. You want to help
people to "see the light" and you miss the fact that *sometimes*:
1) The best help is to leave them alone.
2) You can't help them to solve some problem because you
have never encounter it.
In that sense I see you as an unreasonable (but very intelligent) person.
>>3) A real nerd does not admit in public that he can't find a path... 1/2 :-)
>Well, quit being a real nerd, then. What's stopping you?
Good question, sometime I'll even find the answer...
>>Is "The Night Stalker" a jerk or an evil? (IMO both.)
>Who's "The Night Stalker"?
The guy from L.A. area the killed, raped and maimed people in the
Orange County three years ago. He was sentence to death last month.
>But of course I was right. Really, Hillel -- have you ever known me
>to be wrong?
Yes.
>So, the "impersonal" nature of discourse on the Net allows you to feel freer
>to say things you'd otherwise not say in person to someone? That's sort of
>silly, isn't it, Hillel?
No.
Some things may cause the wrong responses in other people. We still live in
the "real" world, and some of us (not Diane) have to play some role in
order to earn money. The net let us expose some sides that we
hide most of the time. It feels good.
>I've used "four-letter words" for a long, long time outside the Net, and I've
>never felt any threat of physical danger from anyone as a result of my having
>done that. Have you?
Yes.
>If you have, maybe it's because you're using them only
>in anger (or *to* anger)?
In some cases, but not always. Some people react in anger to these words
because they were thought that that's the right response. They are not very
bright, but there are too many of them around.
If someone like twang could beat you and get away with it, would he do it?
IMO the answer is yes, that's the only way he has to "prove" that he is
stronger than you, and have some harmful revenge.
What is your opinion?
>Yes, well, as I've said, the one bad thing about e-mail is that you don't
>have the option of having an unlisted number.
You can.
Open one more account and don't tell about it on the net.
Use the old account for the net and the new account for friendly e-mail.
>The next best thing is to
>let someone you really *don't* want to hear from know that's the case.
They still can fill your mailbox with junk from an unknown source...
>And these "rules of engagement" are what? -- like what Mass Media uses?
Take a look in "Games that people play" or some other stupid book about
how to be "successful".
>Reduce to the lowest common denominator and aim for that? Like, if
>Mrs. Grundy in Racine, Wisconsin might be offended, then play it for her,
>keep it "safe"? Why? I don't happen to agree with her "sensibilities" --
The point is different.
Some people *believe* in these protocols and may get the wrong conclusions
about you ("she talks about sex, that means that she wants to have
sex with me"). Sometimes it may be quite difficult to explain them that
they are *wrong*. You may say that you don't talk with these unbright
people off the net, and that's my point. *Your* off-net "roles of engagement"
include "don't talk with stupid people", but in soc.singles you talk with
(flame is more accurate) twang, KOVACH etc.
>I happen to think her being "offended" is a bunch of shit. I have no
>need to help to perpetuate her "sensibilities"; I happen to think the
Sometimes people try to ignore what you say. They can use your "dirty
language" as a way to ignore your ideas. Some people with *excellent*
English solve the problem by avoiding these words (Carole is a good
example), but it is not an easy solution.
>You should, however, keep in mind that, although it might seem that way
>to you (since, apparently, these types of words jump out at you more),
>I write, and have written, lots and lots and lots of articles that don't
>have any of "those words" in them at all.
Was any of these articles a flame?
>When I use them, I do so for the
>express purpose of expressing myself in the way that best suits what it is
>I'm trying to express. (yikes! -- that's a hell of a sentence, isn't it?)
I don't know. I use a semantic directed translator... 1/2 :-)
>I'm sorry you associate them only with anger -- they're so much richer than
I did not say that I associate these words *only* with anger.
>Certainly for those who "abuse it" -- the ones saying things here they'd
>never dream of saying to someone in person. And I really don't see the
>point. But, at least it's usually pretty obvious who's doing that and
>who isn't, so getting past it isn't usually a problem. But it still
>seems ridiculous to me.
Why?
The kids need to express some sides of their personality,
and they don't have a good friend to help them with it.
BTW were you ever lonely?
(Not because of *your* choice.)
>Well, you should work on that. It's not really all that difficult to do.
>In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you probably already can do that to
>some degree -- it's probably only for things about which you have emotional
>reactions already that you find it difficult to separate the emotional from
>the intellectual understanding. Just work on being able to stand back
>from that.
My problem is to understand people who are bad in the irrational sense.
I can understand someone who kills to get a million dollars, the national
liberation, etc. I can't understand someone who kills because he enjoys
killing, regardless of the results.
>Rat has never shown any evidence of ever having been a real hippie. Just
>because someone's gotten (or even still gets) loaded, doesn't mean
>they're not straight.
With a definition like this you can prove that 99% of the hippies
were straight. :-(
>Rat is an unenlightened, straight-ass, moralizing, self-deluded, hypocritcal
>moron.
Let's agree to disagree.
>Diane Holt
>"Je ne regrette rein."
I feel sorry, *sometimes*.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"It's too long that I have been alone
it's too long that I've sat up in bed
without anyone to touch on the knee, man
or woman I don't care what anymore, I
want love I was born for I want with me now"
-- ("Message", Allen Ginsberg)