All of this...
Tralalaah
I am the perfect person to point it out because as has been abundantly clear,
once it's out, it's out. At least four people have mimicked his bad behavior so
far.
What's amazing is that Joe clearly feels he can break the rules if he can think
up a satisfactory rationalization. According to the true double standard here,
it's OK for Joe to post email as well if he posts a warning first.
While he may well feel justified (and others might even agree with himm at
least sometimes), he has been the leader -- sometimes multiple times -- in
breaking two of the most basic rules of netiquette: outing someone's RL name
and posting private email.
It seems that there are Joe's rules and everyone else's rules, which really
does make Joe untrustworthy. In addition, he can't let go of a grudge. That
makes him markedly more untrustworthy because of his willingness to go to the
underhanded side to vent his anger.
Jim Manson
>All of this because Joe thought up some rationalization for using my RL name.
Let me guess, 3 hours went without the subject being brought up and
you felt restless.
>
>What's amazing is that Joe clearly feels he can break the rules
There are no rules on names save what you've made up in your own mind.
> if he can think
>up a satisfactory rationalization. According to the true double standard here,
>it's OK for Joe to post email as well if he posts a warning first.
Now posting email that's abusive or obscene is a normal convention.
>
>While he may well feel justified (and others might even agree with himm at
>least sometimes), he has been the leader -- sometimes multiple times -- in
>breaking two of the most basic rules of netiquette: outing someone's RL name
Do all of your invented rules become basic?
>In addition, he can't let go of a grudge.
That's why you keep posting this stuff to keep it alive.
Does your hypocrisy ever even register with you?
Ok everyone- what's the current pool at for the number of months until
she stops dredging this up?
I'm taking 4 months.
Christopher Eliot
> While he may well feel justified (and others might even agree with himm at
> least sometimes), he has been the leader -- sometimes multiple times -- in
> breaking two of the most basic rules of netiquette: outing someone's RL name
For a long time at MIT, there was a reasonably successful attempt to work
with an environment with *no* computer security. The computers in LCS/AI Lab
didn't have file protection, so anyone could read any file in anyone's
account, including email. It was also possible to connect directly to
someone's screen, interrupting whatever they were doing. Anonymous email and
private email were not supported.
I was told about an ever earlier system, in which the computer was given an
assembly language instruction called "BCB". The meaning of this command was
"Blow-Circuit-Breakers" and that is exactly what it would do, shutting down
the power and crashing the entire system.
This was an *effective* way to solve an earlier problem. Someone had figured
out that turning on all of the tape drives at once would blow the circuit
breakers. Instead of replacing the entire power supply somehow, they got
people to stop doing it by making it so *easy* that no one would bother.
I'm not sure if any of this provides any clues for the present.
Nessa
(in message <kh9fjsofk2f6jee0v...@4ax.com>):
> tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
>
>> All of this because Joe thought up some rationalization for using my RL
>> name.
>
> Let me guess, 3 hours went without the subject being brought up and
> you felt restless.
>>
>> What's amazing is that Joe clearly feels he can break the rules
>
> There are no rules on names save what you've made up in your own mind.
>
>
>> if he can think
>> up a satisfactory rationalization. According to the true double standard
>> here,
>> it's OK for Joe to post email as well if he posts a warning first.
>
> Now posting email that's abusive or obscene is a normal convention.
>
>>
>> While he may well feel justified (and others might even agree with himm at
>> least sometimes), he has been the leader -- sometimes multiple times -- in
>> breaking two of the most basic rules of netiquette: outing someone's RL
>> name
>
> Do all of your invented rules become basic?
>
>> In addition, he can't let go of a grudge.
>
>
> That's why you keep posting this stuff to keep it alive.
>
> Does your hypocrisy ever even register with you?
>
> Ok everyone- what's the current pool at for the number of months until
> she stops dredging this up?
>
> I'm taking 4 months.
>
Well if we don't just ignore her I will say the next millenium. However
if we ignore her blatant garbage and baiting, then 8 weeks. (two months
for those who insist on taking things at face value.)
But Jim to be honest, I read Tra's post and felt it to be exactly what
you said, however, I resisted the IMPULSE to answer her in hopes that she
would just stop this nonsense.
Clearly this would be a clear example of narcissim. IMNSHO.
By responding to these self serving posts designed to garner attention we
are becoming enablers.
(hows that for starting a new mess????)
--
Nessa
--
Does a radioactive cat have 18 half lives?
Ann
>Ok everyone- what's the current pool at for the number of months until
>she stops dredging this up?
>
>I'm taking 4 months.
Never. Because *she* is the grudge holder, *she* is the one who
constantly talks of blocking this name or that, *she* is the one who
makes up arbitrary rules that everyone else breaks. She is a piece of
work, all right.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Joe Parsons
>tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
>
>>All of this because Joe thought up some rationalization for using my RL name.
>
>Let me guess, 3 hours went without the subject being brought up and
>you felt restless.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>What's amazing is that Joe clearly feels he can break the rules
>
>There are no rules on names save what you've made up in your own mind.
>
>
>> if he can think
>>up a satisfactory rationalization. According to the true double standard here,
>>it's OK for Joe to post email as well if he posts a warning first.
>
>Now posting email that's abusive or obscene is a normal convention.
>
>
>
>>
>>While he may well feel justified (and others might even agree with himm at
>>least sometimes), he has been the leader -- sometimes multiple times -- in
>>breaking two of the most basic rules of netiquette: outing someone's RL name
>
>Do all of your invented rules become basic?
>
>
>
>>In addition, he can't let go of a grudge.
>
>
>That's why you keep posting this stuff to keep it alive.
>
>Does your hypocrisy ever even register with you?
>
>
>
>
>
>Ok everyone- what's the current pool at for the number of months until
>she stops dredging this up?
>
>I'm taking 4 months.
I'll take some of that.
A fin okay?
Joe Parsons
==========================================================
Frequently Asked Questions for alt.support.attn-deficit
and other resources for dealing with attention deficit
disorder are at http://www.cyber-mall.com/asad/
Kevin P OConnor
<J...@Manson.com> writes:
>
>Now posting email that's abusive or obscene is a normal convention.
>
You may wish to read the following:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
From: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Subject: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet
Date: 28 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <FnG10...@tac.nyc.ny.us>
Expires: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:00:14 GMT
Approved: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Supersedes: <FMMEC...@tac.nyc.ny.us>
Followup-To: news.newusers.questions
Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.answers
Archive-name: usenet/faq/part1
Original-author: je...@eagle.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
Comment: enhanced & edited until 5/93 by sp...@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Last-change: 16 Jan 1998 by netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
Changes-posted-to: news.misc,news.answers
Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet
[snip]
Subject: Are there any restrictions on posting e-mail someone sends to me?
At a minimum, it is only polite for you to contact the author of
the letter and secure her or his permission to post it to the net.
On a more serious note, it can be argued that posting someone's
e-mail to the net without their permission is a violation of
copyright law. Under that law, even though a letter was
addressed to you, it does not grant you the right to publish the
contents, as that is the work of the author and the author
retains copyright (even if no explicit copyright mark appears).
Basically, your letters are your intellectual property. If
someone publishes your letters they are violating your copyright.
This principle is well-founded in "paper media," and while
untested in electronic forums such as Usenet, the same would
probably apply if tested in court.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I don't see any "exception" for abusive or obscene e-mails. So, what makes you
think that is the convention for posting emails?
Kevin P. O'Connor
Jim Manson
>In article <kh9fjsofk2f6jee0v...@4ax.com>, Jim Manson
><J...@Manson.com> writes:
>
>>
>>Now posting email that's abusive or obscene is a normal convention.
>>
>
>You may wish to read the following:
>
>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>From: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
>Subject: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet
>Date: 28 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>Message-ID: <FnG10...@tac.nyc.ny.us>
>Expires: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:00:14 GMT
>Approved: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
>Supersedes: <FMMEC...@tac.nyc.ny.us>
>Followup-To: news.newusers.questions
>Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.answers
>
>Archive-name: usenet/faq/part1
>Original-author: je...@eagle.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
>Comment: enhanced & edited until 5/93 by sp...@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
>Last-change: 16 Jan 1998 by netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
>Changes-posted-to: news.misc,news.answers
>
snip
>I don't see any "exception" for abusive or obscene e-mails. So, what makes you
>think that is the convention for posting emails?
What makes you think that what you posted is a generally acceptable
guideline? Because someone claimed it was?
Did you know that under the RFCs spam cancels are forbidden?
Great to know that they don't actually exist.
The convention that's actually used in the newsgroups is what was
stated previously.
George
good lawyer can make a reasoned argument on both sides of any debatable
subject. If abusive or obscene e-mail is sent in response to news
group discussions it is not unreasonable for other news group members to
be warned of the behavior of the abusive poster by posting the e-mail.
George
In article <20000602123809...@nso-ft.aol.com>,
kevinp...@aol.com (Kevin P OConnor) wrote:
> In article <kh9fjsofk2f6jee0v...@4ax.com>, Jim Manson
> <J...@Manson.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Now posting email that's abusive or obscene is a normal convention.
> >
>
> You may wish to read the following:
>
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
> From: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
> Subject: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet
> Date: 28 Dec 1999 00:00:00 GMT
> Message-ID: <FnG10...@tac.nyc.ny.us>
> Expires: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 09:00:14 GMT
> Approved: netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
> Supersedes: <FMMEC...@tac.nyc.ny.us>
> Followup-To: news.newusers.questions
> Newsgroups: news.announce.newusers,news.answers
>
> Archive-name: usenet/faq/part1
> Original-author: je...@eagle.UUCP (Jerry Schwarz)
> Comment: enhanced & edited until 5/93 by sp...@cs.purdue.edu (Gene
Spafford)
> Last-change: 16 Jan 1998 by netan...@deshaw.com (Mark Moraes)
> Changes-posted-to: news.misc,news.answers
>
> Frequently Asked Questions about Usenet
>
> [snip]
>
> Subject: Are there any restrictions on posting e-mail someone sends to
me?
>
> At a minimum, it is only polite for you to contact the author of
> the letter and secure her or his permission to post it to the
net.
>
> On a more serious note, it can be argued that posting someone's
> e-mail to the net without their permission is a violation of
> copyright law. Under that law, even though a letter was
> addressed to you, it does not grant you the right to publish the
> contents, as that is the work of the author and the author
> retains copyright (even if no explicit copyright mark appears).
>
> Basically, your letters are your intellectual property. If
> someone publishes your letters they are violating your copyright.
> This principle is well-founded in "paper media," and while
> untested in electronic forums such as Usenet, the same would
> probably apply if tested in court.
>
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> I don't see any "exception" for abusive or obscene e-mails. So, what
makes you
> think that is the convention for posting emails?
>
> Kevin P. O'Connor
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
George
Kevin P OConnor
<J...@Manson.com> writes:
>What makes you think that what you posted is a generally acceptable
>guideline? Because someone claimed it was?
I'm not sure how to determine what is generally acceptable. It is clear,
however, that at least a difference of opinion exists about the circumstances
that may or may not justify posting e-mail.
In my personal opinion, if an e-mail is obscene, I would refrain from posting
it. Second, I'm not sure all agree on what constitutes "abuse." Is it any
insult, only grave insults, only lies, only threats, all of the foregoing?
Moreover, there is good reason for people to observe a practice of keeping all
e-mail off the newsgroup (unlesss approved ny the author, of course). If this
were generally accepted, the number of flames could decrease, because people
could address their issues directly with the pertinent parties.
Of course, this is still an unmoderated newsgroup. People can do what they
please.
>Did you know that under the RFCs spam cancels are forbidden?
I have no idea what this means.
>Great to know that they don't actually exist.
I don't understand what your saying here.
>The convention that's actually used in the newsgroups is what was
>stated previously.
I am aware that one or two people have expressed their own views on when it is
proper to post E-mail. I'm not sure that make it generally acceptable.
Personally, I would not post any e-mail sent to me privately. I would also
refrain from revealing a person's real name, even if they did not specifically
and/or explicity request that and even if they are not posting from an
anonymous server.
I consider both things to be, in effect, the "property" of the other person,
not mine to give out. My being insulted (or even "abused," whatever that means
in a cyberspace context), by someone does not, in my view, change that
principle.
IMHO, it's still their "property." I have no right to violate that, I believe,
to punish them, or to teach them a lesson.
Now, whether that point of view is conventional, I don't know. I suspect at
least some people would agree, though.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Joe Parsons
wrote:
>It could also be argued that obscene or abusive e-mails are illegal. A
>good lawyer can make a reasoned argument on both sides of any debatable
>subject. If abusive or obscene e-mail is sent in response to news
>group discussions it is not unreasonable for other news group members to
>be warned of the behavior of the abusive poster by posting the e-mail.
The issue of posting e-mail is not a legal one in this context. What I
responded to was Tralalalalallalaaaaah's accusation that I had (among other
things) inappropriately posted private email. It's simply not true.
In his apparent zeal to keep this silliness going, he found a FAQ written by
Jerry Schwarz. Just as the ASAD FAQ is a matter of opinion, so, too is that
very useful and informative FAQ written by Jerry Schwarz. It's available from
Deja at http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=565600093 in case anyone wants to
see the whole thing. There's a lot of interesting stuff in there along with
some fairly technical stuff.
One more time, and for the record: The ONLY time I post e-mail that has been
sent to me is if there is a clear case of abuse--and typically (as with this
ecprkr character) I give the person warning before doing it.
I defy ANYONE to show even one instance where I have departed from that
practice.
Joe Parsons
>George
>
>In article <20000602123809...@nso-ft.aol.com>,
> kevinp...@aol.com (Kevin P OConnor) wrote:
>> In article <kh9fjsofk2f6jee0v...@4ax.com>, Jim Manson
>> I don't see any "exception" for abusive or obscene e-mails. So, what
>makes you
>> think that is the convention for posting emails?
>>
>> Kevin P. O'Connor
==========================================================
AmethystMenace
>I'm taking 4 months.
Two months, followed by one-month pause, then a new offense will
be chained to the end of the existing list, and there will be
another two months on....
AmMen
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Kvaina
here with trolls to know I'd like to keep my distance. The nastiness and
sarcasm I've seen here in the last year has been far worse than anything the
trolls ever brought on.
As someone who can't be considered a regular here or accused of taking sides
with any of the regulars, I'm confused about this brouhaha over a real life
name, since I have known tralalaah's full real life name, profession,
geographic location and book title for as long as I've seen her post here.
She's well known in educator's circles and among conference attendees and
presenters in her geographic location. IIRC, she originally put the
information about her identity out here, and it is archived information,
available on deja news (the Usenet standard). I can't understand what Joe did
that seems to her to be so bad, since it's all a matter of public record. Her
early (and current) posts here drew enough attention to herself that it was
easy to find out even more about who she was. Divulging that information may
be a violation of netiquette and common courtesy, but using her name is not a
violation of anything, since it's a matter of public record via Deja News, and
not something she ever tried to guard online.
It's too bad this obsession has carried on for so long and has interfered so
much with the business of this ng. I really don't understand why someone who
can't seem to play by the rules of Usenet, such as proper quoting and
attribution even if you're on AOL, still tries to play the game.
For someone who is so concerned about her identity, she certainly draws a lot
of attention to herself. For someone who cares so much about the diagnosis and
treatment of persons with ADHD, she certainly gives an interesting twist to the
psychopathology involved.
I'll go back to minding my own business now.
Here's how to quote and attribute properly on AOL:
On 6/2/00, Tral...@aol.com wrote:
>All of this because Joe thought up some rationalization for using my RL name.
>
>I am the perfect person to point it out because as has been abundantly clear,
>once it's out, it's out. At least four people have mimicked his bad behavior
>so
>far.
>
>What's amazing is that Joe clearly feels he can break the rules if he can
>think
>up a satisfactory rationalization. According to the true double standard
>here,
>it's OK for Joe to post email as well if he posts a warning first.
>
>While he may well feel justified (and others might even agree with himm at
>least sometimes), he has been the leader -- sometimes multiple times -- in
>breaking two of the most basic rules of netiquette: outing someone's RL name
Joe Parsons
>I've been following asa-d for over three years. I've seen enough nasty things
>here with trolls to know I'd like to keep my distance. The nastiness and
>sarcasm I've seen here in the last year has been far worse than anything the
>trolls ever brought on.
>
>As someone who can't be considered a regular here or accused of taking sides
>with any of the regulars, I'm confused about this brouhaha over a real life
>name, since I have known tralalaah's full real life name, profession,
>geographic location and book title for as long as I've seen her post here.
>She's well known in educator's circles and among conference attendees and
>presenters in her geographic location. IIRC, she originally put the
>information about her identity out here, and it is archived information,
>available on deja news (the Usenet standard). I can't understand what Joe did
>that seems to her to be so bad, since it's all a matter of public record. Her
I'm guessing that what "bad" was to point out to her those occasions where she
was wrong, as in directing her attacks at people based on statements they never
made. I suppose my insistence on holding people's feet to the fire on
statements and (especially) accusations they make about others figures into the
picture, as well.
It's a safe bet that my strong objection to her obsessive, judgmental rancor
towards many others here is a component of the situation; in particular, my
taking her to task for some irrational (and vicious) attacks against Lisa
Collier Cool a while back probably sticks in her craw. Similarly, my taking
exception to her characterization of the author of a book (to this day I am
convinced she has not read it) as "a nasty, mean-spirited person who doesn't
know what he's talking about" contributed, I'm sure.
>early (and current) posts here drew enough attention to herself that it was
>easy to find out even more about who she was. Divulging that information may
>be a violation of netiquette and common courtesy, but using her name is not a
Ordinarily, I'd agree--but since she had, herself, posted information about her
book, then thanked me for mentioning it later, it's hardly a breach of courtesy
for me to mention it before she decided to make a production about it. My take
is that she simply manufactured her outrage and indignation.
>violation of anything, since it's a matter of public record via Deja News, and
>not something she ever tried to guard online.
Correct.
>It's too bad this obsession has carried on for so long and has interfered so
>much with the business of this ng. I really don't understand why someone who
>can't seem to play by the rules of Usenet, such as proper quoting and
>attribution even if you're on AOL, still tries to play the game.
It's a mystery.
Joe Parsons
==========================================================
George
j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
> One more time, and for the record: The ONLY time I post e-mail that
has been
> sent to me is if there is a clear case of abuse--and typically (as
with this
> ecprkr character) I give the person warning before doing it.
>
> I defy ANYONE to show even one instance where I have departed from
that
> practice.
>
> Joe Parsons
>
OH NO!
Jim Manson
>
>I defy ANYONE to show even one instance where I have departed from that
>practice.
>
Great- now you got Kevin going for the next month.
Joe Parsons
Hey--some of us have money riding on this...
Jim Manson
>In article <lorfjs8ish0822gha...@4ax.com>, Jim Manson
><J...@Manson.com> writes:
>
>>What makes you think that what you posted is a generally acceptable
>>guideline? Because someone claimed it was?
>
>I'm not sure how to determine what is generally acceptable. It is clear,
>however, that at least a difference of opinion exists about the circumstances
>that may or may not justify posting e-mail.
The FAQ you posted was written in the early 90s. At the time the
circle of people on Usenet was relatively small, well before the Never
Ending September arrived. The FAQ was also written assuming that
everyone was a nice, or at least a reasonable, person.
The consensus started changing after that especially when the spammers
started showing up in large numbers.
Posting of spammer threats became an accepted practice for very valid
reasons. Partially in light of that the trend drifted towards allowing
abusive e-mails to be posted. Abusive was in the eye of the beholder,
or recipient in this case.
In general statements that further email will be posted has always
been acceptable- implied permission as it were which fits into the
original convention.
If you want to check around lurk in the admin groups. Most of the
people that currently maintain the FAQs routinely post emails of legal
threats or the more amusing obscene ones.
>
>In my personal opinion, if an e-mail is obscene, I would refrain from posting
>it. Second, I'm not sure all agree on what constitutes "abuse." Is it any
>insult, only grave insults, only lies, only threats, all of the foregoing?
>
>Moreover, there is good reason for people to observe a practice of keeping all
>e-mail off the newsgroup (unlesss approved ny the author, of course). If this
>were generally accepted, the number of flames could decrease, because people
>could address their issues directly with the pertinent parties.
Highly unlikely- the actual posting of e-mail is trivial in number. On
this group I only have seen a couple in the past few months.
>
>Of course, this is still an unmoderated newsgroup. People can do what they
>please.
>
>>Did you know that under the RFCs spam cancels are forbidden?
>
>I have no idea what this means.
>
The FAQ you posted is part of RFC 1855. They are a series of combined
mega-FAQs that have been done over the years and put out for comment.
The various protocols used on Usenet are set by them as a matter of
fact.
My point was that the RFCs are the closet thing to "rules" that exist
on Usenet and they are far from complete. Spam cancels evolved after
the RFCs in question in response to problems caused by the spammers.
The section you posted also has evolved due to changes since the RFC
was written.
Tralalaah
"Nah.
Because you are unhappy.
George"
George, I'm lots of things, but I'm not unhappy. Today is the last day of
school, and I've had a very successful year. I've piloted a new reading program
that has gotten dramatic and measureable results quite rapidly. I'm on a roll.
My younger daughter graduates from high school on Sunday and is going on to a
highly competitive college. She's done well. Her older daughter attends a
highly competitive college and is supplementing it with summer school at Notre
Dame after spending a semester studying in Ireland.
I have great friends, a couple of very enjoyable hobbies (singing, pottery and
my pond), and the puppy learned to 'stay.'
I'm lots of things, but I'm not unhappy. Are you?
Tralalaah
"As someone who can't be considered a regular here or accused of taking sides
with any of the regulars, I'm confused about this brouhaha over a real life
name, since I have known tralalaah's full real life name, profession,
geographic location and book title for as long as I've seen her post here. "
I am not well known as Tralalaah. That name was made up several months ago
because of another name here that was similar to mine and causing some
confusion.
There is no way that this name was connected with my real life name. The real
point is that I made it clear to Joe a couple of times that I didn't like it,
but ONLY WHEN HE'S ANNOYED WITH ME, he trots out my real life name.
If that doesn't get my goat, then he spreads my real life name to others here,
and they address me with my real first and last name.
Since the book hasn't been available for two years and I haven't been to a
conference in three, I'm not reallly 'well known' any more. I' not here to
promote a book that isn't even available.
I don't know how I can make it any more clear than I have that I prefer
anonymity.
I hope you can respect that.
Mark Morin
>
> I don't know how I can make it any more clear than I have that I prefer
> anonymity.
>
> I hope you can respect that.
If that is what you want then start posting anonymously. At present, you are
not--you are posting under a pseudonym and there is a big difference.
If you really want to be anonymous, post through a remailer that will strip your
NNTP posting headers, AND alter your writing style such that you would not give
yourself away. Maybe then you would be anonymous--oh, and you'd also need to
continue posting under your pseudonym such that your sudden absence wouldn't be
noted.
And when you do use the remailers, I'd suggest not playing the mind reading
game--that would be a sign and symbol of the real identity of the poster. I'd
also learn how to properly cite previous posts because if you continue to post
"anonymously" using your current quoting style, everyone will know it's you within
three posts.
mark
--
**************
This simple thing has not been that easy to learn.
It certainly went against everything I had been
taught since I was very young. I thought people
listened only because they were too timid to
speak or did not know the answer. A loving
silence often has far more power to heal and
connect than most well intentioned words.
Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D.
Kitchen Table Wisdom
http://www.goti.net/members/mmorin/index.htm
for e-mail replies, remove the obvious
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Nessa
(in message <8h97mj$9pc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
> In article <e7ufjsojd9gir13bi...@4ax.com>,
> j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
>
>> One more time, and for the record: The ONLY time I post e-mail that
> has been
>> sent to me is if there is a clear case of abuse--and typically (as
> with this
>> ecprkr character) I give the person warning before doing it.
>>
>> I defy ANYONE to show even one instance where I have departed from
> that
>> practice.
>>
>> Joe Parsons
>>
>
> OH NO!
I know, he's such a trouble maker... but I bet he's cute when he's
arrogantly on a motorcycle.....
--
Nessa
--
If trains stop at trains stations,
what happens at work stations?
Nessa
the 'To' and 'Newsgroups' headers for details. ]]
On Fri, 2 Jun 2000 12:38:09 -0400, Kevin P OConnor wrote
(in message <20000602123809...@nso-ft.aol.com>):
> In article <kh9fjsofk2f6jee0v...@4ax.com>, Jim Manson
> I don't see any "exception" for abusive or obscene e-mails. So, what makes
> you
> think that is the convention for posting emails?
but i also don't see anything that says it's mandatory. note that the
term used is 'it can be' this implies to me that it's not necessarily
fact.
on www.bestpages.com/homepage/em_et.html David Harris's respected
Ettiquite on electronic mail is quoted: (exerpts only see page for full
text)
Addresses and personal names
A "Personal name" is an arbitrary string that many mailers will allow you
to define, which is attached to your e-mail address as a textual comment.
Always provide a personal name if your mail system allows it - a personal
name attached to your address identifies you better than your address can
on its own.
Use a sensible personal name: "Guess who" or other such phrases are
annoying as personal names and hinder the recipient's quick
identification of you and your message.
If your mail system lets you use personal names in the addresses to which
you send mail, try to use them. This will often help a postmaster
recognize the real recipient of the message if the address is invalid.
Example:
The address '344...@foo.chaos.com' conveys less information
than if it were written as '344...@foo.chaos.com (Ford Prefect)'
Under Courtesy he offers this:
Always remember that there is no such thing as a secure mail system. It
is unwise to send very personal or sensitive information by e-mail unless
you encrypt it using a reliable encryptor. Remember the recipient - you
are not the only person who could be embarrassed if a delicate message
falls into the wrong hands.
Now as far as USENET Ettiquitte goes this is found at :
http://www.bestpages.com/homepage/netiquette.html
Below are a few selected comments on this rather large detailed (easy to
read) page.
Unless you are using an encryption device (hardware or software), you
should assume that mail on the Internet is not secure. Never put in a
mail message anything you would not put on a postcard.
If you are forwarding or re-posting a message you've received, do not
change the wording. If the message was a personal message to you and you
are re-posting to a group, you should ask permission first. You may
shorten the message and quote only relevant parts, but be sure you give
proper attribution.
NESSA NOTE: note the use of the word SHOULD
END NESSA NOTE
A good rule of thumb: Be conservative in what you send and liberal in
what you receive. You should not send heated messages (we call these
"flames") even if you are provoked. On the other hand, you shouldn't be
surprised if you get flamed and it's prudent not to respond to flames.
Remember that the recipient is a human being whose culture, language, and
humor have different points of reference from your own. Remember that
date formats, measurements, and idioms may not travel well. Be especially
careful with sarcasm
Use smileys to indicate tone of voice, but use them sparingly. :-) is an
example of a smiley (Look sideways). Don't assume that the inclusion of a
smiley will make the recipient happy with what you say or wipe out an
otherwise insulting comment.
Wait overnight to send emotional responses to messages. If you have
really strong feelings about a subject, indicate it via FLAME ON/OFF
enclosures. For example:
FLAME ON: This type of argument is not worth the bandwidth it takes to
send it. It's illogical and poorly reasoned. The rest of the world agrees
with me.
FLAME OFF
"Reasonable" expectations for conduct via e-mail depend on your
relationship to a person and the context of the communication. Norms
learned in a particular e-mail environment may not apply in general to
your e-mail communication with people across the Internet. Be careful
with slang or local acronyms.
Read both mailing lists and newsgroups for one to two months before you
post anything. This helps you to get an understanding of the culture of
the group.
Messages and articles should be brief and to the point. Don't wander
off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to
point out other people's errors in typing or spelling. These, more than
any other behavior, mark you as an immature beginner.
If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your
responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to
the list or the group. If you are debating a point on which the group
might have some interest, you may summarize for them later.
End quoted material
Now this stuff is copied word for word from the webpage I listed.
HOWEVER, the information was written by people other than the owner of
the site. He did however obtain permission to use the information.
I however, did not obtain the permission of the webmaster to steal this
information.
I'll ask him when he gets home. <g>
--
nessa
--
patience is a virture
I am not a virtious woman
Ann
>There is no way that this name was connected with my real life name.
Well, yes, there is, Susan. By anyone who has followed ASAD for a
period of time. Because some of us can actually follow what goes on
here, who says what to whom, etc. If someone knew you were SusanS29
or whatever it was, knew your real name, and then saw that you changed
it (as you announced) to Tralalaah, then bingo! They know your real
name still. What's the big deal? *You* have made it such a big, fat,
hairy deal it's absolutely ridiculous.
>The real point is that I made it clear to Joe a couple of times that I didn't like it,
>but ONLY WHEN HE'S ANNOYED WITH ME, he trots out my real life name.
Well, it certainly works to get you all twisted up into knots, now,
doesn't it? Why don't you let it die the natural death it will die,
and leave it dead? Why?
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Kevin P OConnor
<J...@Manson.com> writes:
>
>Great- now you got Kevin going for the next month.
>
>
Don't fret, Jim. Refuting yet another of Joe's grandiose, boastful, albeit
inaccurate, attempts to aggrandize himself is not worth the effort.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Tralalaah
Of course I meant her older sister. ;)
Joe Parsons
>kvaina said:
>
>"As someone who can't be considered a regular here or accused of taking sides
>with any of the regulars, I'm confused about this brouhaha over a real life
>name, since I have known tralalaah's full real life name, profession,
>geographic location and book title for as long as I've seen her post here. "
>
>
>I am not well known as Tralalaah. That name was made up several months ago
>because of another name here that was similar to mine and causing some
>confusion.
>
>There is no way that this name was connected with my real life name. The real
>point is that I made it clear to Joe a couple of times that I didn't like it,
>but ONLY WHEN HE'S ANNOYED WITH ME, he trots out my real life name.
Please do not state your assumptions about my state of mind as though they were
facts. You're likely to be wrong, as you are in this case.
Besides--when you sign posts with both your names, they're connected.
>If that doesn't get my goat, then he spreads my real life name to others here,
>and they address me with my real first and last name.
...the HORROR...also wrong.
>Since the book hasn't been available for two years and I haven't been to a
>conference in three, I'm not reallly 'well known' any more. I' not here to
>promote a book that isn't even available.
...and this is relevant...how?
>I don't know how I can make it any more clear than I have that I prefer
>anonymity.
And I have not posted your full name for quite some time, have I? You announced
you were going to use a different screen name back in October. There were posts
from various people referring to both of your screen names--and your full name.
You voiced no objections until (IIANM) May 20, when you said that my use of your
surname was "as aggressive as you can get." Interestingly, you've never
objected to the *other* people who post your full name here, like Kevin. Wonder
why.
By the way--have you taken those posts out of the archives yet? Takes just a
few minutes. You know which ones I mean--the ones where you announced your
change of screen name, those posts you signed with both names, and the post
where you expressed your gratitude to me for mentioning your book?
Joe Parsons
>I hope you can respect that.
==========================================================
George
tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
> George said:
>
> "Nah.
>
> Because you are unhappy.
>
> George"
>
> George, I'm lots of things, but I'm not unhappy.
OK Then why do you let insignificant matters blow out of proportion?
Is it OCD?
> Today is the last day
of
> school, and I've had a very successful year. I've piloted a new
reading program
> that has gotten dramatic and measureable results quite rapidly. I'm on
a roll.
Wonderful.
>
> My younger daughter graduates from high school on Sunday and is going
> on to a highly competitive college.
Congratulations.
>She's done well. Her older daughter attends a
> highly competitive college and is supplementing it with summer school
> at Notre Dame after spending a semester studying in Ireland.
>
> I have great friends, a couple of very enjoyable hobbies (singing,
pottery and
> my pond), and the puppy learned to 'stay.'
>
> I'm lots of things, but I'm not unhappy.
Then why do you need to be the center of attention and take exception
when others here take on the role of "expert"?
Are you?
I'm a little tired. I got stuck in traffic and forgot to pick up
something. I did 4 things out of 5. Oh well. But unhappy? No. Moody as
hell, but not unhappy.
George
tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
> "Her older daughter..."
>
> Of course I meant her older sister. ;)
I was wondering...
Vociferous
what, gang attacks on one or two people, anonymity or pseudonyms,
quoting and requoting old posts, who said what at what time under what
circumstances, who interpreted this that and the other in this or that
or the other particular way....) - JUST SHUT THE F*CK UP!
I feel sooooo much better now. :)
V
Tralalaah
"> George, I'm lots of things, but I'm not unhappy.
OK Then why do you let insignificant matters blow out of proportion?"
George, I would like you to think about how this all really unfolded. I might
have VERY good reason to prefer my RL name not be blasted all over the internet
(in fact, I do...).
I posted ONE POST protesting this repeated behavior. All that has been followed
was avoidable. It was a legitimate complaint, and what has resulted from it has
not been caused by me. Go back and look. Just as it dies down, a new person
invariably jumps in to keep it going.
If I remain silent, then someone assumes that it was really "OK" (that's been
argued ad naseum by the person who has posted my RL name the most and
encouraged others to do so).
If I protest, then I have OCD?
Count the number of posts if you must, George. You won't find mine in the
majority.
The fact that I raised a legitimate complaint makes me neither "unhappy" nor
OCD.
I would suggest that if you want to do some armchair diagnosis, you take a look
at the people here who cannot respect the simple requst to leave my RL name
"out of it" without making multiple, huge stinks about it.
The number of people who have made the choice to get deeply involved in this
when it really had nothing to do with them is remarkable, but my participation
should not cause you a moment's pause.
If you post back, and I don't agree with what you say, but don't respond (as I
have done with many posts by many people in all this lunacy) -- does that mean
I am "saying" that whatever you said was accurate?
It doesn't, but I guarantee you that someone will draw that conclusion.
George
tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
> George asked:
>
> "> George, I'm lots of things, but I'm not unhappy.
>
> OK Then why do you let insignificant matters blow out of proportion?"
>
> George, I would like you to think about how this all really unfolded.
I might
> have VERY good reason to prefer my RL name not be blasted all over the
internet
> (in fact, I do...).
OK Some people would like to advertise your book for you, but I respect
your request to try to set boundaries.
>
> I posted ONE POST protesting this repeated behavior. All that has been
followed
> was avoidable. It was a legitimate complaint, and what has resulted
from it has
> not been caused by me. Go back and look. Just as it dies down, a new
person
> invariably jumps in to keep it going.
I sure didn't start this new thread. I'm trying to redirect it or kill
it.
snip""
No. I can't keep up with all of them and I'm sure you can't either.
Frankly, the subject has worn thin and doesn't warrant further replies.
Ian N Ford
name, and those who use a fictitious name. As far as I am concerned, there
<is> a valid reason for withholding the poster's real name if the message is
about sensitive personal issues regarding an individual ... e.g. if you are
asking for advice about your kid's bed wetting or your problems with your
boss, and don't want people you know personally to identify you on the
internet.
I see a lot of folks do use false names, and this is not aimed at any
particular individual. I am just curious as to why this is the case ? I
just wonder if people who post stuff here slagging off individuals do so
because they assume the personality of their screen name, and write stuff
that they would never sign their real name to. If so, isn't this dishonest?
Contributors choose to express their opinions in a public forum, so if what
they write is legal, honest and not defaming anyone, why should they <not>
want to sign their real name ? I am not ashamed to say that I have AD/HD,
and I accept responsibility for my opinions posted here. I don't write
anonymous letters, written in green ink on pages torn out of old exercise
books or otherwise, to local newspapers or to the local council complaining
about my neighbours, so why do the equivalent on the internet ?
Sincerely,
Michael J O' Mouse III
(sorry ... couldn't resist that !)
Ian N Ford
Tralalaah
"I see a lot of folks do use false names, and this is not aimed at any
particular individual. I am just curious as to why this is the case ? I
just wonder if people who post stuff here slagging off individuals do so
because they assume the personality of their screen name, and write stuff
that they would never sign their real name to. If so, isn't this dishonest?"
Yes, I think that would be dishonest, and I think some people do that. I think
I see on line the internet equivalent of "road rage" sometimes.
I have been a public figure, and that can make complications, and I am more
comfortable not connecting my RL name to my internet one. Discussing this in
depth, in public, would be a bit counter-productive.
Tralalaah
"OK Some people would like to advertise your book for you, but I respect
your request to try to set boundaries."
But I have repeatedly said that it isn't available any more... and in addition,
I think coming into a newsgroup for financial gain is despiccable. I do
criticize others for doing that, and I wouldn't do it myself.
When the book WAS available, sometimes people did that on AOL, but in fact, one
loses virtually credibility if a profit motive for one's posts is perceived.
If it became available again I would not promote it here and I would try to
discourage others from doing it as well. As far as I'm concerned, support areas
aren't billboards. :)
Julian9EHP
reason".
You aren't likely to see me on Oprah.
Can't there be a private sphere?
E. Penrose
Kevin P OConnor
<ne...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
>If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your
>responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to
>the list or the group.
Good idea. Hopefully, the recipient will respect the intended private nature of
the email.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
> If the message was a personal message to you and you
>are re-posting to a group, you should ask permission first.
That is correct.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
it is necessary to post Tra's real first name and former screen name. For what
purpose? Just to take a shot at her? Just to let her know you have the ability
to do so?
That's abusive and immature.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>
>By the way--have you taken those posts out of the archives yet? Takes just a
>few minutes. You know which ones I mean--the ones where you announced your
>change of screen name, those posts you signed with both names, and the post
>where you expressed your gratitude to me for mentioning your book?
>
She shouldn't have to do that in order for people to respect her wish to be
addressed by her current screen name. You keep missing the real point.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>
>You voiced no objections until (IIANM) May 20, when you said that my use of
>your
>surname was "as aggressive as you can get."
You acknowledged Tra complained about it in February. Have you forgotten
already? Do you want me to give you the message ID again?
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>
>You voiced no objections until (IIANM) May 20, when you said that my use of
>your
>surname was "as aggressive as you can get." Interestingly, you've never
>objected to the *other* people who post your full name here, like Kevin.
>Wonder
>why.
Please provide the message ID in which I posted Tra's full name.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
Malcolm) writes:
[snip]
> It is characteristic of such posters that they
>rapidly become very unreasonable,
[snip]
Chris, a person's own, dishonorable behavior is not cleansed by the traits of
his victim.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Tralalaah
"You know which ones I mean--the ones where you announced your
>change of screen name, those posts you signed with both names, and the post
>where you expressed your gratitude to me for mentioning your book?"
Joe, it sounds as if you were talking to me. Believe it or not (I can't account
for your thinking on all of this), I haven't read most of the posts. I haven't
read all of the posts written by anyone, btw -- not just you.
I didn't express gratitude. It was superficial courtesy -- a convention, if you
will.
Sure I signed both SCREEN names. YOU chose to connect them both. Now you've
skipped the middleman (the other screen name) and keep using the RL name. Even
though I asked you multiple times not to do so. You sent it to other people.
It was a convention, Joe, like "How's the weather?" or "How are you?" I also
pointed out ... THEN ... that it was silly to mention a book long out of print.
Remember that?
No, I'm not going to go back and dig out any archives. My whole point, all
along, was to please leave my RL name out of it. I think you're acting badly,
because it's a request both reasonable and simple.
Tralalaah
"Interestingly, you've never
>objected to the *other* people who post your full name here, like Kevin.
>Wonder
>why."
I have no knowledge of Kevin ever using my full name. As I have repeatedly
said, of course, I don't read all the posts.
Tralalaah
">If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your
>responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to
>the list or the group."
I would not recommend that anyone ever take a disagreement to email with any of
the people who have been involved in the repeated "outing" of my name.
If you think the public posts from them were rude and uncalled for... you ain't
seen nuthin...
Ann
>That's abusive and immature.
You, of all people, have the nerve to lecture me about abusive and
immature?
Pot Kettle Black
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Nessa
(in message <20000603021235...@ng-xc1.aol.com>):
> Ian said:
>
> "I see a lot of folks do use false names, and this is not aimed at any
> particular individual. I am just curious as to why this is the case ? I
> just wonder if people who post stuff here slagging off individuals do so
> because they assume the personality of their screen name, and write stuff
> that they would never sign their real name to. If so, isn't this dishonest?"
>
>
> Yes, I think that would be dishonest, and I think some people do that. I
> think
> I see on line the internet equivalent of "road rage" sometimes.
I disagree. I think that for some people the cloak an anonimity allows
them to express feelings that are real to them but can't be dealt with
IRL but with the protection of anninimoty they can make progress.
>
> I have been a public figure, and that can make complications, and I am more
> comfortable not connecting my RL name to my internet one. Discussing this in
> depth, in public, would be a bit counter-productive.
>
>
--
Nessa
--
Does a radioactive cat have 18 half lives?
Jim Manson
and dishonorable behavior doesn't exist simply because of unfounded
accusations of it's existence.
Joe Parsons
>Kevin quoted (what -- the faq Joe wrote?) --
No, what he quoted was an excerpt from RFC 1855.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Joe Parsons
==========================================================
George
Princess keeps on dragging it back up and continues to annoy people.
George
In article <393892F4...@wam.umd.edu>,
Joe Parsons
What? You don't read all *Kevin's* posts?
Interesting. You might want to double check those where he "connected" your
screen names with your full name. For your convenience, here are the URLS to
his posts:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548301197 11/13/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548301194 11/14/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289763 11/21/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289764 11/21/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551304418 11/21/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=587379940 2/19/00
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625519201 5/19/00
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625569128 5/19/00
Joe Parsons
Joe Parsons
>In article <iiigjs05ivp1euj0b...@4ax.com>, Joe Parsons
><j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>
>>
>>You voiced no objections until (IIANM) May 20, when you said that my use of
>>your
>>surname was "as aggressive as you can get." Interestingly, you've never
>>objected to the *other* people who post your full name here, like Kevin.
>>Wonder
>>why.
>
>Please provide the message ID in which I posted Tra's full name.
Happy to--and I'll go you one better:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548301197 11/13/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548301194 11/14/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289763 11/21/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289764 11/21/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551304418 11/21/99
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=587379940 2/19/00
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625519201 5/19/00
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625569128 5/19/00
All posts from you, containing her full name, previous screen name.
How...abusive and immature. What dishonorable behavior.
George
I just want to make it a little harder for all of this stuff to go into
a data file that includes the food I buy and the mail order items I get.
I take offense at supermarkets (and who knows who else) gathering data
on me. I don't want to have to edit and reedit for this group like I
would for a letter to the editor. This group should be a little more
personal than that.
George
In article <20000603063222...@ng-fo1.aol.com>,
Jim Manson
>Kevin quoted (what -- the faq Joe wrote?) --
>
>">If you should find yourself in a disagreement with one person, make your
>>responses to each other via mail rather than continue to send messages to
>>the list or the group."
>
>
>I would not recommend that anyone ever take a disagreement to email with any of
>the people who have been involved in the repeated "outing" of my name.
>
>If you think the public posts from them were rude and uncalled for... you ain't
>seen nuthin...
>
Feel free to post any e-mail from me that you have ever seen that was
rude or uncalled for.
Thought not...........
Have you always made unsubstantiated accusations or does it only apply
to this group?
Oh wait, I found an e-mail that was as close to criticism as any that
I have sent you:
____________________________________________
To: susa...@aol.com (SusanS29)
Subject: Re: i
From: Jim Manson <J...@Manson.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 12:01:17 -0500
On 03 Oct 1999 01:20:18 GMT, you wrote:
>"Susan--
>I printed out your post! So true.
>
Um Susan- is there any way for you to set your reader to differentiate
between your additions and the part you are quoting?
When I read your posts I can't tell them apart and have to parse them
out to see what you added.
I don't know what reader you are using but if you tell me I may be
able to help.
Thanks.
____________________________________________________
How awful, I mean the hostility in this email is palpable.
I stand corrected............
Seriously though I am perfectly willing to post every single e-mail
that I have ever sent you. Let me know.
BTW before you start complaining about my using your prior screen
name, tough.
If you make an accusation I have the right to answer it regardless of
whether or not it includes that information.
Vociferous
"Chris, a person's own, dishonorable behavior is not cleansed by the
traits of
his victim."
I like that! I'm saving that quote, if you don't mind!
V
Dave Borowski
Tralalaah wrote:
> Ian said:
>
> "I see a lot of folks do use false names, and this is not aimed at any
> particular individual. I am just curious as to why this is the case ? I
> just wonder if people who post stuff here slagging off individuals do so
> because they assume the personality of their screen name, and write stuff
> that they would never sign their real name to. If so, isn't this dishonest?"
>
> Yes, I think that would be dishonest, and I think some people do that. I think
> I see on line the internet equivalent of "road rage" sometimes.
>
> I have been a public figure, and that can make complications, and I am more
> comfortable not connecting my RL name to my internet one. Discussing this in
> depth, in public, would be a bit counter-productive.
Susan, you certainly are full of yourself. All I know is you wrote a book that's
out of print(I think.) That doesn't make you a public person. Thinking that makes
you a horse's ass.
Ann
>So much for Ann following any so-called "convention" of this group to refrain
>from posting emails unless they were obscene or abusive.
Excuse me, Bulldog, but I warned her. And she persisted. Also sent
me much nastier e-mail than what she posted in the group. As far as
following conventions, I can't be bothered following the herd. If a
situation calls for something, then that's what I do. Get over it.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>
>All posts from you, containing her full name, previous screen name.
>
>How...abusive and immature. What dishonorable behavior.
>
>Joe Parsons
Now that I read all eight of your cites, I feel comfortable saying the
following.
You gave a decidedly false impression. You knew it was a false impression. You
did it with conscious intent to deceive others.
That makes you a liar.
A new low for you.
Why don't you quit while you still have some semblence of integrity left?
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625569128
I did NOT write Tra's name in this post, either. It does contain a quote of
yours, however, in which YOU reveal her name. Indeed, it is the same quote that
started this entire debacle.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625519201
You GOT to be kidding! In the first place, I did NOT write her name. YOU did. I
was quoting you, ion order to responde.
What's REALLY funny, though, is the fact that THIS is the post that started
this WHOLE mess. YOU revealed Tra's full name.
I responded by saying it was a cheap shot.
Remember? Now, you are actually citing this post as an example of my breaking
her anonymity by posting her real name.
I honestly don't know what to say. You used to seem so intelligent. Look, you
did something wrong. Not me, not Tra. You. All you had to do was show a little
courage and humility in the first place and we would all have been spared this
long journey.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=587379940
I did NOT use any part of Tra's name in what I wrote in my post. I did re-print
Joe's previous post, to which I was responding. In Joe's post, he used her full
real name again.
Is THIS what you are asking Tra about, why didn't she complain to ME for
"using" her real name?
It is ridiculous.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551304418
In this post, I did NOT use any part of Tra's real name.
Joe, was it you that once said, a mistake or two is understandable but
eventually one has to conclude the party is lying?
Your numbers are really starting to add up.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289764
I did NOT use any part of Tra's real name in my post to this thread. This
thread, which was started by Ann, contains Tra's real, full name in the title
of the topic.
Since you brought it up, Joe, do you recall Ann saying to Tra, in the
originating post of this thread (message ID
<f9stOKxSPtUfhh...@4ax.com>):
"If you send any more private e-mail it will be posted."
So much for Ann following any so-called "convention" of this group to refrain
from posting emails unless they were obscene or abusive.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289763
This is the third URL.
I did use Tra's first name in this thread, which Joe started, and which
contains her full name.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>
>What? You don't read all *Kevin's* posts?
>
>Interesting. You might want to double check those where he "connected" your
>screen names with your full name. For your convenience, here are the URLS to
>his posts:
>
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548301197 11/13/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548301194 11/14/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289763 11/21/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289764 11/21/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551304418 11/21/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=587379940 2/19/00
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625519201 5/19/00
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625569128 5/19/00
>
>Joe Parsons
>
I checked the second URL. Of course, the topic, which Joe wrote, contains Tra's
full name. My post, however, did not.
This is too ludricous to be believed. Joe is saying I revealed Tra's real name
by responding to a post in a topic he started, which has a title containing
Tra's real name.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>
>What? You don't read all *Kevin's* posts?
>
>Interesting. You might want to double check those where he "connected" your
>screen names with your full name. For your convenience, here are the URLS to
>his posts:
>
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548301197 11/13/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=548301194 11/14/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289763 11/21/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551289764 11/21/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551304418 11/21/99
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=587379940 2/19/00
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625519201 5/19/00
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=625569128 5/19/00
>
>Joe Parsons
>
I will check every one of these, you can be sure, Joe.
The first one is a post within a thread that YOU started. Tra's full name is in
the name of the Topic, which YOU wrote. In my post, I did use Tra's first name.
Is THIS your example of my violating Tra's anonymity? Typing her first name in
a post in a thread which contains her full name? You have just descending way
below rationalization. You're now being stupid.
There were 13 posts under this topic. 4 by you, 3 by the Big Kahuna, 4 by me
(with previous screen names), 1 by leif_ericssen, and 1 by Tra herself.
As long as you are citing this old thread, you might enjoy a re-reading of what
Big Kahuna said to you in one of those posts (message ID
<80kmtj$2ah$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>) :
"I suspected you were somewhat of a dickhead, but I didn't realize just how
much until now. Bravo."
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
writes:
>
>I like that! I'm saving that quote, if you don't mind!
Not at all. Feel free to re-post it as you please. too.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
(Tralalaah) writes:
>
>I have no knowledge of Kevin ever using my full name. As I have repeatedly
>said, of course, I don't read all the posts.
>
I don't think I ever did. I'm still waiting for Joe to cite the message ID,
Kevin P OConnor
(Tralalaah) writes:
>
>I didn't express gratitude. It was superficial courtesy -- a convention, if
>you
>will.
>
Of course you didn't. I understood that when I read your post. Joe is lying,
plain and simple. He's not stupid. He knows what you meant.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Julian9EHP
>Kevin P O'Connor wrote:
>"Chris, a person's own, dishonorable behavior is not cleansed by the
>traits of
>his victim."
>
>I like that! I'm saving that quote, if you don't mind!
May I, too? Please?
E. Penrose
Kevin P OConnor
(Julian9EHP) writes:
>
>May I, too? Please?
>
Yes, you and anybody else as well.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
<ann...@thecia.net> writes:
>Excuse me, Bulldog, but I warned her. And she persisted. Also sent
>me much nastier e-mail than what she posted in the group. As far as
>following conventions, I can't be bothered following the herd. If a
>situation calls for something, then that's what I do. Get over it.
>
>--
>Ann
>ann...@thecia.net
Oh. Bulldog again? Yawn. . .
Anyway, I appreciate you for speaking plainly. It saves a great deal of time.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Joe Parsons
>In article <iiigjs05ivp1euj0b...@4ax.com>, Joe Parsons
><j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>
>>
>>You voiced no objections until (IIANM) May 20, when you said that my use of
>>your
>>surname was "as aggressive as you can get."
>
>You acknowledged Tra complained about it in February. Have you forgotten
>already? Do you want me to give you the message ID again?
Do you know what "IIANM" means?
>
>Kevin P. O'Connor
Joe Parsons
I am not sure whether you are so obsessed by this whole thread that you are
unable to let it go, or whether you are just extreme in your zeal to please your
Mistress.
I've never thought you were stupid--but how stupid do you think people are? It
doesn't matter whether YOU originated a post containing any specific text or
not--by quoting it, and quoting it, and quoting it, it's still there, and you
increase its exposure. If you had any genuine concern for
Tralalalalalalalaaaah's "anonymity" {*smirk*} on Usenet, you should have been
protecting your Mistress, and delete all those references to her screen names
and full name from your responses. Come to think of it, you should have advised
your Domme that posting her old screen name along with the new would come back
to haunt her. And while you're at it, you ought to help her nuke those posts
she made from the archives. I'm sure your Mistress would be grateful.
Run along now; I'm sure you have a lot more posts to write.
Because you just can't stop, can you?
Joe Parsons
(And yes, Kevin, I DID call you a name. Just as with "sycophant-acolyte," I
think it's an apt description, rather than gratuitous namecalling)
On 04 Jun 2000 01:39:32 GMT, kevinp...@aol.com (Kevin P OConnor) wrote:
>In article <uacijs8meu3ocsthe...@4ax.com>, Joe Parsons
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>
>Do you know what "IIANM" means?
>
No. Do you know what YAAA means?
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>Kevin, you sad, spineless little man:
>
You got one out of four: I am a man, unlike you, you whining coward.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>you should have been
>protecting your Mistress,
Is THIS really necessary?
Kevin P. O'Connor
Joe Parsons
>In article <46vkjs8d56v71eqt9...@4ax.com>, Joe Parsons
><j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>
>>
>>Do you know what "IIANM" means?
It's a very common acronym meaning "If I Am Not Mistaken." It's in the list of
useful acronyms in the "Surviving Usenet" essay. It's used in those instances
where one is somewhat sure a statement is correct, but open to correction. It
avoids embarrassment from stating something as though it were incontrovertibly
true, then being shown wrong.
But back to the earlier matter: Are you telling me Tralalallalaaaaaah complained
about my use of her name way back in February? As I said, I have no memory of
her complaining until May. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Joe Parsons
>>
>
>No. Do you know what YAAA means?
>
>
>Kevin P. O'Connor
==========================================================
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> wrote, in part:
> Are you telling me Tralalallalaaaaaah complained
>about my use of her name way back in February? As I said, I have no memory
>of her complaining until May. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Read your own 2/22/00 post, message ID:
<bnb5bsgvj62q7f6is...@4ax.com>)
Kevin P. O'Connor
Joe Parsons
Kevin, a post from *me* doesn't constitute proof of something someone *else*
said.
One more time: Are you telling me that the Person In Question complained about
my use of her full name? If she did, please show me where.
Joe Parsons
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>Kevin, a post from *me* doesn't constitute proof of something someone *else*
>said.
You ought to read up on Evidence. The question is whether YOU had knowledge of
Tra's attitude towards revealing her real name, i.e., that she "complained" to
you about doing so. You acknowledged her message to constitute a complaint.
Your own acknowledgement is the best possible proof of the fact you now seem to
be disputing. Whatever was written by Tra in the post to which you responded,
you understood it to be a complaint: you explicity and specifically said so.
You can play all the games you want with this. It just shows you as being
evasive. Why you persist in fighting this is a mystery to me.
Why couldn't you have said, at the outset, "OK. I had forgotten about Tra's
complant. Sorry. I won't do it again." That's what a responsible, self secure
adult would have done.
I am forming the opinion that your self-procalimed arrogance is nothing more
than a thin shield to protect your insecurity.
Truly secure and confident men do not need arrogance.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Joe Parsons
>In article <87jnjs4pfbllussai...@4ax.com>, Joe Parsons
><j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>
>>Kevin, a post from *me* doesn't constitute proof of something someone *else*
>>said.
>
>You ought to read up on Evidence. The question is whether YOU had knowledge of
I have no interest in practicing law.
>Tra's attitude towards revealing her real name, i.e., that she "complained" to
>you about doing so. You acknowledged her message to constitute a complaint.
Kevin, I said you had posted her full name, then produced several posts where
you did. It doesn't matter who originated them--you reposted them, by quoting.
It's quite common and customary for users to delete portions of quoted text in
their replies. As a matter of fact, *you* did that, yourself, quite recently,
protecting your Mistress. Remember?
>Your own acknowledgement is the best possible proof of the fact you now seem to
>be disputing. Whatever was written by Tra in the post to which you responded,
>you understood it to be a complaint: you explicity and specifically said so.
So? Apparently I was mistaken. It certainly wouldn't have been the first time.
Did *she* complain, or not? See, *she* is the one whining about being "outed"
(well, you are, too); not me.
>You can play all the games you want with this. It just shows you as being
>evasive. Why you persist in fighting this is a mystery to me.
>
>Why couldn't you have said, at the outset, "OK. I had forgotten about Tra's
>complant. Sorry. I won't do it again." That's what a responsible, self secure
>adult would have done.
What complaint?
>I am forming the opinion that your self-procalimed arrogance is nothing more
>than a thin shield to protect your insecurity.
Thank you *SO* much for that glimpse into my psyche, doctor. How much do I owe
you?
>Truly secure and confident men do not need arrogance.
*shrug*
Joe Parsons
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>protecting your Mistress.
Why do you persist in committing libel?
Why don't you attack the arguments, not the person. You gave that advice to
someone else recently. You don't practice what you preach, do you?
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>
>I have no interest in practicing law.
>
If you want to use the word "proof" you should learn what it means.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Kevin P OConnor
>
>What complaint?
>
If you ever decide to engage in an honest discussion about this, let me know.
If you want to fake amnesia or stupidity, I'll pass. If you want to play games,
go to a playground.
Kevin P. O'Connor
Tralalaah
">protecting your Mistress.
Why do you persist in committing libel? "
Kevin, I think you should continue debating with Joe, because he truly
diminishes himself with such comments.