Observations on anti-Derek Smart threads
Bob Perez
feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion posts
it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much passion
and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
1) My first reaction was to read these attacks at face value. Honest people
pissed off about alleged fraud, racism, buggy software, pick a topic. But
over time this explanation fails because the level of energy spent in the
pursuit of the damnation far exceeds any rational sense of victimization or
even righteous indignation. No, this isn't enough. There has to be some
other explanation.
2) Another theory is that the whole long episode is nothing more than
entertainment. Enjoyed by the cult who've created the popular mythology, and
devoured by the gossip-hungry readership who love to complain while
carefully monitoring every last message on the subject. "All of these
anti-Derek Smart messages are awful. And so short". I have to admit I find
this one appealing, but it has problems. When you consider how much negative
energy is thrown back at the DS detractors for their dogged pursuit of this
tired and ancient issue, how much real bitterness and anger gets generated,
I don't buy the purely entertainment explanation. Masochism has its limits.
3) Another theory holds that the DS detractors are feeding their own need
for attention by creating a cult fixture to which they are inextricably
attached and through this they gain some independent infamy of their own.
Mark David Chapman forever gains a place in history because he is the
particular sociopath who shot and killed John Lennon. The DS detractors
become legends in their own right for being the ongoing crucifiers of the
unfortunate Mr. Smart. Of all the theories, this one rings truest in my
mind. If you read their messages carefully, you can almost see them smiling
at every new opportunity to start a thread, to stir up the pot, to bring it
up *one more time*, all the while almost enjoying the public thrashing they
receive in turn. Why? Because to a sociopath in search of attention, any
attention, the public thrashings are an acknowledgment that they exist.
Something, I suppose, they have trouble establishing through other more
conventional means in a world stripped of their most powerful tool:
anonymity.
Ok, so I'm dipping into the bottomless well of armchair nickel psychology
and over-simplifying things. Maybe. But there has to be some explanation for
this amazing phenomenon, and I ain't buying the theory that the detractors
are here to right a wrong.
BP
Jeremy Reaban
Bob Perez wrote in message <8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full
cycle of
>feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85
billion posts
>it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time,
how
>much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
passion
>and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's
absolutely
>astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
IMHO, its pretty simple. They're all crazy, and need some sort of
professional help, or at least enough drugs to keep their off their
computers...I doubt most of them have actually played or own BC. Most
people took the original release back. But from what I understand,
it's different from motivation of Mark Chapman killing of John
Lennon. He apparently thought he was John Lennon, so had to kill the
real one.
And on the other side, DS seems to suffer from a Napoleon complex (I
think that's what it's called.). He seems to have an inferiority
complex, but to defeat that, he builds up himself in his own mind (and
some of his fans contribute to his). He's mostly rational, but
criticize or disagree with him, and he tends to go bonkers.
Pippy
"Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote in message
news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle of
> feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion
posts
> it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
> much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
passion
> and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
> astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
people
> pissed off about alleged fraud, racism, buggy software, pick a topic. But
> over time this explanation fails because the level of energy spent in the
> pursuit of the damnation far exceeds any rational sense of victimization
or
> even righteous indignation. No, this isn't enough. There has to be some
> other explanation.
>
> 2) Another theory is that the whole long episode is nothing more than
> entertainment. Enjoyed by the cult
...of Loki worshippers...
> who've created the popular mythology, and
> devoured by the gossip-hungry readership who love to complain while
> carefully monitoring every last message on the subject. "All of these
> anti-Derek Smart messages are awful. And so short". I have to admit I find
> this one appealing, but it has problems. When you consider how much
negative
ok, so I only had that one thing to say, but it made _me_ laugh....
Pippy
el Schahin
"Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote in message
news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle of
> feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion
posts
> it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
> much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
passion
> and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
> astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
Blah-Blah-Blah <snip>
Perhaps because people (not that I'm implying anyone specific here) won't
let it die and stop generating new postings on this exceptionally tired and
boring subject???
Tom
el Schahin wrote in message <28fH5.3232$NP.1...@news.flash.net>...
The trouble is that there are more than two sides.
It is not just Derek versus 'Detractors'. Different 'detractors' are
triggered by different cues. And of course there are lurkers, semi
lurkers, and trolls.
Derek won't stop posting (and why should he?).
People won't stop replying or passing (sometimes fair) comment (and
why should they?).
Yes a lot of it is boring, but occasionally there is a flash of wit
(whole or halved).
Just be grateful all this energy is being spent on such a trivial
matter. Imagine the harm that would happen if all lies/bending of
truth/distortion of the facts were applied to an important subject.
Like <add subject of your choice here>.
<Start Flame Retardant>
Which person or people or AI that are lying etc has not been specified
in this post.
If you think I mean you, please check for guilt or paranoia
<End Flame Retardant>
________________________
Tom
SNJ261
>From: "Bob Perez" b...@deletethis.bobperez.com
>Date: 10/18/00 2:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com>
I think you missed one other possible reason for the numerous posts. People
like seeing a slugfest, even if there might not be a good guy in the match to
root for. Its kind of like the Earps and Clanton gang shooting it out at the
OK corral. There was no clear cut "good" side. Both gangs had their
supporters and their detractors, like Derek Smart and his enemies.
I have to admit that I enjoy reading the anti-Derek Smart posts myself. I
think this is because after seeing some of his posts and seeing what a pompous
ass he seems to be, its fun to read people zinging him.
>
>Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle of
>feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion posts
>it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
>much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much passion
>and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
>astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
>1) My first reaction was to read these attacks at face value. Honest people
>pissed off about alleged fraud, racism, buggy software, pick a topic. But
>over time this explanation fails because the level of energy spent in the
>pursuit of the damnation far exceeds any rational sense of victimization or
>even righteous indignation. No, this isn't enough. There has to be some
>other explanation.
>
>2) Another theory is that the whole long episode is nothing more than
>entertainment. Enjoyed by the cult who've created the popular mythology, and
Rico
[snip]
>
> 3) Another theory holds that the DS detractors are feeding their own need
> for attention by creating a cult fixture to which they are inextricably
> attached and through this they gain some independent infamy of their own.
> Mark David Chapman forever gains a place in history because he is the
> particular sociopath who shot and killed John Lennon. The DS detractors
> become legends in their own right for being the ongoing crucifiers of the
> unfortunate Mr. Smart. Of all the theories, this one rings truest in my
> mind. If you read their messages carefully, you can almost see them
smiling
> at every new opportunity to start a thread, to stir up the pot, to bring
it
> up *one more time*, all the while almost enjoying the public thrashing
they
> receive in turn. Why? Because to a sociopath in search of attention, any
> attention, the public thrashings are an acknowledgment that they exist.
> Something, I suppose, they have trouble establishing through other more
> conventional means in a world stripped of their most powerful tool:
> anonymity.
>
You're making a mistake of applying universal generalization where you
shouldn't. To my knowledge, only a couple of the detractors actively start
new threads regarding D.S. Most others who are critical of D.S. (myself
included), refrain from this kind of activity.
Don't fall into the seductive word trap employed by D.S. that "all
detractors are the same." I think most of the problems are caused by
ryu-dog and Louis J.M.
Louis J.M
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
> Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle of
> feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion posts
Actually, it's about roughly 500,000 now.
> it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
> much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much passion
> and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
> astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
Because. It's addictive and fun. Remeber the first time you ever got onto
the internet? How fun E-Mail was? And then you discovered Usenet, and you
said this is interesting!
They're isn't even a lot of time spent on it believe it or not. Well, at
at least I don't. I spend more time reading Ign.com than I do this group.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _ E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
\_/-, ,----' // WWW : Coming Soon!
==== ___// ----------------------------------------------------
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) "You men can't stand the truth, sir, as soon as it
/ __/~| __/ | embarrasses your interests or your pleasures."
==(______| (_________| - Francoise Parturier
Jeff Jones
> And on the other side, DS seems to suffer from a Napoleon complex (I
> think that's what it's called.). He seems to have an inferiority
> complex, but to defeat that, he builds up himself in his own mind (and
> some of his fans contribute to his). He's mostly rational, but
> criticize or disagree with him, and he tends to go bonkers.
I agree. Bob called Derek 'unfortunate', but that's hardly the word. DS has
pretty much created his own problems, stemming from the Napolean complex you
mention. Everyone and their sister knows DS could end the whole thing
anytime he wanted to.
Which is why I subscribe to Perez' 2nd Hypothesis :) That being the
'entertainment' explanation. I've seen countless posts where the players in
this game, when pressed for an explanation or are backed into a corner, will
admit that simply, "it's because it's fun". From the detractor's side, I
honestly believe it's just something to occupy a bunch of stagnant minds.
From Derek's side it's some deep-rooted psychological problems. He really is
one of the saddest cases I've seen.
Lemming
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle of
>feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion posts
>it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
>much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much passion
>and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
>astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
Not all BC3K threads are the same, although they do bear some
similarities.
Occasionally there are threads which are prompted by some difference
of opinion or expertise on a particular topic, when a statement is
made where someone takes issue with a statement which is made.
(examples: "All artists are farmhands", "My game is it's own OS",
etc.) These threads normally involves a small group of people who are
arguing the case for one side or the other, and a large number of
hangers-on posting irrelevancies aimed at the protagonists.
Then there are the threads like ryu-dog's "Look what this ancient
website said about BC3K", which prompt the hangers-on into an orgy of
short, banal, abusive posts against DS - even though he may well not
be contribbuting to the thread, or even to the group at that time.
Similarly there are the threadss which begin with one of DS's posts
about screenshots or release dates, or whatever, which again prompt
the hangers-on into their flame-fest.
Why do they (the hangers-on) do it? Simple. They are bullies. They
have found someone who is obviously weaker than they are, who is easy
to wind up into a rage, and they do it for fun. They love to see his
imnpotent threats, so that they can do it all again in response to
those threats. Many will deny this - they say they do it for higher
motives - but what it boils down to is that they enjoy spending
playtime poking fun at the fat spotty kid.
Regards,
Derek Sorensen
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
Anthony Evans
bought the original casue I thought it was be enteraining. Then it was buggy
so installed all the patches and then went and bough version 2.0 which
still doesn't work. I even tried to play version 2.0 today and it is still
a piece of shit with the latest patches. I let a friend borrow before and he
gave it back that night saying he it kept crashing his computer
Anthony
Jeff Jones
> Because. It's addictive and fun. Remeber the first time you ever got onto
> the internet? How fun E-Mail was? And then you discovered Usenet, and you
> said this is interesting!
I rest my case.
Timski
=?===== Pippy posted:
>"Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote in message
>news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
<snip>
>> entertainment. Enjoyed by the cult
>
Absolutely. Kind of. Maybe. The trickster god [1] works [2] in
mysterious, but comical ways. I think I may actually be paraphrasing
Derek when I say, give him more credit than here appears to deserve.
Although, I suspect, even Derek doesn't quite know what he is doing.
Still, sometimes the Loki traits come through. :-)
<snip>
>ok, so I only had that one thing to say, but it made _me_ laugh....
<aol>Me to!</aol>, but try snipping more...
/btw me thinks those that are bored by this stuff, just need to expand
their sense of humor a little; but then if everyone thought the way I
did, the world would be a really scarely place... Society needs to be
stablised by more *normal* (sic) people - sign up today for being
average!
[1] Loki (sometimes Logi or Prometheus (or so the rumour goes))
appears to be a Norse fire-god. But, of course, being a master of
trickery and protean-isity, it is rather difficult to say exactly what
he is. You can be sure that he is actually everything he appears not
to be. Students of Derekology (TM BH) will note the significance of
this. In all probability he is both working for the dark side and the
bright side simultaneously; and occasionally you will hear him
laughing...
Source - Spence, L., 1921, Introduction to Mythology: _The great
danger is that such a seeker [a student or worshipper of Loki] may
become enamoured of some fantastic solution. Frequently a possible
solution leaps into consciousness with all rapidity of an inspiration;
but there are true and false inspirations, and the difficulty is to
distiguish between them. They should be ruthlessly subjected to a
melting and remelting process in the crucible of comparison until only
the pure gold remains._
[2] Health warning! Belief in anything involves taking a risk.
--
=:===== Tim
=!===== ====== ===== ==== === == = = = = =
Timski
=?===== Lemming posted:
<snip
>Why do they (the hangers-on) do it? Simple. They are bullies. They
>have found someone who is obviously weaker than they are, who is easy
>to wind up into a rage, and they do it for fun. They love to see his
>imnpotent threats, so that they can do it all again in response to
>those threats. Many will deny this - they say they do it for higher
>motives - but what it boils down to is that they enjoy spending
>playtime poking fun at the fat spotty kid.
I'm sure you have noticed, but when the spotty kid doesn't show up in
the playground, the bullies turn in on the weakest bully. Or Louis, as
he's commonly known. The test, therefore, is to watch for the
_bullies_ that don't turn in on the other bullies, i.e. the ones that
are here for the Derek-related sport, not just the generalitity of the
sport.
Discuss.
Bob Perez
more messages to the thread criticizing those who generate new postings.
Good point, thanks for raising it.
BP
"el Schahin" <bla...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:28fH5.3232$NP.1...@news.flash.net...
>
> "Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote in message
> news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> > Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle
of
> > feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion
> posts
> > it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time,
how
> > much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
> passion
> > and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
> > astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
Bob Perez
BP
"Jeff Jones" <jtj...@netins.net.block> wrote in message
news:8skv0i$kgu$1...@ins21.netins.net...
Bob Perez
"Bill Huffman" <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UZvH5.11330$46.1...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> Lemming <l3m...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:39edf7b9....@news.cis.dfn.de...
> ...
>
> It is Mr. Smart that has tried to take the flame war off-line by
> contacting employers, the police, the "authorities", ISPs, and even
> hired a 2-bit lawyer in a flagrant attempt to try and scare people away.
> Basically why has he done all this? In my view, it was all done in an
> attempt to be able to tell his lies in the newsgroups with impunity and
> without contradiction.
>
Maybe he's tired of the abuse he perceives himself to be a victim of, and
has taken steps to stop it through legal channels? Doesn't seem too wacky an
idea to me. God, if I had the possee after me that he has I have to admit
I'd consider it too. And all over some words? <shakes head>
I'm not taking sides with Derek, although I have to admit that the few
exchanges I've had with him have been a lot more pleasant than the ones I've
had with his detractors (present company excluded). But I would guess that
90% of the people reading these threads believe that:
a) he's asked for trouble;
b) he's received a lot more than he asked for
BP
Bob Perez
by those two in particular, but they're by no means alone. I've seen plenty
of others, usually in the form of some really stupid joke thread that no one
finds funny until Quatoria pipes in and tells the guy to fuck off in some
really inspired way.
BP
"Rico" <Troop...@bugplanet.org> wrote in message
news:39eda76c$0$35380$53a6...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote in message
> news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
>
Bob Perez
as Lennon, any perception to the contrary should be immediately quashed,
sterilized, and unthunk as quickly as possible. My firstborn son took "John"
as his middle name, so you can trust me on that one.
As for his detractors, no, I don't hold them up in the same light as
Chapman. It was a rough analogy (Ok, a lousy analogy) meant only to
illustrate the point that some people seek celebrity by attacking celebrity
and buying their way into the mythology the easy way, without having to
achieve anything other than the ability to attack someone who's earned his
notoriety. Feel free to disagree with this view or plonk me as you choose,
I'm just stating my honest view of what is obviously a very complex subject
(witness the variety of theories in reply).
BP
"ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
news:grpsuso6goc9lv2oo...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:44:58 -0700, "Bob Perez"
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
> >3) Another theory holds that the DS detractors are feeding their own need
> >for attention by creating a cult fixture to which they are inextricably
> >attached and through this they gain some independent infamy of their own.
> >Mark David Chapman forever gains a place in history because he is the
> >particular sociopath who shot and killed John Lennon. The DS detractors
> >become legends in their own right for being the ongoing crucifiers of the
> >unfortunate Mr. Smart. Of all the theories, this one rings truest in my
> >mind.
>
> Bob, not to be impertinent, but I hope you're not comparing
> Derek Smart to John Lennon, and the detractors to Mark
> Chapman. If so, you are the one needing the psychoanalysis,
> because you're a sicko.
>
> This pissed me off so much that I thought about plonking
> you, but I am choosing to listen to what you have to say
> about this subject.
>
zed
Jeff Jones wrote:
> Strange. I don't see how anyone .... anyone ... could consider usenet flames
> as real, genuine abuse. You don't have to read the words, much less hear
> them. Even sending emails is a silly thing to consider abusive, IMO. Threats
> of bodily harm are one thing, but "you have a fake PHD" is another.
Weren't you the one screaming out a couple of months ago against
some website? Claiming to be abused etc. I'm just saying this as an
example: as long as one doesn't feel to be personally involved
it is very easy to dismiss flames as silly.
zed.
zed
ryu-dog wrote:
> FWIW, I don't care what Smart's position in the 'celebrity'
> pecking order is.
he's got to be on a pretty high position. You see my wife knows
little to nothing about the gaming industry. Yesterday I was telling
her that Steel Beast was programmed by a single person, she says:
I hope it is not this ... uh ... what's-he-called guy, it took
me by surprise: what guy? finally we sorted out she was thinking
about Derek Smart.
zed.
zed
zed
Jeff Jones
Bob Perez
feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion posts
it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much passion
and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
1) My first reaction was to read these attacks at face value. Honest people
pissed off about alleged fraud, racism, buggy software, pick a topic. But
over time this explanation fails because the level of energy spent in the
pursuit of the damnation far exceeds any rational sense of victimization or
even righteous indignation. No, this isn't enough. There has to be some
other explanation.
2) Another theory is that the whole long episode is nothing more than
entertainment. Enjoyed by the cult who've created the popular mythology, and
devoured by the gossip-hungry readership who love to complain while
carefully monitoring every last message on the subject. "All of these
anti-Derek Smart messages are awful. And so short". I have to admit I find
this one appealing, but it has problems. When you consider how much negative
energy is thrown back at the DS detractors for their dogged pursuit of this
tired and ancient issue, how much real bitterness and anger gets generated,
I don't buy the purely entertainment explanation. Masochism has its limits.
3) Another theory holds that the DS detractors are feeding their own need
for attention by creating a cult fixture to which they are inextricably
attached and through this they gain some independent infamy of their own.
Mark David Chapman forever gains a place in history because he is the
particular sociopath who shot and killed John Lennon. The DS detractors
become legends in their own right for being the ongoing crucifiers of the
unfortunate Mr. Smart. Of all the theories, this one rings truest in my
mind. If you read their messages carefully, you can almost see them smiling
at every new opportunity to start a thread, to stir up the pot, to bring it
up *one more time*, all the while almost enjoying the public thrashing they
receive in turn. Why? Because to a sociopath in search of attention, any
attention, the public thrashings are an acknowledgment that they exist.
Something, I suppose, they have trouble establishing through other more
conventional means in a world stripped of their most powerful tool:
anonymity.
Ok, so I'm dipping into the bottomless well of armchair nickel psychology
Anthony Evans
Timski
=?===== Pippy posted:
>news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
<snip>
>> entertainment. Enjoyed by the cult
>
--
Louis J.M
> Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle of
> feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion posts
Actually, it's about roughly 500,000 now.
> it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
> much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much passion
> and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
> astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
Because. It's addictive and fun. Remeber the first time you ever got onto
the internet? How fun E-Mail was? And then you discovered Usenet, and you
said this is interesting!
They're isn't even a lot of time spent on it believe it or not. Well, at
Timski
Discuss.
--
SNJ261
>From: "Bob Perez" b...@deletethis.bobperez.com
>Date: 10/18/00 2:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com>
I think you missed one other possible reason for the numerous posts. People
like seeing a slugfest, even if there might not be a good guy in the match to
root for. Its kind of like the Earps and Clanton gang shooting it out at the
OK corral. There was no clear cut "good" side. Both gangs had their
supporters and their detractors, like Derek Smart and his enemies.
I have to admit that I enjoy reading the anti-Derek Smart posts myself. I
think this is because after seeing some of his posts and seeing what a pompous
ass he seems to be, its fun to read people zinging him.
>
>Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle of
>feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion posts
>it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
>much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much passion
>and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
>astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
>1) My first reaction was to read these attacks at face value. Honest people
>pissed off about alleged fraud, racism, buggy software, pick a topic. But
>over time this explanation fails because the level of energy spent in the
>pursuit of the damnation far exceeds any rational sense of victimization or
>even righteous indignation. No, this isn't enough. There has to be some
>other explanation.
>
>2) Another theory is that the whole long episode is nothing more than
Rico
[snip]
>
> 3) Another theory holds that the DS detractors are feeding their own need
> for attention by creating a cult fixture to which they are inextricably
> attached and through this they gain some independent infamy of their own.
> Mark David Chapman forever gains a place in history because he is the
> particular sociopath who shot and killed John Lennon. The DS detractors
> become legends in their own right for being the ongoing crucifiers of the
> unfortunate Mr. Smart. Of all the theories, this one rings truest in my
> mind. If you read their messages carefully, you can almost see them
smiling
> at every new opportunity to start a thread, to stir up the pot, to bring
it
> up *one more time*, all the while almost enjoying the public thrashing
they
> receive in turn. Why? Because to a sociopath in search of attention, any
> attention, the public thrashings are an acknowledgment that they exist.
> Something, I suppose, they have trouble establishing through other more
> conventional means in a world stripped of their most powerful tool:
> anonymity.
>
You're making a mistake of applying universal generalization where you
Tom
el Schahin wrote in message <28fH5.3232$NP.1...@news.flash.net>...
cycle of
>> feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85
billion
>posts
>> it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much
time, how
>> much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how
much
>passion
>> and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's
absolutely
>> astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
>
>Perhaps because people (not that I'm implying anyone specific here)
won't
>let it die and stop generating new postings on this exceptionally
tired and
>boring subject???
>
The trouble is that there are more than two sides.
It is not just Derek versus 'Detractors'. Different 'detractors' are
triggered by different cues. And of course there are lurkers, semi
lurkers, and trolls.
Derek won't stop posting (and why should he?).
People won't stop replying or passing (sometimes fair) comment (and
why should they?).
Yes a lot of it is boring, but occasionally there is a flash of wit
(whole or halved).
Just be grateful all this energy is being spent on such a trivial
matter. Imagine the harm that would happen if all lies/bending of
truth/distortion of the facts were applied to an important subject.
Like <add subject of your choice here>.
<Start Flame Retardant>
Which person or people or AI that are lying etc has not been specified
in this post.
If you think I mean you, please check for guilt or paranoia
<End Flame Retardant>
________________________
Tom
Pippy
"Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote in message
news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle of
> feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion
posts
> it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time, how
> much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
passion
> and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
> astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
people
> pissed off about alleged fraud, racism, buggy software, pick a topic. But
> over time this explanation fails because the level of energy spent in the
> pursuit of the damnation far exceeds any rational sense of victimization
or
> even righteous indignation. No, this isn't enough. There has to be some
> other explanation.
>
> 2) Another theory is that the whole long episode is nothing more than
> entertainment. Enjoyed by the cult
...of Loki worshippers...
> who've created the popular mythology, and
> devoured by the gossip-hungry readership who love to complain while
> carefully monitoring every last message on the subject. "All of these
> anti-Derek Smart messages are awful. And so short". I have to admit I find
> this one appealing, but it has problems. When you consider how much
negative
> energy is thrown back at the DS detractors for their dogged pursuit of
this
> tired and ancient issue, how much real bitterness and anger gets
generated,
> I don't buy the purely entertainment explanation. Masochism has its
limits.
>
> 3) Another theory holds that the DS detractors are feeding their own need
> for attention by creating a cult fixture to which they are inextricably
> attached and through this they gain some independent infamy of their own.
> Mark David Chapman forever gains a place in history because he is the
> particular sociopath who shot and killed John Lennon. The DS detractors
> become legends in their own right for being the ongoing crucifiers of the
> unfortunate Mr. Smart. Of all the theories, this one rings truest in my
> mind. If you read their messages carefully, you can almost see them
smiling
> at every new opportunity to start a thread, to stir up the pot, to bring
it
> up *one more time*, all the while almost enjoying the public thrashing
they
> receive in turn. Why? Because to a sociopath in search of attention, any
> attention, the public thrashings are an acknowledgment that they exist.
> Something, I suppose, they have trouble establishing through other more
> conventional means in a world stripped of their most powerful tool:
> anonymity.
>
> Ok, so I'm dipping into the bottomless well of armchair nickel psychology
> and over-simplifying things. Maybe. But there has to be some explanation
for
> this amazing phenomenon, and I ain't buying the theory that the detractors
> are here to right a wrong.
>
> BP
>
ok, so I only had that one thing to say, but it made _me_ laugh....
Pippy
Jeremy Reaban
Bob Perez wrote in message <8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com>...
>Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full
cycle of
>feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85
billion posts
>it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time,
how
>much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
passion
>and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's
absolutely
>astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
IMHO, its pretty simple. They're all crazy, and need some sort of
professional help, or at least enough drugs to keep their off their
computers...I doubt most of them have actually played or own BC. Most
people took the original release back. But from what I understand,
it's different from motivation of Mark Chapman killing of John
Lennon. He apparently thought he was John Lennon, so had to kill the
real one.
Lemming
ryu-dog <mar...@sie.net> wrote:
> This pissed me off so much that I thought about plonking
> you, but I am choosing to listen to what you have to say
> about this subject.
>
Heck Ryu - if you keep this up, you'll have plonked or threatened to plonk
more people than DKS.
Regards,
Bill Huffman
> have found someone who is obviously weaker than they are, who is easy
> to wind up into a rage, and they do it for fun. They love to see his
> imnpotent threats, so that they can do it all again in response to
> those threats. Many will deny this - they say they do it for higher
> motives - but what it boils down to is that they enjoy spending
> playtime poking fun at the fat spotty kid.
As usual Dr. Lemming, a nice post with food for thought that speaks much
truth. However, I would tend to disagree with your characterization of
who the bully has been.
Jeff Jones
> Maybe he's tired of the abuse he perceives himself to be a victim of, and
> has taken steps to stop it through legal channels? Doesn't seem too wacky
an
> idea to me. God, if I had the possee after me that he has I have to admit
> I'd consider it too. And all over some words? <shakes head>
Strange. I don't see how anyone .... anyone ... could consider usenet flames
as real, genuine abuse. You don't have to read the words, much less hear
them. Even sending emails is a silly thing to consider abusive, IMO. Threats
of bodily harm are one thing, but "you have a fake PHD" is another.
Most game developers choose (wisely, IMO) not to participate in the childish
discussions that take place in usenet. DS seems to embrace them. He merely
needs to disappear (from these forums) and the war ends tomorrow. It's
always been that simple.
I also don't think this whole thing is really all that much of a phenomenon.
If you think about it, there are only about 10, maybe 12 players in the
whole thing. I'm guessing on those numbers, but I really think that less
than 15 people are actively involved. And I think there are probably only 5
or so at the core of it.
milo
cycle of
> feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85
billion posts
> it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time,
how
> much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
passion
> and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's
absolutely
> astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
Strange that you missed the most obvious theory: Derek pays them. In
a move that would make Joseph Heller proud (were he still around to
witness it), Derek is paying them to beat him over the head with a
shoe, on the assumption that no publicity is bad publicity. He will,
of course, eventually have to row to Switzerland in a rubber life raft
using a tiny collapsable paddle...
Sincerely,
Yossarian.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeff Jones
> This pissed me off so much that I thought about plonking
> you, but I am choosing to listen to what you have to say
> about this subject.
Wow. Getting plonked by ryu-dog. What an earth-shattering event that would
be.
Lemming
Jeff Jones <jtj...@netins.net.block> wrote in message
>
> I also don't think this whole thing is really all that much of a
phenomenon.
> If you think about it, there are only about 10, maybe 12 players in the
> whole thing. I'm guessing on those numbers, but I really think that less
> than 15 people are actively involved. And I think there are probably only
5
> or so at the core of it.
Out of intersst, who do you believe the players are, and on what side and to
what degree do you think they play?
Regards,
Lemming
> Strange that you missed the most obvious theory: Derek pays them. In
> a move that would make Joseph Heller proud (were he still around to
> witness it), Derek is paying them to beat him over the head with a
> shoe, on the assumption that no publicity is bad publicity. He will,
> of course, eventually have to row to Switzerland in a rubber life raft
> using a tiny collapsable paddle...
Damn, busted.
Regards,
Lance Art
"Jeff Jones" <jtj...@netins.net.block> wrote:
> Which is why I subscribe to Perez' 2nd Hypothesis :) That being the
> 'entertainment' explanation. I've seen countless posts where the
Soap Opera.
Jeff Jones
> > Strange. I don't see how anyone .... anyone ... could consider usenet
flames
> > as real, genuine abuse. You don't have to read the words, much less hear
> > them. Even sending emails is a silly thing to consider abusive, IMO.
Threats
> > of bodily harm are one thing, but "you have a fake PHD" is another.
>
> some website? Claiming to be abused etc. I'm just saying this as an
> example: as long as one doesn't feel to be personally involved
> it is very easy to dismiss flames as silly.
>
> zed.
For one thing, that incident you mention was a learning experience for me.
It showed me how utterly rediculous all of these pseudo-reality internet
transactions can become. I learned that I was taking all of this WAY too
seriously. This stuff isn't real. Turn off the computer and it goes away
(unlike genuine stalking and harrassment).
Lemming
Jeff Jones
milo
"Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
> Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full
cycle of
> feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85
billion posts
> it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time,
how
> much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
passion
> and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's
absolutely
> astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
[snip]
Strange that you missed the most obvious theory: Derek pays them. In
a move that would make Joseph Heller proud (were he still around to
witness it), Derek is paying them to beat him over the head with a
shoe, on the assumption that no publicity is bad publicity. He will,
of course, eventually have to row to Switzerland in a rubber life raft
using a tiny collapsable paddle...
Sincerely,
Yossarian.
Jeff Jones
> Maybe he's tired of the abuse he perceives himself to be a victim of, and
> has taken steps to stop it through legal channels? Doesn't seem too wacky
an
> idea to me. God, if I had the possee after me that he has I have to admit
> I'd consider it too. And all over some words? <shakes head>
Strange. I don't see how anyone .... anyone ... could consider usenet flames
as real, genuine abuse. You don't have to read the words, much less hear
them. Even sending emails is a silly thing to consider abusive, IMO. Threats
of bodily harm are one thing, but "you have a fake PHD" is another.
Most game developers choose (wisely, IMO) not to participate in the childish
discussions that take place in usenet. DS seems to embrace them. He merely
needs to disappear (from these forums) and the war ends tomorrow. It's
always been that simple.
I also don't think this whole thing is really all that much of a phenomenon.
Bob Perez
"Bill Huffman" <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UZvH5.11330$46.1...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> contacting employers, the police, the "authorities", ISPs, and even
> hired a 2-bit lawyer in a flagrant attempt to try and scare people away.
> Basically why has he done all this? In my view, it was all done in an
> attempt to be able to tell his lies in the newsgroups with impunity and
> without contradiction.
>
Maybe he's tired of the abuse he perceives himself to be a victim of, and
has taken steps to stop it through legal channels? Doesn't seem too wacky an
idea to me. God, if I had the possee after me that he has I have to admit
I'd consider it too. And all over some words? <shakes head>
I'm not taking sides with Derek, although I have to admit that the few
exchanges I've had with him have been a lot more pleasant than the ones I've
had with his detractors (present company excluded). But I would guess that
90% of the people reading these threads believe that:
a) he's asked for trouble;
b) he's received a lot more than he asked for
BP
Bob Perez
by those two in particular, but they're by no means alone. I've seen plenty
of others, usually in the form of some really stupid joke thread that no one
finds funny until Quatoria pipes in and tells the guy to fuck off in some
really inspired way.
BP
"Rico" <Troop...@bugplanet.org> wrote in message
news:39eda76c$0$35380$53a6...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote in message
> news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > 3) Another theory holds that the DS detractors are feeding their own
need
> > for attention by creating a cult fixture to which they are inextricably
> > attached and through this they gain some independent infamy of their
own.
> > Mark David Chapman forever gains a place in history because he is the
> > particular sociopath who shot and killed John Lennon. The DS detractors
> > become legends in their own right for being the ongoing crucifiers of
the
> > unfortunate Mr. Smart. Of all the theories, this one rings truest in my
> > mind. If you read their messages carefully, you can almost see them
> smiling
> > at every new opportunity to start a thread, to stir up the pot, to bring
> it
> > up *one more time*, all the while almost enjoying the public thrashing
> they
> > receive in turn. Why? Because to a sociopath in search of attention, any
> > attention, the public thrashings are an acknowledgment that they exist.
> > Something, I suppose, they have trouble establishing through other more
> > conventional means in a world stripped of their most powerful tool:
> > anonymity.
> >
>
Bob Perez
as Lennon, any perception to the contrary should be immediately quashed,
sterilized, and unthunk as quickly as possible. My firstborn son took "John"
as his middle name, so you can trust me on that one.
As for his detractors, no, I don't hold them up in the same light as
Chapman. It was a rough analogy (Ok, a lousy analogy) meant only to
illustrate the point that some people seek celebrity by attacking celebrity
and buying their way into the mythology the easy way, without having to
achieve anything other than the ability to attack someone who's earned his
notoriety. Feel free to disagree with this view or plonk me as you choose,
I'm just stating my honest view of what is obviously a very complex subject
(witness the variety of theories in reply).
BP
"ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
news:grpsuso6goc9lv2oo...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 23:44:58 -0700, "Bob Perez"
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
> >3) Another theory holds that the DS detractors are feeding their own need
> >for attention by creating a cult fixture to which they are inextricably
> >attached and through this they gain some independent infamy of their own.
> >Mark David Chapman forever gains a place in history because he is the
> >particular sociopath who shot and killed John Lennon. The DS detractors
> >become legends in their own right for being the ongoing crucifiers of the
> >unfortunate Mr. Smart. Of all the theories, this one rings truest in my
> >mind.
>
> Bob, not to be impertinent, but I hope you're not comparing
> Derek Smart to John Lennon, and the detractors to Mark
> Chapman. If so, you are the one needing the psychoanalysis,
> because you're a sicko.
Bob Perez
more messages to the thread criticizing those who generate new postings.
Good point, thanks for raising it.
BP
"el Schahin" <bla...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:28fH5.3232$NP.1...@news.flash.net...
>
> "Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote in message
> news:8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> > Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full cycle
of
> > feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85 billion
> posts
> > it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time,
how
> > much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
> passion
> > and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's absolutely
> > astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
>
Lemming
ryu-dog <mar...@sie.net> wrote:
> This pissed me off so much that I thought about plonking
> you, but I am choosing to listen to what you have to say
> about this subject.
>
Heck Ryu - if you keep this up, you'll have plonked or threatened to plonk
Bill Huffman
> have found someone who is obviously weaker than they are, who is easy
> to wind up into a rage, and they do it for fun. They love to see his
> imnpotent threats, so that they can do it all again in response to
> those threats. Many will deny this - they say they do it for higher
> motives - but what it boils down to is that they enjoy spending
> playtime poking fun at the fat spotty kid.
As usual Dr. Lemming, a nice post with food for thought that speaks much
truth. However, I would tend to disagree with your characterization of
who the bully has been.
It is Mr. Smart that has tried to take the flame war off-line by
disconnected
>
>
>
>Jeff Jones wrote:
>
>> Strange. I don't see how anyone .... anyone ... could consider usenet flames
>> as real, genuine abuse. You don't have to read the words, much less hear
>> them. Even sending emails is a silly thing to consider abusive, IMO. Threats
>> of bodily harm are one thing, but "you have a fake PHD" is another.
>
>Weren't you the one screaming out a couple of months ago against
>some website? Claiming to be abused etc. I'm just saying this as an
>example: as long as one doesn't feel to be personally involved
>it is very easy to dismiss flames as silly.
>
>zed.
There was some really heated "discussions" when that went off,
and we don't know everything that Jeff experienced. The only
things we saw were what was on the website and newsgroup(s).
One thing about Jeff was he apologized in the newsgroups.
That in itself gained Jeff a measure of respect with me.
Not the same Jeff
Signature Caught up in Committee
Committee not come out with changes yet
Never give someone a gun unless you are sure which way they will
point it - Jeffrey Sinclair - By Any means Necessary - Babylon 5
Jeff Bemmann Email: dauntlas@
mindspring.com
foamy
"Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>I'm not taking sides with Derek,
Yes you are.
although I have to admit that the few
>exchanges I've had with him have been a lot more pleasant than the ones I've
>had with his detractors
Gee I wonder why ? With your lips, metaphorically speaking, firmly
wrapped around his dick, you're surprised the conversations were more
pleasant than ones with the so-called detractors you often verbally
abuse ? What a shock.
Jim
Allan Parent
>
> ryu-dog wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I don't care what Smart's position in the 'celebrity'
> > pecking order is.
>
> he's got to be on a pretty high position. You see my wife knows
> little to nothing about the gaming industry. Yesterday I was telling
> her that Steel Beast was programmed by a single person, she says:
> I hope it is not this ... uh ... what's-he-called guy, it took
> me by surprise: what guy? finally we sorted out she was thinking
> about Derek Smart.
>
> zed.
The amazing part is Steel Beasts is an excellent game where as Bc3k
is......well, not very good.
Allan
Lemming
>In article <8sm4c9$us8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
>"Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not taking sides with Derek,
>
>Yes you are.
Only in your narrow world view, foamy. BP is speaking as he finds -
which is all any of us can do, if we are honest.
Regards,
Derek Sorensen
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
Bob Perez
"Jeff Jones" <jtj...@netins.net.block> wrote in message
>
> Strange. I don't see how anyone .... anyone ... could consider usenet
flames
> as real, genuine abuse. You don't have to read the words, much less hear
> them
I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled reading in one of Derek's
messages tales of some very active extra curricular activity designed to
continue the harassment offline. If all it is is just words in a newsgroup,
then I agree. Nothing to get excited about and easy enough to stop. Of
course, it means giving up his ability to appear publicly in newsgroups, a
considerable disadvantage to a game developer.
BP
Bob Perez
"foamy" <foa...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lNIH5.488984$8u4.6...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> In article <8sm4c9$us8$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> "Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not taking sides with Derek,
>
> Yes you are.
Um, no.
> With your lips, metaphorically speaking, firmly
> wrapped around his dick
I've noticed from your posts that you frequently use this description. Even
your pseudonym reveals what you like to think of, doesn't it. You must have
an awful lot of fun using the Internet, eh? ;->
BP
Bob Perez
"Louis J.M" <Loui...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:KfOH5.1205$1S5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...> On many occasians in the past Mr.Smart has blatantly tried to get even
with
> people who mock him on this newsgroup by calling up their employers,
trying
> to get them fired, and countless times threatened to have them thrown in
> jail, along with countless other threats and accuations, some bordering on
> the ridiculous.
Threatened to have them thrown in jail??? LOL! Give me a break, on what
grounds could you guys possibly be prosecuted? Were you doing something more
than usenet messages?
>
> > I'm not taking sides with Derek,
>
> In all fairness, you better not.
I take sides with no one on this one, I think there's plenty of shared
responsibility here.
BP
Bob Perez
BP
"milo" <mi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:D15ED542E12BD3119FFE...@mailwhqnews.cerner.com...
> In article <8sjgv3$hi0$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> "Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
> > Like a Iot of people in this newsgroup, I've gone through a full
> cycle of
> > feelings regarding the whole anti-Derek Smart thing and the 85
> billion posts
> > it has generated. When one stops to seriously consider how much time,
> how
> > much energy, how much bandwidth, how much space on servers, how much
> passion
> > and emotion have all been expended in these discussions, it's
> absolutely
> > astonishing. The question you have to ask is why?
> >
Bateau
wrote:
>
>> > Strange. I don't see how anyone .... anyone ... could consider usenet
>flames
>> > as real, genuine abuse. You don't have to read the words, much less hear
>Threats
>> > of bodily harm are one thing, but "you have a fake PHD" is another.
>>
>> Weren't you the one screaming out a couple of months ago against
>> some website? Claiming to be abused etc. I'm just saying this as an
>> example: as long as one doesn't feel to be personally involved
>> it is very easy to dismiss flames as silly.
>>
>> zed.
>
>It showed me how utterly rediculous all of these pseudo-reality internet
>transactions can become. I learned that I was taking all of this WAY too
>seriously. This stuff isn't real. Turn off the computer and it goes away
>(unlike genuine stalking and harrassment).
The net's too important to some people to just walk away from, and unless those
people are very careful it's extremely easy to assume their identity or stalk
them or harrass them.
--
| _ \ _ ^~ email:bateau at jupiterio.net
| <')_,/ , ; \ >(')__, . ` ' , ,______________._
| (_~=/ \._`.'. \ (_~_/ _, '------:_______ ;==( *BANG*
| ='- \=~_) ; \ ~^~~^~ ` (_~_/ | | `-\ \ *BANG*
| ICQ:11367619 -'= \ ~^~~^~ `~' \_;
Louis J.M
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
> "Bill Huffman" <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:UZvH5.11330$46.1...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
>> Lemming <l3m...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:39edf7b9....@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> ...
>>
>> It is Mr. Smart that has tried to take the flame war off-line by
>> contacting employers, the police, the "authorities", ISPs, and even
>> hired a 2-bit lawyer in a flagrant attempt to try and scare people away.
>> Basically why has he done all this? In my view, it was all done in an
>> attempt to be able to tell his lies in the newsgroups with impunity and
>> without contradiction.
>>
>
> Maybe he's tired of the abuse he perceives himself to be a victim of, and
> has taken steps to stop it through legal channels?
He's the main force driving the flamewar. He doesn't seem to be present now,
but there's still a lot of momentum, as you can see.
> Doesn't seem too wacky an
> idea to me. God, if I had the possee after me that he has I have to admit
> I'd consider it too. And all over some words? <shakes head>
Than you don't really understand the "detractors" side.
On many occasians in the past Mr.Smart has blatantly tried to get even with
people who mock him on this newsgroup by calling up their employers, trying
to get them fired, and countless times threatened to have them thrown in
jail, along with countless other threats and accuations, some bordering on
the ridiculous.
> I'm not taking sides with Derek,
In all fairness, you better not.
> although I have to admit that the few
> exchanges I've had with him have been a lot more pleasant than the ones I've
> had with his detractors (present company excluded). But I would guess that
> 90% of the people reading these threads believe that:
>
> a) he's asked for trouble;
> b) he's received a lot more than he asked for
When someone with a very fragile self-image and a huge ego as Mr.Smart
encounters a group of people that can see right through them and mock
them to the core, they generally avoid them like the plague.
Why he throws himself into it, unarmed, with only his kill-file as his
shield, is beyond me. Maybe he loves the abuse? Maybe it's a reflection
of his childhood?
> BP
What the!?
Oh..
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _
\_/-, ,----' // E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
==== ___// WWW : Coming Soon!
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)----------------------------------------------------
/ __/~| __/ | "Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, it makes
==(______| (_________| them soggy and hard to light." - Robert Anton Wilson
Louis J.M
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
> "Louis J.M" <Loui...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:KfOH5.1205$1S5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> In article <8sm4c9$us8$1...@brokaw.wa.com> , "Bob Perez"
>> <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>>
>> On many occasians in the past Mr.Smart has blatantly tried to get even
> with
>> people who mock him on this newsgroup by calling up their employers,
> trying
>> to get them fired, and countless times threatened to have them thrown in
>> jail, along with countless other threats and accuations, some bordering on
>> the ridiculous.
>
> Threatened to have them thrown in jail??? LOL! Give me a break, on what
> grounds could you guys possibly be prosecuted? Were you doing something more
> than usenet messages?
Smart is a pathetic joke, who has fucked with me enough in real life that I
feel like returning the favor. In best natural fashion, I intend on going
for his throat and hitting him where it hurts by letting everyone he comes
across in the gaming industry know about him.
Near as I can tell, his entire contribution to the software industry is
written in his adoptee mother's checks, and there's not a respectable
person in the industry that has any respect for him. Anyone who doubts
this can go to Deja.com and see half his garbage for themselves, and
draw their own conclusions.
Putting his worthless ass on the street when his adoptee mom eventually
refuses to wire him money to keep this pipe-dream of his afloat, will
be far more effective use of my words, than making baseless legal
threats or acting like Ryu-Dog.
Smart has said lots of stupid things for which he has been called on the
carpet. Claiming that he had my medical records and I was drugged up on
medication, claiming his imaginary friends at the FBI/DEA/NASA (I shit
you not) were going to break my door down, arrest me, and throw me in
jail, then saying they already had and I "started crying".
The list goes on.
>> > I'm not taking sides with Derek,
>>
>> In all fairness, you better not.
>
> I take sides with no one on this one, I think there's plenty of shared
> responsibility here.
Have you been to Bill Huffman's site yet?
http://home.san.rr.com/follies/
Louis J.M
.-~~-.____
/ | ' \ E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
( ) O _ WWW : Coming Soon!
\_/-, ,----' // ----------------------------------------------------
==== ___// "I reach high speeds. I especially love driving down
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) a hill directly at a tree and swerving to one side
/ __/~| __/ | at the last moment. That's my way to relax."
==(______| (_________| - Boris Yeltsin
Bob Perez
"Louis J.M" <Loui...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > Near as I can tell, his entire contribution to the software industry is
> written in his adoptee mother's checks, and there's not a respectable
> person in the industry that has any respect for him. Anyone who doubts
> this can go to Deja.com and see half his garbage for themselves, and
> draw their own conclusions.
>
> Putting his worthless ass on the street when his adoptee mom eventually
> refuses to wire him money to keep this pipe-dream of his afloat, will
> be far more effective use of my words, than making baseless legal
> threats or acting like Ryu-Dog.
>
> Smart has said lots of stupid things for which he has been called on the
> carpet. Claiming that he had my medical records and I was drugged up on
> medication, claiming his imaginary friends at the FBI/DEA/NASA (I shit
> you not) were going to break my door down, arrest me, and throw me in
> jail, then saying they already had and I "started crying".
>
> The list goes on.
>
>
Damn. This is amazing, sounds like someone is a real sociopath. What I don't
understand is, if the guy is obviously taking real-world actions on the
basis of nothing more than usenet messages, why keep up the usenet messages?
Isn't that like continuing to stick your tongue out a guy with a gun?
BP
Bob Perez
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:15:37 -0700, "Bob Perez"
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
> No one, as far as I know, from the detractor side has ever done anything
> but post usenet/email messages. They have never taken the flamewar offline
> into the real world. O.K.?
Ok.
>
> On the other hand:
>
> 1) If it could be proven to you that Derek Smart has had police visit
> a newsgroup user's home, and filed (laughable) criminal complaints
> with the police, against the user, will you shut up?
No. I may believe what you say and agree with you that the guy is
pathologically bent, but I don't see any reason to shut up.
> 2) How about if it could be shown to you that Derek has had attornies
> threaten users with civil/criminal action?
How about it?
>
> 3) What about if it could be proven that a Derek supporter has
> contacted a detractor's employer about the flamewar?
Then it would prove that the Derek supporter is a dildo.
>
> 4) Would death wishes from Derek to a detractor suffice?
Suffice for what?
>
> 5) How about threats of physical violence from Derek to users?
How about them?
>
> We would have to prove these accusations against Derek, of course.
> Do you accept the deal, or do you want to live in the dark, and
> continue to whine about things you know nothing about?
I don't know what 'deal' you're talking about. I'm not 'whining' about
anything, I just aired some observations (why is it that the first course of
action in a usenet attack is to claim that the other party is 'whining')?
This seems pretty staightforward to me, doesn't require a lot of knowledge
about the history. You claim that the DS detractors have done nothing but
usenet messages, and yet DS and his pals have taken real-world actions
against people, in some cases threatening them with violence and even death.
To this, your response is to generate more usenet messages? Do you see
anything wrong with that particular approach?
You shouldn't get so shook up, this is supposed to be entertainment,
remember? ;->
BP
Bill Huffman
...
>
> Damn. This is amazing, sounds like someone is a real sociopath. What I
don't
> understand is, if the guy is obviously taking real-world actions on
the
> basis of nothing more than usenet messages, why keep up the usenet
messages?
> Isn't that like continuing to stick your tongue out a guy with a gun?
But if you knew the gun wasn't loaded and you could see that the barrel
was wielded closed why not laugh at the fraud and the impotent threats?
Mark Asher
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
>"ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
>news:09ovusg8v323tsf2l...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:15:37 -0700, "Bob Perez"
><b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>>
>> No one, as far as I know, from the detractor side has ever done anything
>> but post usenet/email messages. They have never taken the flamewar offline
>> into the real world. O.K.?
>
>Ok.
Except when there was a letter writing campaign initiated to contact
his publisher (Interplay) in an attempt to get him dropped.
Then there was Louis publishing Derek's financial court case stuff on
Usenet.
And there's Huff's website that is devoted to Derek.
It's not hard to see how Derek might have a bit of a bunker mentality
at this point.
Bob Perez
I could think of many reasons offhand but I guess the biggest point, well
above and beyond all of the paranoia issues, is simply the question I would
ask myself: "Is all of this negative energy really worth the effort"? That's
actually the fundamental question that drove this thread in the first place.
BP
Louis J.M
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
> Damn. This is amazing, sounds like someone is a real sociopath. What I don't
> understand is, if the guy is obviously taking real-world actions on the
> basis of nothing more than usenet messages, why keep up the usenet messages?
This is Standard Operating Practice with everyone's favorite orphaned
drag-queen game developer.
He makes wild accusations: in the past he's claimed that I had been
indicted by the FBI and more recently, the State Attorney (!), for
net abuse charges and would be thrown in jail, that Jacky O' Neil was
under investigation for "insider trading", that he had made complaints
with his lawyers to the Attorney General regarding his Usenet tormentors,
that Bill Huffman had attempted to get me to drive past his house - which
really wasn't a house, I discovered, but an apartment complex - and would
soon be arrested.
Honestly, I really don't think these are all of them:
http://www.werewolves.org/~follies/archives/1NotSoSmartPosts/1MakingThreats/
People ask him to provide some facts to go along with these allegations.
He then falls silent, only to repeat this process again a few weeks later.
Simply put, Smart has a bad habit of putting his foot in his mouth,
and then lying and doging them when people remind him of said stupid
statements. Unfortuntely for him, it's all immortalized on deja.com
for everyone to see. And I make it a weekly hobby to let publishers
know about his statements on Usenet regarding other games and people.
And he knows it worked. And it drives him crazy.
> Isn't that like continuing to stick your tongue out a guy with a gun?
No it isn't. I'll admit at one point I really thought he was a nutcase
and really wanted my head on a silver platter.
Many have never really heard this side of Derek before. But I have. And
he really is capable of being a deranged lunatic in the truest sense of
the word.
1.) Derek answers to a higher authority: his ego; and everything he thinks
goes through that first for approval. Good thing for him ego = self
preservation because:
2.) I own several firearms.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _
\_/-, ,----' // E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
==== ___// WWW : Coming Soon!
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)----------------------------------------------------
/ __/~| __/ | "You're young, you're drunk, you're in bed, you have
==(______| (_________| knives; shit happens." - Angelina Jolie
Louis J.M
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
> "ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
> news:09ovusg8v323tsf2l...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:15:37 -0700, "Bob Perez"
> <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>>
>> No one, as far as I know, from the detractor side has ever done anything
>> but post usenet/email messages. They have never taken the flamewar offline
>> into the real world. O.K.?
>
> Ok.
>
>>
I really /like this guy/.
I hope he stays. His posts are a refreshing departure from the semi-angst
ridden rantings of Ryu-Dog, the monotone, factual clarifications of Bill
Huffman, and the chaff one-liners of BP that I'm used to.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _
\_/-, ,----' // E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
==== ___// WWW : Coming Soon!
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)----------------------------------------------------
/ __/~| __/ | "You do not see the world as it is; you see it as
==(______| (_________| you are." - Talmud
Louis J.M
<ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
>
> Except when there was a letter writing campaign initiated to contact
> his publisher (Interplay) in an attempt to get him dropped.
>
> Then there was Louis publishing Derek's financial court case stuff on
> Usenet.
That was public information. It was a proverbial kick to the balls to
his ego.
Smart claimed to have my medical records, which are not by measure,
public information. On top of that he called my home, threatened me,
left threatning messages on my answering machine etc.
> And there's Huff's website that is devoted to Derek.
>
> It's not hard to see how Derek might have a bit of a bunker mentality
> at this point.
It's not hard to see how all of them might have a bit of an inclination
to pay $500 for a two way flight down here to kick his ass.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _ E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
\_/-, ,----' // WWW : Coming Soon!
==== ___// ----------------------------------------------------
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) "Jeez, I was hoping for the local hospital's medical
/ __/~| __/ | waste facility. Now THAT would be a position of honor
==(______| (_________| for my posts to be dumped to." - J...@Bsfilter.com
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
>"Louis J.M" <Loui...@Earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:1wSH5.1948$1S5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> > Near as I can tell, his entire contribution to the software industry is
>> written in his adoptee mother's checks, and there's not a respectable
>> person in the industry that has any respect for him. Anyone who doubts
>> this can go to Deja.com and see half his garbage for themselves, and
>> draw their own conclusions.
>>
>> Putting his worthless ass on the street when his adoptee mom eventually
>> refuses to wire him money to keep this pipe-dream of his afloat, will
>> be far more effective use of my words, than making baseless legal
>> threats or acting like Ryu-Dog.
>>
>> Smart has said lots of stupid things for which he has been called on the
>> carpet. Claiming that he had my medical records and I was drugged up on
>> medication, claiming his imaginary friends at the FBI/DEA/NASA (I shit
>> you not) were going to break my door down, arrest me, and throw me in
>> jail, then saying they already had and I "started crying".
>>
>> The list goes on.
>>
>>
>
>Damn. This is amazing, sounds like someone is a real sociopath. What I don't
>understand is, if the guy is obviously taking real-world actions on the
>basis of nothing more than usenet messages, why keep up the usenet messages?
>Isn't that like continuing to stick your tongue out a guy with a gun?
>
>BP
www.3000ad.com/temp/louisJM.zip
'nuff said
Derek Smart Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.3000ad.com ICQ: 158435
"Game developers are just human beings who happen to make games for a
living. If you want to hold us up to higher standards of conduct,
then go ahead ...but don't be surprised if we don't uphold them.
- Warren Marshall, Epic Games"
Louis J.M
(3000AD)" <dsm...@NOSPAMFORMEpobox.com> wrote:
>
> www.3000ad.com/temp/louisJM.zip
>
> 'nuff said
The height of Smart's campaign to get his revenge with me: a police
complaint. Nuff' said. I stand corrected.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _
\_/-, ,----' // E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
==== ___// WWW : Coming Soon!
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)----------------------------------------------------
Bill Huffman
well
> above and beyond all of the paranoia issues, is simply the question I
would
> ask myself: "Is all of this negative energy really worth the effort"?
That's
> actually the fundamental question that drove this thread in the first
place.
Yes, it's worth the laughs.
Bob Perez
"Derek Smart (3000AD)" <dsm...@NOSPAMFORMEpobox.com> wrote in message
news:kdt5vsoov73bo0qmt...@4ax.com...> >"> www.3000ad.com/temp/louisJM.zip
>
> 'nuff said
>
Well, I couldn't read the downloads, looked like a lot of police reports and
chat logs. I take it the reports indicated that there was more action on
someone's part then just usenet messages?
This is one of the most bizarre stories I've ever heard. Proof that real
life is always stranger than fiction because, as they say, you just can't
make this shit up.
BP
Bob Perez
> But, I offered you a deal. Remember that.
And I have no desire to entertain your 'deal'. Remember that. ;->
>
> The deal, remember?
See above.
>
> I agree. And about the Deal?
>
You're not listening. ;->
> <Sigh> .. THE DEAL.
>
Repeat after me: No deal.
> T - H - E D - E - A - L
>
S - E - E A - B - O - V - E
> Bob, your attention span is apparently so short that you can't
> even follow this post.
Nah, you and I both know it has nothing to do with my attention span. What's
really at issue here is your pathological insistence that this discussion
travel down a certain path that I have no interest in. True to form, you're
at least amusing us.
> My guess is that you aren't _capable_
> of understanding why a flamewar has gone on for years.
Well, you don't actually believe that and anyone familiar with the posts
that you and I have left here over the years won't believe that you believe
it either. So why bother making such a silly statement, it doesn't serve the
interests of you or your argument. It's just vituperative filler, a few
notches above "You SUCK".
>
> >I'm not 'whining' about
> >anything, I just aired some observations (why is it that the first course
of
> >action in a usenet attack is to claim that the other party is 'whining')?
> >
>
> Whining, in this context, is when you continually complain about
> something that you either can't change, or something that you won't
> change.
"Observations". This is "whining? This is continual complaining? Nah, it's
just my own little contribution to the discussion. Rather than attempt to be
a newsgroup nazi and tell everyone to shut up, rather than add to the fire
by accusing one side or the other of lying, racism, anti-Americanism, or
whatever, I decided to start a new direction. Forget for a moment the "what"
behind this amazing story, it's in ridiculous contention anyway. More
interesting, I thought, was the "why", and so I launched a discussion. That
you consider this "complaining" or "whining" says a lot more, frankly, about
your personal ability to understand the issues than it does about me.
> In your case, it's the latter. You don't want to understand
> the issues in this flamewar, and choose to complain even though
> you refuse to know what you're complaining about.
Here, try this one more time. I am not complaining. Say it out loud. "Bob is
not complaining". There, does that help? Let this soak in a little while,
and then try this one on, too: "Bob is having fun with a slightly different
direction on the conversation". Is that better? I have actually enjoyed
traveling down this philosophical path in search of some undiscovered wisdom
lurking below all the hype and hoopla, rather than wearing out the same old
tired facts and data with accusations about PhDs and police reports, etc.
Much more interesting to me is the motivations behind the messages. Surely
you can see how this is distinguished from "complaining"? I'm not going to
insult you by stating a false belief that you can't understand this, I'm
quite sure you do. ;->
>
> Nope, you're a whiner, and a very boring whiner at that.
Quite a lot of energy you're putting into something this 'boring', eh? ;->
>
> >This seems pretty staightforward to me, doesn't require a lot of
knowledge
> >about the history.
>
> So, comprehension of a subject requires no knowledge of the subject?
>
> LOL!
Damn, now you're disappointing me, your intellect seems to be disengaging if
you don't see that point. Please say it ain't so, that I haven't misjudged
your abilities!
>
> >You claim that the DS detractors have done nothing but
> >usenet messages, and yet DS and his pals have taken real-world actions
> >against people, in some cases threatening them with violence and even
death.
>
> I didn't say that anyone threatened death to anyone. Try to
> read and understand the posts, here. Oh, I forgot, you don't
> want to understand anything.
Well, you referenced "death wishes" from Derek to his detractors. Not
exactly the same as a death threat, but close enough to support the point I
was making and not enough to support whatever point you're attempting to
make here. And puleez, you can be more creative with your sarcasm, can't
you? You're disappointing me again, dog...
>
> >To this, your response is to generate more usenet messages? Do you see
> >anything wrong with that particular approach?
> >
>
> My 'response' is to expose the liar and asshole, Derek Smart.
Well, I attempted to deal with that in my original post. It strikes me that
this mission of yours has gone well beyond any real attempt to "expose"
since the point's been made in concrete, stone, forged steel and uncut
diamond. I think he's been exposed. ;-> So there must be more to it.
> Along the way, I have offered to help you understand what's
> happening here,
Thanks, I've enjoyed hearing the history.
> but you don't care about actual issues, you
> care about saving 'bandwidth'.
Looks like you made a tiny little assumption there, didn't you? My comment
about 'bandwidth' was not even negative. I simply stated that when one
considers how much bandwidth has been "expended" (note the neutral
communication here, as opposed to "wasted", etc.), it is "astonishing". Who
could debate this point? I didn't attempt to judge that it was good or bad,
just phenomenal in scope. I didn't advocate "saving bandwidth" as you state,
I simply commented on how much had been used on the subject. The rest was
your own interpretation.
And you see, this is why they say that email is such a poor medium for
communicating in the office. So many people make the mistake of reading a
typed message with a vision in their head of the speaker's tone, and if that
vision doesn't actually align with the speaker's intent, bingo. Failed
communication. In this case, you saw me coming as a "whiner", you saw me
coming as a "complainer" and you read every word of my message as if I'd
actually said "wasted bandwidth". But when you stop and analyze it, you're
the one who isn't understanding what's happening here.
Too bad, I was expecting more from you.
> Why shouldn't I plonk you?
That's your choice, feel free! ;->
>
> >You shouldn't get so shook up, this is supposed to be entertainment,
> >remember? ;->
My last (obviously failed) attempt to communicate my intentions.
BP
Allan Parent
>
> Well, I couldn't read the downloads, looked like a lot of police reports and
> chat logs. I take it the reports indicated that there was more action on
> someone's part then just usenet messages?
>
> This is one of the most bizarre stories I've ever heard. Proof that real
> life is always stranger than fiction because, as they say, you just can't
> make this shit up.
>
> BP
Bob,
You are absolutely correct. Truth is stranger than fiction especially in
this case. I won't even get into the racist email that derek forged and
sent to himself...or something like that. Maybe someone can chime in
with the reader's digest version. Bottom line is derek and some of his
minions did take this garbage off line with the intent of getting Bill
Huffman and others fired from their jobs. Strange indeed.
Allan
Mark Asher
>In article <8l85vs4g2j50n61v7...@4ax.com>,
> Mark Asher <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
snip
>> Except when there was a letter writing campaign initiated to contact
>> his publisher (Interplay) in an attempt to get him dropped.
>
>Ok, who wrote the letters, can we please have the names and copies of
>the letters. WHAT, you do not have them!! Then how do you know any were
>written. Oh, Derek (proven liar) Smart said so, did he. <snigger>
Actually, I was interested in what was going on so I contacted someone
at Interplay and they confirmed that they had received some email on
the subject.
>> Then there was Louis publishing Derek's financial court case stuff on
>> Usenet.
>
>Public information
Sure, but why dredge it up other than to attack him?
>> And there's Huff's website that is devoted to Derek.
>
>Which mostly contains Usenet Posts. I suppose you and Derek do not like
>it as it points out so many of Derek's lies, his forging of racist
>email, his fake Ph.D. and all his bullshit.
But it has the feel of a vendetta, and not some search for academic
honesty. It's not about the issues, but all about the personal hatred
that Bill feels for Derek, and which is likely reciprocated.
>> It's not hard to see how Derek might have a bit of a bunker mentality
>> at this point.
>
>Self inflicted of course. of course, you can always claim that derek
>was forced to lie, forced to forge racist email, forced to buy a fake
>Ph.D. but no one but his sycophants and toadies would believe you.
Derek has certainly brought much of it about, but there's no need to
maintain an anti-Derek website or publish his court proceedings or
contact his publisher. etc.
And there's certainly no reason to flame him when he just posts a
message about screenshots and that sort of thing.
Bob Perez
You're a liar, ryu-dog and now everyone knows it.
BP
"ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
news:dlf7vss6fjbfafap6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:55:22 -0500, Mark Asher <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >>> It's not hard to see how Derek might have a bit of a bunker mentality
> >>> at this point.
> >>
> >>Self inflicted of course. of course, you can always claim that derek
> >>was forced to lie, forced to forge racist email, forced to buy a fake
> >>Ph.D. but no one but his sycophants and toadies would believe you.
> >
> >Derek has certainly brought much of it about, but there's no need to
> >maintain an anti-Derek website or publish his court proceedings or
> >contact his publisher. etc.
>
> Damn, Mark, are you and Derek .... in love?
Wilf
> <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
> >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:15:37 -0700, "Bob Perez"
> ><b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> No one, as far as I know, from the detractor side has ever done
anything
> >> but post usenet/email messages. They have never taken the flamewar
offline
> >> into the real world. O.K.?
> >
> >Ok.
>
> his publisher (Interplay) in an attempt to get him dropped.
Ok, who wrote the letters, can we please have the names and copies of
the letters. WHAT, you do not have them!! Then how do you know any were
written. Oh, Derek (proven liar) Smart said so, did he. <snigger>
>
> Then there was Louis publishing Derek's financial court case stuff on
> Usenet.
Public information
>
> And there's Huff's website that is devoted to Derek.
Which mostly contains Usenet Posts. I suppose you and Derek do not like
it as it points out so many of Derek's lies, his forging of racist
email, his fake Ph.D. and all his bullshit.
>
> It's not hard to see how Derek might have a bit of a bunker mentality
> at this point.
Self inflicted of course. of course, you can always claim that derek
was forced to lie, forced to forge racist email, forced to buy a fake
Ph.D. but no one but his sycophants and toadies would believe you.
--
Email to me may be deleted unread, forwarded to
Usenet, twisted, distorted and changed, or posted
on a Web site. If you do not want this to
possibly happen to your email sent to me, do not
send me any.
Louis J.M
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I couldn't read the downloads, looked like a lot of police reports and
> chat logs. I take it the reports indicated that there was more action on
> someone's part then just usenet messages?
>
> This is one of the most bizarre stories I've ever heard. Proof that real
> life is always stranger than fiction because, as they say, you just can't
> make this shit up.
No, but you can try to lead people to think it means something.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _
\_/-, ,----' // E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
==== ___// WWW : Coming Soon!
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)----------------------------------------------------
/ __/~| __/ | "Hey, there's a helluva nice universe next door.
==(______| (_________| Let's go." - Robert Anton Wilson
Louis J.M
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
Please excuse BP. He's like that dim-witted Hyena from the Lion King.
But hey - common sense is better than no sense at all, so he's alright
in my book.
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _
\_/-, ,----' // E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
==== ___// WWW : Coming Soon!
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)----------------------------------------------------
Rico
>
> Looks like you made a tiny little assumption there, didn't you? My comment
> about 'bandwidth' was not even negative. I simply stated that when one
> considers how much bandwidth has been "expended" (note the neutral
> communication here, as opposed to "wasted", etc.), it is "astonishing".
Who
> could debate this point? I didn't attempt to judge that it was good or
bad,
> just phenomenal in scope. I didn't advocate "saving bandwidth" as you
state,
> I simply commented on how much had been used on the subject. The rest was
> your own interpretation.
Actually, the point is easily refuted. If you add up all the messages that
have ever been written in the flamewar, concatenate them into one large file
... you'll still have a sickly comparison to just a couple hours of the
traffic regularly posted to the binary erotica groups. When you want to use
words like "astonishing" and "phenomenal" in connection to bandwidth on
Usenet, any admin will tell you that the binary groups (especially the
erotica groups) are the place to look. So to speak. ;-)
So basically, bandwidth is not, never has been, and never will be an issue
when it comes to the flamewar.
Jeff Jones
> Damn, Mark, are you and Derek .... in love?
Given the amount of dedication that you, Louis, and Bill H. have towards
Derek, I would guess that it's you guys who are are secretly in love with
him.
Bob Perez
"Rico" <Troop...@bugplanet.org> wrote in message
news:39f3c058$0$34975$53a6...@news.erinet.com...
>
> Actually, the point is easily refuted. If you add up all the messages
that
> have ever been written in the flamewar, concatenate them into one large
file
> ... you'll still have a sickly comparison to just a couple hours of the
> traffic regularly posted to the binary erotica groups. When you want to
use
> words like "astonishing" and "phenomenal" in connection to bandwidth on
> Usenet, any admin will tell you that the binary groups (especially the
> erotica groups) are the place to look. So to speak. ;-)
>
> So basically, bandwidth is not, never has been, and never will be an issue
> when it comes to the flamewar.
Yea, bandwidth was not the right term to use. It's more like the number of
messages or just plain ASCII that's been expended on the subject.
And for anyone who's ready to hit the reply button because this statement is
also "easily refuted" with examples of more egregious abuses of message
traffic, save it. I concede that there are many other topics upon which
greater amounts of ASCII have been expended. Ok?
BP
Bob Perez
> >
> > (You know, capital-bp was an alias that lowercase-bp
> used on occasion)
>
But I bet had my BP before he had his bp. ;->
BP
Bill Huffman
>
> "Rico" <Troop...@bugplanet.org> wrote in message
> news:39f3c058$0$34975$53a6...@news.erinet.com...
> >
messages
> that
> > have ever been written in the flamewar, concatenate them into one
large
> file
> > ... you'll still have a sickly comparison to just a couple hours of
the
> > traffic regularly posted to the binary erotica groups. When you
want to
> use
> > words like "astonishing" and "phenomenal" in connection to bandwidth
on
> > Usenet, any admin will tell you that the binary groups (especially
the
> > erotica groups) are the place to look. So to speak. ;-)
> >
> > So basically, bandwidth is not, never has been, and never will be an
issue
> > when it comes to the flamewar.
>
number of
> messages or just plain ASCII that's been expended on the subject.
>
> And for anyone who's ready to hit the reply button because this
statement is
> also "easily refuted" with examples of more egregious abuses of
message
> traffic, save it. I concede that there are many other topics upon
which
> greater amounts of ASCII have been expended. Ok?
Okay, capital-bp (You know, capital-bp was an alias that lowercase-bp
used on occasion)
Walter Mitty
"Bill Huffman" <bhuf...@REMOVE-THISsan.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UZvH5.11330>
>As usual Dr. Lemming, a nice post with food for thought that speaks much
> truth. However, I would tend to disagree with your characterization of
> who the bully has been.
>
> It is Mr. Smart that has tried to take the flame war off-line by
> contacting employers, the police, the "authorities", ISPs, and even
> hired a 2-bit lawyer in a flagrant attempt to try and scare people away.
> Basically why has he done all this? In my view, it was all done in an
> attempt to be able to tell his lies in the newsgroups with impunity and
> without contradiction.
Dr lemming forgot the other type of flame thread. The one where someone
posts something relatively observant and truthful and Bill Huffman comes in
and corrects it to blame Derek all over again. He's the one who rather than
actually does the bullying, merely points out the fat spotty kids
inadequacies in the hope that the bullies don't turn on him.
Walter Mitty
> No one, as far as I know, from the detractor side has ever done anything
> but post usenet/email messages. They have never taken the flamewar offline
> into the real world. O.K.?
You are joking right?
sgri...@carolina.rr.com
>No, why?
>
What about all those emails sent by detractors to Interplay when they
agreed to publish Smart's game. That doesn't count? Forgotten about
that, have you?
Grifman
Derek Smart (3000AD)
<nos...@spammers.com> wrote:
>
>"ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
>news:09ovusg8v323tsf2l...@4ax.com...
>> No one, as far as I know, from the detractor side has ever done anything
>> but post usenet/email messages. They have never taken the flamewar offline
>> into the real world. O.K.?
>
>You are joking right?
Nah, he's not joking. He's lying. Now, what _are_ the odds of _that_
happening?
ros...@optushome.com.au
<dsm...@NOSPAMFORMEpobox.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:04:17 +0100, "Walter Mitty"
><nos...@spammers.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
>>news:09ovusg8v323tsf2l...@4ax.com...
>>> No one, as far as I know, from the detractor side has ever done anything
>>> but post usenet/email messages. They have never taken the flamewar offline
>>> into the real world. O.K.?
>>
>>You are joking right?
>
>Nah, he's not joking. He's lying. Now, what _are_ the odds of _that_
>happening?
Talk about lying Derek, how are all your law suits coming along
<snigger>
How is your "Virtual Desktop Resizing Utility" that you used when you
tried to cover up your forging of racist email. Have you found the
name for it yet <snigger>
How is your bankruptcy coming along. Have you decided on a cause for
it yet?? Was it your girlfriend...or was it business expenses...???
<snigger>
How is your membership of Mensa coming along?? Oh, that was another
lie. <snigger>
>
>Derek Smart Ph.D. <snigger> This is another LIE.
>Designer/Lead Developer
>The Battlecruiser Series of Patches
>www.3000ad.com ICQ: 158435
>
>"Yes I lied.
>Derek Smart
>
Louis J.M
<mar...@sie.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:16:12 GMT, "Derek Smart (3000AD)"
<dsm...@NOSPAMFORMEpobox.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:04:17 +0100, "Walter Mitty"
>><nos...@spammers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"ryu-dog" <mar...@sie.net> wrote in message
>>>news:09ovusg8v323tsf2l...@4ax.com...
>>>> No one, as far as I know, from the detractor side has ever done anything
>>>> but post usenet/email messages. They have never taken the flamewar offline
>>>> into the real world. O.K.?
>>>
>>>You are joking right?
>>
>>Nah, he's not joking. He's lying. Now, what _are_ the odds of _that_
>>happening?
>
> If I am incorrect, I am sorry.
>
> Now, Derek, please tell us any incidents of detractors taking the flamewar
> into the real world.
>
> Thanks.
Ryu, you lame dumbass...
.-~~-.____ Louis J.M
/ | ' \
( ) O _ E-Mail: Loui...@Earthlink.net
\_/-, ,----' // WWW : Coming Soon!
==== ___// ----------------------------------------------------
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) "For GOD so loved the world that he gave his only
/ __/~| __/ | begotten son, that whosoever would believe in him
==(______| (_________| would believe probably anything." - Unknown
Bill Huffman
news:39f55...@news2.prserv.net...
Walter, you're back! Hi
(Bullys, please note Walter's fat spotty inadequate post, perchance the
author suffers the same maladies?)
Bill Huffman
> Thanks.
Don't you think that Walter seems like he might be the fat spotty type?
P.S. I hope he doesn't notice this post.
P.P.S. What the hell is a spotty person?
Tom Fulton
I counted thirty (30!) messages about a guy, and a topic, that isn't worth
spit.
Acting like an asshole in response to an asshole doesn't solve the problem.
The first step is admitting that you have a problem. Then close this ugly
chapter in your life and find something worthwhile to get excited about.
Warpy Spurlock
news:eMhJ5.3030$a5.13...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
Oh, you mean like you so obviously have?
--
Warpy "still trying to figure out why having a life is preferred to not
having one" Spurlock
Allan Parent
> >
> >You are joking right?
>
> Nah, he's not joking. He's lying. Now, what _are_ the odds of _that_
> happening?
>
Go ahead, post those emails that detractors sent to Interplay. You said
you have copies of them all so post them. Put up or shut up!
Allan
Bob Perez
worth spit!
BP
"Tom Fulton" <ful...@neca.com> wrote in message
news:ocsJ5.3073$a5.13...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
> Good one.
>
> See, here's the deal. I posted a note about this same topic a year ago,
and
> the same pathetic bastards are still complaining about Smart.
>
> I don't care. The purpose of my post was to get a tiny percentage of these
> people to WAKE UP and get on with their lives. The rest of them,
apparently
> including you, can just keep on doing what they have been doing.
>
> By the way, that is practically the clinical definition of insanity: doing
> the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
>
> "Warpy Spurlock" <wspu...@no.way> wrote in message
> news:02kJ5.15755$1S5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...