Philadelphia transit strike
Keith F. Lynch
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>There's a Philadelphia transit strike:
>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
>
>If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
>inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
collectively bargain, Keith?
--
"No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who
does not want to adopt a rational attitude."
Sir Karl Popper
Arthur T.
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>There's a Philadelphia transit strike:
>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
>
>If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
>inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
If you can get to downtown Philly, there's no effect. Septa
doesn't run to NJ. All of the public transit to Philcon is
non-Septa. See http://2009.philcon.org/directions.html
--
Arthur T. - ar23hur "at" intergate "dot" com
Looking for a z/OS (IBM mainframe) systems programmer position
Lee Ratner
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:40:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >There's a Philadelphia transit strike:
> >http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
>
> >If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
> >inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
>
> Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
> collectively bargain, Keith?
Striking is perfectly libertarian and anarcho-capitalist friendly
since it is a completely voluntary action by a voluntary association.
Kip Williams
More importantly, I don't see any sign of editorializing on Keith's
part. The first response to his post seems nothing more than yet another
attempt to bait him for something that's not even present in it.
Kip W
netcat
says...
An attempt everyone responding to that post has aided and abetted, since
without anyone quoting it Keith would not have seen it.
This sort of points out the futility of killfiles, at least in a group
that gets as little traffic as this one. Nearly everything posted here
will be at some point quoted by someone else, and if it's inflammatory,
the chances of it happening are even greater.
rgds,
netcat
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>Lee Ratner wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 10:16 pm, "David Loewe, Jr."<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:40:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>>> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> There's a Philadelphia transit strike:
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
>>>
>>>> If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
>>>> inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
>>>
>>> Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
>>> collectively bargain, Keith?
>>
>> Striking is perfectly libertarian and anarcho-capitalist friendly
>> since it is a completely voluntary action by a voluntary association.
>
>More importantly, I don't see any sign of editorializing on Keith's
>part.
"...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
Moreover, the post and the remark by Keith are not being made in a
vacuum. Keith frequently complains that his transit system does not
care about serving the customers. This can easily be seen as an
extension of that belief.
>The first response to his post seems nothing more than yet another
>attempt to bait him for something that's not even present in it.
Your overt hostility has been noted - and filed appropriately in a round
bin.
--
"Man, I'd give anything to be as articulate as Steve Jobs."
- Bill Gates
David Friedman
<ca86316f-0a8c-4a77...@j11g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Lee Ratner <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
That depends on the legal context--for example, whether or not violence
by strikers against those who cross their picket lines is tolerated by
the authorities, whether contracts by which an employer makes not
joining a union a condition of employment are banned, and the like.
But in any case, there is no inconsistency between believing that an
activity is entirely legitimate and also believing that it has some
undesirable consequences.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:49:31 -0500, Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lee Ratner wrote:
> >> On Nov 3, 10:16 pm, "David Loewe, Jr."<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:40:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> >>> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> There's a Philadelphia transit strike:
>
> >>>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
> >>>
> >>>> If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
> >>>> inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
> >>>
> >>> Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
> >>> collectively bargain, Keith?
> >>
> >> Striking is perfectly libertarian and anarcho-capitalist friendly
> >> since it is a completely voluntary action by a voluntary association.
> >
> >More importantly, I don't see any sign of editorializing on Keith's
> >part.
>
> "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
> downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
Keith. That doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to make them.
Noting that the strike might have inconvenient consequences for some
people doesn't even qualify as complaining, let alone as holding that
workers don't have the right to do it.
...
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:49:31 -0500, Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Lee Ratner wrote:
>> >> On Nov 3, 10:16 pm, "David Loewe, Jr."<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:40:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>> >>> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> There's a Philadelphia transit strike:
>>
>> >>>> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
>> >>>
>> >>>> If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
>> >>>> inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
>> >>>
>> >>> Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
>> >>> collectively bargain, Keith?
>> >>
>> >> Striking is perfectly libertarian and anarcho-capitalist friendly
>> >> since it is a completely voluntary action by a voluntary association.
>> >
>> >More importantly, I don't see any sign of editorializing on Keith's
>> >part.
>>
>> "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
>> downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
>
>I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
>Keith.
We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
Moreover, several times now I've made a list of things Keith does that I
consider *highly* insulting. I don't see you complaining to Keith when
he continues to do *those* things.
>That doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to make them.
I asked a frigging *question*, Professor.
>Noting that the strike might have inconvenient consequences for some
>people doesn't even qualify as complaining, let alone as holding that
>workers don't have the right to do it.
It is laughable that you get that I think that Keith doesn't think they
have the right to strike from *what I wrote*. I asked him where was his
solidarity with (aka overt support of) the workers (as an anarchist
should), not if he thought they shouldn't strike.
The strike is anarchy (his stated political philosophy) in action. Yet,
he kvetches when he sees his favored philosophy in action. Irony, thy
very name is Usenet.
You're real big on getting the best exact nuance of the best possibility
for an interpretation of what Keith says, but not so big on getting
anywhere close to the right interpretation of things anyone else says.
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
netcat
dave...@charter.net says...
> >> "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
> >> downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
> >
> >I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
> >Keith.
>
> We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
> observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
We all know what you think of Keith already. There's no surpise there.
Could you just stop "offering your opinion" about him over and over,
every day? A drop of water doesn't hurt anybody either, but Chinese
water torture does.
> The strike is anarchy (his stated political philosophy) in action. Yet,
> he kvetches when he sees his favored philosophy in action. Irony, thy
> very name is Usenet.
He made a factual observation. You interpret it as kvetching.
Such is your right, but do not demand that all others agree with you.
rgds,
netcat
cryptoguy
wrote:
> In article <5ji3f55pe6s1jes8q5s6j355u62s8ac...@4ax.com>,
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:49:31 -0500, Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Lee Ratner wrote:
> > >> On Nov 3, 10:16 pm, "David Loewe, Jr."<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 02:40:16 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> > >>> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>> There's a Philadelphia transit strike:
>
> > >>>>http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
>
> > >>>> If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
> > >>>> inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
>
> > >>> Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
> > >>> collectively bargain, Keith?
>
> > >> Striking is perfectly libertarian and anarcho-capitalist friendly
> > >> since it is a completely voluntary action by a voluntary association.
>
> > >More importantly, I don't see any sign of editorializing on Keith's
> > >part.
>
> > "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
> > downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
>
> I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
> Keith. That doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to make them.
> Noting that the strike might have inconvenient consequences for some
> people doesn't even qualify as complaining, let alone as holding that
> workers don't have the right to do it.
While I seem to butt heads with David F quite frequently, I have to
say I agree with him that you seem to be going out of your way to find
reasons to snark at Keith. It turns out downthread that it shouldn't
actually affect his trip to Philcon, but worrying about it, and giving
a heads up to the other con-going fans in this group, is quite
appropriate.
pt
Kip Williams
>> We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
>> observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
>
> We all know what you think of Keith already. There's no surpise there.
> Could you just stop "offering your opinion" about him over and over,
> every day? A drop of water doesn't hurt anybody either, but Chinese
> water torture does.
Amen to that.
>> The strike is anarchy (his stated political philosophy) in action. Yet,
>> he kvetches when he sees his favored philosophy in action. Irony, thy
>> very name is Usenet.
>
> He made a factual observation. You interpret it as kvetching.
> Such is your right, but do not demand that all others agree with you.
Every possible degree of slack should be afforded to David's writings.
He seems to feel that he's amused, detached, dry, witty, ironic on the
page, whereas it's been pointed out repeatedly that he sounds more
crabby, irate and bellicose.
Of course, applying any slack to any statement of Keith's is the
occasion for more jumping and dumping. How dare you take his side!
What color is the sky on your planet?
Oh.
My.
God.
Wow.
Just
Wow.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 4, 5:05�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>wrote:
Because Keith loudly proclaims it?
Hell, even when I'm *not* snarking at Keith, he proclaims me to be
mortally insulting him - when the truth is I simply used something that
dramatically contrasted with the characterization of him by another
poster (and each characterization was limited to one subject).
You know, one of us is the guy who frequently loudly grouses at Keith
when he doesn't look things up (mostly when he can't because of the
limitations of his hardware/software). The other is the guy who just
provides the answers to him. I can't prevent you from seeing what you
want to see.
Actually, one of the most galling things about *this* is that The
Professor likes to try and give me a rectal examination every once and
awhile over the minutia of my beliefs, yet when I throw out a one liner
at Keith directed at this seeming contradiction in his belief set, he
gets all defensive for Keith. Seems hypocritical to me.
>It turns out downthread that it shouldn't
>actually affect his trip to Philcon, but worrying about it, and giving
>a heads up to the other con-going fans in this group, is quite
>appropriate.
How many out of town fen are likely to both A) be going to Philcon from
downtown Philadelphia and B) not have their own car with them or be able
to afford a taxi?
--
"You already have zero privacy -- get over it,"
- Scott McNealy, chairman of Sun Microsystems
cryptoguy
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:41:14 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy
>>While I seem to butt heads with David F quite frequently, I have to
>>say I agree with him that you seem to be going out of your way to find
>>reasons to snark at Keith.
>
> Because Keith loudly proclaims it?
No. You know perfectly well that I don't take Keith's assertions at
face value. I came to this conclusion by myself. Kip, netcat, David F,
and myself all seem to be in agreement. You seem to have no idea how
unpleasantly you're coming across.
[...]
>>It turns out downthread that it shouldn't
>>actually affect his trip to Philcon, but worrying about it, and giving
>>a heads up to the other con-going fans in this group, is quite
>>appropriate.
>
> How many out of town fen are likely to both A) be going to Philcon from
> downtown Philadelphia and B) not have their own car with them or be able
> to afford a taxi?
If I were going to Philcon (I'm not, sadly) I'd want to know, even if
I were driving. Having basic information about the place you're going
is always helpful.
pt
Michael Stemper
>In article <ovr5f59tdd8ohofrk...@4ax.com>, dave...@charter.net says...
>> We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
>> observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
>
>We all know what you think of Keith already. There's no surpise there.
>Could you just stop "offering your opinion" about him over and over,
>every day? A drop of water doesn't hurt anybody either, but Chinese
>water torture does.
Despite what A. E. van Vogt has Gilbert Gosseyn say, no it doesn't.
Its use a relaxation technique, shown in the same chapter, seems much
more plausible, although I've never personally tried it.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
91.2% of all statistics are made up by the person quoting them.
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> >>> Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
> >> >>> collectively bargain, Keith?
> >> >>
> >> >> Striking is perfectly libertarian and anarcho-capitalist friendly
> >> >> since it is a completely voluntary action by a voluntary association.
> >> >
> >> >More importantly, I don't see any sign of editorializing on Keith's
> >> >part.
> >>
> >> "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
> >> downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
> >
> >I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
> >Keith.
>
> We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
> observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
Offering a true, negative opinion about someone is quite often an
attack. When, in my blog and probably elsewhere, I pointed out that
Biden had made public statements that showed ignorance of the U.S.
Constitution and a striking ignorance of 20th century history, I was
attacking him--although my comments happened to be true.
> Moreover, several times now I've made a list of things Keith does that I
> consider *highly* insulting. I don't see you complaining to Keith when
> he continues to do *those* things.
>
> >That doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to make them.
>
> I asked a frigging *question*, Professor.
You asked what was obviously, to me and several other people, a
rhetorical question, whose implication was that Keith's post expressed
disapproval of something he should have approved of. It wasn't entirely
clear to me whether "should have" was in terms of the political beliefs
you thought he had, or if so why, but that seemed the most likely
reading, and it was the one picked up by the next poster in the thread.
> >Noting that the strike might have inconvenient consequences for some
> >people doesn't even qualify as complaining, let alone as holding that
> >workers don't have the right to do it.
>
> It is laughable that you get that I think that Keith doesn't think they
> have the right to strike from *what I wrote*. I asked him where was his
> solidarity with (aka overt support of) the workers (as an anarchist
> should), not if he thought they shouldn't strike.
>
> The strike is anarchy (his stated political philosophy) in action.
It's not clear to me how well you understand the sort of anarchy that is
Keith's stated political philosophy. It certainly doesn't imply approval
of anything that anyone does that Keith thinks is within that person's
rights to do, as should I think be obvious by lots of things he has said.
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >>> Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
>> >> >>> collectively bargain, Keith?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Striking is perfectly libertarian and anarcho-capitalist friendly
>> >> >> since it is a completely voluntary action by a voluntary association.
>> >> >
>> >> >More importantly, I don't see any sign of editorializing on Keith's
>> >> >part.
>> >>
>> >> "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
>> >> downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
>> >
>> >I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
>> >Keith.
>>
>> We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
>> observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
>
>Offering a true, negative opinion about someone is quite often an
>attack.
Then, being a person who does not suffer foolishness gladly, you can
expect that I will *never* cease doing what you consider to be
"attacking" Keith - nor will I refrain from commenting on any other
foolishness I happen to see.
>When, in my blog and probably elsewhere, I pointed out that
>Biden had made public statements that showed ignorance of the U.S.
>Constitution and a striking ignorance of 20th century history, I was
>attacking him--although my comments happened to be true.
--
"Seen through the glow of a building orgasm, a woman seems to
blaze with angelic glory."
Larry Niven - Ringworld
David Goldfarb
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 5, 12:34�pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:41:14 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy
>
>>>While I seem to butt heads with David F quite frequently, I have to
>>>say I agree with him that you seem to be going out of your way to find
>>>reasons to snark at Keith.
>>
>> Because Keith loudly proclaims it?
>
>No. You know perfectly well that I don't take Keith's assertions at
>face value. I came to this conclusion by myself. Kip, netcat, David F,
>and myself all seem to be in agreement. You seem to have no idea how
>unpleasantly you're coming across.
Hear, hear. Loewe, if you find him so annoying just killfile him already.
--
David Goldfarb |"I want instant gratification -- and I'm
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | willing to wait for it."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden
David V. Loewe, Jr
Goldfarb) wrote:
>cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 5, 12:34�pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:41:14 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy
>>
>>>>While I seem to butt heads with David F quite frequently, I have to
>>>>say I agree with him that you seem to be going out of your way to find
>>>>reasons to snark at Keith.
>>>
>>> Because Keith loudly proclaims it?
>>
>>No. You know perfectly well that I don't take Keith's assertions at
>>face value. I came to this conclusion by myself. Kip, netcat, David F,
>>and myself all seem to be in agreement. You seem to have no idea how
>>unpleasantly you're coming across.
>
>Hear, hear. Loewe, if you find him so annoying just killfile him already.
On the one hand, I don't killfile people for non-advertising content.
On the other hand, he makes roughly an eighth of the posts that occur on
the newsgroup. That would be, IMO, cutting me off from too large a
percentage of the newsgroup content. It would be like cutting off my
nose to spite my face. It strikes me as being too much like sticking my
fingers in my ears and chanting "La-la-la-la!" endlessly.
On the gripping hand, people are still going to respond to him, so I'll
see a lot of it anyway - unless I kill everything that he's responded to
(see on the other hand) or leave the group entirely.
Finally, http://xkcd.com/386/.
--
"Leave your worries behind...
'Cause rain, shine don't mind
We're ridin' on the Groove Line tonight."
Rod Temperton
Keith F. Lynch
> netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> writes:
>> A drop of water doesn't hurt anybody either, but Chinese water
>> torture does.
> Despite what A. E. van Vogt has Gilbert Gosseyn say, no it doesn't.
> Its use a relaxation technique, shown in the same chapter, seems
> much more plausible, although I've never personally tried it.
Mythbusters tested it, and determined that it is indeed a torture,
not a relaxation technique.
Perhaps the Addams Family uses it as a relaxation technique, as they
use the rack and the wheel.
Keith F. Lynch
Yes. Plenty of fen arrive in downtown Philadelphia by Amtrak,
Greyhound, or a Chinatown bus, then rely on local transit to get to
the con hotel. That's what I did last year. And if there hadn't been
any local transit, I wouldn't have taken a taxi, I would have walked.
I think it's only about a three-hour walk. I often walk that far.
For instance to the Halloween haunted house I helped with.
And of course plenty of fen who are local to Philadelphia also go to
that con, often by mass transit.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> How many out of town fen are likely to both A) be going to Philcon
>>> from downtown Philadelphia and B) not have their own car with them
>>> or be able to afford a taxi?
>
>> If I were going to Philcon (I'm not, sadly) I'd want to know, even
>> if I were driving. Having basic information about the place you're
>> going is always helpful.
>
>Yes. Plenty
Vague.
>of fen arrive in downtown Philadelphia by Amtrak,
>Greyhound, or a Chinatown bus, then rely on local transit to get to
>the con hotel. That's what I did last year. And if there hadn't been
>any local transit, I wouldn't have taken a taxi, I would have walked.
>I think it's only about a three-hour walk. I often walk that far.
>For instance to the Halloween haunted house I helped with.
>
>And of course plenty of fen who are local to Philadelphia also go to
>that con, often by mass transit.
Presumably, the local fen, unless they live under a rock, already know
about the strike.
--
"Does any one know where the love of God goes
When the waves turn the minutes to hours?"
Gordon Lightfoot
cryptoguy
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:43:00 -0800, David Friedman
>
>
>
>
>
> <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> >>> Where is your solidarity with the workers exercising their right to
> >> >> >>> collectively bargain, Keith?
>
> >> >> >> Striking is perfectly libertarian and anarcho-capitalist friendly
> >> >> >> since it is a completely voluntary action by a voluntary association.
>
> >> >> >More importantly, I don't see any sign of editorializing on Keith's
> >> >> >part.
>
> >> >> "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
> >> >> downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
>
> >> >I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
> >> >Keith.
>
> >> We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
> >> observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
>
> >Offering a true, negative opinion about someone is quite often an
> >attack.
>
> Then, being a person who does not suffer foolishness gladly, you can
> expect that I will *never* cease doing what you consider to be
> "attacking" Keith - nor will I refrain from commenting on any other
> foolishness I happen to see.
Keith is often wrong, very stubborn, and rarely admits error. This is
annoying, and results in a lot posts calling him on his errors.
However, he is rarely rude and personally insulting.
Unlike you.
pt
David Loewe, Jr.
<net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>dave...@charter.net says...
>> >> "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
>> >> downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
>> >
>> >I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
>> >Keith.
>>
>> We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
>> observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
>
>We all know what you think of Keith already. There's no surpise there.
>Could you just stop "offering your opinion" about him over and over,
>every day?
Could he just stop making stupid statements? If he would do that (and
own up to past stupidity) there would *be* nothing for me to grouse at
him about.
Look at the sub-thread on rasff traffic. Anyone who is half numerate
can look at the statistics Keith himself posted and see that traffic is,
overall on a steady decline in rasff [1]. Yet Keith denies that
anything is amiss. That isn't just delusional, it is a slap in the face
of every poster who has pointed out that decline to him.
>A drop of water doesn't hurt anybody either, but Chinese
>water torture does.
And Keith engages in his own brand of Chinese Water Torture.
>> The strike is anarchy (his stated political philosophy) in action. Yet,
>> he kvetches when he sees his favored philosophy in action. Irony, thy
>> very name is Usenet.
>
>He made a factual observation. You interpret it as kvetching.
>Such is your right, but do not demand that all others agree with you.
Where did I demand such a thing?
[1] And I've explained that I've made a concerted effort to post more
over the last two and a half to three months - which is why the latest
figures are as high as they are. If I had left instead of trying to
outpost Keith, I'm guessing traffic would be around 2000 posts a month.
It sunk to 1353 in February when I was feeling very poorly and was in
and out of the hospital.
--
"You can't fix stupid."
Jim White
Former KMOX Late Night Talk Show Host
David V. Loewe, Jr
I disagree.
It is the very height of rudeness to look at the evidence presented to
him in many of these cases where he is wrong, becomes stubborn and
refuses to admit error and then do those things.
>and personally insulting.
He may not be *personally* insulting, but he is very insulting. For
example, the behavior that you yourself describe above insults the
intelligence of every poster in this news group. He does this on a
regular basis.
>Unlike you.
Keith draws insults, jibes, snarks and rebuffs like a flame (supposedly)
draws moths. Maybe there is something there, Peter.
--
"I don't mind you *thinking* I'm stupid, but don't *talk* to me
like I'm stupid."
- Harlan Ellison
netcat
dave...@charter.net says...
> Keith draws insults, jibes, snarks and rebuffs like a flame (supposedly)
> draws moths. Maybe there is something there, Peter.
Moths are stupid. The flame can't help being what it is. Your analogy
fails. Or maybe it doesn't.
rgds,
netcat
David Loewe, Jr.
<net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>dave...@charter.net says...
>> Keith draws insults, jibes, snarks and rebuffs like a flame (supposedly)
>> draws moths. Maybe there is something there, Peter.
>
>Moths are stupid.
And humans have certain social behaviors that are as good as hard wired.
>The flame can't help being what it is.
This is amusing.
You implicitly are willing to excuse Keith's behavior, but not mine. It
is as if you believe that I can change, but Keith cannot.
What does that say about your view of Keith?
>Your analogy fails. Or maybe it doesn't.
Or maybe you're taking something away from it that is of your own
invention...
--
"I still see her standing by the water
Standing there lookin' out to sea
And is she waiting there for me?
On the beach where we used to run..."
Jimmy Webb
David Goldfarb
You do realize we're supposed to be *laughing AT* the person
sitting at the computer in that strip?
--
David Goldfarb | "I am an atheist, myself. A simple faith, but
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | a great comfort to me in these last days."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Lois McMaster Bujold, _Shards of Honor_
David Friedman
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
At and with, I think.
David Loewe, Jr.
Goldfarb) wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Finally, http://xkcd.com/386/.
>
>You do realize we're supposed to be *laughing AT* the person
>sitting at the computer in that strip?
And, yet, Peter Trei, mike weber and several others have all seen
themselves in the shoes of the protagonist of the strip.
If you can't laugh at yourself...
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>> http://xkcd.com/386/
>
>At and with, I think.
Expanding on this post and also on my direct response, I'm pretty sure
the figure at the desk is supposed to represent the artist/author.
--
"If tempted by something that feels "altruistic", examine your
motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still
want to do it, wallow in it!"
-Lazarus Long
Kip Williams
Moths have evolved to fly with the sun at a certain angle. At night, the
sun is gone, and some other light may seem bright enough that they
navigate by it. If that's a flame, their path takes them in a spiral
that ends when they fly into it.
At least that's what I remember from the "Life Science Library."
Kip W
Joy Beeson
<k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Moths have evolved to fly with the sun at a certain angle. At night, the
> sun is gone, and some other light may seem bright enough that they
> navigate by it. If that's a flame, their path takes them in a spiral
> that ends when they fly into it.
>
> At least that's what I remember from the "Life Science Library."
The moth has compound eyes
he lets some distant light
fall on one ocellum
to guide his path aright.
It is a clever system
when light comes from afar
his wings are singed and broken
when he picks too near a star.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Dorothy J Heydt
Nice. Your work?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Kip Williams
> In article<7rh9f5lmt7sjhdd8l...@4ax.com>,
> Joy Beeson<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:19:15 -0500, Kip Williams
>> <k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Moths have evolved to fly with the sun at a certain angle. At night, the
>>> sun is gone, and some other light may seem bright enough that they
>>> navigate by it. If that's a flame, their path takes them in a spiral
>>> that ends when they fly into it.
>>>
>>> At least that's what I remember from the "Life Science Library."
>>
>> The moth has compound eyes
>> he lets some distant light
>> fall on one ocellum
>> to guide his path aright.
>> It is a clever system
>> when light comes from afar
>> his wings are singed and broken
>> when he picks too near a star.
>
> Nice. Your work?
I liked that too. Same question.
Also I'm impressed that you responded to it earlier than the time my
system says it came in. Well, I'm easily impressed.
Kip W
Philip Chee
> In article <1jp6f5tsq34bmmkb6...@4ax.com>,
> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>Finally, http://xkcd.com/386/.
>
> You do realize we're supposed to be *laughing AT* the person
> sitting at the computer in that strip?
We are? Bah. I stayed up until 04:30 am last night correcting people on
usenet and on a phpBB web forum.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Keith F. Lynch
> Moths have evolved to fly with the sun at a certain angle. At
> night, the sun is gone, and some other light may seem bright enough
> that they navigate by it.
Right, except they're mostly nocturnal, so it's usually the moon they
navigate by.
> If that's a flame, their path takes them in a spiral that ends when
> they fly into it.
Depending on the angle they may spiral in or spiral out. If the
latter, the flame is soon too dim for them to see.
Keith F. Lynch
> dave...@charter.net says...
>> Keith draws insults, jibes, snarks and rebuffs like a flame
>> (supposedly) draws moths. Maybe there is something there, Peter.
> Moths are stupid. The flame can't help being what it is. Your
> analogy fails. Or maybe it doesn't.
Indeed, why doesn't he just killfile me if my posts bother him
so much?
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>> dave...@charter.net says...
>>> Keith draws insults, jibes, snarks and rebuffs like a flame
>>> (supposedly) draws moths. Maybe there is something there, Peter.
>
>> Moths are stupid. The flame can't help being what it is. Your
>> analogy fails. Or maybe it doesn't.
>
>Indeed, why doesn't he just killfile me if my posts bother him
>so much?
How many times do I have to say (and I had said this many times before
Keith killfiled *me*) that I don't killfile people for non-advertising
content before it sinks in that I don't killfile people for
non-advertising content?
--
"Of course I admit when I'm wrong... You might not have noticed
before because I have never been wrong."
-- 10/22/91, John S. Novak III to Robert Parker
cryptoguy
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 03:56:17 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >netcat <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
> >>> Keith draws insults, jibes, snarks and rebuffs like a flame
> >>> (supposedly) draws moths. Maybe there is something there, Peter.
>
> >> Moths are stupid. The flame can't help being what it is. Your
> >> analogy fails. Or maybe it doesn't.
>
> >Indeed, why doesn't he just killfile me if my posts bother him
> >so much?
>
> How many times do I have to say (and I had said this many times before
> Keith killfiled *me*) that I don't killfile people for non-advertising
> content before it sinks in that I don't killfile people for
> non-advertising content?
Well, if you're going to be persistent in your errors, even after they
are pointed out to you, there's not much to be done.
pt
cryptoguy
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:14:57 +0200, netcat
>
> <net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
> >> >> "...it may make it difficult to inexpensively get to Philcon from
> >> >> downtown Philadelphia." qualifies IMO as a complaint at minimum.
>
> >> >I've been complaining, off and on, about your incessant attacks on
> >> >Keith.
>
> >> We've established that merely offering a true, if negative, opinion or
> >> observation about Keith is an attack in your eyes.
>
> >We all know what you think of Keith already. There's no surpise there.
> >Could you just stop "offering your opinion" about him over and over,
> >every day?
>
> Could he just stop making stupid statements? If he would do that (and
> own up to past stupidity) there would *be* nothing for me to grouse at
> him about.
I think Keith is often wrong, and sometimes persists in his errors in
face of overwhelming evidence. But not always. However, you have made
such a personal jihad of trying to get him to kowtow before you, that
my sympathy has swung to him.
I can't see that a person with any self respect is going to want to
concede anything to an opponent as obnoxious as you've made yourself.
You want him to abase himself, call himself an idiot, and say that
you're smarter than he. People don't work like that, and you have no
means of compelling him, no matter how big a tantrum you throw.
Even if, on the facts, you're right.
You excused an irritated outburst I made to Keith a while back as
"being human". Keith is being human. Deal with it.
You are not an asset to this newsgroup.
pt
Kip Williams
> Well, if you're going to be persistent in your errors, even after they
> are pointed out to you, there's not much to be done.
It begins to look as if perhaps he's fueled by outrage, and needs a
daily fix of it.
Kip W
David V. Loewe, Jr
You're reading something that isn't there.
I don't need or want to him to abase himself. I don't need or want him
to call himself an idiot. I don't really think I'm any smarter (or
dumber) than he is.
>People don't work like that, and you have no
>means of compelling him, no matter how big a tantrum you throw.
>
>Even if, on the facts, you're right.
>
>You excused an irritated outburst I made to Keith a while back as
>"being human". Keith is being human. Deal with it.
>
>You are not an asset to this newsgroup.
--
"With a gentleman I try to be a gentleman and a half, and with a fraud
I try to be a fraud and a half."
- Otto von Bismarck
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>cryptoguy wrote:
And your psychiatric training tells you this?
--
"To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee;
For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
-Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
David V. Loewe, Jr
Just what do you mean by "errors"?
--
"The flame rises but it soon descends
Empty pages and a frozen pen
You're not quite lovers and you're not quite friends
After the thrill is gone,"
Don Henley & Glenn Frey
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>cryptoguy wrote:
OBTW, is that your professional opinion of what happened with Doug Berry
as well? It isn't like I'm the first person that Keith has had this
effect on, you know.
--
"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
daughters.
- Genghis Khan, 1226
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >It begins to look as if perhaps he's fueled by outrage, and needs a
> >daily fix of it.
>
> And your psychiatric training tells you this?
I don't know about your case. I concluded long ago that I had an
unfortunate taste for feeling righteously indignant, and should make
some effort to control its effects.
The clearest evidence was my observation of my own daydreaming. A not
uncommon pattern was a scenario that hadn't actually occurred, in which
someone had treated me badly and I got to tell him or her off. In other
examples I wasn't the victim, but was in the position of pointing out to
some (possibly imaginary) person how badly he had behaved.
It was pretty obvious that I wouldn't be imagining such scenes unless I
enjoyed them, and introspection supported that.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >It begins to look as if perhaps he's fueled by outrage, and needs a
>> >daily fix of it.
>>
>> And your psychiatric training tells you this?
>
>I don't know about your case. I concluded long ago that I had an
>unfortunate taste for feeling righteously indignant, and should make
>some effort to control its effects.
>
>The clearest evidence was my observation of my own daydreaming. A not
>uncommon pattern was a scenario that hadn't actually occurred, in which
>someone had treated me badly and I got to tell him or her off. In other
>examples I wasn't the victim, but was in the position of pointing out to
>some (possibly imaginary) person how badly he had behaved.
I daydream about the Vikings winning the Super Bowl. I daydream about
bedding a particularly comely lass. I daydream about yet another
Cardinals World Series title. I daydream about winning a multi-state
lottery.
I do not, however, daydream about telling Keith (or anyone else) off.
>It was pretty obvious that I wouldn't be imagining such scenes unless I
>enjoyed them, and introspection supported that.
--
"Hey Steve, just because you broke into Xerox's store before I did and
took the TV doesn't mean I can't go in later and take the stereo."
- Bill Gates
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> >You want him to abase himself, call himself an idiot, and say that
> >you're smarter than he.
>
> You're reading something that isn't there.
It struck me as a pretty accurate description of the tone of one of your
earlier posts. I tried unsuccessfully to find the post using Google
Groups so I could quote it to you; perhaps someone else can. It was
along the lines of "all Keith has to do to stop me posting negative
things about him is ... "
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> >You want him to abase himself, call himself an idiot, and say that
>> >you're smarter than he.
>>
>> You're reading something that isn't there.
>
>It struck me as a pretty accurate description of the tone of one of your
>earlier posts. I tried unsuccessfully to find the post using Google
>Groups so I could quote it to you; perhaps someone else can. It was
>along the lines of "all Keith has to do to stop me posting negative
>things about him is ... "
All Keith has to do to stop me from posting "negative" things [1] about
him is to quit posting stupid stuff and acknowledge a few of the ones
he's already regaled us with are false. No abasement required. No
calling himself an idiot.
And I define "stupid stuff" as things like stating that traffic isn't
down in rasff or that America is a net importer of food.
You know, along these lines, earlier this year, Keith's mother was in
and out of the hospital and nursing home. ONE poster in this news group
consistently inquired as to how she was doing. ONE. ME. The guy who
supposedly has (and had then) it out for Keith. AND, when Keith asks
for a piece of information (as opposed to making an assertion that is
supposed to be a question), I generally just give it to him - unlike
Peter who generally rails at him.
The perspective around here strikes me as a bit skewed.
[1] The scare quotes highlight the notion that merely pointing out that
he is wrong is now seen as a negative post.
--
"On a morning from a Bogart movie
In a country where they turn back time
You go strolling through the crowd like Peter Lorre
Contemplating a crime."
Al Stewart & Peter Wood
Kip Williams
> "David Loewe, Jr."<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> It begins to look as if perhaps he's fueled by outrage, and needs a
>>> daily fix of it.
>>
>> And your psychiatric training tells you this?
Nothing about that observation requires training, any more than a
meteorological degree is required to notice that it's raining.
Kip W
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>> "David Loewe, Jr."<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It begins to look as if perhaps he's fueled by outrage, and needs a
>>>> daily fix of it.
>>>
>>> And your psychiatric training tells you this?
>
>Nothing about that observation requires training, any more than a
>meteorological degree is required to notice that it's raining.
Something about those two things is different.
--
"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne
GeekGirl
> There's a Philadelphia transit strike:http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
>
> If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
> inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
"The Baltimore Science Fiction Society was first formed on January 5,
1963, on the back seat of a Trailways bus, by people returning from a
meeting of the Washington Science Fiction Association (WSFA)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Science_Fiction_Society#History
GeekGirl
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> In article <7rh9f5lmt7sjhdd8l...@4ax.com>,
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> >On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:19:15 -0500, Kip Williams
> ><k...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Moths have evolved to fly with the sun at a certain angle. At night, the
> >> sun is gone, and some other light may seem bright enough that they
> >> navigate by it. If that's a flame, their path takes them in a spiral
> >> that ends when they fly into it.
> >>
> >> At least that's what I remember from the "Life Science Library."
> >
> >The moth has compound eyes.
> >He lets some distant light
> >fall on one ocellum
> >to guide his path aright.
> >It is a clever system
> >when light comes from afar.
> >His wings are singed and broken
> >when he picks too near a star.
>
> Nice. Your work?
Yes, thank you.
I'm rather surprised that I was able to remember all of it.
Didn't -- found the file copy, it says "ocellus". Wikipedia says both
versions are wrong, but ommatidium doesn't scan. So I guess the
version I remembered, being a made-up word and therefore not wrong, is
better.
Keith F. Lynch
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Science_Fiction_Society#History
I know. I used to be WSFA's archivist and webmaster. See
http://wsfa.org/wsfahist.htm
which I wrote.
BSFS was founded not due to a strike but due to the hassle of
traveling all the way from Baltimore to DC and back.
The Phlidelphia group is older than either. PSFS, 1936; WSFA, 1947;
BSFS, 1963. (Though BSFS did spend a few years dead for tax purposes;
it hasn't had continuous existence since its founding as the other two
groups have.)
Only LASFS is older than PSFS.
Who here besides me is going to Philcon?
cryptoguy
> There's a Philadelphia transit strike:http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/philly.transit.strike/
>
> If it's still going on in 17 days, it may make it difficult to
> inexpensively get to Philcon from downtown Philadelphia.
I see the strike's over, so it should not be a problem.
pt
cryptoguy
wrote:
> In article <1b6bf5d4r96814mgk52a97d7d2ql9sd...@4ax.com>,
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > >You want him to abase himself, call himself an idiot, and say that
> > >you're smarter than he.
>
> > You're reading something that isn't there.
>
> It struck me as a pretty accurate description of the tone of one of your
> earlier posts. I tried unsuccessfully to find the post using Google
> Groups so I could quote it to you; perhaps someone else can. It was
> along the lines of "all Keith has to do to stop me posting negative
> things about him is ... "
I don't recall the specific post, but you're probably right. However,
I think its pretty clear in this thread that I've been rethinking my
attitude after observing David L. I don't want to become a troll.
I'm not going to stop calling out when Keith (or anyone) is
demonstrably incorrect, but I'll try to be a bit nicer about it.
pt
cryptoguy
The strike's over.
pt
Kip Williams
> I think its pretty clear in this thread that I've been rethinking my
> attitude after observing David L. I don't want to become a troll.
>
> I'm not going to stop calling out when Keith (or anyone) is
> demonstrably incorrect, but I'll try to be a bit nicer about it.
I think this is a good thing for just about everyone. Thank you.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 7, 12:45�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
>wrote:
>> �"David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >You want him to abase himself, call himself an idiot, and say that
>> > >you're smarter than he.
>>
>> > You're reading something that isn't there.
>>
>> It struck me as a pretty accurate description of the tone of one of your
>> earlier posts. I tried unsuccessfully to find the post using Google
>> Groups so I could quote it to you; perhaps someone else can. It was
>> along the lines of "all Keith has to do to stop me posting negative
>> things about him is ... "
>
>I don't recall the specific post, but you're probably right. However,
>I think its pretty clear in this thread that I've been rethinking my
>attitude after observing David L. I don't want to become a troll.
>
>I'm not going to stop calling out when Keith (or anyone) is
>demonstrably incorrect, but I'll try to be a bit nicer about it.
<shrug>
Most time when I point out that Keith is wrong, I simply post the data.
The times when I don't simply post the data are obviously a bit more
memorable for most people.
--
"Beware the fury of a patient man."
John Dryden
David Harmon
Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:45:59 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy
><treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 6, 11:14�pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> How many times do I have to say (and I had said this many times before
>>> Keith killfiled *me*) that I don't killfile people for non-advertising
>>> content before it sinks in that I don't killfile people for
>>> non-advertising content?
>>
>>Well, if you're going to be persistent in your errors, even after they
>>are pointed out to you, there's not much to be done.
>
>Just what do you mean by "errors"?
Failing to ignore he who excessively provokes and annoys you, obviously.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
That is not a error.
It is a difference in philosophy. To me, to do what you advocate is
running away and hiding.
"Killfiles are for pussies."
--
"There is a time and a place for tact (and there are times when
tact is entirely misplaced)."
-Laurence VanCott Niven
Cryptoengineer
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:54:33 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:16:03 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
> >>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:45:59 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy
> >><treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Nov 6, 11:14 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>> How many times do I have to say (and I had said this many times before
> >>>> Keith killfiled *me*) that I don't killfile people for non-advertising
> >>>> content before it sinks in that I don't killfile people for
> >>>> non-advertising content?
>
> >>>Well, if you're going to be persistent in your errors, even after they
> >>>are pointed out to you, there's not much to be done.
>
> >>Just what do you mean by "errors"?
>
> >Failing to ignore he who excessively provokes and annoys you, obviously.
>
> That is not a error.
>
> It is a difference in philosophy. To me, to do what you advocate is
> running away and hiding.
Whereas to the rest of us, you are becoming an obnoxious troll, the
kind of person that kills newsgroups.
pt
David V. Loewe, Jr
Coming from you, a person who has himself gone off on Lynch a number of
times, this is amusing. You, of all people, should understand the urge.
Why is it that you periodically go off on Keith, Peter? Is it something
*I* did or is it something he does?
Doug Berry went off Keith. Philip periodically goes off on Keith. I
periodically go off on Keith. Others grouse at him, if less often.
What is the common link here, Peter?
Moreover, the four of us have all tried for *some* bit of introspection
over how we deal with Keith. Keith never shows any self-awareness or
self-examination of what he is doing that draws this sort of reaction.
He never *tries* to change anything that might be drawing these
reactions. For example, it could be as easy as the thing you pointed
out about how he asks his "questions" by making a statement. I bet that
changing that would cut down on the grief he gets. But he won't do it.
But, in the spirit of cooperation, I will try and change and tone things
down. How successful that will be, I cannot say. But, I *will* try. I
may even take a break from rasff soon (for two reasons - if it happens).
But, not before the end of the month.
But, make no mistake, this group is, and has been ever since I got here
(and, thus, likely before that), "The Keith Lynch Show." Given the
dysfunctional nature of the star of the show, I seriously doubt that
this circumstance is in any way healthy for the newsgroup.
--
"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail
fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
- John Paul Jones
David Friedman
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
> Doug Berry went off Keith. Philip periodically goes off on Keith. I
> periodically go off on Keith. Others grouse at him, if less often.
>
> What is the common link here, Peter?
Poor impulse control?
(fortunately no nuclear side car)
David Harmon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:54:33 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:16:03 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
>>Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:45:59 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy
>>><treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Nov 6, 11:14�pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> How many times do I have to say (and I had said this many times before
>>>>> Keith killfiled *me*) that I don't killfile people for non-advertising
>>>>> content before it sinks in that I don't killfile people for
>>>>> non-advertising content?
>>>>
>>>>Well, if you're going to be persistent in your errors, even after they
>>>>are pointed out to you, there's not much to be done.
>>>
>>>Just what do you mean by "errors"?
>>
>>Failing to ignore he who excessively provokes and annoys you, obviously.
>
>That is not a error.
See, a prime example of "persistent in your errors, even after they
are pointed out to you".
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:19:22 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:54:33 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:16:03 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
>>>Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:45:59 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy
>>>><treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Nov 6, 11:14�pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> How many times do I have to say (and I had said this many times before
>>>>>> Keith killfiled *me*) that I don't killfile people for non-advertising
>>>>>> content before it sinks in that I don't killfile people for
>>>>>> non-advertising content?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, if you're going to be persistent in your errors, even after they
>>>>>are pointed out to you, there's not much to be done.
>>>>
>>>>Just what do you mean by "errors"?
>>>
>>>Failing to ignore he who excessively provokes and annoys you, obviously.
>>
>>That is not a error.
>
>See, a prime example of "persistent in your errors, even after they
>are pointed out to you".
How nice of you to snip out my explanation of why it isn't an error and
then comment as if no such explanation had been made. I'll add it back.
For emphasis - Killfiles are for *cowards*.
>>It is a difference in philosophy. To me, to do what you advocate is
>>running away and hiding.
>>"Killfiles are for pussies."
--
"The Dodger right-hander is set and here's his pitch to Jack Clark.
Swing and a long one into left field! Adios, goodbye and maybe that's
a winner! A three-run homer for Clark, and the Cardinals lead by the
score of 7 to 5 and they may go to the World Series on that one, folks!"
- John Francis Buck
Kip Williams
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:19:22 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
> Jr."<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:54:33 -0800, David Harmon<sou...@netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:16:03 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
>>> Loewe, Jr"<dave...@charter.net> wrote,
>>>> Just what do you mean by "errors"?
>>>
>>> Failing to ignore he who excessively provokes and annoys you, obviously.
>>
>> That is not a error.
>
> See, a prime example of "persistent in your errors, even after they
> are pointed out to you".
And when anybody suggests that he's overreacting, he gets mad. If
someone points out that he gets mad, he gets madder. If someone wonders
whether he just likes getting mad, he gets on his high horse.
Killfiles are for people who don't want to watch this stupid shit. Sane
people.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> David Harmon wrote:
>> See, a prime example of "persistent in your errors, even after they
>> are pointed out to you".
>
> And when anybody suggests that he's overreacting, he gets mad. If
> someone points out that he gets mad, he gets madder. If someone wonders
> whether he just likes getting mad, he gets on his high horse.
>
> Killfiles are for people who don't want to watch this stupid shit. Sane
> people.
Just to be clear, "stupid shit" is not a reference to a person, but to a
person's behavior. I posted before realizing I'd left myself open to
someone who might want to feel outraged over the wording.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
<dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Doug Berry went off Keith. Philip periodically goes off on Keith. I
>> periodically go off on Keith. Others grouse at him, if less often.
>>
>> What is the common link here, Peter?
>
>Poor impulse control?
Yes, Professor. Virtually everyone in the group has poor impulse
control.
Give me a break...
>(fortunately no nuclear side car)
--
"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool
following it."
- Laurence VanCott Niven
cryptoguy
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 14:47:58 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:19:22 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
> >Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
> >>On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:54:33 -0800, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:16:03 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David V.
> >>>>On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:45:59 -0800 (PST), cryptoguy
> >>>><treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>On Nov 6, 11:14 pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> How many times do I have to say (and I had said this many times before
> >>>>>> Keith killfiled *me*) that I don't killfile people for non-advertising
> >>>>>> content before it sinks in that I don't killfile people for
> >>>>>> non-advertising content?
>
> >>>>>Well, if you're going to be persistent in your errors, even after they
> >>>>>are pointed out to you, there's not much to be done.
>
> >>>>Just what do you mean by "errors"?
>
> >>>Failing to ignore he who excessively provokes and annoys you, obviously.
>
> >>That is not a error.
>
> >See, a prime example of "persistent in your errors, even after they
> >are pointed out to you".
>
> How nice of you to snip out my explanation of why it isn't an error and
> then comment as if no such explanation had been made. I'll add it back.
>
> For emphasis - Killfiles are for *cowards*.
>
> >>It is a difference in philosophy. To me, to do what you advocate is
> >>running away and hiding.
> >>"Killfiles are for pussies."
Thankyou for isolating and pointing out your error.
pt
David Loewe, Jr.
It is amusing to me that you rail at me for, shall we say, provoking
Keith, but you make provoking posts yourself in response to Keith and
have no problems with provoking me with this post.
And this comes *after* I said I would *try* to tone down my responses -
essentially giving you want you wanted. But, that isn't enough.
Maybe a little self-examination is in order here, Peter.
--
"With a gentleman I try to be a gentleman and a half, and with a fraud
I try to be a fraud and a half."
- Otto von Bismarck
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>Kip Williams wrote:
>> David Harmon wrote:
>
>>> See, a prime example of "persistent in your errors, even after they
>>> are pointed out to you".
>>
>> And when anybody suggests that he's overreacting, he gets mad. If
>> someone points out that he gets mad, he gets madder. If someone wonders
>> whether he just likes getting mad, he gets on his high horse.
Given that you have claimed that I'm angry when I'm not even annoyed,
how is any of that really wrong?
>> Killfiles are for people who don't want to watch this stupid shit. Sane
>> people.
If you don't want to read what someone writes, just don't read their
posts. If you don't want to respond to someone, don't respond. There
have been several times when I wasn't in the mood to trade insults with
Lieven, for example, and I just quit responding in that thread.
>Just to be clear, "stupid shit" is not a reference to a person, but to a
>person's behavior. I posted before realizing I'd left myself open to
>someone who might want to feel outraged over the wording.
What do you care? It's obvious that you've probably used the killfile
option. You'd never see the response.
It is simultaneously amusing and disheartening that I continue to get
these responses after I said I would *try* to tone things down with
Keith - which is presumably what you wanted.
--
"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
daughters.
- Genghis Khan, 1226
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> That is not a error.
>
> It is a difference in philosophy. To me, to do what you advocate
> is running away and hiding.
Didn't you use to serve proudly on a naval vessel whose primary
operational mode was hiding?
(Insert half-smiley here.)
-- wds
netcat
David V. Loewe, Jr
<net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee> wrote:
>wds...@panix.com says...
>> "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
>>
>> > That is not a error.
>> >
>> > It is a difference in philosophy. To me, to do what you advocate
>> > is running away and hiding.
>>
>> Didn't you use to serve proudly on a naval vessel whose primary
>> operational mode was hiding?
>
>ITYM lurking.
The joking motto was "We hide with pride." But, yes, it was more like
lurking - as a sniper would.
--
"For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
citizenry."
- Gregory V. Helvering
Keith F. Lynch
>> operational mode was hiding?
> ITYM lurking.
Did they have email on the submarine? If so, we could say the lurkers
support us in email.