Re: Enlightenment is a curse. I need help
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
>
> Of course the plea is somewhat humorous, made in jest, but let me ask:
> do you know what it is like to be enlightened? Let me give you a
> facet.
>
> Every peice of fiction you read, see or hear, you immediately
> understand the process by which it was created on an intuitive level,
> to such an extent that you immediately see that it is nothing but an
> analogy of the experiences of it's author - to such a degree that you
> simply see it as a coded representation of the "real world".
>
> For example, any movie you watch is a historical movie.
>
> Any TV show you watch is the news.
>
> Any book you read is a newspaper. Better than TIME or Macleans.
>
> The radio is a running historical commentary.
>
> And so forth.
>
> It is such a curse! To watch a movie, and be filled with thoughts of
> 'Oh my god, I am experiencing an orgasm of intellectual discovery for
> the first time, all over again!'
>
> Can't I just enjoy my fucking movie?
>
> Shit, I either need students or a lobotomy. It sure would be a shame
> to destroy all this beauty, though.
Heh, that's a good funny jesting post -- I hope you don't mind if
I share the fun with others.
We have so little time left, you know?
--
hz
Appledog
Sure, make a fool of yourself here too.
Oh and do make sure you forge a few posts here as me as too, as you
have been doing this past week in alt.zen, so we can laugh at you all
the more.
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
Sure, as you wish!
--
hz
Appledog
Oh, so you *won't* be signing your posts as Appledog, pretending to be
me anymore?
Well.. okay. But don't do it because I said so. Do it because you
wanted to.
>
> --
> hz
:)
-
herbzet
No such luck, Appledork.
> Well.. okay. But don't do it because I said so. Do it because you
> wanted to.
But I don't, 'dork.
--
hz
Appledog
Why do you accuse me of being an obnoxious troll, and whatever else,
while at the very same time come out and admit you are planning to be
as vile and obnoxious as you can?
Surely even you see it; you should stop... and certainly not for my
sake.
-
herbzet
You mean, you don't care for my humor? You are annoyed? You are
offended? By little ole me?
Speak up, boy -- ah say, ah say speak up!
Of course, it may take me awhile to really get your style down pat
-- what with me crashing and all.
> Surely even you see it; you should stop... and certainly not for my
> sake.
Very well -- I won't stop for your sake.
--
hz
Appledog
>
> You mean, you don't care for my humor? You are annoyed? You are
> offended? By little ole me?
>
> Speak up, boy -- ah say, ah say speak up!
Not that I don't care.. not that I am annoyed.. not that I am
offended.. not by you.. no..
I just couldn't believe that buddha really couldn't save everyone, and
now I know why.
It's kind of humorous, watching you go your merry way.. Ahh well, such
is life. Didn't bother buddha, and it wont' bother me ;-)
> Of course, it may take me awhile to really get your style down pat
> -- what with me crashing and all.
It's a trainwreck dude.
> > Surely even you see it; you should stop... and certainly not for my
> > sake.
>
> Very well -- I won't stop for your sake.
Exactly, don't stop for my sake. Stop for yours.
You can take it any way you want to, and you certainly do, regardless
of the clear meaning I convey.
-
Charles E Hardwidge
in other newsgroup hierarchies? Take out the obsessive religious claptrap
and playing to the gallery and there's nothing worth reading. And, no. I
don't want to hear more shit about the fucking brain, smarmy fortune
cookies, anal philosophical hairsplitting, or who did or didn't fuck my
mother in reply.
FU trimmed to alt.zen
--
Charles E Hardwidge
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> >
> > You mean, you don't care for my humor? You are annoyed? You are
> > offended? By little ole me?
> >
> > Speak up, boy -- ah say, ah say speak up!
>
> Not that I don't care.. not that I am annoyed.. not that I am
> offended.. not by you.. no..
>
> I just couldn't believe that buddha really couldn't save everyone, and
> now I know why.
>
> It's kind of humorous, watching you go your merry way.. Ahh well, such
> is life. Didn't bother buddha, and it wont' bother me ;-)
Ok -- we're good, then.
> > Of course, it may take me awhile to really get your style down pat
> > -- what with me crashing and all.
>
> It's a trainwreck dude.
Yeah, it's awful.
> > > Surely even you see it; you should stop... and certainly not for my
> > > sake.
> >
> > Very well -- I won't stop for your sake.
>
> Exactly, don't stop for my sake. Stop for yours.
Very well -- I won't stop for your sake.
> You can take it any way you want to, and you certainly do, regardless
> of the clear meaning I convey.
I think I catch you drift.
--
hz
herbzet
Yeah. <blush>
TrOllie is a bad habit.
--
hz
Appledog
>
> > It's kind of humorous, watching you go your merry way.. Ahh well, such
> > is life. Didn't bother buddha, and it wont' bother me ;-)
>
> Ok -- we're good, then.
If you want us to be. Remember, the source of all these problems is
you. For example, when you asked me to stop quoting your sig, I
stopped, yet you still found something to flame me on. Or when you
said the etta james video I sent you was good, that's an example of
when your attitude changed and we got along even if only for a brief
moment.
We need to see more brief moments around here when you change your
attitude and act a little more friendly.
So we'll see if you come around, then? :) Good luck with that!
-
Charles E Hardwidge
news:25fa534b-0af4-48f1...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> If you want us to be. Remember, the source of all these problems is
> you. For example, when you asked me to stop quoting your sig, I
> stopped, yet you still found something to flame me on. Or when you
> said the etta james video I sent you was good, that's an example of
> when your attitude changed and we got along even if only for a brief
> moment.
>
> We need to see more brief moments around here when you change your
> attitude and act a little more friendly.
>
> So we'll see if you come around, then? :) Good luck with that!
You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped getting
caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks you'd
get further.
Christ, these groups are like being stuck in a room full of old-school
communists and libertarians. It's just boring. You don't talk about anything
real or relevant to most people. They don't read your shit. They don't visit
these newsgroups.
Sober the fuck up dickwad.
Appledog
wrote:
>
> You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
> intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped getting
> caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks you'd
> get further.
Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi is
actually greater than four.
Yes, we have been misled all our lives and here is the proof.
We all know pi to be equal to the circumference of a circle divided by
it's diameter.
So then let us derive pi using this simple formula to understand the
truth.
Step one, draw a circle around the earth and measure it's
circumference. A measurement of acceptable precision is a fraction
over 40,075 km, as defined by the IAU (International Astronomical
Union) in 1976.
We also know the radius of this circle; In 1791, the French Academy of
Sciences defined the metre to be one ten-millionth of the length of
the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the
Equator to the North Pole. This distance is therefore exactly
10,000km.
Therefore pi is clearly C / r, or 40,075 / divided by 10,000 or.. wait
for it...
4.0075.
Greater than four.
We have been lied to our entire lives by the establishment and this is
your wake up call.
But don't take my word for it. Do the math for yourself.
-
daletx
Excellent work! You seem to have proved that 1/4 the circumference of
the earth is almost exactly equal to the circumference of the earth,
divided by 4...
DT
Lee
"daletx" <dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote in message
news:hglp5...@news1.newsguy.com...
he's such a clever goi
Déjà Flu
In flatland, all spheres look like circles...
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Appledog
Yes, the circumference of the circle is indeed divided by the diameter
of said circle, the north or south poles being the only equidistant
points.
It is strange, is it not, that this was never taught us in schools..
In it's place a lie of such magnitude... We must all work together to
tell the world, to do what is right. We must be men of science!
-
Appledog
In our world, all hypercubes look like cubes.
-
Nobody in Particular
I can't tell if this guy is serious or not.
On the one hand, I don't remember him ever posting any satire of this
kind before; I don't think he is capable of satire.
On the other hand, equating the length of a meridian along a quadrant
with the diameter is just so monstrously wrong, especially since he
claims to be a teacher...
I just don't know.
If he IS serious, that is really scary. He's teaching children.
Greendistantstar
The strategy is as follows;
1) Propagate an egregiously silly post with a straight face, no emoticons to denote satire etc
2) Wait until someone writes "Are you fucking serious?"
3) Reply "You must be really dumb to believe my really dumb post."
4) Engage in an on-going flame-war until thoroughly bitch-slapped.
5) Rinse and repeat.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Appledog
wrote:
What the hell are you guys talking about?
Take a hula hoop 20 ft in diameter and put it on the ground.
Measure it's circumference. Divide that number by 20, and you will NOT
get pi. You won't even get an approximation of it. Don't say I didn't
warn you. Go ahead, if you don't believe me, do the math for yourself.
Do the experiment.
But don't come crying to me when you realize you have been lied to all
your life.
-
Greendistantstar
A 20 ft diameter hula hoop? WTF???
> Measure it's circumference. Divide that number by 20, and you will NOT
> get pi. You won't even get an approximation of it. Don't say I didn't
> warn you. Go ahead, if you don't believe me, do the math for yourself.
> Do the experiment.
<slaps head>
> But don't come crying to me when you realize you have been lied to all
> your life.
Champagne trolling, to be sure.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
DharmaTroll
Not really, unless you project it from 4d space into 3d space. But
they look like a stack of cubes when they are unfolded. Just as a cube
looks like a flat Christian cross when unfolded and flattened, a
hypercube, when unfolded and flattened into 3-space will look like a
Christian cross, except fatter, four cubes high, with a cube on the
left and right of the second-highest cube, plus two more cubes, one
each on the front and back of the second-highest cube. See:
http://www.fleischfilm.com/html/texts.htm
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
hemispheres?
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
Déjà Flu
Divide and conquer?
Keynes
wrote:
pi works on a 2D flat euclidean surface, but it doesn't
apply on a 2D surface projected in three dimensions
such as the surface of the earth. On a flat surface, the
sum of the angles of a triangle always is 180 degrees.
But on a positively curved surface, all triangles will
have more than 180 degrees, and that sum will differ
with the size of the triangle. (To a theoretical maximum
of 90+90+359.999... = 539.999... degrees.)
If the pole is the center of a circle, and the radius is
a line perpendicular to a circle on the earth, the radius
(or diameter) will have no established ratio to any circle.
From north pole to the equator, the ratio will increase.
But from north pole to south of the equator, the radius
will increase as the circle gets smaller.
Appledog
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:46:19 -0800 (PST), Appledog <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
Congradulations. In Feynmann's classic "Curved Space" lecture, he
proposes the 'hula hoop' method as a reliable way to tell if the earth
is flat or a sphere (i.e. if the space is curved) and then he extends
the example into three dimensional space and explains how to use a
sphere to tell if space around you is curved. It was fascinating.
> If the pole is the center of a circle, and the radius is
> a line perpendicular to a circle on the earth, the radius
> (or diameter) will have no established ratio to any circle.
> From north pole to the equator, the ratio will increase.
> But from north pole to south of the equator, the radius
> will increase as the circle gets smaller.
That's true. I am sure primitive men would have known the earth was a
sphere precisely due to calculations like this. Anyways I'm a little
disappointed that we didn't speak of flatlanders more - which IIRC
came from the feynmann lecture in the first place ;0)
-
zenworm
Greendistantstar
Where exactly did Feynman say that the Euclidean specification of pi was a lie?
Mixing a little, confused understanding with some baloney - the Richman recipe for trolling.
Kudos.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Keynes
wrote:
>On Dec 20, 8:10 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
"Eratosthenes of Cyrene (Greek ???????????; c. 276 BC[1] – c. 195 BC[2]) was a
Greek mathematician, elegiac poet, athlete, geographer, and astronomer. He made
several discoveries and inventions including a system of latitude and longitude.
He was the first Greek to calculate the circumference of the earth (with
remarkable accuracy), and the tilt of the earth's axis (also with remarkable
accuracy); he may also have accurately calculated the distance from the earth to
the sun and invented the leap day."
Appledog
wrote:
I suppose my post came several hundred years late. The fundamental
error here was assuming the earth was flat. Which was actually taught
in schools. Any proper definition for pi, as you state yourself out of
a natural kinship with science and logic, will include the space must
be euclidean; for example "π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical
constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its
diameter in Euclidean space;" from wikipedia. Therefore, we were bound
to discover the earth was a sphere sooner or later.
-
Nobody in Particular
Since you use 40,075 km as the circumference, you assume a circle at
the equator. (Over the poles it would be 40,007 km)
Why do you use the arc from the equator to the pole along the surface
of the earth and call it the radius?
Besides, pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference to the
*diameter*, not the radius of a circle. The diameter of the earth at
the equator is defined by the IAU as 12,756 km (from one point on the
equator to the point exactly half-way around that circle). Divide
40,075 by 12,756 and you get ........
Greendistantstar
Uh, no.
> The fundamental
> error here was assuming the earth was flat. Which was actually taught
> in schools. Any proper definition for pi, as you state yourself out of
> a natural kinship with science and logic, will include the space must
> be euclidean; for example "π (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical
> constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its
> diameter in Euclidean space;" from wikipedia. Therefore, we were bound
> to discover the earth was a sphere sooner or later.
Pi isn't 4. If you knew even a little about topology, you'd know that the curvatures that create
triangles with angle sums > 180 also 'stretch' all the *other* gradients, so the *ratios* remain
constant. Same with a circle, thought you might have worked that one out for yourself.
But it's a nice little troll you got goin' on here; do carry on.....
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Appledog
Not so fast, N.I.P. You cannot draw a circle (let's just say at the
equator) with radius r from some arbitrary point on the earth (let's
just say the north pole) then take some arbitrary OTHER distance as
the radius of the circle, such as the point p at the center of the
earth. We didn't draw a circle with radius r from the center of the
earth, we drew a circle with radius r from the north pole. This radius
is 10,000km. Not the 12,756 distance you conveniently substituted, a
distance which has nothing to do with drawing a circle from an
equidistant point on the earth, in this case from the north pole.
Anyways you're right I made a mistake. We need to divide the 40,075km
circumference by 2*radius, or in this case 20,000km. My mistake; pi is
exactly 2. Doh. Well at least my error was within an order of
magnitude.
-
Appledog
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:46:58 -0800 (PST), Appledog <oliver.rich...@gmail.com>
What does that have to do with flatlanders? Anyways...
-
Julian
Get real! It's not even Asti Spumante...
You are someone who has obviously never tasted flat, rancid, cider.
Lucky man(?)
Julian
It can be four in a row with one extra off the side at one end
and one on the opposite side at the other end... in fact there are at
least 3 options, funnily enough.
David O'Daniel
quieting down by proclaiming "Pi is exactly 3"!
What is a sidened sphere called anyways, a donut withotu a hole? I'm
sure it has a name but I'll just throw it out for discussion to see what
turns up.
Of course the vertical radious is shorter than the horizontal radius &
the curve from the outer edge (equaer) to the top or bottom most center
points is not a direct arc or how do you say it, not straight curve??
umm is it hyperbolic or Parabolic?
What about 1 side being more drawn out that the other that is not being
pulled by the moon, elyptical donut??
Where did the term "Gillous" come from anyways?
Bo
David O'Daniel
Bo
DharmaTroll
There are 23 options, as far as I know, actually. See:
http://unfolding.apperceptual.com/
--DharmaTroll
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
>
> On Dec 20, 2:30 am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It's kind of humorous, watching you go your merry way.. Ahh well, such
> > > is life. Didn't bother buddha, and it wont' bother me ;-)
> >
> > Ok -- we're good, then.
>
> If you want us to be. Remember, the source of all these problems is
> you. For example, when you asked me to stop quoting your sig, I
> stopped, yet you still found something to flame me on.
You mean -- you actually mean -- that not editing out the sig
is the only thing you think you do that is worth a flame?
You actually mean that?
Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Haw-haw-haw-haw-haw-haw!
Ah, jesus, you affect to be *such* a retard!
What a maroon!
--
hz
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> "Charles E Hardwidge" wrote:
> >
> > You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
> > intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped getting
> > caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks you'd
> > get further.
>
> Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi is
> actually greater than four.
This is a technique that Tang very misleadingly calls "flipping".
Whenever 'dork is well and truly nailed to the wall, he just changes
the subject to some new enormity, hoping people will chase after
it and forget about the just-previous piece of idiocy.
People, of course, *like* to chase after the new idiocy, because
it's fun to whack the idiot again.
And so it goes, on and on -- everybody's happy.
> Yes, we have been misled all our lives and here is the proof.
>
> We all know pi to be equal to the circumference of a circle divided by
> it's diameter.
>
> So then let us derive pi using this simple formula to understand the
> truth.
>
> Step one, draw a circle around the earth and measure it's
> circumference. A measurement of acceptable precision is a fraction
> over 40,075 km, as defined by the IAU (International Astronomical
> Union) in 1976.
>
> We also know the radius of this circle; In 1791, the French Academy of
> Sciences defined the metre to be one ten-millionth of the length of
> the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the
> Equator to the North Pole. This distance is therefore exactly
> 10,000km.
>
> Therefore pi is clearly C / r, or 40,075 / divided by 10,000 or.. wait
> for it...
>
> 4.0075.
>
> Greater than four.
>
> We have been lied to our entire lives by the establishment and this is
> your wake up call.
>
> But don't take my word for it. Do the math for yourself.
What a maroon.
--
hz
herbzet
daletx wrote:
> Appledog wrote:
> > On Dec 20, 3:59 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
> >> intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped getting
> >> caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks you'd
> >> get further.
> >
> > Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi is
> > actually greater than four.
> >
> > Yes, we have been misled all our lives and here is the proof.
> >
> > We all know pi to be equal to the circumference of a circle divided by
> > it's diameter.
> >
> > So then let us derive pi using this simple formula to understand the
> > truth.
> >
> > Step one, draw a circle around the earth and measure it's
> > circumference. A measurement of acceptable precision is a fraction
> > over 40,075 km, as defined by the IAU (International Astronomical
> > Union) in 1976.
> >
> > We also know the radius of this circle; In 1791, the French Academy of
> > Sciences defined the metre to be one ten-millionth of the length of
> > the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from the
> > Equator to the North Pole. This distance is therefore exactly
> > 10,000km.
> >
> > Therefore pi is clearly C / r, or 40,075 / divided by 10,000 or.. wait
> > for it...
> >
> > 4.0075.
> >
> > Greater than four.
> >
> > We have been lied to our entire lives by the establishment and this is
> > your wake up call.
> >
> > But don't take my word for it. Do the math for yourself.
>
> Excellent work! You seem to have proved that 1/4 the circumference of
> the earth is almost exactly equal to the circumference of the earth,
> divided by 4...
LOL!
You can't make this shit up.
Shall I cross-post Appledork's discovery to sci.math?
They need to be informed of this startling development.
--
hz
AdvocatusDiablo
"herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4B2FF219...@gmail.com...
>
>
> Appledog wrote:
>> "Charles E Hardwidge" wrote:
>> >
>> > You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of pseudo
>> > intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and stopped
>> > getting
>> > caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive insulting remarks
>> > you'd
>> > get further.
>>
>> Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi is
>> actually greater than four.
>
> This is a technique that Tang very misleadingly calls "flipping".
>
> Whenever 'dork is well and truly nailed to the wall, he just changes
> the subject to some new enormity, hoping people will chase after
> it and forget about the just-previous piece of idiocy.
>
> People, of course, *like* to chase after the new idiocy, because
> it's fun to whack the idiot again.
>
> And so it goes, on and on -- everybody's happy.
at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so called,
'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
are you happy....now?
herbzet
Nobody in Particular wrote:
> daletx wrote:
> > Appledog wrote:
> >> On Dec 20, 3:59 pm, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>> You're drunk on the internet. If you stopped writing pages of
> >>> pseudo intellectual blather nobody normal gives a shit about, and
> >>> stopped getting caught up in the excitement of making pre-emptive
> >>> insulting remarks you'd get further.
> >>
> >> Please allow me to prove to you, using simple mathematics, that pi
> >> is actually greater than four.
> >>
> >> Yes, we have been misled all our lives and here is the proof.
> >>
> >> We all know pi to be equal to the circumference of a circle divided
> >> by it's diameter.
> >>
> >> So then let us derive pi using this simple formula to understand
> >> the truth.
> >>
> >> Step one, draw a circle around the earth and measure it's
> >> circumference. A measurement of acceptable precision is a fraction
> >> over 40,075 km, as defined by the IAU (International Astronomical
> >> Union) in 1976.
> >>
> >> We also know the radius of this circle; In 1791, the French Academy
> >> of Sciences defined the metre to be one ten-millionth of the length
> >> of the Earth's meridian along a quadrant, that is the distance from
> >> the Equator to the North Pole. This distance is therefore exactly
> >> 10,000km.
> >>
> >> Therefore pi is clearly C / r, or 40,075 / divided by 10,000 or..
> >> wait for it...
> >>
> >> 4.0075.
> >>
> >> Greater than four.
> >>
> >> We have been lied to our entire lives by the establishment and this
> >> is your wake up call.
> >>
> >> But don't take my word for it. Do the math for yourself.
> >
> > Excellent work! You seem to have proved that 1/4 the circumference
> > of the earth is almost exactly equal to the circumference of the
> > earth, divided by 4...
>
> I can't tell if this guy is serious or not.
>
> On the one hand, I don't remember him ever posting any satire of this
> kind before; I don't think he is capable of satire.
>
> On the other hand, equating the length of a meridian along a quadrant
> with the diameter is just so monstrously wrong, especially since he
> claims to be a teacher...
>
> I just don't know.
> If he IS serious, that is really scary. He's teaching children.
And beating them, which is a little scarier.
--
hz
Lee Rudolph
>at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so called,
>'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
>
>are you happy....now?
So, Mr. Imus, which would you rather be--happy now, or a nappy ho?
Lee Rudolph
AdvocatusDiablo
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hgouop$hr2$2...@reader1.panix.com...
Mr.. Rudolph, you're nose is glowing so
lead the way!
DharmaTroll
I'd be happy just taking a nap with a ho!
--DharmaTroll
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> Anyways I'm a little
> disappointed that we didn't speak of flatlanders more - which IIRC
> came from the feynmann lecture in the first place ;0)
Not even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
--
hz
Appledog
Sorry herbzet, flaming you doesn't count.
In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
beating children on usenet. Once.
-
Appledog
Oh ok. So he merely used the novel in his lecture. Cool lecture either
way :)
-
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> On a flat surface, the
> sum of the angles of a triangle always is 180 degrees.
> But on a positively curved surface, all triangles will
> have more than 180 degrees, and that sum will differ
> with the size of the triangle. (To a theoretical maximum
> of 90+90+359.999... = 539.999... degrees.)
This, btw, is called the spherical excess of the triangle.
--
hz
herbzet
Link, please.
> are you happy....now?
No.
--
hz
AdvocatusDiablo
>
>
> AdvocatusDiablo wrote:
>>
>> "herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4B2FF219...@gmail.com...
>> >
>> > it's fun to whack the idiot again.
>> >
>> > And so it goes, on and on -- everybody's happy.
>>
>> at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so
>> called,
>> 'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
>
> Link, please.
Appledog wrote:
"I suppose my post came several hundred years late. The fundamental
error here was assuming the earth was flat. Which was actually taught
in schools. Any proper definition for pi, as you state yourself out of
a natural kinship with science and logic, will include the space must
be euclidean; for example "? (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical
constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its
diameter in Euclidean space;" from wikipedia. Therefore, we were bound
to discover the earth was a sphere sooner or later."
--------
this is an admission of mistake...given the benefit of doubt, since appledog
just now discovered that we live on a sphere.....
>
>> are you happy....now?
>
> No.
have a wonderful evening!
>
> --
> hz
herbzet
Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
and
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
I'm only lying if you are.
P.S. -- Suck my hairy white ass, bitch.
--
hz
herbzet
AdvocatusDiablo wrote:
>
> "herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4B300982...@gmail.com...
> >
> >
> > AdvocatusDiablo wrote:
> >>
> >> "herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4B2FF219...@gmail.com...
> >> >
>
> >> > it's fun to whack the idiot again.
> >> >
> >> > And so it goes, on and on -- everybody's happy.
> >>
> >> at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so
> >> called,
> >> 'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
> >
> > Link, please.
>
> Appledog wrote:
> "I suppose my post came several hundred years late. The fundamental
> error here was assuming the earth was flat. Which was actually taught
> in schools. Any proper definition for pi, as you state yourself out of
> a natural kinship with science and logic, will include the space must
> be euclidean; for example "? (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical
> constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its
> diameter in Euclidean space;" from wikipedia. Therefore, we were bound
> to discover the earth was a sphere sooner or later."
> --------
>
> this is an admission of mistake...given the benefit of doubt, since appledog
> just now discovered that we live on a sphere.....
No, this is an admission of idiocy ... by a CHILDBEATER.
AdvocatusDiablo
must be important for all concerned.
Appledog
>
> > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > beating children on usenet. Once.
>
> Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
punishment."
> and
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
> I'm only lying if you are.
No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
> P.S. -- Suck my hairy white ass, bitch.
See, that's fine - You can ask me to suck your hairy white ass and
call me a bitch all you like. That isn't the problem.
-
Greendistantstar
> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
FFS, can you REALLY be this dense?
You proudly boast that your name isn't Oliver Richman, so please explain how anyone can libel a
fictional character.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
halfawake
beautiful page.
robert
= = = =
Appledog
wrote:
Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point. At any
rate I won't get into this online. There are reasons you don't run
around making claims people are child beaters (or worse).
-
Greendistantstar
> On Dec 22, 4:21 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>> Appledog wrote:
>>> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
>>> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
>>> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
>>> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
>> FFS, can you REALLY be this dense?
>>
>> You proudly boast that your name isn't Oliver Richman, so please explain how anyone can libel a
>> fictional character.
> Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point.
Well YOU say it isn't, THAT is the point.
> At any
> rate I won't get into this online. There are reasons you don't run
> around making claims people are child beaters (or worse).
Of course there are, but a screen name is just a screen name, and no libel can flow from that.
That you choose to work where kids get beaten is something you should struggle with, if you have any
scruples.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Appledog
wrote:
> Appledog wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 4:21 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> > wrote:
> >> Appledog wrote:
> >>> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> >>> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> >>> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> >>> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
> >> FFS, can you REALLY be this dense?
>
> >> You proudly boast that your name isn't Oliver Richman, so please explain how anyone can libel a
> >> fictional character.
> > Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point.
>
> Well YOU say it isn't, THAT is the point.
Not from a legal standpoint :)
> > At any rate I won't get into this online. There are reasons you don't run
> > around making claims people are child beaters (or worse).
>
> Of course there are, but a screen name is just a screen name, and no libel can flow from that.
>
> That you choose to work where kids get beaten is something you should struggle with, if you have any
> scruples.
It is something I've never spoken about from such a standpoint, mainly
because I don't want to comment on my goals at work and so forth.
Let's just say there are a lot less beatings going on around here.
Keep in mind i'm just one man facing an entire cultural system and
over 100 other teachers and staff. They don't like me because of my
methods. But again, the school where I work used to be famous for
really beating students and that has declined a great deal over the
past few years. More I can't really say.
It is a different perspective, I suppose. One man might leave in
disgust, I choose to effect a positive change in the world. Who is
better? Each follows his morals and does what he believes is right to
create a better world.
-
Greendistantstar
> On Dec 22, 8:26 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>> Appledog wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 4:21 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Appledog wrote:
>>>>> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
>>>>> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
>>>>> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
>>>>> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
>>>> FFS, can you REALLY be this dense?
>>>> You proudly boast that your name isn't Oliver Richman, so please explain how anyone can libel a
>>>> fictional character.
>>> Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point.
>> Well YOU say it isn't, THAT is the point.
>
> Not from a legal standpoint :)
Yes, from a legal standpoint, and good luck trying to initiate a multi-jurisdictional libel case
against a screen name. And even if your real name is Oliver Richman, any defendant would simply
provide your posts wherein you denied it being so.
>>> At any rate I won't get into this online. There are reasons you don't run
>>> around making claims people are child beaters (or worse).
>> Of course there are, but a screen name is just a screen name, and no libel can flow from that.
>>
>> That you choose to work where kids get beaten is something you should struggle with, if you have any
>> scruples.
>
> It is something I've never spoken about from such a standpoint, mainly
> because I don't want to comment on my goals at work and so forth.
> Let's just say there are a lot less beatings going on around here.
> Keep in mind i'm just one man facing an entire cultural system and
> over 100 other teachers and staff. They don't like me because of my
> methods. But again, the school where I work used to be famous for
> really beating students and that has declined a great deal over the
> past few years. More I can't really say.
>
> It is a different perspective, I suppose. One man might leave in
> disgust, I choose to effect a positive change in the world. Who is
> better? Each follows his morals and does what he believes is right to
> create a better world.
Uh huh.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Mike
wrote:
> Appledog wrote:
> > Not from a legal standpoint :)
>
> Yes, from a legal standpoint, and good luck trying to initiate a multi-jurisdictional libel case
> against a screen name. And even if your real name is Oliver Richman, any defendant would simply
> provide your posts wherein you denied it being so.
If anyone needs a copy of said posts, I have some copies.
-Mike K.
Appledog
wrote:
>
> >>> Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point.
>
> >> Well YOU say it isn't, THAT is the point.
>
> > Not from a legal standpoint :)
>
> Yes, from a legal standpoint,
That's not the information I've received.
> and good luck trying to initiate a multi-jurisdictional libel case against a screen name.
Herbert Zetlin is his real name and he used it for a very long time
right here on usenet. He may even still use it on some newsgroups.
> And even if your real name is Oliver Richman, any defendant would simply
> provide your posts wherein you denied it being so.
Again, that is not the information I have received. Herbert could be
slandering mary poppins for all the court cares, if I am known at work
as Mary Poppins I have a case. Keep in mind, malicious libel is quite
different from "regular libel". I do not need to prove damages of any
kind. That he wrote the words repeatedly, especially after being asked
to stop, is all you need. Although the more he does it, the easier the
case becomes. Again it's been discussed to death here already so I
don't see a need to get into it.
-
zenworm
somehow paradox is symetrical
do you find this?
ZN :D _/|\_
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without effort
Shuurai
> > I'm only lying if you are.
>
> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
He cannot libel a fictional persona; and since you've already
established that none of the names you post under are legitimate, that
applies to you.
> > P.S. -- Suck my hairy white ass, bitch.
>
> See, that's fine - You can ask me to suck your hairy white ass and
> call me a bitch all you like. That isn't the problem.
He can also call you a liar who beats children; and there ain't
nothing you can do about it except whine.
Shuurai
> > Excellent work! You seem to have proved that 1/4 the circumference of
> > the earth is almost exactly equal to the circumference of the earth,
> > divided by 4...
>
>
> You can't make this shit up.
>
> Shall I cross-post Appledork's discovery to sci.math?
>
> They need to be informed of this startling development.
NO! We at the Illuminati have spent CENTURIES trying to keep the real
value of Pi hidden! We will NOT stand for it being revealed to the
masses now!
DharmaTroll
Only if the ducks are twins.
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
even one (KWAK!) echos
can two dive deeper than One?
trav...@aol.com
> established that none of the names you post under are legitimate, that
> applies to you.
Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. However,
defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
because of the use of a pseudonym.
> He can also call you a liar who beats children; and there ain't
> nothing you can do about it except whine.
Is beating children wrong?
Trav
trav...@aol.com
If they are fists in your wife's snatch, in all probability, yes
Trav
Shuurai
> > He cannot libel a fictional persona; and since you've already
> > established that none of the names you post under are legitimate, that
> > applies to you.
>
> Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. However,
> defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
> because of the use of a pseudonym.
Permissible or not, he's going to have a hell of a time convincing a
court that his anonymous persona has been defamed; especially when the
defamer is also anonymous and in a different country. Good luck with
that one.
Besides, in this case the claimant is incapable of further defamation.
> > He can also call you a liar who beats children; and there ain't
> > nothing you can do about it except whine.
>
> Is beating children wrong?
Are they asking for it?
Appledog
wrote:
> > He cannot libel a fictional persona; and since you've already
> > established that none of the names you post under are legitimate, that
> > applies to you.
>
> Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. However,
> defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
> because of the use of a pseudonym.
Don't bother trav, shuurai and gds are just trolling for info hoping I
will reveal something.
Sorry guys, it won't be discussed online.
> > He can also call you a liar who beats children; and there ain't
> > nothing you can do about it except whine.
>
> Is beating children wrong?
Depends what you mean; in the sense that you can call someone a "child-
beater" it has negative connotations. If you slap their wrist that's
hardly beating but you could still use the word. Doubtless if it ever
came that far the slimey fuck would use whatever lying defense he
could get his hands on, of course, of course. But yes, it's wrong to
beat children, at least in 30 states.
Especially in schools. Following is the law of the state of Virginia,
as an example of course :)
(Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it sure sounds to me as if it is against
the law in Virginia for teachers to beat schoolchildren. Therefore
repetitively stating that I beat children is a crime in and of itself.
I'm sure you're more familiar with law than I am, being a lawyer, so
feel free to comment on this as much as you like, I won't be doing
so..)
State of Virginia:
� 22.1-279.1. Corporal punishment prohibited.
A. No teacher, principal or other person employed by a school board or
employed in a school operated by the Commonwealth shall subject a
student to corporal punishment. This prohibition of corporal
punishment shall not be deemed to prevent (i) the use of incidental,
minor or reasonable physical contact or other actions designed to
maintain order and control; (ii) the use of reasonable and necessary
force to quell a disturbance or remove a student from the scene of a
disturbance which threatens physical injury to persons or damage to
property; (iii) the use of reasonable and necessary force to prevent a
student from inflicting physical harm on himself; (iv) the use of
reasonable and necessary force for self-defense or the defense of
others; or (v) the use of reasonable and necessary force to obtain
possession of weapons or other dangerous objects or controlled
substances or paraphernalia which are upon the person of the student
or within his control.
B. In determining whether a person was acting within the exceptions
provided in this section, due deference shall be given to reasonable
judgments at the time of the event which were made by a teacher,
principal or other person employed by a school board or employed in a
school operated by the Commonwealth.
C. For the purposes of this section, "corporal punishment" means the
infliction of, or causing the infliction of, physical pain on a
student as a means of discipline.
This definition shall not include physical pain, injury or discomfort
caused by the use of incidental, minor or reasonable physical contact
or other actions designed to maintain order and control as permitted
in subdivision (i) of subsection A of this section or the use of
reasonable and necessary force as permitted by subdivisions (ii),
(iii), (iv), and (v) of subsection A of this section, or by
participation in practice or competition in an interscholastic sport,
or participation in physical education or an extracurricular activity.
(1989, c. 287; 1995, c. 681.)
-
Greendistantstar
> On Dec 22, 11:00 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>>>>> Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point.
>>>> Well YOU say it isn't, THAT is the point.
>>> Not from a legal standpoint :)
>> Yes, from a legal standpoint,
>
> That's not the information I've received.
Then the information you have received is incorrect.
>> and good luck trying to initiate a multi-jurisdictional libel case against a screen name.
>
> Herbert Zetlin is his real name and he used it for a very long time
> right here on usenet. He may even still use it on some newsgroups.
Dumbass! YOUR name, not his.
>> And even if your real name is Oliver Richman, any defendant would simply
>> provide your posts wherein you denied it being so.
>
> Again, that is not the information I have received.
Again, your information is incorrect.
Herbert could be
> slandering mary poppins for all the court cares, if I am known at work
> as Mary Poppins I have a case. Keep in mind, malicious libel is quite
> different from "regular libel". I do not need to prove damages of any
> kind. That he wrote the words repeatedly, especially after being asked
> to stop, is all you need. Although the more he does it, the easier the
> case becomes. Again it's been discussed to death here already so I
> don't see a need to get into it.
Successful libel cases against usenet posters? Negligible.
Successful cross border libel cases against usenet posters? Zero.
Successful cross border libel cases against usenet posters using screen names? Zero.
Anything else you need to know?
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Julian
It was only revenge.
Give the poor sod a break.
AdvocatusDiablo
"zenworm" <zens...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa849148-8010-4bcc...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
somehow paradox is symetrical
do you find this?
-----------------
zenwormfood, you couldn't find a symetrical parodox if it was in your
enigmass.
zenworm
wrote:
> "zenworm" <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
there is no such thing as a "symetrical paradox"
(that is your grasping mind's objectification)
yet somehow paradox is symetrical
Appledog
wrote:
> Appledog wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 11:00 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> > wrote:
> >>>>> Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point.
> >>>> Well YOU say it isn't, THAT is the point.
> >>> Not from a legal standpoint :)
> >> Yes, from a legal standpoint,
>
> > That's not the information I've received.
>
> Then the information you have received is incorrect.
Oh, so it's okay to run around calling people you don't like child
beater, etc.?
> >> and good luck trying to initiate a multi-jurisdictional libel case against a screen name.
>
> > Herbert Zetlin is his real name and he used it for a very long time
> > right here on usenet. He may even still use it on some newsgroups.
>
> Dumbass! YOUR name, not his.
Oh, so if people at work know me as mary poppins, and someone issues
malicious libel against mary poppins targeting "me", and I get fired
from my job, then I have no case because my name isn't mary poppins?
Dude, real life lawyers have commented on this on this very newsgroup,
yet you persist. If you really believe this, more power to you but I
think I'll pass.
> Anything else you need to know?
Yes. What would you do if someone ran around calling you a troll?
Well, hey.
But what what would you do if someone ran around calling you a child
beater?
What would you do if someone ran around and said they had evidence you
were cheating on your wife? And so forth?
-
Greendistantstar
> On Dec 23, 8:36 am, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>> Appledog wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 11:00 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point.
>>>>>> Well YOU say it isn't, THAT is the point.
>>>>> Not from a legal standpoint :)
>>>> Yes, from a legal standpoint,
>>> That's not the information I've received.
>> Then the information you have received is incorrect.
>
> Oh, so it's okay to run around calling people you don't like child
> beater, etc.?
Nice looking straw-man you have there.
>>>> and good luck trying to initiate a multi-jurisdictional libel case against a screen name.
>>> Herbert Zetlin is his real name and he used it for a very long time
>>> right here on usenet. He may even still use it on some newsgroups.
>> Dumbass! YOUR name, not his.
>
> Oh, so if people at work know me as mary poppins, and someone issues
> malicious libel against mary poppins targeting "me", and I get fired
> from my job, then I have no case because my name isn't mary poppins?
And another!
> Dude, real life lawyers have commented on this on this very newsgroup,
> yet you persist. If you really believe this, more power to you but I
> think I'll pass.
YOU persist in making irrelevant statements and being pig-ignorant about both facts and law.
No one writing on usenet under a psuedonym has EVER succeeded in bringing a successful cross-border
libel case, and nor are they ever likely to. ANY lawyer will laugh you down hard if you even ask.
>> Anything else you need to know?
>
> Yes. What would you do if someone ran around calling you a troll?
> Well, hey.
Uh, nothing, or laugh at them.
> But what what would you do if someone ran around calling you a child
> beater?
Pretty much the same.
> What would you do if someone ran around and said they had evidence you
> were cheating on your wife? And so forth?
Well here's how it works....
Let's say *you* did that.
So I go to my lawyer and tell him, and the conversation goes something like this.....
"So who is saying bad things about you?"
"A guy called Oliver Richman."
"Is that his real name?"
"I dunno - I've not bothered to scope him."
"Did he use your real name in the offending post?"
"Uh, no....Greendistantstar"
"Where does Oliver Richman live?"
"In Beijing"
"You mean, in China?"
"Yup."
"So you'd like me to initiate legal proceedings in China from Australia, for a guy who may or may
not be legally named 'Oliver Richman' for libelling the pseudonym 'Greendistantstar'?
"Yeah."
So see how fucking stupid I would have to be?
See how fucking stupid YOU are to even suggest such a nonsense?
And if you used my real name (which is hardly a secret to any reg here) I'd certainly not bother
with a fucking lawsuit.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
AdvocatusDiablo
do you find this?
effo-----------------------
zenwormfood, your right ass cheek wouldn't know that your left ass cheek
existed if it wasn't for your asshole splitting the difference.
Appledog
wrote:
>
> > What would you do if someone ran around and said they had evidence you
> > were cheating on your wife? And so forth?
>
> Well here's how it works....
>
> Let's say *you* did that.
>
> So I go to my lawyer and tell him, and the conversation goes something like this.....
>
> "So who is saying bad things about you?"
>
> "A guy called Oliver Richman."
>
> "Is that his real name?"
>
> "I dunno - I've not bothered to scope him."
>
> "Did he use your real name in the offending post?"
>
> "Uh, no....Greendistantstar"
>
> "Where does Oliver Richman live?"
>
> "In Beijing"
>
> "You mean, in China?"
>
> "Yup."
>
> "So you'd like me to initiate legal proceedings in China from Australia, for a guy who may or may
> not be legally named 'Oliver Richman' for libelling the pseudonym 'Greendistantstar'?
>
> "Yeah."
>
> So see how fucking stupid I would have to be?
Yeah I see it. Thanks for going into detail for me, I do appreciate
it.
> See how fucking stupid YOU are to even suggest such a nonsense?
Well, I feel my situation is materially different than the one you
presented on several levels. Let's just say the answers to the
questions would be much more solid and informative. Anyways, I could
hire an American lawyer to represent me. I wouldn't even need to set
foot in the USA if I paid him enough. Not that I don't plan to return
to Canada or the States someday, which is why I maintain my
citizenship.
Finally pls keep in mind I am not after damages, although IIRC the
courts have total discretion on that - just something akin to a cease
and desist. I'm well within my rights to pursue that, it isn't
"fucking stupid" at all.
In that regard I'm bound to ask him to stop, at least occasionally,
which is what the courts like to see when pursuing something like this
(an ongoing issue that can not be resolved by other means).
-
Greendistantstar
> On Dec 23, 1:14 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>>> What would you do if someone ran around and said they had evidence you
>>> were cheating on your wife? And so forth?
>> Well here's how it works....
>>
>> Let's say *you* did that.
>>
>> So I go to my lawyer and tell him, and the conversation goes something like this.....
>>
>> "So who is saying bad things about you?"
>>
>> "A guy called Oliver Richman."
>>
>> "Is that his real name?"
>>
>> "I dunno - I've not bothered to scope him."
>>
>> "Did he use your real name in the offending post?"
>>
>> "Uh, no....Greendistantstar"
>>
>> "Where does Oliver Richman live?"
>>
>> "In Beijing"
>>
>> "You mean, in China?"
>>
>> "Yup."
>>
>> "So you'd like me to initiate legal proceedings in China from Australia, for a guy who may or may
>> not be legally named 'Oliver Richman' for libelling the pseudonym 'Greendistantstar'?
>>
>> "Yeah."
>>
>> So see how fucking stupid I would have to be?
>
> Yeah I see it. Thanks for going into detail for me, I do appreciate
> it.
You're welcome.
>> See how fucking stupid YOU are to even suggest such a nonsense?
>
> Well, I feel my situation is materially different than the one you
> presented on several levels. Let's just say the answers to the
> questions would be much more solid and informative. Anyways, I could
> hire an American lawyer to represent me. I wouldn't even need to set
> foot in the USA if I paid him enough. Not that I don't plan to return
> to Canada or the States someday, which is why I maintain my
> citizenship.
And what law has been broken? Whose law? Chinese? Gonna try and enforce a Chinese law
wherever Hez is? Or enforce a law in Hez' jusisdiction *from* China? One pseudonym is going sue
another in different country?
> Finally pls keep in mind I am not after damages, although IIRC the
> courts have total discretion on that - just something akin to a cease
> and desist. I'm well within my rights to pursue that, it isn't
> "fucking stupid" at all.
Only insofar as it would be a complete and utter waste of time and money.
> In that regard I'm bound to ask him to stop, at least occasionally,
> which is what the courts like to see when pursuing something like this
> (an ongoing issue that can not be resolved by other means).
WHAT COURT? Have you already forgotten what has just been written?
<slaps head>
Don Quixote would be proud of you.
GDS
"Let's roll!"
halfawake
> "AdvocatusDiablo" <instant...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so called,
>>'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
>>
>>are you happy....now?
>
>
> So, Mr. Imus, which would you rather be--happy now, or a nappy ho?
>
> Lee Rudolph
that's not much of a reversal, Lee. It should be "Nappy How" which has
much greater philosophical ramifications.
Cherry Mistmuff!
Robert
= = = = = = =
halfawake
> On Dec 21, 6:01 pm, Lee Rudolph <lrudo...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>"AdvocatusDiablo" <instantkarma...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>at least he admitted his mistake which is more than most of the so called,
>>>'boodhists' that post here, ever do.
>>
>>>are you happy....now?
>>
>>So, Mr. Imus, which would you rather be--happy now, or a nappy ho?
>>
>>Lee Rudolph
>
>
> I'd be happy just taking a nap with a ho!
>
> --DharmaTroll
you wouldn't be napping, your wood'd be snappin'!
Robert
= = = = = = = =
halfawake
>
> Appledog wrote:
>
>>On Dec 22, 6:24 am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>I can't tell if this guy is serious or not.
>>>
>>>>On the one hand, I don't remember him ever posting any satire of this
>>>>kind before; I don't think he is capable of satire.
>>>
>>>>On the other hand, equating the length of a meridian along a quadrant
>>>>with the diameter is just so monstrously wrong, especially since he
>>>>claims to be a teacher...
>>>
>>>>I just don't know.
>>>>If he IS serious, that is really scary. He's teaching children.
>>>
>>>And beating them, which is a little scarier.
>>
>>Sorry herbzet, flaming you doesn't count.
>>
>>In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
>>beating children on usenet. Once.
>
>
> Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
>
> and
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
>
> I'm only lying if you are.
>
> P.S. -- Suck my hairy white ass, bitch.
>
> --
> hz
I appreciate the intention, but could have done without the description.
:)
Shuurai
> > Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. However,
> > defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
> > because of the use of a pseudonym.
>
> Don't bother trav, shuurai and gds are just trolling for info hoping I
> will reveal something.
No; I'm just pointing out that your routine about suing people for
libel is ridiculous nonsense. You go back to this bullshit every
couple of months, and it's always the same old thing.
Nobody wants you to "reveal" anything. We already know everything
there is to know about you.
> Sorry guys, it won't be discussed online.
Yeah; I don't blame you. I wouldn't want it discussed publicly
either, especially given your (claimed) profession.
hal
<shuu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Insofar as he admits he beat children, it is not defamation. =A0However=
>,
>> > defaming someone operating under a pseudonym is not permissible simply
>> > because of the use of a pseudonym.
>>
>> Don't bother trav, shuurai and gds are just trolling for info hoping I
>> will reveal something.
>
>No; I'm just pointing out that your routine about suing people for
>libel is ridiculous nonsense. You go back to this bullshit every
>couple of months, and it's always the same old thing.
>
>Nobody wants you to "reveal" anything. We already know everything
>there is to know about you.
>
>> Sorry guys, it won't be discussed online.
>
>Yeah; I don't blame you. I wouldn't want it discussed publicly
>either, especially given your (claimed) profession.
the only thing more pathetic than Ollie's cries for attention is your
obsession with humiliating him. I know you aren't capable of grasping
it, but you're far more pathetic than he is.
herbzet
Well, ok. But the cat's out of the bag already.
You can send the ninjas to the 'dorks address. I'll
forward it to you as soon as he files his lawsuit.
--
hz
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 11:54 am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > > beating children on usenet. Once.
> >
> > Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
>
> Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
> punishment."
>
> > and
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
>
> Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
>
> > I'm only lying if you are.
>
> No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
Make my day, you gutless, childbeating bitch.
--
hz
Appledog
So now you're planning to publicize my address? Do you really think
all of this is wise, herb?
-
Appledog
You don't want this to go to court, herbzet. I really don't want it to
come to that either. Just stop, and I'll let this go.
-
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Appledog wrote:
> > > herbzet wrote:
> >
> > > > > In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
> > > > > beating children on usenet. Once.
> >
> > > > Well, 'dork, all I know is what you boast about online:
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/a26d5c555417dcc3
> >
> > > Quote, "Of course, it was their homeroom teacher who administered the
> > > punishment."
> >
> > > > and
> >
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts/msg/f829ccb2d67df098
> >
> > > Quote: "Oh, and no beatings."
> >
> > > > I'm only lying if you are.
> >
> > > No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
> > > it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
> > > even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
> > > form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
> >
> > Make my day, you gutless, childbeating bitch.
>
> You don't want this to go to court, herbzet. I really don't want it to
> come to that either. Just stop, and I'll let this go.
"In other news, i'm only going to ask you once not to like about me
beating children on usenet. Once."
LOL.
--
hz
Greendistantstar
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
GDS
"Let's roll!"
Lee Rudolph
>On Dec 24, 7:21=A0am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Appledog wrote:
...
>> > No, you're just lying. What you're doing is printing malicious libel,
>> > it is very different from simple tort. With malicious libel, I don't
>> > even need to prove damages of any kind whatsoever. It's considered a
>> > form of fraud. If I were you, I'd look it up.
>>
>> Make my day, you gutless, childbeating bitch.
>
>You don't want this to go to court, herbzet. I really don't want it to
>come to that either. Just stop, and I'll let this go.
Hey, this isn't just between the two of you, you know. Those of us
in the cheap seats are waiting for action!
Lee Rudolph
herbzet
Oh, did I forget to mention you can suck may ass, childbeater?
--
hz
herbzet
Appledog wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 11:00 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Is my name Oliver Richman or isn't it, GDS? That is the point.
> >
> > >> Well YOU say it isn't, THAT is the point.
> >
> > > Not from a legal standpoint :)
> >
> > Yes, from a legal standpoint,
>
> That's not the information I've received.
>
> > and good luck trying to initiate a multi-jurisdictional libel case against a screen name.
>
> Herbert Zetlin is his real name and he used it for a very long time
> right here on usenet. He may even still use it on some newsgroups.
>
> > And even if your real name is Oliver Richman, any defendant would simply
> > provide your posts wherein you denied it being so.
>
> Again, that is not the information I have received. Herbert could be
> slandering mary poppins for all the court cares, if I am known at work
> as Mary Poppins I have a case.
Bring it on, bitch!
> Keep in mind, malicious libel is quite
> different from "regular libel". I do not need to prove damages of any
> kind. That he wrote the words repeatedly, especially after being asked
> to stop, is all you need. Although the more he does it, the easier the
> case becomes. Again it's been discussed to death here already so I
> don't see a need to get into it.
--
hz
herbzet
Oh, let the idiot bring suit already.
--
hz