Re: digest 2453166

tho...@antispam.ham

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 9:11:26 AM6/9/04

to

Antagonismo writes:

91> Psychiatrist: So tell me, Dr. Tholen, what brings you here today?

91> Tholen: Well, there are 169 people antagonizing me. I have
91> documented 10,033 times that they have antagonized me, been off topic,
91> or not followed a linear path of discussion. This represents
91> 59.36686390532544378698224852071 instances of antagonism per
91> antagonist, outrageous as you can see. I have stood up to my
91> antagonists roughly 23,500 times. Hence, I have stood up to each
91> antagonist an average of 139.05325443786982248520710059172 times.

91> Psychiatrist: Been off topic? Discussion? Who are these people?

91> Tholen: They are antagonists who post messages on Usenet, a messaging
91> system that uses a computer network, known as the Internet, to
91> transfer messages organized in thematic groups. These messages are
91> archived by Google, a company with a very large number of users, and a
91> laser-like focus on finding the right answer for each and every one of
91> them more than 200 million times a day.

91> Psychiatrist: So people antagonize each other on this Usenet?

91> Tholen: No. Only I am the target of antagonism, by antagonists who
91> are out to antagonize me. The antagonists also are off topic and non
91> sequitur.

91> Psychiatrist: How do you stand up to these antagonists?

91> Tholen: I insist that they substantiate their claims; ironically,
91> not one ever has. I call their invective the invective that it is. I
91> point out their irony and their hypocrisy.

91> Psychiatrist: Dr. Tholen, do you ever have thoughts, images, or
91> impulses that occur over and over again and feel out of your control?
91> Do you not want to have these ideas, find them disturbing and
91> intrusive, and usually recognize that they don't really make sense?
91> Do you worry excessively about dirt and germs and find yourself
91> obsessed with the idea that they are contaminated or may contaminate
91> others? Or maybe have obsessive fears of having inadvertently harmed
91> someone else (perhaps while pulling the car out of the driveway), even
91> though you usually know this is not realistic? Do you have
91> uncomfortable feelings, such as fear, disgust, doubt, or a sensation
91> that things have to be done in a way that is "just so"? Do you
91> typically try to make any obsessions go away by performing
91> compulsions? Acts that you perform over and over again, often
91> according to certain "rules." Have an obsession about contamination
91> and wash constantly to the point that your hands become raw and
91> inflamed? Repeatedly check that you have turned off the stove or iron
91> because of an obsessive fear of burning the house down? Have to count
91> certain objects over and over because of an obsession about losing
91> them? Unlike compulsive drinking or gambling, these compulsions would
91> not give you pleasure. Rather, the rituals would be performed to
91> obtain relief from the discomfort caused by the obsessions. Do you
91> have, oh, any symptoms that cause distress, take up a lot of time
91> (more than an hour a day), or significantly interfere with your work,
91> social life, or relationships? Do you have any feeling these alleged
91> obsessions are coming from within your own mind and are not just
91> excessive worries about real problems, and that the compulsions they
91> perform are excessive or unreasonable?

91> Tholen: Certainly not. Gad.

91> Psychiatrist: Perhaps you have noted delusions of persecution or
91> personal grandeur, inability to make decisions, hallucinations,
91> changes in eating or sleeping habits, energy level, or weight,
91> delusions, nervousness, strange statements or behavior, withdrawal
91> from friends, work, or school, neglect of personal hygiene, anger,
91> indifference to the opinions of others, a tendency to argue, a
91> conviction that you are better than others, or that people are out to
91> get you?

91> Tholen: Bullshit, doctor. What does your antagonism have to do with
91> psychiatry?

What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
Antagonismo?

===============================================================================

Sigmond Freud writes:

45> The Tholen must be retarded, to troll so foolishly.

46> You are stupid, Tholen.

47> Has the Tholen stopped trolling for good?

What do your unsubstantiated and erroneous claims and your ongoing
antagonism have to do with classical music, Freud?

===============================================================================

Rich Andrews writes:

2> Let's see if I can raise my stats.

2> Tholen,

2> What's wrong with you?

What does your antagonism have to do with classical music, Andrews?

===============================================================================

Marcello Penso writes:

196> You mean the oompabloorterrumpadumbaskwatzokwanga-noodlydooder-
196> tholobrastotwitzoflandiddlian flortblabba zwirk-florshflizzly
196> proctobassinettitholofloopsathwindledeedoo-oo case?

196> If so, yes, I'm working on it.

197> Actually Don missed a key point; John Harrington's discloser of
197> Thloopsy's rightful place as Usenet kook, and Thloopsy's subsequent 4
197> month stalking venture on John's post, even after John publicly plonked
197> him.(!)

198> In fact, retrograde motion happens when viewing either inner or outer
198> planets:

198> It's just a matter of how much looping and that depends on the relative
198> orbital speeds.

199> Tholen and Hitler.

199> They have 4 letters in common in their last name.

199> They both perceive antagonism where none exists.

199> They both retaliate at each insistence of said antagonism.

199> They both are vastly off-topic.

199> They both deserve a springtime, as in 'Springtime for Hitler'.

200> 'Springtime for Hitler' (as noted in my other post in the Mahler and
200> Hitler thread, Hitler and Tholen have much in commono-nono-nono-nono-
200> nonin).

200> Barnes's 'BartBarley Blatoposterous Barfarama for Bassoctonariclet'.

200> Gwazoot! by Florponastle McQilikoprum Borgomeister III.

200> 'Antagonosis does Usenet' by Rickie Satan Jr. (Eric Satie's long lost
200> cousin)

201> Finally, we believe tholen is a kook.'

202> Aliases are for also wimps. Real tough guys don't need no stinking
202> aliases.

How ironic that you would post your own off-topic crap, Penso. But
what does your off-topic crap have to do with classical music, Penso?

===============================================================================

Cypherpunk writes:

637> I'm just wondering which level of Hell created the Tholenizer.

637> Brilliant thread Tholen. You're so SMRAT! I'll bet you'll grow
637> up to be somebody important someday.

637> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

637> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
637> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
637> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

638> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

638> Yo, Tholen, did youz miss me?

638> Yawn. Still obsessed with my signature in yer boring lits.

638> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

638> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
638> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
638> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

638> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

639> Very insightful.

639> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

639> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
639> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
639> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

639> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

640> I am? Well that explains the motion sickness (and here I was blaming Tholen
640> for making me queezy).

640> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

640> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
640> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
640> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

640> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

641> Jeez, Louise, are youz a slow learner or what? Look at the digests in
641> rec.music.classical and prepared to be amazed! Tholen's one of the biggest
641> k000ks on Usenet.

641> When I couldn't budget, I worked it out with a pencil.

641> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

641> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
641> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
641> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

641> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

642> Who? Me? Or are youz referring ta Tholen?

642> Wrote what?

642> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

642> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
642> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
642> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

642> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

643> Maybe he's dead (we can only hope). Butt, most likely, he's having
643> another holiday, gone off somewhere or is doing some work for a
643> change. He might even have lost his account (but they he'd be poasting
643> from elsewhere, I suppose).

643> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

643> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
643> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
643> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

643> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

644> A wise policy. Nothing wrong with good music though.

644> Ah, yeah, the old Hitchhiker's Guide.

644> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

644> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
644> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
644> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

644> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

645> Or he's bending over in the big house trying to pick up the soap.
645> Maybe Soapy can offer some words of advice.

645> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

645> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
645> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
645> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

645> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

646> Well don't look at me!

646> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

646> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
646> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
646> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

646> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

647> Yeah, that Tholen must be real sad. Having to make his lits so that people
647> will pay some attention to him.

647> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

647> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
647> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
647> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

647> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

648> Venus? Butt its an inner planet. Are youz sure about that?

648> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

648> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
648> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
648> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

648> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

649> That's laughable.

649> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

649> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
649> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
649> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

649> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

650> And what makes youz think its to do with light? Michel Gauquelin in his
650> studies thought it was due to magnetism. The Sun does have a large, segmented
650> magnetosphere. I'm not sure if making asstrology heliocentric leads to anything
650> different since not all planets have their own magnetospheres but all planets
650> have gravitational fields.

650> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

650> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
650> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
650> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

650> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

651> Was that idiot Tholen and what was he doing on yer home?

651> Ever thought of rolling yer windows all the way up?

651> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

651> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
651> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
651> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

651> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

652> What? I have? Why wasn't I told?

652> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

652> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
652> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
652> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

652> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

653> Never heard of them (or, rather, never heard them).

653> Oh, looks like youz have some attention deficit proble

653> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

653> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
653> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
653> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

653> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

654> Its amazing this thread still lives. Although its morphed and no longer
654> running in rec.music.classical where it started. And there's no longer
654> any sign of Tholen. I wonder what happened to him? Maybe we should
654> email him and find out

654> LOL!!!

654> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

654> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
654> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
654> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

654> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

655> Not according to Tholen it ain't.

655> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

655> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
655> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
655> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

655> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

What does any of that have to do with any of the newsgroups to which
you've posted them, Cypherpunk?

===============================================================================

Donald C. Patterson writes:

136>

137> It's all in how you play the game.

137> (See? There's another trophy on the shelf.)

138> ...and another.

139> Anything addressed to, or with any vague reference to something posted by
139> Tholotwit. It doesn't really matter what is contained in the post.

140> That would be me.

140> In a nutshell, he posted in support of Barnes as "Greatest American
140> Composer" and cited Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Paganini" as
140> evidence of his work. I found this laughable because it just couldn't be
140> supported based on the nature and quality of Barnes' output compared to that
140> of Copland, Schuman, Piston, Creston, Persichetti, Corigliano, Rouse,
140> Harbison, Schwantner, and a host of others who aren't popping into my head
140> right now.

On the contrary, it can be supported based on the nature and quality of his
output, Patterson.

140> I haven't heard everything Barnes wrote,

So, what makes you think you're qualified to judge the nature and quality of
his output, Patterson?

140> but I've played the
140> Fantasy Variations numerous times and find it repetitive and tedious.

Obviously the person programming the concerts didn't feel so, Patterson.

140> When
140> I posted as such, he responded that Bartok had used the same technique in
140> Concerto for Orchestra.

Liar; I never responded that Bartok used a repetitive and tedious technique,
Patterson. Rather, I noted that Bartok and Barnes both had the solo line
bounce from instrument to instrument or section to section.

140> That was when I knew he was 1) ignorant of the subject matter,

How ironic, coming from someone ignorant of what I really wrote.

140> 2) off his rocker.

Classic invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical argument.

140> Basically, Barnes is a very capable
140> composer of band music (and evidently some works in other genres, but he is
140> primarily known in the band world...check Groves). His music is pleasant to
140> hear, but not very adventurous.

On what basis do you make that claim, Patterson?

140> He's apparently won the Ostwald twice.

Apparently?

140> Well, that's a band music award given by the American Bandmasters Assn., and
140> yes, IMO some dull, tedious music has won the Ostwald.

On what basis do you make that claim, Patterson?

140> Since he finds *any* disagreement antagonistic,...well...as they say, the
140> rest is history.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

140> I plonked him a bit later on. I returned about 3-4 weeks ago to see what
140> was going on, and I discover the infamous digests.

140> I've plonked him again,

Famous last words.

140> and recommend everyone else do the same.

Practice what you preach, Patterson.

140> He has little to offer save for his winning personality.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, and rather ironic, coming
from someone offering misinformation.

141> Unplonked him,

See what I mean about Famous Last Words?

141> but not getting anything from him.

141> I've not been getting anything from Nightingale, either. Hmmm...I wonder
141> what's going on here.

What does your wondering have to do with classical music, Patterson?

141> Just wanted to make sure that there wasn't anything wrong with my news
141> server. Thanks for the reply.

What does it matter if you've plonked someone, Patterson?

142> He's in mine.

143> LOL

144> 1. James Barnes
144> 2. James Barnes
144> 3. James Barnes
144> 4. James Barnes
144> 5. James Barnes
144> 6. James Barnes
144> 7. James Barnes
144> 8. James Barnes
144> 9. James Barnes
144> 10.John Barnes Chance

144> Dr. David Tholen
144> Professor of Professorial Studies of Thingies in the Sky and World Reknown
144> Octocontrabass Clarionetist

"Came back a few weeks ago to have a little fun."
--Donald C. Patterson

What does your puerile emotional need to have a little fun have to do
with classical music, Patterson?

===============================================================================

Daniel Kolle writes:

265> Oooo! Compare me to widdle Davy! Pleeese!

What does that have to do with classical music, Kolle?

"And with that, I am finished."
--Daniel Kolle

Obviously you still aren't finished, Kolle.

===============================================================================

Coby Beck writes:

240> Not like tholen to hold a grudge!

What does that have to do with classical music, Beck?

===============================================================================

Jaakko writes:

101> Um, 'koninklijk' = 'royal', it does not specifically refer to a monarch
101> of either gender.

101> "Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."

What does that have to do with classical music, Jaakko?

===============================================================================

Risto Karttunen writes:

106> How irrelevant, considering the fact that I just made a constructive
106> proposal.

106> I didn't speak about *my* dementia. Anyway, shall we go there? In any
106> case I'll go on with that cross-posting; please join in, so we can
106> eventually post into r.m.dementia only.

107> Ahh you twerp, what a way to drag your score up - to post many
107> separate short "antagonistic" comments. Now you went into the 3-digit
107> score in the digests. Rather unfair.

What does that have to do with classical music, Karttunen?

===============================================================================

Porky Pig Jr writes:

17> For once, I agree.

17> This group quickly goes down the drain. *with* or *without* the
17> tholen's factor.

Does that surprise you, considering the number of antagonists in the
newsgroup?

17> Renaming it to classical.music.kicks.serious.butt and making the new
17> moderated rec.music.classical would be the right thing.

But then you wouldn't be able to post your antagonistic remarks to
rec.music.classical, Porky.

===============================================================================

charlie at the sea writes:

1> I'm sure someone should make some stats about what is on topic and
1> what is a sea of touch-touch pee-pee <gz>.

1> Not saying it should be the astronomers doing it, but maybe in the
1> process it could be integrated and instructive. I am making alusion
1> to the stats process that is going on here. Because I have the
1> conviction that it could be useful, usenetly speaking. Good luck :))

2> Haww :))

2> Yeah whatever -- fuck you :)

3> Hehe - don't worry, it's a private joke between that girl and me.

4> Vive Tholen, merde aux wannabees.

5> Allez Tholen, ouais vas'z'y butte-les cette bande de toccards.

5> Merde aux cons.

6> Ouais allez Tholen, merde aux cons, surtout quand ils sont en
6> groupes !!!!

6> FUCK 'EM !!!

What does any of that have to do with classical music, Charlie?

===============================================================================

Matthew H. Fields writes:

846> I counted over 40 non-classical-music posts by Tholen alone, first
846> thing this morning.

What does your inability to count properly have to do with classical
music, Fields?

847> You're tempting me to ask him whether he has admitted Jesus Christ
847> into his heart.

847> I'm thinking maybe irregularities in his atrioventricular node might
847> cause an odd pattern of flow in his carotid arteries which might have
847> some relevance to what we see here--and I'd leave you to figure out
847> the spiritual half of the question....

What does that have to do with classical music, Fields?

848> Indeed, a black pot.

849> Ah, Don, maybe you're on my end of the net now!

850> You're welcome!

851> Aww, feel the love. You want him. You know you do.

852> Errr, the inner planets don't do retrograde...

On what basis do you make that claim, Fields, and what does it have to
do with classical music?

852> but they hide behind
852> the sun rather frequently, and that's where Mercury is right now.

And on April 15, Mercury was moving west more than half a degree per
day. Venus did likewise on the day of the transit. And that's
relative to the stars. But what does it have to do with classical
music, Fields?

853> Perhaps you have Mercury and Mars mixed up.

Perhaps he doesn't, Fields.

853> Retrograde happens for
853> the outer planets whenever the earth passes 'em up in orbit. That
853> never happens with the inner planets.

On what basis do you make that claim, Fields, and what does it have to
do with classical music?

853> But you can't see Mercury right now.

Irrelevant, given that westward motion doesn't require visibility, Fields.

853> Venus, Uranus, and Pluto always revolves in the direction opposite the earth,
853> and that's sometimes called a "retrograde" but it's just a continuous
853> motion.

What does your inability to properly distinguish between rotation and
revolution (not to mention your improper use of the plural) have to do
with classical music, Fields?

853> Here you can see a little bit more on this topic.

854> Sounds to me like they got Mars and Mercury mixed up. Mars *seems" to
854> move backwards when we pass it up (as do all the outer planets). We
854> don't pass up Mercury. But we are smack in the middle of a
854> Mercury-being-invisible period right now. Mercury never gets more
854> than about 18 degrees from the sun and is lost in the Sun right now.

Since when is the 26 degrees from the Sun on May 15 "never gets more than
about 18 degrees", Fields?

855> A brief glance at the web finds that *astrologers* use "retrograde" to
855> refer to ANY west-east motion, and thus to nearly HALF a full
855> revolution of Mercury or Venus around the sun. That's not how
855> astronomers use the term, though.

"Fields, what exactly are your credentials in astronomy?
I ask because you are holding Mercury up as being incapable
of retrograde motion in astronomical terms, so I'm wondering
where exactly you received your astronomy degree."

856> Nope, it's a case in which the NYT is confusing astrology with
856> astronomy.

On what basis do you make that claim, Fields, and what does it have to
do with classical music?

857> Depends on what you call "Significant". We can definitely see 'em,
857> through the physical passage of light from them to us. But the force
857> of gravity on you due to the buddy next to you at the lunch counter is
857> stronger than that of any of the planets.

858> In Wonderland, odd things happen.

859> Man, he's still laying into the Grove. What a maroon!

860> Astrologers claim a whole raft of things, one more laughable than the other.

861> That trick only works for orderings with commutativity. Mirth has no
861> such algebraic property.

862> I am not a number!

863> Again, the use of "retrograde" given for Venus on this page refers to
863> the normal path of west-east motion of Venus in our sky, taking up
863> almost half a vensusian year.

864> No, "Retrograde" means that the thing is seen "moving backwards".

864> In reading a few more astronomy (not astrology) sources, I gather that
864> the difference is a matter of practicality. Astronomers want a method
864> for observing the planets. For Mercury and Venus, the convenient
864> signpost relative to which to observe them is the sun. Relative to
864> the sun, their motions are very straightforward--first each rises
864> earlier and earlier than the sun, then this lag shortens, then each is
864> invisible for a while, then each sets later and later than the sun,
864> and then that lag shortens, end of story.

No, it isn't the end of the story, Fields. Note that when Venus transited
the Sun, Fields, its motion relative to the Sun was from east to west.

864> The outer planets, however,
864> are routinely seen not in conjunction with the sun but against a
864> background of distant stars. Using that as your reference, you get
864> what appears to be a complex motion, mostly west but with short
864> eastward loops a little less than once a year. That's what
864> astronomers mean by retrograde motion.

Wrong again, Fields. The motion is mostly east, but with short
westward loops. That's why they're called retrograde loops.

864> Astrologers will gladly talk about the location in the zodiac
864> of Venus, Mercury, and even the sun, heedless of the fact that neither
864> Mercury nor the sun is ever seen from Earth against a background
864> of distant stars,

Wrong again, Fields. Einstein's theory of relativity was tested by
observing the Sun against a background of stars during an eclipse.

864> and after the sun and Moon, Venus is often visible
864> a good hour before any distant stars. Astrologers aren't motivated
864> by observation but rather by two or three orders of speculation about
864> sympathetic magic. Reference to the zodiac is central to them, even
864> in cases like Mercury where it's not useful.

"Fields, what exactly are your credentials in astrology? I
ask because you are talking about sympathetic magic, so I'm
wondering where exactly you received your astrology degree."

865> Albert Silverman...

866> ISP trouble, apparently in connection with Tholen.

On what basis do you make that claim, Fields?

===============================================================================

Jerry Kohl writes:

2193> We actually have much more precise data confirming Tholen's
2193> shortcomings as a mathematician than as a social butterfly. But
2193> then, social ineptitude is not usually measured in mathematical
2193> ways.

2193> Yes, he is a well-known international errorist, both above and below
2193> the (non-)sequator.

2193> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2194> I see you are still making good progress, Don, even if I've pulled
2194> away from you again today. Still, you should reach your second
2194> century soon, so Fred had better watch out!

2194> Not paying attention again, eh, Tholen? Well, I asked first, so what's
2194> your answer?

2194> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2195> Welcome back, Michael, it's been a while!

2195> And of course, you are correct about Porter. I do hope he has just
2195> been too productively employed elsewhere to have time to post
2195> anything here.

2195> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2196> Did you count all of his posts on the "Barnes" thread? He hasn't given us any
2196> solid information yet about why he thinks Barnes's music is good, let alone
2196> whether it qualifies as "classical music".

2196> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2197> Somebody (I've forgotten who now) pushed Tholen's buttons.

2197> Yep.

2197> Uh-huh.

2197> Remains to be seen.

2197> Yes.

2197> Hope you can find one there ;-)

2197> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2198> Is that like Australian Rules football?

2198> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2199> Thank the almighty for small mercies--Tholen hasn't posted anything
2199> for two days now. (Tentatively, I conclude that he has decided that we
2199> were right all along about Barnes, and his silence is a concession of
2199> the fact.) Nightingale has posted once or twice.

2199> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2200> In other words, he "spaces out"?

2200> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2201> OK. David Tholen and ...

2201> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2202> I rest my case.

2202> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2203> I rest my case.

2203> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2204> Too obvious by half.

2204> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2205> Funny "ha ha", or funny "peculiar"?

2205> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2206> Depends. Is Tholen still with us, or has he passed on? I expect
2206> that when he goes, we shall have to retire this phrase--like the
2206> way numbers of famous football players are retired when they
2206> leave the game.

2206> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2207> I know (sigh). Hope springs eternal ... aka the triumph of
2207> optimism over experience.

2207> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2208> Not again! Is Tholen out of contact for the same reason, does
2208> anybody know?

2208> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2209> Silliness? Here?? Never!!

2209> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2210> Well, hardly ever!

2210> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2211> I know, I know! Clearly Anton Webern is the greatest of all composers,
2211> if for nothing else than his op. 11. Tremendous economy, and I can
2211> still get home after the concert in time to catch the rerun of Gilligan's
2211> Island on TV.

2211> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2212> It might be interesting to see if it is possible to get Tholen to
2212> use this phrase . . .

2212> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

What does most of that have to do with classical music, Kohl?

===============================================================================

nightingale writes:

1614> As far as I know, this is the one group that we both read.

Irrelevant to my point, nightingale.

1614> Talking about USENET as a whole, from what I can see in the archives,
1614> there has always been silliness (sometimes whole groups that are nothing
1614> but silliness - for example alt.fun.with.matt that was inhabited by a
1614> bunch of people call Matt) & stupid posts.

Classical music is not about silliness, nightingale.

1614> Only if it's a topic I know nothing about. Is there some reason you
1614> don't want to give details about your first-hand experience with this
1614> group?

You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't already given you details
about my first-hand experience with this group, nightingale.

1615> Who are you?

1616> I don't know what's up with Tholen, but I'm still around, although life
1616> has been too busy last week. I even had to cancel music lessons and go
1616> in to work all day yesterday. Yesterday was also the final concert of
1616> the season for Toronto Camerata & we all went out after, so I did not
1616> get home until very late.

1617> LOL!!

1618> John plonked me before reading my request for a new edition.

1619> Somebody who isn't needs to quote the comments.

1620> LOL!

1621> LOL!

1622> I wonder if he's managed to check it out for himself yet.

1623> Q: What's purple and commutes?
1623> A: An abelian grape.

1624> Jerry Kohl ...

1625> Don't you think Tholen is funny?

1626> LOL!

1627> I thought "By the way, if you'd like to be more specific as to
1627> whom you think googles on "fruitcake", I can deal with the pending
1627> items." was *very* funny.

1628> LOL!

1629> Yes.

1630> It's not the first time he's gone a few days without posting.

1630> LOL!

1631> Tholen withdrawal. Not a pretty sight.

1632> It's amazing that you're amazed. What's so amazing about a conversation
1632> that drifts to another topic & nobody bothers to change the subject
1632> line? It happens all the time - for a current example, look at
1632> Monteverdi thread that is now about something completely unrelated.

1632> Do you really think that is a good idea, Frederick? He's never posted
1632> from that email address or given it out on any newsgroup. It seems to
1632> me that if he wanted contact from any of us, he would not have always
1632> posted using a fake email.

1632> You seem to be pretty obsessed with him - why don't you go away & leave
1632> him alone (and leave us alone if you don't want to talk about music).

1633> The original message was crossposted.

1633> DDSD??

1633> Tholen has left the building.

You're erroneously presupposing that USENET is a building, nightingale.

1634> It has been a month since the last time he posted.

1634> He was still posting his digest, but he was also joining a music
1634> discussion before his sudden disappearance.

1635> They're still feuding? I wonder if Tholen is having ISP trouble as well.

1636> Slightly demented?

1636> Tholen hasn't been around in over a month.

1637> Perhaps not. He's back to other newsgroups, but not this one - I guess
1637> he got tired of all the silliness here.

1638> What never?

1639> LOL!

What does most of that have to do with classical music, nightingale?

===============================================================================

Michael Haslam writes:

676> Just remind me, Don, what qualifies a post for the digests?

677> Porter's not posted much for ages. OTOH tholen's been posting like a
677> rabbit on heat AFAICT.

678> What's all this stuff about Barnes? Is it something to do with... Band
678> Music? And tholen? Is there an OctoContraBass Clarinet angle to be
678> explored? Is Marcello on the case?

678> Thanks for the welcome. I'm in now sunny New York City for a few weeks.
678> Enjoying listening to AirAmericaRadio. Haven't been to a concert yet.

679> Thanks for the explanation. And the closing zinger!

680> Exactly so. I couldn't have expressed it better.

680> Good.

681> And there was I thinking it was because Mercury is in retrograde.

681> [which is on topic for rmc; just think of Holst]

682> Whatever happened to "People to plonk on rmc"?

683> Er.. aren't you in John's killfile?

684> That contradicts what I read in The NY Times yesterday. I'm certainly
684> the opposite of an expert in the field. I quite like the idea of doing
684> the Holst Mercury backwards, it would sound *almost* the same min a
684> spooky way.

685> The NYTimes article is here:

685> I hope I may quote a few lines without incurring the wrath of PTD:

685> That astrological term describes how the smallest planet, named for the
685> messenger god allied to communication, seems to be moving backward in
685> the sky, a phenomenon that occurs several times a year in three-week
685> periods. We are smack in the middle of a Mercury-in-retrograde period
685> right now.

685> Perhaps the important word is "seems".

686> I suppose the material point is: do you believe that the other planets
686> have any significant physical effect on the inhabitants of planet earth?
686> I say they don't.

687> Now *that's* funny. Let's see: They both have an awareness of the
687> octocontrabass clarinet. They both know about band music. They both had
687> mothers and fathers. They both have an "h" and an "o" in either 2nd or
687> 3rd place in their surname. They both have featured heavily in numerous
687> editions of Antagonists(') Digests. They have too much time on their
687> hands. They are both witty, well-read, wry, generous and very funny -
687> apart from David Tholen.

688> I chose my words carefully. Sometimes tholen is funny, he's never *very*
688> funny.

689> Anything for midi guitar by jarlsberg sigmund.

What does most of that have to do with classical music, Haslam?

===============================================================================

Peter T. Daniels writes:

168> But that can only happen for (relative) moments at a time.

169> Knowst thou not "fair use"?

169> It's no more "seeming" than in the case of the outer planets.

169> Just another thing the Good Doctor doesn't know about. (That used to be
169> a nickname for the writer he calls Assimov, and Neil Simon used it for
169> his Chekhov plays, too.)

170> Astrologers don't claim it's _influence_, they claim it's _correlation_.

171> Oh, did you think that "retrograde" means that a planet actually stops
171> and reverses its motion around the sun?

172> Non sequitur.

172> (Is that still a current response?)

173> Try Dutchman. Shorter than the average opera.

What does most of that have to do with classical music, Daniels?

===============================================================================

Brendan R. Wehrung writes:

446> I aim for quality rather than quantity. I'm sure Dave appreciates that.

447> Or band music. I have a box of band music (probably about 75 discs).
447> Nothing like what Dave must have, of course.

448> Wait just a minute! Dave has proved that he can conduct a civil, extended
448> conversation (with Nightingale) and discourse intelligently on chosen
448> topics (mainly band music, although I recall something about conductors).
448> The simple fact tht he refuses to name hs favorite Norwegian composer and
448> sees the world in sequences should not be used against him, however
448> classically irrelevant they may seem.

449> And your digest complains if a comment of mine happens to have been
449> crossposted to **one** other group?

450> Tholen only knows.

450> Sometimes one word qualifies.

450> In fact, no word used to be listed (I had to include a period to goose the
450> mail system into sending a message, the content of which was nothing
450> [that's a comment, son]). I think I started a trend for a short time, but
450> I doubt I'd be able to find the original post using Google.

451> Doesn't matter. Dave has Spoken. Barnes rules.

452> Any Tholenist worth his 2 cents will tell you that the Tholen Silence is
452> part of his mythology. A true Silence can lsst up to two weeks and may
452> correspond with astonomical conferences, after which Dave resumes as if
452> the interval had not happened.

453> Give the guy a break. His community band vouches for him.

454> While we are in a Tholen Silence, let's plan a return party, knowing that
454> he WILL be back. Right now I'm listening to "Dance of an ostracized imp"
454> by Frederic Curzon, played by Marinierskapel der Koninkliijke Marine on a
454> Dutch Fontanna LP I picked up at (Nighingale, please take note) A&A
454> Records. I assume this is a Dutch band, although I'm not sure when the
454> Queen handed her throne over to her son.

454> There must be many other pieces Dave would enjoy hearing at his party.
454> Suggestions?

455> AKA Jarl Sigurd?

What does most of that have to do with classical music, Wehrung?

===============================================================================

Fred Bloggs writes:

212> Hypocritholen.

213> Class.

What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
Bloggs?

===============================================================================

dizzy writes:

867> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:47:15 GMT, tholen tholed:

How does one allegedly "thole" when posting, dizzy?

867> Note: No response.

867> Starting to figure-out what it means to "thole" while posting, tholen?

867> Note: No response.

867> Answer my questions first, tholen.

868> Illogical, Fields, given that they can't all be more laughable than
868> the others.

What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
dizzy?

===============================================================================

John Harrington writes:

65> And, given who you actually are, you must be drunk.

66> Hopefully you'll go away, too.

What does any of that have to do with classical music, the Harrington?

===============================================================================

grantco writes:

1665> Still dancing I see. How predictable yet entertaining...

What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
grantco?

===============================================================================

Peter Hucker writes:

3> Who's Tholen?

4> I don't like classical music, I don't inhabit that group. And kooks get killfiled
4> before I learn much about them.

5> How old are you? Good music is Nirvana, Metallica, Guns and Roses, Scooter, etc.

6> How odd.

What does any of that have to do with classical music, Hucker?

===============================================================================

the Jazz Guy writes:

1> On another note: don't you find it particularly sad when people feel
1> they have to define their online existence by someone else's?

2> It appears you've been revisionized...

3> Because that would mean you would have had to admit to being wrong?

What does any of that have to do with classical music, Jazz Guy?

===============================================================================

Baron Catroo writes:

109> The ritornello: yes.

Non sequitur.

===============================================================================

Michael Creevey <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> writes:

70> Dr Dave?

71> Cryonically frozen no doubt. But he shall return......
71> bwahahaha

What does that have to do with classical music, Creevey?

===============================================================================

Susan Cohen writes:

1> Trust a bigot (who gives himself away just by the way he writes) to blame
1> the victim.

What does that have to do with classical music, Cohen?

===============================================================================

Mike Rice writes:

1> Even if Germany does allow jews to practice
1> law, that is no reason for Hitler's Willing Executioners
1> to actually hire a jewish lawyer to represent them.
1> I mean, they have a seriously fragmented track
1> record, they couldn't even keep themselves out
1> of the death camps.

What does that have to do with classical music, Rice?

===============================================================================

Adam writes:

14> Who let rec.music.classical in here?
14> Mind you, I can see a fight to the death between the Incredible Tholen and
14> DDSD as being an entertaining spectacle.

15> Thankyou for clearing that up, but not being a retard I had actually
15> spotted that.

15> DDSD is our resident troll over here in RMMP.

15> Really? Tholen and his associated noise was one of the reasons I stopped
15> reading RMC. If he has really cleared off I might stop by again.

Illogical, given that the bulk of the antagonists are still here,
posting away.

===============================================================================

Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy) writes:

4> Two words, Dude: "Community Service"

What does that have to do with classical music, Gorilla?

===============================================================================

Michael Lockhart writes:

69> Note: no response. Your complete evasion and abdication of the arguments is
69> noted, David.

How ironic, coming from someone who evaded arguments by writing:

"You deserve no more replies."
--Michael Lockhart

69> You don't, as I said.

Obviously I do, as your continued responses prove, Lockhart.

69> Quite stupid, aren't you?

What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
Lockhart?

69> You listed none.

69> Looks like you're as stupid and clueless as ever.

What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
Lockhart?

69> Your complete lack of response is noted.

How ironic, coming from someone who evaded arguments by writing:

"You deserve no more replies."
--Michael Lockhart

69> Your concession is accepted.

You're erroneously presupposing some concession on my part, Lockhart.

===============================================================================

Peter H. Granzeau writes:

1> Thank Ghod (I think), I have listened to nothing by any of those
1> people.

Why? Afraid to try new things, Granzeau?

1> I hesitate to name ten "best", or even ten "favorite" composers.
1> There are those who I dislike in general, such as Richard Wagner, if
1> only because of his inability to get it over with in time to get home
1> without having to lose sleep (and I really _hate_ to have to try to
1> nap in an opera seat, it always leaves me with a sore neck), and I
1> would leave them off of my list.

Why go in the first place? Don't they tell you whose opera is going
to be performed before you get to the concert hall?

===============================================================================

Jom Voege writes:

1> Try the listserver available off the classical.net site if you are looking
1> for something more genteel. No flames. Lots of information. Occasional
1> controversy but always conducted in a gentlemanly, scholarly fashion. Much
1> less passion.

===============================================================================

Mike Girouard writes:

3> What time does the Barnes dance start?

3> "As you say, Sir, it is only your humble opinion and it clashes with
3> my authoritative one."

===============================================================================

ClassicalHomie writes:

2> Why you always gotta be hatin' on me?

What does your erroneous presupposition have to do with classical
music, Homie?

===============================================================================

Nicolai P. Zwar writes:

348> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
348> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

349> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
349> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

350> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
350> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

351> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
351> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

352> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
352> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

353> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
353> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

354> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
354> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

355> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
355> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

356> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
356> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

357> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
357> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

358> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
358> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

359> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
359> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

360> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
360> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

361> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
361> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

362> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
362> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

363> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
363> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

364> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
364> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

365> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
365> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

366> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
366> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

367> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
367> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

368> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
368> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

369> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
369> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

370> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
370> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

371> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
371> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

372> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
372> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

373> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
373> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

374> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
374> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

375> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
375> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

376> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
376> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

377> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
377> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

378> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
378> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

379> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
379> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

380> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
380> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

381> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
381> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

382> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
382> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

383> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
383> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

384> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
384> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

385> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
385> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

386> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
386> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

387> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
387> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

388> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
388> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

389> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
389> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

390> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
390> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

391> "I post very little until some antagonist comes along."
391> (Dr. David J. Tholen, astronomer)

Where did the referenced items say anything about "Dr. David J. Tholen",
Zwar?

392> Heck, you can go to a full Webern concert in the commercial break of
392> Gilligan's Island. What a considerate composer.

===========================================================================

Being the first anniversary of the digest, this is a good time to
reinitialize the totals. Wonder how long it will take to get to
10000 this year? And for those of you who have claimed that the
antagonism would stop if I stopped, the last two months provides
ample additional evidence to the contrary.

alias # today total last year
-------------- ------- ----- ---------
zwar 45 45 348
nightingale 26 26 1613
fields 21 21 678
kohl 20 20 2192
cypherpunk 19 19 578
haslam 14 14 675
wehrung 10 10 262
patterson 9 9 135
penso 7 7 172
charlie 6 6 0
daniels 6 6 165
hucker 4 4 2
freud 3 3 44
jazz guy 3 3 3
adam 2 2 13
bloggs 2 2 200
dizzy 2 2 522
harrington 2 2 64
karttunen 2 2 97
andrews 1 1 1
antagonismo 1 1 90
beck 1 1 239
catroo 1 1 108
cohen 1 1 0
creevey 1 1 69
girouard 1 1 2
grantco 1 1 229
granzeau 1 1 0
homie 1 1 1
jaakko 1 1 99
kolle 1 1 264
lockhart 1 1 60
monkey 1 1 1
porky 1 1 16
rice 1 1 0
voege 1 1 0
-------------- ------- ----- ---------
36 220 220 10033

Michael Lockhart

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 9:54:53 AM6/9/04

to

<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:20Exc.3768$Ko5....@twister.socal.rr.com...

> Being the first anniversary of the digest, this is a good time to
> reinitialize the totals.

You might try phrasing that "The first anniversary of the digest is a ..."

> Wonder how long it will take to get to
> 10000 this year? And for those of you who have claimed that the
> antagonism would stop if I stopped, the last two months provides
> ample additional evidence to the contrary.

Really? Looking on google, I see that there has not been a single response
to any thread with "antagonists" in it in rec.music.classical (and only one
elsewhere) since April 19, 2004. So I'm going to assume almost every post
you listed came within a few days of your last digest, which was on April
15, 2004. Today is June 9, 2004. That's less than two months, but I won't
quibble the point endlessly as you probably would. Let's see how bad those
two months were. 15 + 31 + 8 = 54 days.

> alias # today total last year
> -------------- ------- ----- ---------

> 36 220 220 10033

220 posts in 54 days, or almost exactly 4 posts per day. Not bad at all.
Of course, almost every post came within 5 days of your last digest. That
would be 44 posts per day. That's not good. But how were your last posts?
Your last digest had 47 posts in it on April 15. April 14's digest had 79
posts. April 13th's had 25 posts. April 12th's had 30. April 11th's had
28. So the five days before you last post had a total of 209 posts. That's
an average of 41.8 posts per day. Overall for last year, with 365 - 54 =
311 days (other than the hiatus), there were an average of 31.55 posts per
day.

So, in other words, the posts came about at the normal rate for five days
after you stopped. Then they ceased completely. Even averaging them over
the 54 days since you stopped (silly, as there have been none in almost two
months) gets only 4 a day. Of course, now that you're "back", we can be
sure the rate will be significantly higher.

You have managed to prove that your absence causes the "antagonistic" posts
to cease within less than a week, and even your faulty analysis shows that
your absence makes the prevalence of posts ten times better than your
presence does.

Michael

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 5:44:45 PM6/9/04

to

tho...@antispam.ham wrote:

> Being the first anniversary of the digest, this is a good time to
> reinitialize the totals.

Or just to forget the whole boring enterprise. . .

> Wonder how long it will take to get to
> 10000 this year? And for those of you who have claimed that the
> antagonism would stop if I stopped, the last two months provides
> ample additional evidence to the contrary.

You know what? I can't even remember most of those posts--even
the ones attributed to me. None bear dates (and though you say "today",
certainly very few of them were dated today), so how can we be sure
that *any* of them fall within the time-frame you claim?

Furthermore, if the great majority *do* fall much further back in
time, doesn't that prove the "antagonism" is at least tailing off?
If that is so, then maybe you just didn't five it a fair chance. Finally,
most of the posts that I *do* recognize from the past few weeks
seem to me nostalgic--warm and fuzzy recollections of fond banter
in days gone by--and in no way antagonistic. I note that you have
changed the title of your thread to just "digest". Does this mean
that you, too, recognize this change and therefore acknowledge
that the antagonism has, in fact, stopped?

What now are your criteria for including messages on your list?

--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>

Sacqueboutier

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 9:04:25 PM6/9/04

to

Jerry Kohl at jerom...@comcast.net somehow caused the following meaderings
on 6/9/04 5:44 PM:

All readers please take note. Nightingale is easily the most congenial
contributor when it comes to dealing with the Tholotwat, yet next to Kohl,
she leads the way in number of antagonisms. What does this say about
Tholoputz and his brave battle against antagonism?

I myself have little patience with him. He's a kook and I'm going to
respond to him as though he were a kook.

Don

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 9, 2004, 9:19:11 PM6/9/04

to

Sacqueboutier wrote:

>
> All readers please take note. Nightingale is easily the most congenial
> contributor when it comes to dealing with the Tholotwat, yet next to Kohl,
> she leads the way in number of antagonisms.

The total reflects off topic and non sequitur posts as well as
antagonistic ones (and some of my posts last year were antagonistic).

> What does this say about
> Tholoputz and his brave battle against antagonism?
>

Nothing.

> I myself have little patience with him. He's a kook and I'm going to
> respond to him as though he were a kook.
>

Why not just plonk him again? I find some of what he has to say
interesting, and plan to continue ignoring his digests and reading
anything he decides to contribute to other threads.

--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.

Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.

-William Byrd

Fred Bloggs

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 5:48:21 AM6/10/04

to

The kook is back!

> Fred Bloggs writes:
>
> 212> Hypocritholen.
>
> 213> Class.
>
> What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
> Bloggs?

I've not posted about, or in reply to, anything you've said for ages
now, Tholen. You digging something I allegedly posted a month or 2
ago is proof that it's you who has the emotional need to troll this
group with your pathetic, paranoid illogicalities. You could have left
it 2 years and the result would have been the same. You just couldn't
help yourself, could you? Oh, and you've also made at mistake in your
recent digest - where's the `todays tally` header?

So - paranoia, kookiness, errors and hypocrisy all in one post.

Welcome back, kook.

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:24:35 AM6/10/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
>
>
>>Being the first anniversary of the digest, this is a good time to
>>reinitialize the totals.
>
>
> Or just to forget the whole boring enterprise. . .

Do we have a choice?

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 7:07:45 AM6/10/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> Furthermore, if the great majority *do* fall much further back in
> time, doesn't that prove the "antagonism" is at least tailing off?
> If that is so, then maybe you just didn't five it a fair chance. Finally,
> most of the posts that I *do* recognize from the past few weeks
> seem to me nostalgic--warm and fuzzy recollections of fond banter
> in days gone by--and in no way antagonistic. I note that you have
> changed the title of your thread to just "digest". Does this mean
> that you, too, recognize this change and therefore acknowledge
> that the antagonism has, in fact, stopped?
>
> What now are your criteria for including messages on your list?

Of the 45 messages of mine Dave has included in his new digest, 44 are
merely me quoting him in my sig line. The 45th posting was this: "Heck,

you can go to a full Webern concert in the commercial break of

Gilligan's Island. What a considerate composer." It has nothing
whatsoever to do with Dr. Tholen and is completely on topic for this
group. But apparently, according to Dave, it's among the "ample
additional evidence" that the antagonism hasn't stopped.
So, again: that's 45 postings of mine he included in the digest, 1 of
which has to do with Anton Webern, the other 44 times Dave quotes me
quoting him, so practically he quotes himself. Maybe to pad the list.

--
Nicolai Zwar
http://www.nicolaizwar.com

Sacqueboutier

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 8:23:07 AM6/10/04

to

Nightingale at si...@music.ca somehow caused the following meaderings on
6/9/04 9:19 PM:

>
>
> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>
>>
>> All readers please take note. Nightingale is easily the most congenial
>> contributor when it comes to dealing with the Tholotwat, yet next to Kohl,
>> she leads the way in number of antagonisms.
>
>
> The total reflects off topic and non sequitur posts as well as
> antagonistic ones (and some of my posts last year were antagonistic).
>
>> What does this say about
>> Tholoputz and his brave battle against antagonism?
>>
>
>
> Nothing.

I think you're wrong here. He's thin skinned and sees antagonism where
there is none. You say "some" of your posts were antagonistic. From his
tally, it appears he sees antagonism in nearly all of your posts. As for
myself, I don't see it. I think you are the most congenial amongst us and
that's admirable. I just have little patience with him.

>
>
>> I myself have little patience with him. He's a kook and I'm going to
>> respond to him as though he were a kook.
>>
>
>
> Why not just plonk him again? I find some of what he has to say
> interesting, and plan to continue ignoring his digests and reading
> anything he decides to contribute to other threads.

Because he'll cite my name at any given time and I have to respond to that.
My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the merits of
Barnes' music. As most do, I voiced that disagreement in no uncertain
terms. If mere disagreement is antagonistic, then he's going to see
antagonism wherever he goes (and apparently he does).

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 9:36:51 AM6/10/04

to

Sacqueboutier wrote:
> Nightingale at si...@music.ca somehow caused the following meaderings on
> 6/9/04 9:19 PM:
>
>
>>
>>Sacqueboutier wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All readers please take note. Nightingale is easily the most congenial
>>>contributor when it comes to dealing with the Tholotwat, yet next to Kohl,
>>>she leads the way in number of antagonisms.
>>
>>
>>The total reflects off topic and non sequitur posts as well as
>>antagonistic ones (and some of my posts last year were antagonistic).
>>
>>
>>>What does this say about
>>>Tholoputz and his brave battle against antagonism?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Nothing.
>
>
> I think you're wrong here. He's thin skinned and sees antagonism where
> there is none.

I think he does sometimes see antagonism where none is intended, and
have said so before. You cannot imply this from the score in his digest
though, because it includes more than just antagonistic posts - see his
first digest last year.

> You say "some" of your posts were antagonistic. From his
> tally, it appears he sees antagonism in nearly all of your posts. As for
> myself, I don't see it. I think you are the most congenial amongst us and
> that's admirable. I just have little patience with him.
>
>
>>
>>>I myself have little patience with him. He's a kook and I'm going to
>>>respond to him as though he were a kook.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Why not just plonk him again? I find some of what he has to say
>>interesting, and plan to continue ignoring his digests and reading
>>anything he decides to contribute to other threads.
>
>
> Because he'll cite my name at any given time and I have to respond to that.

LOL! You sound like him when you say things like that. Why do you have
to respond - does it really accomplish anything.

> My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the merits of
> Barnes' music.

A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
important.

> As most do, I voiced that disagreement in no uncertain
> terms. If mere disagreement is antagonistic, then he's going to see
> antagonism wherever he goes (and apparently he does).
>
>

--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 10:12:17 AM6/10/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> I think he does sometimes see antagonism where none is intended,

Sometimes? Sometimes??

> and
> have said so before. You cannot imply this from the score in his digest
> though, because it includes more than just antagonistic posts - see his
> first digest last year.

His digest last year was clearly headed "antagonists digest", not "off
topic and non sequitur posts as well as antagonistic ones digest".

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 12:29:08 PM6/10/04

to

Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:

> Nightingale wrote:
>
>
>> I think he does sometimes see antagonism where none is intended,
>
>
> Sometimes? Sometimes??
>

You disagree? Some of what has been said to and about him *is*
antagonistic.

>> and have said so before. You cannot imply this from the score in his
>> digest though, because it includes more than just antagonistic posts -
>> see his first digest last year.
>
>
> His digest last year was clearly headed "antagonists digest", not "off
> topic and non sequitur posts as well as antagonistic ones digest".
>

The fact that the original title was not an accurate reflection of the
content has been discussed here before. The first "antagonist's
digest" set out the description of what would be included.

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 4:06:46 PM6/10/04

to

"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Being the first anniversary of the digest, this is a good time to
> >>reinitialize the totals.
> >
> >
> > Or just to forget the whole boring enterprise. . .
>
> Do we have a choice?

Sorry, what? (The short-term memory is the first to go.)

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 4:11:24 PM6/10/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Sacqueboutier wrote:
> > My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the merits of
> > Barnes' music.
>
> A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
> important.
>

Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that important"?!

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:16:06 PM6/10/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> Nightingale wrote:
>
>
>>Sacqueboutier wrote:
>>
>>>My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the merits of
>>>Barnes' music.
>>
>>A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
>>important.
>>
>
>
> Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
> you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that important"?!
>

How dare you accuse me of being antagonistic. That's a very
antagonistic thing for you to say.

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:17:31 PM6/10/04

to

Nightingale wrote:
> Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
>
>> Nightingale wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think he does sometimes see antagonism where none is intended,
>>
>>
>>
>> Sometimes? Sometimes??
>>
>
> You disagree? Some of what has been said to and about him *is*
> antagonistic.

And a lot of it has not been.

>>> and have said so before. You cannot imply this from the score in his
>>> digest though, because it includes more than just antagonistic posts
>>> - see his first digest last year.
>>
>>
>>
>> His digest last year was clearly headed "antagonists digest", not "off
>> topic and non sequitur posts as well as antagonistic ones digest".
>>
>
> The fact that the original title was not an accurate reflection of the
> content has been discussed here before.

Yes, considerably, because Dave continually denied it.

> The first "antagonist's
> digest" set out the description of what would be included.

Uh-oh... I have warned you: it is contagious.

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:20:12 PM6/10/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!

Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:20:42 PM6/10/04

to

Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
>>
>> You disagree? Some of what has been said to and about him *is*
>> antagonistic.
>
>
> And a lot of it has not been.
>

Right.

>
> Yes, considerably, because Dave continually denied it.

But I notice that he has changed the title.

>
>> The first "antagonist's digest" set out the description of what
>> would be included.
>
>
> Uh-oh... I have warned you: it is contagious.
>

????

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:21:02 PM6/10/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
>> Nightingale wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>>>
>>>> My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the
>>>> merits of
>>>> Barnes' music.
>>>
>>>
>>> A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
>>> important.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
>> you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that important"?!
>>
>
> How dare you accuse me of being antagonistic. That's a very
> antagonistic thing for you to say.

Antagonising Jerry, huh, Nightingale?

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:22:06 PM6/10/04

to

Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:

Well, what else would you expect from the top two antagonists of last
year? ;-)

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:25:40 PM6/10/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You disagree? Some of what has been said to and about him *is*
>>> antagonistic.
>>
>>
>>
>> And a lot of it has not been.
>>
>
> Right.
>
>>
>> Yes, considerably, because Dave continually denied it.
>
>
> But I notice that he has changed the title.

Yes, he has, again. I have noticed it. Now he's calling it "digest".
Fine by me, really.

>>> The first "antagonist's digest" set out the description of what
>>> would be included.
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh-oh... I have warned you: it is contagious.
>>
>
> ????

You have repeated Dave's very own lame justification for including
non-antagonistic posts in his "antagonists digest" simply because months
before he posted somewhere that he might do just that.

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:26:38 PM6/10/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
>
>> Nightingale wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nightingale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the
>>>>>> merits of
>>>>>> Barnes' music.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really
>>>>> that
>>>>> important.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
>>>> you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that
>>>> important"?!
>>>>
>>>
>>> How dare you accuse me of being antagonistic. That's a very
>>> antagonistic thing for you to say.
>>
>>
>>
>> Antagonising Jerry, huh, Nightingale?
>>
>>
>
> Well, what else would you expect from the top two antagonists of last
> year? ;-)

Maybe off-topic and non sequitur postings?

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:30:44 PM6/10/04

to

Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:

Yes, that too.

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:33:29 PM6/10/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > Nightingale wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sacqueboutier wrote:
> >>
> >>>My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the merits of
> >>>Barnes' music.
> >>
> >>A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
> >>important.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
> > you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that important"?!
> >
>
> How dare you accuse me of being antagonistic. That's a very
> antagonistic thing for you to say.

No it's not! Is not, is not, is not! Not!! (So there!)

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:34:46 PM6/10/04

to

"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:39:59 PM6/10/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:
> "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
>>
>>Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
>
>
> Oi! I've told you already!

Non sequitur. Ha!

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:40:49 PM6/10/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
>>
>>Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
>
>
> Oi! I've told you already!
>

Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.

Nicolai P. Zwar

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:42:41 PM6/10/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
>> "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
>>>
>>>
>>> Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oi! I've told you already!
>>
>
> Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.

He's going for a sweep.

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 6:43:16 PM6/10/04

to

"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:

Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much. (See? And not
even a mention of Tholen ... oops!)

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 8:50:31 PM6/10/04

to

Nicolai P. Zwar at NPZ...@bigfoot.com somehow caused the following
meaderings on 6/10/04 6:21 PM:

> Nightingale wrote:
>
>> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>

>>> Nightingale wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the
>>>>> merits of
>>>>> Barnes' music.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
>>>> important.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
>>> you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that important"?!
>>>
>>
>> How dare you accuse me of being antagonistic. That's a very
>> antagonistic thing for you to say.
>

> Antagonising Jerry, huh, Nightingale?
>

Perhaps we should all start our own personal antagonists digests. I would
be the first...um, second to start, but I have a life.

Don

Dr.Matt

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 9:37:46 PM6/10/04

to

In article <caaog4$u0s$6...@online.de>,

Nicolai P. Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>This thread... belongs to him? He owns it? I guess it was only a matter
>of time after patents have been granted on certain mouse clicks.

The patent on the mouse click won't hold up in court. Microsoft had
no truck with mice until they'd been in use by the general public for
ten years...

As for this thread, creative expressions are the property of their authors
(US Title 17; Berne Convention 1978; World Intellectual Property Organization).

--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"Hey, don't knock Placebo, its the only thing effective for my hypochondria."
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

Dr.Matt

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 9:34:18 PM6/10/04

to

In article <caamse$rq5$3...@online.de>,

Nicolai P. Zwar <NPZ...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>Nightingale wrote:
>
>> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>
>>> Nightingale wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sacqueboutier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the
>>>>> merits of
>>>>> Barnes' music.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
>>>> important.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
>>> you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that important"?!
>>>
>>
>> How dare you accuse me of being antagonistic. That's a very
>> antagonistic thing for you to say.
>
>Antagonising Jerry, huh, Nightingale?
>

Some of them were very old grasshoppers.

dizzy

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 9:58:35 PM6/10/04

to

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:11:26 GMT, tholen tholed:

> And for those of you who have claimed that the
>antagonism would stop if I stopped, the last two months provides
>ample additional evidence to the contrary.

You're a liar, tholen. Have you no shame?

dizzy

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 9:59:01 PM6/10/04

to

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:11:26 GMT, tholen tholed:

>Being the first anniversary of the digest, this is a good time to
>reinitialize the totals. Wonder how long it will take to get to
>10000 this year?

Kook.

dizzy

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 10:04:11 PM6/10/04

to

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:11:26 GMT, tholen tholed:

>dizzy writes:
>
>867> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:47:15 GMT, tholen tholed:
>
>How does one allegedly "thole" when posting, dizzy?

You know, tholen.

>867> Note: No response.

Note: Still no response.

>867> Note: No response.

Note: Still no response.

>867> Note: No response.

Note: Still no response.

>867> Note: No response.

Note: Still no response.

>867> Starting to figure-out what it means to "thole" while posting, tholen?

Note: No reponse.

>867> Note: No response.

Note: Still no response.

>867> Answer my questions first, tholen.

Note: No reponse.

>868> Illogical, Fields, given that they can't all be more laughable than
>868> the others.

Why include that one, tholen? It had nothing to do with you. Classic
insanity.

>What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
>dizzy?

What alleged ongoing antagonism, tholen? I note that you had to quote
an 8-week-old post of mine to continue you antagonism. Kook.

dizzy

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 10:05:40 PM6/10/04

to

On 10 Jun 2004 02:48:21 -0700, mrfred...@altavista.co.uk (Fred
Bloggs) wrote:

>The kook is back!
>
>> Fred Bloggs writes:
>>
>> 212> Hypocritholen.
>>
>> 213> Class.

>>
>> What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,

>> Bloggs?
>
>I've not posted about, or in reply to, anything you've said for ages
>now, Tholen. You digging something I allegedly posted a month or 2
>ago is proof that it's you who has the emotional need to troll this
>group with your pathetic, paranoid illogicalities. You could have left
>it 2 years and the result would have been the same. You just couldn't
>help yourself, could you? Oh, and you've also made at mistake in your
>recent digest - where's the `todays tally` header?
>
>So - paranoia, kookiness, errors and hypocrisy all in one post.

Really. What a freakin' nut case.

>Welcome back, kook.

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 11:30:11 PM6/10/04

to

dizzy wrote:

How can you ask? You know him as well as anybody here.

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 10, 2004, 11:32:21 PM6/10/04

to

dizzy wrote:

I'd say that is an accurate estimate.

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:08:21 AM6/11/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

Is so.

--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.

Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.

-William Byrd

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:11:40 AM6/11/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>
>
>>Nightingale wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nightingale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oi! I've told you already!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He's going for a sweep.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>He's unbeatable.
>>>
>>The champ.
>>
>
> ... that I can't play this game as well as you two ...
>

No.

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:14:35 AM6/11/04

to

Dr.Matt wrote:

>
> Some of them were very old grasshoppers.
>
>

????

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:18:12 AM6/11/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > Nightingale wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Nightingale wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Nightingale wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Nightingale wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Sacqueboutier wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the merits of
> >>>>>>>>>Barnes' music.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
> >>>>>>>>important.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
> >>>>>>>you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that important"?!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>How dare you accuse me of being antagonistic. That's a very
> >>>>>>antagonistic thing for you to say.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No it's not! Is not, is not, is not! Not!! (So there!)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Is so!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>(Erm, is this just the five-minute argument, or the full half-hour?)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It's not an argument, it's just contradiction.
> >>
> >
> > Is not.
> >
>
> Is so.

Not.

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:18:53 AM6/11/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Nightingale wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Nightingale wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Oi! I've told you already!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>He's going for a sweep.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>He's unbeatable.
> >>>
> >>The champ.
> >>
> >
> > ... that I can't play this game as well as you two ...
> >
>
> No.
>

... do you?

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:34:13 AM6/11/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

Is.

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 12:34:43 AM6/11/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> Nightingale wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nightingale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nicolai P. Zwar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nightingale wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oi! I've told you already!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He's going for a sweep.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>He's unbeatable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The champ.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>... that I can't play this game as well as you two ...
>>>
>>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>
> ... do you?
>

LOL!!

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 5:22:13 AM6/11/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>
>>

> I'll let Jerry answer the question, just to keep him on his toes.
>

--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspire:
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 9:05:33 AM6/11/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

I wouldn't want to disappoint you.

Michael Haslam

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:17:34 PM6/11/04

to

Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Nightingale wrote:
> >
> > Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.
>

> Who can say? Tholen harvested 45 random postings by
> Nicolai which, as Nicolai points out, included one perfectly
> on-topic nonantagonistic post that didn't even mention Tholen,
> as well as 44 that happened to have a Tholen quotation in his
> sig file, all from over a time-period of at least three months
> but cited as "today". With that kind of technique, anybody
> at all might go to the top of the list.

My first reaction on noticing "digest' posts yesterday was: thank God
I'm not going to be around much [baby not arrived yet, btw]. Then I read
thloopsykookamusmaximus's hilariously mis-everythinged digest and
thought: blimey, he's really lost it now. Then I read all the responses
and thought: Tholentagonists; what an extraordinary bunch!

What happens after the fourth year, when the previous years' totals
columns go beyond the 80 character width usenet standard?

MJHaslam

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:28:28 PM6/11/04

to

"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>tho...@antispam.ham wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Being the first anniversary of the digest, this is a good time to
> >>>>reinitialize the totals.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Or just to forget the whole boring enterprise. . .
> >>
> >>Do we have a choice?
> >
> >
> > Sorry, what? (The short-term memory is the first to go.)
>
> Choose:
>
> [A] This is a good time to reinitialize the totals.
>
> [B] This is a good time to just forget the whole boring enterprise.
>
> [C] This is a good time.

Yes.

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:39:27 PM6/11/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

Ta very much!

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:40:24 PM6/11/04

to

"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Nightingale wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Oi! I've told you already!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.
> >>
> >>He's going for a sweep.
> >
> >
> > You keep out of this.
>
> It's Dave's thread, not yours, says Nightingale. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

Where does Nightingale say that?

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:41:30 PM6/11/04

to

Michael Haslam wrote:
>
> My first reaction on noticing "digest' posts yesterday was: thank God
> I'm not going to be around much [baby not arrived yet, btw].

When is (was?) it due?

> Then I read
> thloopsykookamusmaximus's hilariously mis-everythinged digest and
> thought: blimey, he's really lost it now. Then I read all the responses
> and thought: Tholentagonists; what an extraordinary bunch!
>
> What happens after the fourth year, when the previous years' totals
> columns go beyond the 80 character width usenet standard?
>

Perhaps he could do the same as we do with our aging reports, and have
the last column be the total of everything that period & prior.

Nightingale

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 3:46:08 PM6/11/04

to

Jerry Kohl wrote:

> "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>
>
>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nightingale wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oi! I've told you already!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.
>>>>
>>>>He's going for a sweep.
>>>
>>>
>>>You keep out of this.
>>
>>It's Dave's thread, not yours, says Nightingale. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!
>
>
> Where does Nightingale say that?
>

I said "You don't need to mention him - we're posting in his thread." in
reply to a post of yours.

Jerry Kohl

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 4:34:11 PM6/11/04

to

Nightingale wrote:

> Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
> > "Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Nightingale wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Nicolai P. Zwar" wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Jerry Kohl wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Oi! I've told you already!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.
> >>>>
> >>>>He's going for a sweep.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You keep out of this.
> >>
> >>It's Dave's thread, not yours, says Nightingale. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!
> >
> >
> > Where does Nightingale say that?
> >
>
> I said "You don't need to mention him - we're posting in his thread." in
> reply to a post of yours.

Well, (a) that doesn't answer my question, which was *where* did you
say that, and (b) "It's Dave's thread, not yours," is quite a different
thing
to say.

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 5:02:42 PM6/11/04

to

In article <2iuke9F...@uni-berlin.de>, Nightingale <si...@music.ca> wrote:
>Jerry Kohl wrote:
>
>> "Dr.Matt" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <40C931AB...@music.ca>, Nightingale <si...@music.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dr.Matt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Some of them were very old grasshoppers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>????
>>>>
>>>
>>>I was hoping for a "what does that have to do with classical music".
>>>I'll let Jerry answer the question, just to keep him on his toes.
>>
>>
>> Certainly. What was the question? (Or do you mean, "What do
>> very old grasshoppers have to do with classical music?", in which
>> case I feel I must point out that it was the Alouettes that got very
>> old, not the Grasshoppers as such.)
>>
>
>Just as incomprehensible the second time. I still don't understand
>Matt's grasshopper reference.

Upon reviewing my sources, I see that I got one word wrong--the
statement was "Most of them were very old grasshoppers", and a
Google search brings up an article in NewMusicBox which covers
the topic nicely.

Michael Haslam

unread,

Jun 11, 2004, 5:34:43 PM6/11/04

to

Nightingale <si...@music.ca> wrote:

> Michael Haslam wrote:
> >
> > My first reaction on noticing "digest' posts yesterday was: thank God
> > I'm not going to be around much [baby not arrived yet, btw].
>
> When is (was?) it due?

Last Sunday. Awkward time waiting, now.

MJHaslam

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 12:39:18 AM6/14/04

to

Michael Lockhart writes:

70> <snip obsessive list of anything David alleges occured in this newsgroup
70> since his last antagonists[sic] digest which he considers antagonistic,
70> off-topic, or non sequitur involving him>

70> You might try phrasing that "The first anniversary of the digest is a ..."

Or I might not.

70> Really? Looking on google, I see that there has not been a single response
70> to any thread with "antagonists" in it in rec.music.classical (and only one
70> elsewhere) since April 19, 2004.

Irrelevant, Lockhart, given that antagonism can (and did) take place
in other threads.

70> So I'm going to assume almost every post
70> you listed came within a few days of your last digest, which was on April
70> 15, 2004.

Bad assumption, Lockhart.

70> Today is June 9, 2004. That's less than two months, but I won't
70> quibble the point endlessly as you probably would. Let's see how bad those
70> two months were. 15 + 31 + 8 = 54 days.

70> 220 posts in 54 days, or almost exactly 4 posts per day. Not bad at all.

Irrelevant, given that an average neither confirms nor contradicts the
claim that they hadn't stopped, Lockhart.

70> Of course, almost every post came within 5 days of your last digest.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

70> That
70> would be 44 posts per day. That's not good. But how were your last posts?
70> Your last digest had 47 posts in it on April 15. April 14's digest had 79
70> posts. April 13th's had 25 posts. April 12th's had 30. April 11th's had
70> 28. So the five days before you last post had a total of 209 posts. That's
70> an average of 41.8 posts per day. Overall for last year, with 365 - 54 =
70> 311 days (other than the hiatus), there were an average of 31.55 posts per
70> day.

70> So, in other words, the posts came about at the normal rate for five days
70> after you stopped. Then they ceased completely.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

70> Even averaging them over
70> the 54 days since you stopped (silly, as there have been none in almost two
70> months)

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

70> gets only 4 a day. Of course, now that you're "back", we can be
70> sure the rate will be significantly higher.

A self-fulfilling prophecy, Lockhart, considering your own antagonistic
postings.

70> You have managed to prove that your absence causes the "antagonistic" posts
70> to cease within less than a week,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

70> and even your faulty analysis shows that
70> your absence makes the prevalence of posts ten times better than your
70> presence does.

You're erroneously presupposing that my analysis is faulty, Lockhart.

71> You didn't expect what? That a few people posted a few words every few days
71> that might have been considered "worthy" of a "digest"? Can that really be
71> true? When one considers the sheer volume and time over which David has
71> argued with people, I am amazed you could be surprised at a few words every
71> now and again--and that's without looking closer.

71> When he was posting his digest, there were more about 35 posts a day which
71> he considered antagonistic. When he stopped, there were 220 in 54 days--of
71> which 45 were from Nikolai Zwar and not at all a blight on the newsgroup.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

71> 44 were his signature file and the other had nothing to do with David.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

71> Next, 26 came from *you*. You could hardly be surprised by those posts.
71> That leaves 149 posts in 54 days. That's fewer than 3 a day. Also, that
71> means that, from every other person on the planet who reads
71> rec.music.classical, the sum total of their "antagonistic" posts over those
71> 54 days was less than 6 times as large as yours.

71> I'd say it's hypocritical and disingenuous to write ":-(" and express
71> surprise when you, yourself, were the worst offender.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

72> If you're only talking about actually "antagonistic" posts, there were far
72> fewer of those than the 149 I mentioned earlier. In short, there was less
72> than one actually "antagonistic" post a day over two months--even including
72> all such posts which happened immediately in response to comments of his.
72> If you look at "antagonistic" posts which came later than one week after his
72> ansence, you'll find there were almost none. Sure, there will always be
72> people like cypherpunk and Baron Whatshisname, who will say something every
72> once in a while. Although irritating, that's *nothing* compared to 35 posts
72> a day being combatted by David. It's maybe .35 posts a day without him
72> around.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

"You deserve no more replies."
--Michael Lockhart

What does your demonstration of your ongoing obsession have to do with
classical music, Lockhart?

===========================================================================

Jerry Kohl writes:

2213> Or just to forget the whole boring enterprise. . .

2213> You know what? I can't even remember most of those posts--even
2213> the ones attributed to me. None bear dates (and though you say "today",
2213> certainly very few of them were dated today), so how can we be sure
2213> that *any* of them fall within the time-frame you claim?

2213> Furthermore, if the great majority *do* fall much further back in
2213> time, doesn't that prove the "antagonism" is at least tailing off?
2213> If that is so, then maybe you just didn't five it a fair chance. Finally,
2213> most of the posts that I *do* recognize from the past few weeks
2213> seem to me nostalgic--warm and fuzzy recollections of fond banter
2213> in days gone by--and in no way antagonistic. I note that you have
2213> changed the title of your thread to just "digest". Does this mean
2213> that you, too, recognize this change and therefore acknowledge
2213> that the antagonism has, in fact, stopped?

2213> What now are your criteria for including messages on your list?

2213> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2214> Sorry, what? (The short-term memory is the first to go.)

2214> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2215> You keep out of this, meddler! You're just trying to stir up trouble,
2215> you ... you ... *antagonist*!! ;-)

2215> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2216> Is not.

2216> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2217> Who can say? Tholen harvested 45 random postings by
2217> Nicolai which, as Nicolai points out, included one perfectly
2217> on-topic nonantagonistic post that didn't even mention Tholen,
2217> as well as 44 that happened to have a Tholen quotation in his
2217> sig file, all from over a time-period of at least three months
2217> but cited as "today". With that kind of technique, anybody
2217> at all might go to the top of the list.

2217> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2218> You keep out of this. If I'm going for a sweep, I'll announce
2218> it myself.

2218> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2219> You don't really believe ...

2219> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2220> .... that I can't play this game as well as you two ...

2220> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2221> How can you ask? You know him as well as anybody here.

2221> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2222> I'd say that is an accurate estimate.

2222> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2223> Uh-oh! There you go, Nightingale, being antagonistic again! How dare
2223> you say that the merits of Barnes's music "isn't really that important"?!

2223> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2224> No it's not! Is not, is not, is not! Not!! (So there!)

2224> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2225> You are *not* the top two antagonists of last year--*I* am! ... erm,
2225> "are", erm ...

2225> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2226> Oi! I've told you already!

2226> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2227> Thank you, thank you. Thank you very much. (See? And not
2227> even a mention of Tholen ... oops!)

2227> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2228> (Erm, is this just the five-minute argument, or the full half-hour?)

2228> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2229> Not.

2229> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2230> .... do you?

2230> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2231> Isn't.

2231> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2232> Hoped you would :-)

2232> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2233> Yes.

2233> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2234> Ta very much!

2234> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2235> Where does Nightingale say that?

2235> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2236> Well, (a) that doesn't answer my question, which was *where* did you
2236> say that, and (b) "It's Dave's thread, not yours," is quite a different
2236> thing
2236> to say.

2236> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2237> Why do you believe it's going to take more than four years?

2237> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2238> Certainly. What was the question? (Or do you mean, "What do
2238> very old grasshoppers have to do with classical music?", in which
2238> case I feel I must point out that it was the Alouettes that got very
2238> old, not the Grasshoppers as such.)

2238> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2239> Certainly. What was the question? (Or do you mean, "What do
2239> very old grasshoppers have to do with classical music?", in which
2239> case I feel I must point out that it was the Alouettes that got very
2239> old, not the Grasshoppers as such.)

2239> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2240> D'accord!

2240> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2241> Earle Brown got old, you mean? Yes, he did, before he died. He
2241> had a few good larks, too, but as far as I know never actually
2241> piloted one.

2241> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2242> Sorry for the double posting. My server has been hanging up, and
2242> that sometimes results in duplications. I'm not sure I understand
2242> Matt's grasshopper reference in the way that Matt understands it,
2242> but I understand it perfectly in the way that I imagined he meant
2242> us to understand it. Clear now?

2242> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2243> You know how deeply it distresses me to use tholenistic phrases, but
2243> that is decidedly an unsubstantiated supposition. And it still doesn't
2243> answer the question. ;-)

2243> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2244> Classic unsubstantiated claim.

2244> Classic antagonism.

2244> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2245> Classic unsubstantiated claim.

2245> Classic antagonism.

2245> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

2246> Classic non sequitur.

2246> Define "classic" (as opposed to Classical, jazz, ambient, R&B, C&W, rock,
2246> rock'n'roll, polka, Celtic, Afro-Caribbean, maxixe, soul, or avan-garde)
2246> unsubstantiation and erroneousness.

2246> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."

What does most of that have to do with classical music, Kohl?

===========================================================================

John Wiser writes:

4> [snort] Isn't one enough?
4> The one who voiced esteem as long ago as 2002
4> for a composer who shares initials [if not much else]
4> with Johannes Brahms.
4> Not to name names, you understand,
4> that is bad juju hereabouts,
4> likely to call up spirits from the vasty deep;
4> and then we run the risk of being Digested.

5> Hey, ol' buddy, a "meadering" is the shtick or conceit [in the 18th C.
5> sense]
5> of a long-gone comedian, whose subject matter left him high and dry
5> in mid-career. Cf. "First Family." I'm sure you mean "meandering" because
5> geologically that describes the divagations of a leisurely watercourse,
5> and
5> I am in the regard of some both wet and twisted.

5> [here a snip]

5> Not you, bozo. Against you, ordinary measures suffice.

What does that have to do with classical music, Wiser?

===========================================================================

Fred Bloggs writes:

214> I've not posted about, or in reply to, anything you've said for ages
214> now, Tholen. You digging something I allegedly posted a month or 2
214> ago is proof that it's you who has the emotional need to troll this
214> group with your pathetic, paranoid illogicalities. You could have left
214> it 2 years and the result would have been the same. You just couldn't
214> help yourself, could you? Oh, and you've also made at mistake in your
214> recent digest - where's the `todays tally` header?

214> So - paranoia, kookiness, errors and hypocrisy all in one post.

214> Welcome back, kook.

What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
Bloggs?

===========================================================================

Nicolai P. Zwar writes:

393> Do we have a choice?

394> Of the 45 messages of mine Dave has included in his new digest, 44 are
394> merely me quoting him in my sig line.

Where did the referenced item say anything about "Dr. David J. Tholen",
Zwar?

394> The 45th posting was this: "Heck,
394> you can go to a full Webern concert in the commercial break of
394> Gilligan's Island. What a considerate composer." It has nothing
394> whatsoever to do with Dr. Tholen

Liar; here's what appears in that posting of yours, Zwar:

] >>>1. James Barnes
] >>>2. James Barnes
] >>>3. James Barnes
] >>>4. James Barnes
] >>>5. James Barnes
] >>>6. James Barnes
] >>>7. James Barnes
] >>>8. James Barnes
] >>>9. James Barnes
] >>>10.John Barnes Chance
] >>>
] >>>Dr. David Tholen
] >>>Professor of Professorial Studies of Thingies in the Sky and World Reknown
] >>>Octocontrabass Clarionetist

394> and is completely on topic for this
394> group. But apparently, according to Dave, it's among the "ample
394> additional evidence" that the antagonism hasn't stopped.

With good reason, Zwar.

394> So, again: that's 45 postings of mine he included in the digest, 1 of
394> which has to do with Anton Webern, the other 44 times Dave quotes me
394> quoting him,

Where did the referenced item say anything about "Dr. David J. Tholen",
Zwar?

394> so practically he quotes himself. Maybe to pad the list.

395> Sometimes? Sometimes??

395> His digest last year was clearly headed "antagonists digest", not "off
395> topic and non sequitur posts as well as antagonistic ones digest".

396> Antagonising Nightingale, huh, Jerry?

397> Yes, he has, again. I have noticed it. Now he's calling it "digest".
397> Fine by me, really.

397> You have repeated Dave's very own lame justification for including
397> non-antagonistic posts in his "antagonists digest" simply because months
397> before he posted somewhere that he might do just that.

398> Maybe off-topic and non sequitur postings?

399> Classic antagonism.

400> Non sequitur. Ha!

401> He's going for a sweep.

402> The champ.

403> It's Dave's thread, not yours, says Nightingale. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!

404> Choose:

404> [A] This is a good time to reinitialize the totals.

404> [B] This is a good time to just forget the whole boring enterprise.

404> [C] This is a good time.

405> And a lot of it has not been.

405> Yes, considerably, because Dave continually denied it.

405> Uh-oh... I have warned you: it is contagious.

406> Antagonising Jerry, huh, Nightingale?

407> This thread... belongs to him? He owns it? I guess it was only a matter
407> of time after patents have been granted on certain mouse clicks.

408> Yes, creative expressions. But I was talking about this thread.

409> "We're posting in his thread" means "we're posting in Dave's thread"
409> when the pronoun "his" is refering to "Dave", which it was in this case.
409> It follows then that the thread is Dave's. Not yours.

410> Classic a... classic... er... Classic accord.

411> Not at all.

411> Can't have it all.

412> As long as it is not erroneous.

412> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does most of that have to do with classical music, Zwar?

===========================================================================

Donald C. Patterson writes:

145> I think you're wrong here. He's thin skinned and sees antagonism where
145> there is none. You say "some" of your posts were antagonistic. From his
145> tally, it appears he sees antagonism in nearly all of your posts. As for
145> myself, I don't see it. I think you are the most congenial amongst us and
145> that's admirable. I just have little patience with him.

145> Because he'll cite my name at any given time and I have to respond to that.
145> My original "antagonism" was merely disagreeing with him on the merits of
145> Barnes' music. As most do, I voiced that disagreement in no uncertain
145> terms. If mere disagreement is antagonistic, then he's going to see
145> antagonism wherever he goes (and apparently he does).

146> All readers please take note. Nightingale is easily the most congenial
146> contributor when it comes to dealing with the Tholotwat, yet next to Kohl,
146> she leads the way in number of antagonisms. What does this say about
146> Tholoputz and his brave battle against antagonism?

146> I myself have little patience with him. He's a kook and I'm going to
146> respond to him as though he were a kook.

147> Perhaps we should all start our own personal antagonists digests. I would
147> be the first...um, second to start, but I have a life.

148> Too late. The evil spirit has risen and he's coming.

"Came back a few weeks ago to have a little fun."
--Donald C. Patterson

What does your puerile emotional need to have a little fun have to do
with classical music, Patterson?

===========================================================================

Cypherpunk writes:

656> What surprises you is irrelevant.

656> Who is this nobody and why should he/she ask?

656> Why should the transit of Venus require appropriate music?

656> What seems natural to you is irrelevant.

656> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

656> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
656> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
656> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

656> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

657> Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

657> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

657> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
657> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
657> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

657> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

658> Well, let's see the turd make the same exit.

658> What does this have to do with classical music, Nightingale?

658> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

658> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
658> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
658> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

658> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

659> Yes, he is.

659> Oh? Were you referring to me or Tholen up above? I haven't left.
659> Just been watching and waiting.

659> Don't be silly. Nothing but radical plastic surgury would make Davie look good.

659> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

659> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
659> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
659> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

659> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

660> You'd need more than makeup to look good.

660> Doesn't stop youz replying to me.

660> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

660> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
660> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
660> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

660> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

661> Yeah, she has a habit of doing that. Must be my gay mystique.

661> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

661> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
661> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
661> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

661> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

662> Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

662> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

662> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
662> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
662> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

662> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

663> Which name?

663> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

663> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
663> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
663> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

663> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

664> Sounds like youz need a better killfile.

664> Nope, yer confused again. I've been after Plugger. Plugger was after Carries.

664> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

664> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
664> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if your horny!
664> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

664> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

665> Any simpleton with a computer could have make a search on the Internet and found
665> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5157959/ etc. etc. etc. Since that article
665> mentions that Sousa's piece was in fact played more than once, one would
665> need to wonder why an idiot such as yourself had to start this troll thread?
665> Is "coral reef" one of your alter egos, Davie boy?

665> It is when you attach a sound file to a post. Shall I attach one?
665> Or is your newssreader too pathetic to decode it? Still using that
665> crappy OS/2 shit, I see.

665> You're erroneously presupposing that the majority of newsreaders can't
665> thread posts nowadays. Your crappy OS/2 one can't can it, Tholoputz?
665> Obviously not, since it can't seem to handle a post's signature either.
665> You are living with yer head stuck up yer ass rather than in the clouds.
665> Just as well you can't see transits of Uranus from Earth or we'll never
665> hear the end of it.

665> What you don't know is irrelevant, Tholokook.

665> Freddie 'fag' Shorts

665> I'm loud and I'm proud. I'm gay and I like it that way!
665> Another proud buttplug owner. Honk if yer horny!
665> I support Gay Pride! The Ramrod rocks! Kerry sux!

665> Wanna hire me for web site development? I'm way under-employed!

Still up to your old cross-posting tricks, eh Cypherpunk?

===========================================================================

dizzy writes:

869> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:11:26 GMT, tholen tholed:

How does one allegedly "thole" when posting, dizzy?

869> You know, tholen.

869> Note: Still no response.

869> Note: No reponse.

869> Note: Still no response.

869> Note: No reponse.

869> Why include that one, tholen? It had nothing to do with you. Classic
869> insanity.

869> What alleged ongoing antagonism, tholen? I note that you had to quote
869> an 8-week-old post of mine to continue you antagonism. Kook.

870> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:11:26 GMT, tholen tholed:

How does one allegedly "thole" when posting, dizzy?

870> You're a liar, tholen. Have you no shame?

871> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:11:26 GMT, tholen tholed:

How does one allegedly "thole" when posting, dizzy?

871> Kook.

872> Really. What a freakin' nut case.

What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
dizzy?

===========================================================================

Brendan R. Wehrung writes:

456> Are we drawing mice, or something? The pest is back.
456> Is he an incubus or a succubus on Tholen?
456> Os some other beast?
456> Whatever he is, he makes Dave look good.

457> But off topic is on topic in a digest. Only Dave knows the topic, and
457> admitted it once, but that was in the middle of a perticularly heavy load
457> of [insert your own word] and that specific post would be impossible for
457> even the most dedicated Tholenist to locate.

458> Yes, definitely, mice. Siggy took longer to find the cheese.though.

What does any of that have to do with classical music, Wehrung?

===========================================================================

Peter T. Daniels writes:

174> He was a senator from New York, and his son was Mayor of New York.

175> Actually, Sacqbutt, who was gone for months, reappeared and made it his
175> business to repeatedly post antagonistic remarks in hopes of
175> near-ruining the newsgroup again.

176> Congratulations. You got your wish.

177> We didn't see stupid troll "Sigmond" here discussing music while he was
177> absent, did we.

178> Yet you instantly engaged him in "conversation."

179> Even that is too many, but I was of course referring to Th***n; that
179> other troll no longer uses that name.

180> I didn't follow those threads then, and I don't follow them now.

180> Not in its nyc.transit postings.

181> As I've mentioned, if a posting is at the top of a thread (or the only
181> one in that thread) when I happen to come to it, I see it. I can then
181> mark the thread Read without looking at any more of it.

182> Remember Carrie, the bunny lady? It was crossposting its attacks on her
182> there.

What does any of that have to do with classical music, Daniels?

===========================================================================

Michael Haslam writes:

690> My first reaction on noticing "digest' posts yesterday was: thank God
690> I'm not going to be around much [baby not arrived yet, btw]. Then I read
690> thloopsykookamusmaximus's hilariously mis-everythinged digest and
690> thought: blimey, he's really lost it now. Then I read all the responses
690> and thought: Tholentagonists; what an extraordinary bunch!

690> What happens after the fourth year, when the previous years' totals
690> columns go beyond the 80 character width usenet standard?

691> Last Sunday. Awkward time waiting, now.

What does any of that have to do with classical music, Haslam?

===========================================================================

Risto Karttunen writes:

108> LOL!

What does that have to do with classical music, Karttunen?

===========================================================================

Sigmond Freud writes:

48> Why won't that idiot Tholen stop trolling?

What do your erroneous presupposition and your ongoing
antagonism have to do with classical music, Freud?

===========================================================================

Matthew H. Fields writes:

867> The patent on the mouse click won't hold up in court. Microsoft had
867> no truck with mice until they'd been in use by the general public for
867> ten years...

867> As for this thread, creative expressions are the property of their authors
867> (US Title 17; Berne Convention 1978; World Intellectual Property Organization).

868> Some of them were very old grasshoppers.

869> I was hoping for a "what does that have to do with classical music".
869> I'll let Jerry answer the question, just to keep him on his toes.

870> Ah... point made. I suppose the thread is a bit... derivative.

871> Earl Brown, too.

872> Go away or I shall taunt you yet a third time!

873> Upon reviewing my sources, I see that I got one word wrong--the
873> statement was "Most of them were very old grasshoppers", and a
873> Google search brings up an article in NewMusicBox which covers
873> the topic nicely.

874> What you expect is irrelevant.

875> Because running filters consumes resources and time, and when the
875> target of the filter appears to be null, you can conserve resources
875> and time by not running the filters.

875> Only you do. And well you should wonder.

What does any of that have to do with classical music, Fields?
I see that you didn't bother to address the questions regarding
your credentials, Fields. No surprise there, really.

===========================================================================

ploni writes:

5> Wagner was a composer??

===========================================================================

nightingale writes:

1640> I think he does sometimes see antagonism where none is intended, and
1640> have said so before. You cannot imply this from the score in his digest
1640> though, because it includes more than just antagonistic posts - see his
1640> first digest last year.

1640> LOL! You sound like him when you say things like that. Why do you have
1640> to respond - does it really accomplish anything.

1640> A long time to carry on the fight about something that isn't really that
1640> important.

1641> You disagree? Some of what has been said to and about him *is*
1641> antagonistic.

1641> The fact that the original title was not an accurate reflection of the
1641> content has been discussed here before. The first "antagonist's
1641> digest" set out the description of what would be included.

1642> Yes, that too.

1643> LOL!

1644> Keep going & you'll be at the top of this year's list soon.

1645> It's not an argument, it's just contradiction.

1646> He's unbeatable.

1647> Is so.

1648> No.

1649> The total reflects off topic and non sequitur posts as well as
1649> antagonistic ones (and some of my posts last year were antagonistic).

1649> Nothing.

1649> Why not just plonk him again? I find some of what he has to say
1649> interesting, and plan to continue ignoring his digests and reading
1649> anything he decides to contribute to other threads.

1650> How dare you accuse me of being antagonistic. That's a very
1650> antagonistic thing for you to say.

1651> Right.

1651> But I notice that he has changed the title.

1651> ????

1652> Well, what else would you expect from the top two antagonists of last
1652> year? ;-)

1653> Is so!

1654> You don't need to mention him - we're posting in his thread.

1655> ????

1656> Is.

1657> LOL!!

1658> I'm sure that will come in the next digest volume.

1659> I wouldn't want to disappoint you.

1660> When is (was?) it due?

1660> Perhaps he could do the same as we do with our aging reports, and have
1660> the last column be the total of everything that period & prior.

1661> I said "You don't need to mention him - we're posting in his thread." in
1661> reply to a post of yours.

1662> Just as incomprehensible the second time. I still don't understand
1662> Matt's grasshopper reference.

1663> He's back too :-( I plonked him a while ago & forgot about him - I
1663> don't recall him ever posting anything about music.

1664> He would make anyone look good. I did not miss him at all & wish he
1664> would go away again.

1665> On what basis do you make that claim? I have replied to very few of
1665> cypherpunk's posts.

1666> But you replied to the post where I said "So that's why you disappeared
1666> from the group for a while? I wondered what had happened. Anyway, nice
1666> to see you back."

1666> This is the only group I read that he posts to. Is he as much of a pest
1666> in nyc.transit?

1667> Right - I do recall you mentioning that. Still, my point was, given
1667> that you replied (and presumably read) that post, you should have
1667> realized I was not referring to Tholen. So why would you post a reply
1667> "of course referring to Th***n" to my comment about one of the returning
1667> trolls?

1667> Yes.

1667> I don't understand why anyone would want to attack somebody so nice.

1668> I haven't actually read Tholen's latest digest yet, so I don't know
1668> which posts of mine he quoted, but I'm sure if you look through them you
1668> will find that most, if not all, of it is "LOL!", jokes & other off
1668> topic posts. I have not posted anything antagonistic.

1669> Yes, thanks.

1670> Have you preserved a copy?

1671> He was asking me, and I did not see his question as antagonistic.

1672> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040612.html

1673> LOL! In your dreams, Shorts.

1674> It like the pot calling the kettle black for you to say something like
1674> this. Why are you continuing this discussion which is now no longer
1674> about music or Transit of Venus? In fact, why are you continuing this
1674> stupid fight with Tholen at all?

1674> Actually, I don't understand why this thread hasn't landed in the digest
1674> yet. It's close to content-free - doesn't seem to be much left except
1674> antagonism, and this little fight of yours is getting pretty boring to
1674> watch. Didn't you say a while ago that you would behave?

1675> Leave me out of this.

1675> A few errors crept in (I remember him digesting something I posted in
1675> reply to Ken Lane's spam), but it's normally only included if it's off
1675> topic & involving him.

What does most of that have to do with classical music, nightingale?

===========================================================================

alias # today total last year
-------------- ------- ----- ---------
zwar 20 65 348
nightingale 36 62 1613
kohl 34 54 2192
fields 9 30 678
cypherpunk 10 29 578
haslam 2 16 675
daniels 9 15 165
patterson 4 13 135
wehrung 3 13 262
penso 7 172
charlie 6 0
dizzy 4 6 522
freud 1 4 44
hucker 4 2
lockhart 3 4 60
bloggs 1 3 200
jazz guy 3 3
karttunen 1 3 97
adam 2 13
harrington 2 64
wiser 2 2 3
andrews 1 1
antagonismo 1 90
beck 1 239
catroo 1 108
cohen 1 0
creevey 1 69
girouard 1 2
grantco 1 229
granzeau 1 0
homie 1 1
jaakko 1 99
kolle 1 264
monkey 1 1
ploni 1 1 4
porky 1 16
rice 1 0
voege 1 0
-------------- ------- ----- ---------
38 140 360 10033

Michael Lockhart

unread,

Jun 14, 2004, 1:40:10 AM6/14/04

to

<tho...@antispam.ham> wrote in message
news:WZ9zc.44016$wO4....@twister.socal.rr.com...

> Michael Lockhart writes:
>
> 70> <snip obsessive list of anything David alleges occured in this
newsgroup
> 70> since his last antagonists[sic] digest which he considers
antagonistic,
> 70> off-topic, or non sequitur involving him>
>
> 70> You might try phrasing that "The first anniversary of the digest is a
..."
>
> Or I might not.

As you did not phrase it that way, one must wonder what would prompt your
moronic statement of the obvious.

> 70> So I'm going to assume almost every post
> 70> you listed came within a few days of your last digest, which was on
April
> 70> 15, 2004.
>
> Bad assumption, Lockhart.

Many of the posts did come within a few days of your last digest. Mine, for
example.

> 70> Today is June 9, 2004. That's less than two months, but I won't
> 70> quibble the point endlessly as you probably would. Let's see how bad
those
> 70> two months were. 15 + 31 + 8 = 54 days.
>
> 70> 220 posts in 54 days, or almost exactly 4 posts per day. Not bad at
all.
>
> Irrelevant, given that an average neither confirms nor contradicts the
> claim that they hadn't stopped, Lockhart.

It shows they are ten times less frequent. "Standing up to antagonists"
actually makes the "antagonism" ten times as bad. Your data; not mine. If
you were actually interested in having the smallest possible amount of
"antagonism" in the newsgroup, the obvious choice is 4 per day, not 35 per
day. Also, getting 4 per day takes no effort whatsoever on your part, while
35 comes at the cost of compiling your digests. No sane person would work
every day compiling a list which would make a problem ten times worse. Will
you take the hint?

> 70> Even averaging them over
> 70> the 54 days since you stopped (silly, as there have been none in
almost two
> 70> months)

> 70> gets only 4 a day. Of course, now that you're "back", we can be
> 70> sure the rate will be significantly higher.
>
> A self-fulfilling prophecy, Lockhart, considering your own antagonistic
> postings.

My three posts which you listed would not bump the average for the newsgroup
over a two month period. How many posts did your post engender? Looking
below, we see there were 140 such posts in the five days since your digest.
That's 28 a day, of which my three posts constitute a mere 2%. As I said,
now that you're back, the rate is significantly higher, as anyone could have
guessed.

> 70> You have managed to prove that your absence causes the "antagonistic"
posts
> 70> to cease within less than a week,
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

"Almost" to cease.

> 70> and even your faulty analysis shows that
> 70> your absence makes the prevalence of posts ten times better than your
> 70> presence does.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that my analysis is faulty, Lockhart.

Your acceptance of my point is noted. Your absence makes the prevalence of
posts ten times better than your presence does.

> 71> You didn't expect what? That a few people posted a few words every
few days
> 71> that might have been considered "worthy" of a "digest"? Can that
really be
> 71> true? When one considers the sheer volume and time over which David
has
> 71> argued with people, I am amazed you could be surprised at a few words
every
> 71> now and again--and that's without looking closer.
>
> 71> When he was posting his digest, there were more about 35 posts a day
which
> 71> he considered antagonistic. When he stopped, there were 220 in 54
days--of
> 71> which 45 were from Nikolai Zwar and not at all a blight on the
newsgroup.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

How do you allege they were a blight on the newsgroup?

> 71> 44 were his signature file and the other had nothing to do with David.
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

As I don't really care, I'll grant that one did have something to do with
you. That's one, not 45.

> 71> Next, 26 came from *you*. You could hardly be surprised by those
posts.
> 71> That leaves 149 posts in 54 days. That's fewer than 3 a day. Also,
that
> 71> means that, from every other person on the planet who reads
> 71> rec.music.classical, the sum total of their "antagonistic" posts over
those
> 71> 54 days was less than 6 times as large as yours.
>
> 71> I'd say it's hypocritical and disingenuous to write ":-(" and express
> 71> surprise when you, yourself, were the worst offender.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

As Nikolai's signatire file was not a blight on the newsgroup, nightingale
becomes "worst offender" in your list. Or, if you prefer, "I'd say it's
hypocritical and disingenuous to write ':-(' and express surprise when you,
yourself, were the second-worst offender".

> 72> If you're only talking about actually "antagonistic" posts, there were
far
> 72> fewer of those than the 149 I mentioned earlier. In short, there was
less
> 72> than one actually "antagonistic" post a day over two months--even
including
> 72> all such posts which happened immediately in response to comments of
his.
> 72> If you look at "antagonistic" posts which came later than one week
after his
> 72> ansence, you'll find there were almost none. Sure, there will always
be
> 72> people like cypherpunk and Baron Whatshisname, who will say something
every
> 72> once in a while. Although irritating, that's *nothing* compared to 35
posts
> 72> a day being combatted by David. It's maybe .35 posts a day without
him
> 72> around.
>
> Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

You, yourself, proved the rate is almost ten times less--even when you
average in the posts which came immediately in response to your last post.
The true rate, absent you, would be lower still, but ten times is a nice,
round number.

> What does your demonstration of your ongoing obsession have to do with
> classical music, Lockhart?

Ironic that you'd say that, isn't it? In short, as you proved the rate of
"antagonistic" posts drops by a factor of ten in the absence of your
digests, will you now cease compiling them?

Michael