Another gun goofball goes berserk ;-(
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
[the gun goofballs want us to believe that if employees carried shotguns
to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever, happen...]
UPDATE: A man investigators say opened fire at Grady Crawford Construction
Company in Baton Rouge was transported to the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's
Office around 2:40 p.m.
He told a News 2 photographer he did it because of a dispute over unemployment benefits.
Investigators confirm he was a former employee,
but they have not released the man's name.
Two people were killed and a third was taken to a local hospital.
Investigators say another worker managed to wrestle the gun from the shooter.
-----------------------------------
Bill Smith
<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>[the gun goofballs want us to believe that if employees carried shotguns
>to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever, happen...]
Please tell us which "gun goofball" said this?
Bill Smith
betweentheeyes
news:Rq-dnULPquMLDa_W...@supernews.com...
>
> [the gun goofballs want us to believe that if employees carried shotguns
> to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever, happen...]
<snip and NG cleanup by deleting ,alt.abortion>
So let me get this straight;
1)You make up a bunch of information up
2) Post your premise to a Usenet group (actually several Usenet groups)
3) Attach a cut and paste from some place (you don't provide a link, or a
source or an author)
4) Your pseudonym implies you have some sort of schooling
Would like to attempt to correct any of those egregious error and omissions
before we continue?
Patriot Games
Google much?
--
When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
do with it."
betweentheeyes
news:hgu6ij$g0g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> betweentheeyes wrote:
>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>> news:Rq-dnULPquMLDa_W...@supernews.com...
>>> [the gun goofballs want us to believe that if employees carried shotguns
>>> to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever,
>>> happen...]
>>
>> <snip and NG cleanup by deleting ,alt.abortion>
>>
>> So let me get this straight;
>>
>> 1)You make up a bunch of information up
>> 2) Post your premise to a Usenet group (actually several Usenet groups)
>> 3) Attach a cut and paste from some place (you don't provide a link, or a
>> source or an author)
>> 4) Your pseudonym implies you have some sort of schooling
>>
>> Would like to attempt to correct any of those egregious error and
>> omissions
>> before we continue?
>
>
> Google much?
>
All the time. Why do you ask?
Patriot Games
Obviously, not *all* the time.
Richard
> betweentheeyes wrote:
> > "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.Com> wrote in message
> >news:hgu6ij$g0g$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> betweentheeyes wrote:
> >>> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> >>>news:Rq-dnULPquMLDa_W...@supernews.com...
> >>>> [the gun goofballs want us to believe that if employees carried shotguns
> >>>> to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever,
> >>>> happen...]
> >>> <snip and NG cleanup by deleting ,alt.abortion>
>
> >>> So let me get this straight;
>
> >>> 1)You make up a bunch of information up
> >>> 2) Post your premise to a Usenet group (actually several Usenet groups)
> >>> 3) Attach a cut and paste from some place (you don't provide a link, or a
> >>> source or an author)
> >>> 4) Your pseudonym implies you have some sort of schooling
>
> >>> Would like to attempt to correct any of those egregious error and
> >>> omissions
> >>> before we continue?
>
> >> Google much?
>
> > All the time. Why do you ask?
>
> Obviously, not *all* the time.
>
> --
> When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed,
> General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Point being we shouldn't have to; any academic knows to cite sources
(so should anyone attempting to validate a claim). And now, you know
it too. Or were you just "acting" stupid?
Tommy Shannon
Lil Vinny is just a kiddy playing on his mom's 'puter.
Notice the new "GALLOP POLE" he and other retards lept on that said THEY
saw an increase in crime.. but the actual crime rate in the USA is VERY
MUCH LOWER?
Patriot Games
Whether you "should" or "shouldn't" have to is beside the point.
You could.
I did. Took slightly more time than it takes to click on a link.
Plus, I got access to over 140 versions of the story, more or less
proving that the OP did *did not* "[make] up a bunch of information up".
> any academic knows to cite sources
You expect academic level behaviour on usenet?
wow... talk about stupid
> (so should anyone attempting to validate a claim). And now, you know
> it too. Or were you just "acting" stupid?
>
deem...@aol.com
> > any academic knows to cite sources
>
> You expect academic level behaviour on usenet?
Not academic level, but providing cites is Usenet etiquette for
anyone wanting to be taken seriously.
Fact Attack
some smart ass little faggot like you would think twice about
calling someone a 'goofball' if they had a gun.
the politeness and manners that guns cause is worth all the bad
they cause.
deem...@aol.com
How about paying attention to your attributions?
Arved Sandstrom
Only for something that is non-trivial to locate. This counts as trivial.
Demanding cites for everything is a childish tactic. One of the last
resorts of people with no argument.
AHS
Fact Attack
>
> How about paying attention to your attributions?
how are you gonna make me?
Richard
> > How about paying attention to your attributions?
>
> how are you gonna make me?
What're you 12? 11?
Does you mommy know what you're doing with her computer?
Santa won't stop by! Now run along and go play outside in the snow.
deem...@aol.com
I disagree. If you're citing something such as a story in a
"factual" discussion, it's proper etiquette to provide the cite/link.
It's not like a right-click, etc should put you out. It's as much of a
courtesy for those reading your post as anything else. I think
expecting everyone else to look it up is childish. Just my
opinion....YMMV.
deem...@aol.com
> > How about paying attention to your attributions?
>
> how are you gonna make me?
Wow, you sure are tough.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
son, if we each carried a shotgun (as our "right") and you opened your rude impolite
goofball mouth I could blow your ass away when no one else around, then claim self defense.
and you would have the reputation as a big mouth "tough" guy...so I would get away with it
how ya gonna defend THAT, son
;-)
Patriot Games
He shoots you first?
Morton Davis
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:Rq-dnULPquMLDa_W...@supernews.com...
>
> [the gun goofballs want us to believe that if employees carried shotguns
> to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever, happen...]
>
>
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>>Fact Attack wrote:
>>
>>
>>><<Another gun goofball goes berserk ;-( Options
>>>
>>> some smart ass little faggot like you would think twice about
>>>calling someone a 'goofball' if they had a gun.
>>>
>>> the politeness and manners that guns cause is worth all the bad
>>>they cause.
>>
>>son, if we each carried a shotgun (as our "right") and you opened your rude impolite
>>goofball mouth I could blow your ass away when no one else around, then claim self defense.
>>
>>and you would have the reputation as a big mouth "tough" guy...so I would get away with it
>>
>>how ya gonna defend THAT, son
>>;-)
>
>
> He shoots you first?
he he he...the old west shootouts would live again...proven by the gun goofballs themselves
QED
;-)
Arved Sandstrom
Odds are 90/10 or 80/20 that I myself would provide the link. You know
me well enough from SMN, I think I usually do include cites even when
the material is easy to look up. Like you say, it's etiquette.
The point I'm making is, if someone goes to the opposite extreme, and
discounts an argument simply and only because a cite wasn't provided,
and it's obviously trivial to do a quick Google search, then that's
childish. It would be more honest just to say that you can't be bothered
to spend half a minute doing the search, rather than to assert that the
argument is false.
And you know, and I know, that there are plenty of argumentative
dickheads out there who use this as a tactic - they wear you down with
cite requests for the most obvious facts, just to wear an opponent down.
AHS
deem...@aol.com
Agreed.
SLR
> to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever, happen...]
> UPDATE: A man investigators say opened fire at Grady Crawford Construction
> Company in Baton Rouge was transported to the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's
> Office around 2:40 p.m.
>
> He told a News 2 photographer he did it because of a dispute over unemployment benefits.
> Investigators confirm he was a former employee,
> but they have not released the man's name.
>
> Two people were killed and a third was taken to a local hospital.
> Investigators say another worker managed to wrestle the gun from the shooter.
> -----------------------------------
Nobody said crime would disappear. Whether guns exist or not, crime
will exist. I'm really not sure what you are trying to get at with
this post...
As a "gun goofball" that actually doesn't own a gun, I would say that
crimes like this would still occur (albeit quite less) whether or not
"employees carried shotguns to work." However, I believe having armed
citizens/employees prevents completely "one-sided" fights between
victims and criminals along the lines of having an unarmed worker
having to "wrestle the gun from the shooter."
This is what us "gun goofballs" are trying to get at. Criminals like
this disgruntled worker will exist no matter what gun laws are in
place. The question is what would have happened if the victims in this
crime were armed...
"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." wrote:
>> son, if we each carried a shotgun (as our "right") and you opened your rude impolite
>> goofball mouth I could blow your ass away when no one else around, then claim self defense.
>> and you would have the reputation as a big mouth "tough" guy...so I would get away with it
"Patriot Games" wrote:
> He shoots you first?
Patriot Games actually brings up a good point (despite the fact that
you didn't see it and/or ignored it)-- the victim would have a way to
defend himself.
Lets put a slight "gun control" twist on your hypothetical situation,
lets say the "trash talker" didn't have a gun and the criminal (your
hypothetical shooter) does. The outcome would be the same except the
victim didn't even have a fighting chance...
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Correct, their tactic is to wear you down with frivolous cite requests, or
to derail the topic (as done here), since they have no rational response.
;-)
(btw, sandstrom, notice how i said it in one simple sentence rather than
drone on (as is your style) with three paragraphs...be concise, son)
Fact Attack
wrote:
> Fact Attack wrote:
> > <<Another gun goofball goes berserk ;-( Options
> son, if we each carried a shotgun (as our "right") and you opened your rude impolite
> goofball mouth I could blow your ass away when no one else around, then claim self defense.
>
> and you would have the reputation as a big mouth "tough" guy...so I would get away with it
>
> how ya gonna defend THAT, son
> ;-)
I just emailed your post to the police and FBI.
Fact Attack
Arved Sandstrom
>
[ SNIP ]
> Correct, their tactic is to wear you down with frivolous cite requests, or
> to derail the topic (as done here), since they have no rational response.
> ;-)
>
>
> (btw, sandstrom, notice how i said it in one simple sentence rather than
> drone on (as is your style) with three paragraphs...be concise, son)
More accurately, I said it, and you agreed. However, I do have a
tendency to run on. I'm working on it, Vince.
AHS
SaPeIsMa
"Bill Smith" <quan...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:nv55j5tua9dfuo1ln...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 13:50:12 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
> <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>[the gun goofballs want us to believe that if employees carried shotguns
>>to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever, happen...]
>
>
> Bill Smith
The gun goofball using the nym "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." obviously
SaPeIsMa
"Richard" <the.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:85bc6d4f-c432-4563...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
# Point being we shouldn't have to; any academic knows to cite sources
# (so should anyone attempting to validate a claim). And now, you know
# it too. Or were you just "acting" stupid?
patriot games does not act stupid
He's just being himself.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
No, son, the question is what would happen if *every* workplace had easy
access to firearms for every angry disgruntled employee who just got
fucked over and wants to get even with everybody and he doesn't give a
shit about himself but wants to take as many with him as he can.
reference (for you gun goofballs): most any university entry level psychology book
;-)
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>
> [ SNIP ]
>
>> Correct, their tactic is to wear you down with frivolous cite
>> requests, or
>> to derail the topic (as done here), since they have no rational response.
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>> (btw, sandstrom, notice how i said it in one simple sentence rather than
>> drone on (as is your style) with three paragraphs...be concise, son)
>
>
> More accurately, I said it, and you agreed.
Son, you did not mention derailing tactic, and whereas you droned on for
3 paragraphs I simply said "their tactic is to wear you down with frivolous cite
requests".
Helpfully,
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D
Professor of English
Coldine University
Grendel
wrote:
> Fact Attack wrote:
> > <<Another gun goofball goes berserk ;-( Options
>
> > some smart ass little faggot like you would think twice about
> > calling someone a 'goofball' if they had a gun.
>
> > the politeness and manners that guns cause is worth all the bad
> > they cause.
>
> son, if we each carried a shotgun (as our "right") and you opened your rude impolite
> goofball mouth I could blow your ass away when no one else around, then claim self defense.
Thus demonstrating your own instability and inability to live in a
civilized society. The gun didn't make you an asswipe, you already
are.
> and you would have the reputation as a big mouth "tough" guy...so I would get away with it
Thus demonstrating your inabilty to put forth anything resembling
logical thought.
> how ya gonna defend THAT, son
He doesn't need to. You provide enough support for his side of the
argument that he can just sit back and laugh at your pitiful attempts
(just as everyone else is doing).
BTW: Questions usually have Question Marks at the end. Your
patronizing attempt at calling everyone 'son' make you look even more
like an ass. Finally, dispite your feeble attempt by putting 'Ph.D.'
in your handle, most sane people quickly realize that you're nothing
more than an uneducated rube with an intellect rivaled only by lawn
furniture.
But hey, glad I could help.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"I'm not cynical, just experienced."
Grendel
wrote:
I'd have to say that, on average, fewer people would get killed, or at
least the workers would have a better chance at protecting
themselves. Anyone who 'doesn't give a shit about himself but wants
to take as many with him as he can' doesn't NEED 'easy access' at the
workplace. He can go elsewhere for his gun(s), and upon his return
the workers at a jobsite WITHOUT easy access would be just that more
defenseless.
If you'd read the story you're referencing, you'd know that he didn't
have 'easy access at work'. He brought his weapon TO he worksite well
AFTER he was fired (long enough to apply for unemployment and get
refused...which usually happens in cases of gross misconduct). His
victims were basically helpless BECAUSE they didn't have 'easy access
at work' to a reasonable tool for self-defense.
Are you usually this horrible at logic? (of course you are)
I work for a company that at least 30-40% of the employee vehicles
have firearms in them. That percent would be higher during hunting
season. What happens when someone gets fuck over at work? Nothing.
Even if someone IS upset, they realize that they are outgunned. The
ONLY type of person who is going to start something in that case is
someone who doesn't care if they live..and there's not a gun control
law in existance that would make a difference in that case.
Hell, I went to a high-school where it wasn't unusual for someone to
come to school with a shotgun in their vehicle. The ROTC had a firing
range on school property, and it was nothing to see a student carrying
a gun-case down the hall to take it to the range to sight it in (the
teachers just asked that you got your ammo from the ROTC teacher).
Strangely enough, no one got shot.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>>> The question is what would have happened if the victims in this
>>>crime were armed...
>>
>>No, son, the question is what would happen if *every* workplace had easy
>>access to firearms for every angry disgruntled employee who just got
>>fucked over and wants to get even with everybody and he doesn't give a
>>shit about himself but wants to take as many with him as he can.
>
>
> to take as many with him as he can' doesn't NEED 'easy access' at the
> workplace. He can go elsewhere for his gun(s),
That would be the "cooling off period", son...non-existent in the gun goofball world, and
yes we know it doesn't work all the time, as it did not in these gun murders.
Again, son, the question...if there were no cooling off period and *every*
workplace had easy access for every angry disgruntled worker...oh hell, son, just
look above for the question...or read a basic human behavior book for the answer.
;-)
Paul J. Adam
<dce...@hotmail.com> writes
>And you know, and I know, that there are plenty of argumentative
>dickheads out there who use this as a tactic - they wear you down with
>cite requests for the most obvious facts, just to wear an opponent down.
Do you have a source for this?
;)
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
Andrew Chaplin
news:L4NwkyDY...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:
> In message <0iBYm.57115$Db2.23918@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
> <dce...@hotmail.com> writes
>>And you know, and I know, that there are plenty of argumentative
>>dickheads out there who use this as a tactic - they wear you down with
>>cite requests for the most obvious facts, just to wear an opponent down.
>
> Do you have a source for this?
>
> ;)
A lump of coal for you, Paul, even if you did put in a smiley.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
No-bammer
>
> [the gun goofballs want us to believe that if employees carried shotguns
> to work (as their "right") these murders would seldom, if ever, happen...]
>
> UPDATE: A man investigators say opened fire at Grady Crawford Construction
> Company in Baton Rouge was transported to the East Baton Rouge Sheriff's
> Office around 2:40 p.m.
>
> He told a News 2 photographer he did it because of a dispute over
> unemployment benefits.
> Investigators confirm he was a former employee,
> but they have not released the man's name.
>
> Two people were killed and a third was taken to a local hospital.
> Investigators say another worker managed to wrestle the gun from the
> shooter.
> -----------------------------------
>
Are you really so ignorant that you think a law of any kind would have
prevented a man from taking a shotgun with him.
elizabeth
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's been noted when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks
like a nail.
The lawmakers are so full of their own lies that they really think
their posturing is effective.
Grendel
wrote:
> Grendelwrote:
I'm not your 'son', fucktard. If I were, it would be a reason for
embarassment and sure as hell would admit that I was.
So you're okay with letting an entire workforce be completely helpless
on the off chance that a pissed off homicidal maniac just 'might' cool
off. You really support free kill-zones?
Personally, I want better odds than that.
Again, from your very own story, the 'cooling off' period didn't
exactly work in this instance, did it? He had been fired a
siginficant time before (probably due to gross misconduct). It was
only after being refused unemployment that he came back. But the
employees WERE helpless because they did NOT have 'easy access' to
their best defence.
Exactly how long have you been in the debating field?
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
> On Dec 24, 12:57 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Grendelwrote:
>>
>>>>>The question is what would have happened if the victims in this
>>>>>crime were armed...
>>
>>>>No, son, the question is what would happen if *every* workplace had easy
>>>>access to firearms for every angry disgruntled employee who just got
>>>>fucked over and wants to get even with everybody and he doesn't give a
>>>>shit about himself but wants to take as many with him as he can.
>>
>>>... Anyone who 'doesn't give a shit about himself but wants
>>>to take as many with him as he can' doesn't NEED 'easy access' at the
>>>workplace. He can go elsewhere for his gun(s),
>>
>>That would be the "cooling off period", son...non-existent in the gun goofball world, and
>>yes we know it doesn't work all the time, as it did not in these gun murders.
>>
>>Again, son, the question...if there were no cooling off period and *every*
>>workplace had easy access for every angry disgruntled worker...oh hell, son, just
>>look above for the question...or read a basic human behavior book for the answer.
>>;-)
>
>
> So you're okay with
No, son, I'm against allowing *every* workplace *instant* access to firearms for
*every* angry disgruntled employee who just got fucked over and wants to get
even with everybody and he doesn't give a shit about himself but wants to
take as many with him as he can.
;-)
Grendel
No, dipshit, you are against honest, law abiding citizens having ready
access to the best possible defense against said "angry is gruntled
employee who got fucked over at some previous time and wants to get
even with everybody and he doesn't give a shit about himself but wants
to take as many with him as he can".
After all, that IS what the item you were referencing is about. It is
NOT about a guy that HAD instant access to firearms at the workplace.
It IS about a guy who 'thought' he had gotten fucked over some time in
the past, and entered a workplace he had been fired from IN THE PAST,
bringing a firearm obtained AWAY from the worksite. It is also about
the victims who made more helpless by the fact that they DID NOT have
easy access to equal firepower.
After all, that IS what is demonstrated by the situation you
presented. NOT the biased spin you attempted to put on it.
Here's a clue. If you're going to present a viewpoint, it usually
works better if you give a real-life scenario that actually supports
it.
And another clue. I ain't your son, fucktard. Your attempt at
condescension is a sure sign of your own insecurities about yourself
and you have to try and belittle others (by relegating them to 'son')
in a sad attempt to feel more secure in yourself. It only self-
delusion. The reality is that you're an asswipe. There not enough
instances of using 'son' or adding bogus 'Ph.D.'s to your name that
will change this fact.
Reginald StClair
> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynchANDNOTTHIS.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> news:L4NwkyDY...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk:
>
> > In message <0iBYm.57115$Db2.23918@edtnps83>, Arved Sandstrom
> > <dce...@hotmail.com> writes
> >>And you know, and I know, that there are plenty of argumentative
> >>dickheads out there who use this as a tactic - they wear you down with
> >>cite requests for the most obvious facts, just to wear an opponent down.
> >
> > Do you have a source for this?
> >
> > ;)
>
> A lump of coal for you, Paul, even if you did put in a smiley.
Some of the kids might not understand how common that tactic is, so
the question isn't entirely brain-damaged. Use of the smiley is
suspicious, however.
Reginald StClair, P.Eng.
Fred J. McCall
:>
:> > any academic knows to cite sources
:>
:> You expect academic level behaviour on usenet?
:
: Not academic level, but providing cites is Usenet etiquette for
:anyone wanting to be taken seriously.
:
Not to mention using a real name rather than hiding behind a 'nym'.
--
"Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Fred J. McCall
:
:>
:> � � How about paying attention to your attributions?
:
: how are you gonna make me?
:
Easy.
<plonk>
There. Now you're not a problem.
Another fuckwit bites the dust.
tankfixer
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>
> "deem...@aol.com" <deem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> :>
> :> > any academic knows to cite sources
> :>
> :> You expect academic level behaviour on usenet?
> :
> : Not academic level, but providing cites is Usenet etiquette for
> :anyone wanting to be taken seriously.
> :
>
> Not to mention using a real name rather than hiding behind a 'nym'.
If only shifts that nym about at whim then you might be correct.
But some use the same one for decades..
With an email address that works if you have an issue with something I
say and care to tell me directly.
I doubt you think less of Blackbeard for his use of one..
RD (The Sandman)
news:4u3nj5hpafk5i11dr...@4ax.com:
> "deem...@aol.com" <deem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>:>
>:> > any academic knows to cite sources
>:>
>:> You expect academic level behaviour on usenet?
>:
>: Not academic level, but providing cites is Usenet etiquette for
>:anyone wanting to be taken seriously.
>:
>
> Not to mention using a real name rather than hiding behind a 'nym'.
If that is your criteria, you will quite lonely in most newsgroups. ;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Fred J. McCall
:In article <4u3nj5hpafk5i11dr...@4ax.com>,
:
Neither you nor Sean qualify as 'nymskulls', Paul, since neither of
you HIDES behind a nym. There is a difference between posting under a
nickname and being a nymskull...
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
RD (The Sandman)
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>:news:4u3nj5hpafk5i11dr...@4ax.com:
>:
>:> "deem...@aol.com" <deem...@aol.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>:>
>:>:> > any academic knows to cite sources
>:>:>
>:>:> You expect academic level behaviour on usenet?
>:>:
>:>: Not academic level, but providing cites is Usenet etiquette for
>:>:anyone wanting to be taken seriously.
>:>:
>:>
>:> Not to mention using a real name rather than hiding behind a 'nym'.
>:>
>:
>:If that is your criteria, you will quite lonely in most newsgroups. ;)
>:
>
> Oddly enough (from your perspective), not so much.
Just what is my perspective, oh, analytical one?
> It does tend to
> make for much easier fuckwit identification, though.
Oh, I don't know....some of them seem to post under what could be real
names.
> This isn't a blog, or a BBS, or Facebook, or even Google Groups. This
> is Usenet
No shit? I would bet I have been here longer than you.
> .....and you're crossposting into a 'sci' newsgroup.
I'm not crossposting anywhere. I may be responding to someone who did.
I only post in TPG and add no other groups.
> You should
> expect to be greeted with a fair amount of derision when you treat it
> like it's part of 'alt' or 'soc'.
Why should I expect derision?
Scout
> "deem...@aol.com" <deem...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> any academic knows to cite sources
>>>
>>> You expect academic level behaviour on usenet?
>>
>> Not academic level, but providing cites is Usenet etiquette for
>> anyone wanting to be taken seriously.
>>
>
> Not to mention using a real name rather than hiding behind a 'nym'.
You missed the phrase "claiming to be" between "mention" and "using".
Oh, and still waiting for the cite that this is actually your real name.
RD (The Sandman)
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>:news:ck42k5tufe6do9vqm...@4ax.com:
>:
>:> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>:>
>:>:Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>:>:news:4u3nj5hpafk5i11dr...@4ax.com:
>:>:
>:>:> "deem...@aol.com" <deem...@aol.com> wrote:
>:>:>
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:> > any academic knows to cite sources
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:> You expect academic level behaviour on usenet?
>:>:>:
>:>:>: Not academic level, but providing cites is Usenet etiquette
for
>:>:>:anyone wanting to be taken seriously.
>:>:>:
>:>:>
>:>:> Not to mention using a real name rather than hiding behind a 'nym'.
>:>:>
>:>:
>:>:If that is your criteria, you will quite lonely in most newsgroups.
;)
>:>:
>:>
>:> Oddly enough (from your perspective), not so much.
>:
>:Just what is my perspective, oh, analytical one?
>:
>
> Pull your head out and it should become obvious.
>
>:> It does tend to
>:> make for much easier fuckwit identification, though.
>:
>:Oh, I don't know....some of them seem to post under what could be real
>:names.
>:
>
> Yes, and some people *actually* posting under real names are fuckwits.
> It is simpler when they self-identify up front as nymskulls, though.
>
>:> This isn't a blog, or a BBS, or Facebook, or even Google Groups.
This
>:> is Usenet
>:
>:No shit? I would bet I have been here longer than you.
>:
>
> I'd bet you lose, unless your name happens to be Vinton Cerf.
>
>:> .....and you're crossposting into a 'sci' newsgroup.
>:
>:I'm not crossposting anywhere. I may be responding to someone who did.
>:I only post in TPG and add no other groups.
>:
>
> You're still crossposting, just as I am.
Nope, I am simply responding to someone who did.
>:> You should
>:> expect to be greeted with a fair amount of derision when you treat it
>:> like it's part of 'alt' or 'soc'.
>:
>:Why should I expect derision?
>
> Because more and more you act like a fuckwit...
As do you.
Jim Yanik
news:q4ick5100jp4mi7e6...@4ax.com:
> WHat could be worse than YOUR party allowing those who profit from the
> industry to write it, you idiot?
allowing the bill to pass and be enacted into law. It's a BAD bill,and does
nothing towards real REFORM.They have Utopian ideas that somehow they can
cut costs.
the real "idiots" are those who don't have any beef with the way this
legislation is being done. It STINKS.
>
> Administering a fucking bureacracy doesn't mean you have to be an
> expert in the field---you need administrative skills.
you need to know SOMETHING about the subject you're voting on,if you're an
elected representative.At least have READ the bill,maybe asked some experts
for more info,so you can make an INTELLIGENT decision.
Otherwise,it's just tossing a dart at a board marked pass/fail.
(or caving to special interests,like the DemocRATs are doing...)
Besides,WHY is there such a RUSH to get this bill passed?
It would not take effect until 20-THIRTEEN.
That alone tells a rational person something is not right.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
RD (The Sandman)
> WHat could be worse than YOUR party allowing those who profit from the
> industry to write it, you idiot?
My party? What party do you think that is?
> Administering a fucking bureacracy doesn't mean you have to be an
> expert in the field---you need administrative skills.
Perhaps, you should learn some.
RD (The Sandman)
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>:news:vau5k5thf4upffurk...@4ax.com:
> Which means that you, too, are crossposting.
Yep, but as a responder not a crossposter.
>:>:> You should
>:>:> expect to be greeted with a fair amount of derision when you treat
>:>:> it like it's part of 'alt' or 'soc'.
>:>:
>:>:Why should I expect derision?
>:>
>:> Because more and more you act like a fuckwit...
>:
>:As do you.
>
> Scratch deep enough and one merely strikes another nymskull. Pity.
> You at least put up a good front for quite a while.
Oh, well......
RD (The Sandman)
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>:news:2cddk5puf0hgc74gd...@4ax.com:
> Oddly, I see multiple newsgroups in the 'Newsgroups' line. That means
> you're a crossposter.
>
> Your 'logic' here seems to be that if someone says something to you
> and you say something back, you are not talking. You are merely
> responding to them talking.
Not at all. I don't know which newsgroup he is posting from when there
are several ngs in the line. Ergo, in order to respond to him, I simply
leave the line intact. If I am posting, you will only see one newsgroup
in the line unless someone else has added others. I post in TPG, I
respond from TPG.....period.
>:>:>:> You should
>:>:>:> expect to be greeted with a fair amount of derision when you
treat
>:>:>:> it like it's part of 'alt' or 'soc'.
>:>:>:
>:>:>:Why should I expect derision?
>:>:>
>:>:> Because more and more you act like a fuckwit...
>:>:
>:>:As do you.
>:>
>:> Scratch deep enough and one merely strikes another nymskull. Pity.
>:> You at least put up a good front for quite a while.
>:
>:Oh, well......
>:
>
> Indeed.....
Interestingly, you keep replying.....
RD (The Sandman)
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>:news:7tpek5l9ic0836n3g...@4ax.com:
> And every time you respond to an article with more than one newsgroup
> in the Newsgroups line, you are crossposting. This is regardless of
> where you 'post in' and 'respond from'.
Yep, but I prefer to say I am only responding to a post someelse
crossposted. My point is that I never add any newsgroups to a post. I
accept what is there. If I initiated the post it will be in TPG only.
> This is rather like shooting at cans in your yard and when your
> neighbor starts pointing to bullet damage blaming him because you are
> only shooting in YOUR yard.
Whatever analogy flips your skirt.
>:>:>:>:> You should
>:>:>:>:> expect to be greeted with a fair amount of derision when you
>:>:>:>:> treat it like it's part of 'alt' or 'soc'.
>:>:>:>:
>:>:>:>:Why should I expect derision?
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:> Because more and more you act like a fuckwit...
>:>:>:
>:>:>:As do you.
>:>:>
>:>:> Scratch deep enough and one merely strikes another nymskull.
>:>:> Pity. You at least put up a good front for quite a while.
>:>:
>:>:Oh, well......
>:>:
>:>
>:> Indeed.....
>:
>:Interestingly, you keep replying.....
>:
>
> Not so interestingly, you resort to the usual whinging tactic of
> adolescent nymskulls insistent on having the last word. Does this
> sort of sophomoric bullshit *ever* work for you?
It seems to.....you keep replying. ;)