Salutations
D. Spencer Hines
He's making a mighty effort to do so with his personal gouges, slaps and
digs. I do trust you don't let him get under your skin. He's also
trying to co-opt you. Why I wouldn't be surprised if he's been sending
you love-notes in email ---- he's certainly stroking you in SHM.
Gans has also managed to completely throw you off message on Notre Dame
and distract you with trifles and red herrings ---- using his
surrogates. You continue to prefer talking to all his monkeys rather
than to the organ grinder himself. Your choice. But you spread
yourself pretty thin.
He's also doing his best to turn you and me against each other. I'm
giving him no ammunition for that.
You'll note that I've sent you no hostile emails nor tried to embarrass
you publicly on SHM ---- by complaining that you don't respond to every
half-baked question I ask you ---- critical, probing, personal questions
about adversaries I've dealt with on USENET. If you don't trust me ----
just say so.
My questions to you are not critical in the least. How is the schooling
going? At what distance does the Moon's gravitational field acquire an
object moving from Earth? That sort of thing. You ignore them all and
request long Latin exegeses from me, which I provide. Then you do
nothing with them. A colossal waste of time for me. You didn't even
acknowledge those, Peter.
Turnabout is fair play.
I also keep up with the traffic, so I'm not asking you to repeat what
you've already posted.
You won't even tell me if your operation went well ---- after I wished
you all the best. I still do so.
Strange.
I'm keeping my part of the bargain.
Do we still have an alliance or not?
I'd suggest focusing on Mary ---- but you seem to want to deal with
other issues, trivial issues, in my opinion ---- that allows Gans to say
you are just "stalking" him and are not to be taken seriously.
Cheers,
--
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
Vires et Honor.
Matthew Harley
Finger trouble?
Matt Harley
--
邢 唷��
Matthew Harley
Tim O'Neill wrote:
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" wrote, perhaps unintentionally:
Oh, he *wrote* it intentionally but he *sent* it to shm uninentionally.
>
> Whatever next? Be sure to stay tuned. ;>
You betcha!
What's that old saying about "For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
hoist with his own petar"?
The fun is about to begin.
The Bush .v. Gore story just lost the top slot.
Matt Harley
William Black
news:3A0E99F9...@wanadoo.fr...
It's gotta be a forgery, even DS Hines isn't that vile, after all it's
only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
--
William Black
--------------------------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
MARTIN REBOUL
William Black wrote
> It's gotta be a forgery, even DS Hines isn't that vile, after all it's
> only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
A clever one if so - from honolulu-2 etc. etc.....? Someone went to a lot of
trouble, or on a nice holiday perhaps.........
Do you mean as vile as Bush/Gore?
William Black
news:3GyP5.6623$f12.1...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Bush and Gore aren't vile, they're politicians, it's what they do for
money and power.
Use-net is for fun, nobody makes a living here.
Simon Pugh
REBOUL <martin...@virgin.net> writes
>
>William Black wrote
>
>> It's gotta be a forgery, even DS Hines isn't that vile, after all it's
>> only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
>
>A clever one if so - from honolulu-2 etc. etc.....? Someone went to a lot of
>trouble, or on a nice holiday perhaps.........
>
>Do you mean as vile as Bush/Gore?
>
>
>
My Oh My
Don't you just hate it when you press the wrong button...
--
Simon Pugh
John G Harrison
>
>Oh, he *wrote* it intentionally but he *sent* it to shm uninentionally.
>
>
That was just my thought. Remember the Thai restaurant?
Regards
John
MARTIN REBOUL
William Black wrote
> MARTIN REBOUL
> >
> > William Black wrote
> >
> > > It's gotta be a forgery, even DS Hines isn't that vile, after all
it's
> > > only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
> >
> > A clever one if so - from honolulu-2 etc. etc.....? Someone went to a
lot
> of
> > trouble, or on a nice holiday perhaps.........
> >
> > Do you mean as vile as Bush/Gore?
>
> Bush and Gore aren't vile, they're politicians, it's what they do for
> money and power.
>
> Use-net is for fun, nobody makes a living here.
A good point William - and far far cheaper to get your message across!
Gryphon801
Republican marriage after all. Be sure to send both a case of lavender
underwear!
David Brewer
> It's gotta be a forgery, even DS Hines isn't that vile, after all it's
> only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
It's real. Compare the header lines to posts made by DSH within
the hour (e.g. in the "What is this thing" thread) and they are
identical. Particularly note the NNTP-Posting-Host: line.
It's not the first time he's sent email accidentally to Usenet, he
once posted an email where he sent a copy of my .sig file to a
friend called Ken.
It is only Usenet, it doesn't matter, but we can all get a good
hearty laugh at DSH, which is all he has ever been good for
anyway.
--
David Brewer
"It is foolishness and endless trouble to cast a stone at every
dog that barks at you." - George Silver, gentleman, c.1600
MARTIN REBOUL
Gryphon wrote ..
> So the long suspected truth is out - DSH and PN are preparing for the
> Republican marriage after all. Be sure to send both a case of lavender
> underwear!
What a revolting thought! A cold shudder travels down my spine........
Please excuse my ignorance Gryph., and I shudder to think, but where does
the lavender underwear bit originate from? I must have missed some
interesting postings at some time or other - please do tell?
cheers
Martin
PS Have you seen the little Gryphon perched at the feet of Richard Beachamp,
Earl of Warwick, in St. Mary's church? A relative perhaps? So cute I was
tempted to take him home with me, but he was too securely attached........
Paul J. Gans
> William Black wrote:
>
>> It's gotta be a forgery, even DS Hines isn't that vile, after all it's
>> only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
> It's real. Compare the header lines to posts made by DSH within
> the hour (e.g. in the "What is this thing" thread) and they are
> identical. Particularly note the NNTP-Posting-Host: line.
> It's not the first time he's sent email accidentally to Usenet, he
> once posted an email where he sent a copy of my .sig file to a
> friend called Ken.
> It is only Usenet, it doesn't matter, but we can all get a good
> hearty laugh at DSH, which is all he has ever been good for
> anyway.
Except that it is very much an embarrassment to both
gentlemen. Both gentlemen complain about my supposed
vendetta aimed at them. Turns out that there is in
fact a vendetta...
---- Paul J. Gans
Simon Pugh
writes
>William Black wrote:
>
>> It's gotta be a forgery, even DS Hines isn't that vile, after all it's
>> only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
>
>It's real. Compare the header lines to posts made by DSH within
>the hour (e.g. in the "What is this thing" thread) and they are
>identical. Particularly note the NNTP-Posting-Host: line.
>
>It's not the first time he's sent email accidentally to Usenet, he
>once posted an email where he sent a copy of my .sig file to a
>friend called Ken.
>
>It is only Usenet, it doesn't matter, but we can all get a good
>hearty laugh at DSH, which is all he has ever been good for
>anyway.
>
Xref: news.demon.co.uk soc.history.medieval:104468
Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
Subject: Salutations
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 04:31:39 -0000
Organization: Apsley West
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <OoMxmGGTAHA.323@cpmsnbbsa09>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust45.tnt1.honolulu2.hi.da.uu.net 63.24.98.45
Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.
net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.
cwix.com!cpmsnbbsb04!cpmsnbbsa09
Lines: 73
And another:
Xref: news.demon.co.uk soc.history.medieval:104469
Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
References: <8uf77t$6d7$2...@bob.news.rcn.net> <S%FO5.60$b72.437@typhoon.
nyu.edu> <u0Ud9dqSAHA.249@cpmsnbbsa09> <8uhfoj$2r...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>
<8uhk17$7c8$1...@uranium.btinternet.com> <8uicqb$965$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
<8ujphh$6nu$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com> <8uk8nf$qce$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
<uSjP5.36$gn4...@typhoon.nyu.edu> <8ukkah$8n6$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>
<KTnP5.68$gn4...@typhoon.nyu.edu> <3A0E0C53...@texas.net>
<ycoP5.74$gn4...@typhoon.nyu.edu> <EEoP5.1922$Uo2.37387@newscontent-
01.sprint.ca> <8jpP5.87$gn4...@typhoon.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: OT - US ONLY - Ain't it Great?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 05:02:15 -0000
Organization: Apsley West
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Message-ID: <Oc9GQXGTAHA.320@cpmsnbbsa09>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust45.tnt1.honolulu2.hi.da.uu.net 63.24.98.45
Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.
net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.
cwix.com!cpmsnbbsb04!cpmsnbbsa09
Lines: 65
QED?
--
Simon Pugh
Matthew Harley
> Except that it is very much an embarrassment to both
> gentlemen. Both gentlemen complain about my supposed
> vendetta aimed at them. Turns out that there is in
> fact a vendetta...
There is no doubt about it. The style is pure Hines.
He and a certain "Peter" seem to be colluding to do you down.
What a miserable job they are doing.
It is also evident from the Hines' post, that the thieves are falling
out! ("You don't love me anymore, etc., etc.)
Hines couldn't (as they say where I come from) organise a "p*ss-up in a
brewery", let alone a conspiracy!
(BTW, I think, judging by the references to the "Notre Dame and Mary"
subjects, this email to Peter is old; circa 20 September or earlier.)
Matt Harley
P.S. Sssh, entre nous, the Gans Gang members are meeting in the Malfosse
Inn at Battle after dark next Friday.
Jim Voege
news:2LGP5.65$au5...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
> Matthew Harley <matthew...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > "Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>
> >> Except that it is very much an embarrassment to both
> >> gentlemen. Both gentlemen complain about my supposed
> >> vendetta aimed at them. Turns out that there is in
> >> fact a vendetta...
>
> > There is no doubt about it. The style is pure Hines.
>
> > He and a certain "Peter" seem to be colluding to do you down.
>
> > What a miserable job they are doing.
>
> > It is also evident from the Hines' post, that the thieves are falling
> > out! ("You don't love me anymore, etc., etc.)
>
> > Hines couldn't (as they say where I come from) organise a "p*ss-up in a
> > brewery", let alone a conspiracy!
>
> > (BTW, I think, judging by the references to the "Notre Dame and Mary"
> > subjects, this email to Peter is old; circa 20 September or earlier.)
>
> have shifted his focus to what he calls my misrepresentations
> of Southern and Cantor.
>
> Don't forget, I know them both fairly well. Each is clearly
> uneasy about the other, suspecting that the other is indeed
> a loon. This poses a logical conundrum which Peter is, I
> think, smart enough to see. If he, Peter, also thinks that
> DSH is a loon, then we are right about DSH. By extension, might
> not folks think that they are also right about him? How can
> we be so accurate about one and so off-the-mark about the other?
>
>
> > Matt Harley
>
> > P.S. Sssh, entre nous, the Gans Gang members are meeting in the Malfosse
> > Inn at Battle after dark next Friday.
>
> end of nautical twilight.
>
And *precisely* when, pray tell, would that be?
Jim Voege
Tim O'Neill
> My questions to you are not critical in the least. How is the schooling
> going? At what distance does the Moon's gravitational field acquire an
> object moving from Earth? That sort of thing. You ignore them all and
> request long Latin exegeses from me, which I provide. Then you do
> nothing with them. A colossal waste of time for me. You didn't even
> acknowledge those, Peter.
>
> Turnabout is fair play.
How very interesting.
> I also keep up with the traffic, so I'm not asking you to repeat what
> you've already posted.
>
> You won't even tell me if your operation went well ---- after I wished
> you all the best. I still do so.
>
> Strange.
His operation ...
> I'm keeping my part of the bargain.
... a bargain ...
> Do we still have an alliance or not?
... and an alliance. Gosh, this is getting exciting.
> I'd suggest focusing on Mary ---- but you seem to want to deal with
> other issues, trivial issues, in my opinion ---- that allows Gans to
> say you are just "stalking" him and are not to be taken seriously.
Plots within plots as well.
Whatever next? Be sure to stay tuned. ;>
Tim O'Neill
Paul J. Gans
> Matt Harley
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:2LGP5.65$au5...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
I don't know. Nautical twilight seems to run from 5 pm
on the 14th or 20th of October right through Christmas.
Unless there are floods.
---- Paul J. Gans
Matthew Harley
"Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>
> Matthew Harley <matthew...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > (BTW, I think, judging by the references to the "Notre Dame and Mary"
> > subjects, this email to Peter is old; circa 20 September or earlier.)
>
> Not really. Peter still talks about it. But he seems to
> have shifted his focus to what he calls my misrepresentations
> of Southern and Cantor.
>
> Don't forget, I know them both fairly well. Each is clearly
> uneasy about the other, suspecting that the other is indeed
> a loon. This poses a logical conundrum which Peter is, I
> think, smart enough to see. If he, Peter, also thinks that
> DSH is a loon, then we are right about DSH. By extension, might
> not folks think that they are also right about him? How can
> we be so accurate about one and so off-the-mark about the other?
Indeed.
My guess is that Hines prepared "Salutations" to send to Peter at a time
when he thought Peter was not playing ball. But he decided to hold back
from sending it, realising its whining tone was more likely to terminate
the alliance than to repair it. So he saved it somewhere for possible
later use.
Then on 12 November, due to some sloppy manoeuvre with his MS software
(the way some dumb folks punch the wrong hole in ballots), Hines posted
it to SHM!
If that's right, Peter, whoever he is, only saw it on 12 November.
If you are right we should see something of a change in tone from a
certain quarter.
Of course, we may see silence - but that would be too much to hope for!
Matt Harley
tiglath
> Well, well, well, what do we have here David?
>
> Finger trouble?
And he has the gall to criticize the democratic Jews that voted for
Buchanan.
Note the tone of one suffering from unrequited love. The catamite is too
unresponsive. He is not corresponding after feasting on Hines' Latin.
Naughty Peter.
Vide infra pro risibus beaucoup
>
> Matt Harley
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" wrote:
> >
> > Well I surely hope you don't let Gans get your goat.
Churchillian remark to an ally under fire. Very presidential.
> > He's making a mighty effort to do so with his personal gouges, slaps and
> > digs. I do trust you don't let him get under your skin. He's also
> > trying to co-opt you. Why I wouldn't be surprised if he's been sending
> > you love-notes in email ---- he's certainly stroking you in SHM.
Jealousy setting in.
> > Gans has also managed to completely throw you off message on Notre Dame
> > and distract you with trifles and red herrings ---- using his
> > surrogates. You continue to prefer talking to all his monkeys rather
> > than to the organ grinder himself. Your choice. But you spread
> > yourself pretty thin.
Hines is not too pleased. This Peter doesn't take direction well. Not too
late, we hope.
> >
> > He's also doing his best to turn you and me against each other. I'm
> > giving him no ammunition for that.
Someone left the arsenal's door ajar...
Looks like Mr. Hines needs a firewall facing in.
Military intelligence.... I shudder.
> > You'll note that I've sent you no hostile emails nor tried to embarrass
> > you publicly on SHM ---- by complaining that you don't respond to every
> > half-baked question I ask you ---- critical, probing, personal questions
> > about adversaries I've dealt with on USENET. If you don't trust me ----
> > just say so.
... we can still be friends...
> >
> > My questions to you are not critical in the least. How is the schooling
> > going? At what distance does the Moon's gravitational field acquire an
> > object moving from Earth? That sort of thing.
Sigh.
> > You ignore them all and
> > request long Latin exegeses from me, which I provide.
The frigid catamite takes the Latin and runs. Just like a friend; you are
nice and he fucks you.
> > Then you do
> > nothing with them.
Hines doesn't know yet that Latin is beyond Peter who can't digest simple
English.
>> A colossal waste of time for me. You didn't even
> > acknowledge those, Peter.
A reprimand lovingly couched in Christian love, as only our Spencer can do
when he is relaxed.
> >
> > Turnabout is fair play.
> >
> > I also keep up with the traffic, so I'm not asking you to repeat what
> > you've already posted.
> >
> > You won't even tell me if your operation went well ---- after I wished
> > you all the best. I still do so.
This is a two-hanky one. Coronation Street and As the World Turns are crap
next to this
> >
> > Strange.
It's the age difference Spencer, the age difference. It couldn't last.
Unwrinkled skin is the name of the game.
> >
> > I'm keeping my part of the bargain.
> >
Weep! I can't bear it. How can you be such an insensitive brute Otis?
> > Do we still have an alliance or not?
> >
Ay! Can't you see the man's begging? You just keep him hanging on.
> > I'd suggest focusing on Mary ---- but you seem to want to deal with
> > other issues, trivial issues, in my opinion ---- that allows Gans to say
> > you are just "stalking" him and are not to be taken seriously.
> >
I'd suggest focusing on those large oversized Outlook buttons even when you
are broken hearted, Spencer, because you outdid yourself, dear. You shall
not live this one down. It's a keeper. If I ever have any dark times in my
existence I know that re-reading this will pull me out of it, Thank you.
How does it go? How Sweet It Is!
The wait is never long.
tiglath
"William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8uma08$24q$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
> It's gotta be a forgery, even DS Hines isn't that vile, after all it's
> only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
This is no forgery. I have dozens of messages like this from Mr. Hines. He
is a good little conspirator. It puts a new wrinkle on things, doesn't it?
His allies are so few that he babies them.
Unctuous Hines.
tiglath
>
> There is no doubt about it. The style is pure Hines.
>
Right on.
> He and a certain "Peter" seem to be colluding to do you down.
The cat's out of the bag, after hearing the meows for quite a while.
>
> What a miserable job they are doing.
>
Right on. (Abbot and Costello?)
> It is also evident from the Hines' post, that the thieves are falling
> out! ("You don't love me anymore, etc., etc.)
Right on. It must be shattering.
> Hines couldn't (as they say where I come from) organise a "p*ss-up in a
> brewery", let alone a conspiracy!
Soviet Naval technology is all the better for it. With Hines on the
enemy's ranks they needed fewer spies.
>
> (BTW, I think, judging by the references to the "Notre Dame and Mary"
> subjects, this email to Peter is old; circa 20 September or earlier.)
>
> Matt Harley
>
> P.S. Sssh, entre nous, the Gans Gang members are meeting in the Malfosse
> Inn at Battle after dark next Friday.
8-)
tiglath
"Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:2LGP5.65$au5...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
>
> uneasy about the other, suspecting that the other is indeed
> a loon.
LOL.
Jim Voege
"nautical".
Jim Voege
MARTIN REBOUL
tiglath wrote
> "Paul J. Gans" <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:2LGP5.65$au5...@typhoon.nyu.edu...
> >
> > Don't forget, I know them both fairly well. Each is clearly
> > uneasy about the other, suspecting that the other is indeed
> > a loon.
>
> LOL.
Suspecting? Surely "knowing"....? A typographical error I expect.
Paul J. Gans
> "Paul J. Gans" wrote:
>>
>> Matthew Harley <matthew...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> > (BTW, I think, judging by the references to the "Notre Dame and Mary"
>> > subjects, this email to Peter is old; circa 20 September or earlier.)
>>
>> Not really. Peter still talks about it. But he seems to
>> have shifted his focus to what he calls my misrepresentations
>> of Southern and Cantor.
>>
>> Don't forget, I know them both fairly well. Each is clearly
>> uneasy about the other, suspecting that the other is indeed
>> a loon. This poses a logical conundrum which Peter is, I
>> think, smart enough to see. If he, Peter, also thinks that
>> DSH is a loon, then we are right about DSH. By extension, might
>> not folks think that they are also right about him? How can
>> we be so accurate about one and so off-the-mark about the other?
> Indeed.
> My guess is that Hines prepared "Salutations" to send to Peter at a time
> when he thought Peter was not playing ball. But he decided to hold back
> from sending it, realising its whining tone was more likely to terminate
> the alliance than to repair it. So he saved it somewhere for possible
> later use.
> Then on 12 November, due to some sloppy manoeuvre with his MS software
> (the way some dumb folks punch the wrong hole in ballots), Hines posted
> it to SHM!
> If that's right, Peter, whoever he is, only saw it on 12 November.
> If you are right we should see something of a change in tone from a
> certain quarter.
> Of course, we may see silence - but that would be too much to hope for!
Peter seems only to read newsgroups from his office. He's been
known to sometimes post on Saturday, but that could be from
his office too. It does pose a bit of a dilemma for Peter since
he has so often accused others of being in league against him --
charges which are untrue.
I also find it curious that Hines has not posted either a denial,
a claim of forgery, or an apology. And yes, I've looked. It would
seem that soliciting help in a conspiracy to defame me might well
make an interesting court case. So I damned well have an interest
in seeing what Hines says.
---- Paul J. Gans
PS: Folks will note that he's (metaphorically) firing guns in
all directions likely in hopes that *this* particular event will
be buried in the noise.
tiglath
all it's
> >> only use-net, it's not as if it matters.
>
> > the hour (e.g. in the "What is this thing" thread) and they are
> > identical. Particularly note the NNTP-Posting-Host: line.
>
> > It's not the first time he's sent email accidentally to Usenet, he
> > once posted an email where he sent a copy of my .sig file to a
> > friend called Ken.
>
> > It is only Usenet, it doesn't matter, but we can all get a good
> > hearty laugh at DSH, which is all he has ever been good for
> > anyway.
>
>
> gentlemen. Both gentlemen complain about my supposed
> vendetta aimed at them. Turns out that there is in
> fact a vendetta...
Although the tone is soft and flirty, Hines makes a direct case for
exactly that. He also exposes the seldom seen soft belly of the
"unbeatable foe." One who urges his wavering ally to stay true.
La creme de la creme.
This thread should be retitled: Ave Nyikos, Morituri te salutant.
MARTIN REBOUL
tiglath wrote
> This thread should be retitled: Ave Nyikos, Morituri te salutant.
Nah! I've thought of a much better one - surely it has been done before?
David C. Pugh
<SPLORK!!!!>
tiglath
>
> I also find it curious that Hines has not posted either a denial,
> a claim of forgery, or an apology. And yes, I've looked. It would
> seem that soliciting help in a conspiracy to defame me might well
> make an interesting court case. So I damned well have an interest
> in seeing what Hines says.
>
He silently assents he zestily screwed the pooch . Quite a sexual
athlete this time.
There was a loud "DANG!" in Hawaii yesterday though, following the
harrowing, artery narrowing Salutations experience.
Renia
Especially if there are floods.
Renia
> ---- Paul J. Gans
Matthew Harley
tiglath wrote:
>
> Paul J. Gans <ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu> wrote in message
And I'm still waiting for the other Petrine shoe to drop....but I'm not
holding my breath!
If we renamed the group soc.history.salutations do you think they would
stay away permanently?
Matt Harley
Gryphon801
what seems to be a newsgroup-based conspiracy to defame Professor Gans. Just
as with DSH's reference to lavender underwear, this has backfired rather
nastily on both parties. Well, gentlemen? What is the excuse this time?
Heather Rose Jones
> Then on 12 November, due to some sloppy manoeuvre with his MS software
> (the way some dumb folks punch the wrong hole in ballots), Hines posted
> it to SHM!
I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering the
possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious piece of bait
_deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to see how many fish he can
reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it this way, if
he wanted to post something that would get him a lot of attention ....
--
*********
Heather Rose Jones
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
*********
Jim Voege
news:3A10B675...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
> Matthew Harley wrote:
> > Then on 12 November, due to some sloppy manoeuvre with his MS software
> > (the way some dumb folks punch the wrong hole in ballots), Hines posted
> > it to SHM!
>
> I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering the
> possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious piece of bait
> _deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to see how many fish he can
> reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it this way, if
> he wanted to post something that would get him a lot of attention ....
>
ridicule especially when he would have no method of proving that it was all
just a gag. Also, if you were right, Mr. Nyikos would not have remained
silent about it since it "implicates" him as well. It's real. Believe it.
I kind of feel sorry for them.
Jim Voege
Paul J. Gans
I'm waiting for Nyikos's. His ability to creatively read
English is unparalleled in my experience.
----- Paul J. Gans
Gryphon801
post of mine referred to DSH, he may be unable or unwilling to acknowledge
"Salutations".
tiglath
"Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3A10B675...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
> Matthew Harley wrote:
> > Then on 12 November, due to some sloppy manoeuvre with his MS software
> > (the way some dumb folks punch the wrong hole in ballots), Hines posted
> > it to SHM!
>
> I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering the
> possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious piece of bait
> _deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to see how many fish he can
> reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it this way, if
> he wanted to post something that would get him a lot of attention ....
>
Never. Hines never laughs at himself. Never.
Brett K. Heath
> "Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in
> message news:3A10B675...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
> > I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering
> > the possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious
> > piece of bait _deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to
> > see how many fish he can
> > reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it
> > this way, if he wanted to post something that would get him a
> > lot of attention ....
> >
> Never. Hines never laughs at himself. Never.
More to the point, it hasn't gotten to my server yet (and one of
the reasons I tolerate it's line counting is because it does
have good connectivity) so I suspect that the original was
canceled fairly quickly.
Not conclusive of course, but someone with more interest than I
should still be able see if the cancel was issued (instructions
on how to do this are in one of the FAQ's for the news.admin
heirarchy, probably NANA).
That would pretty well establish that it was unintentional.
Brett K. Heath
PS Last I heard, Deja doesn't honor cancels (to obviate forged
cancels I suspect).
Paul J. Gans
> tiglath wrote:
>> "Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in
>> message news:3A10B675...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
>> > I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering
>> > the possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious
>> > piece of bait _deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to
>> > see how many fish he can
>> > reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it
>> > this way, if he wanted to post something that would get him a
>> > lot of attention ....
>> >
>> Never. Hines never laughs at himself. Never.
> More to the point, it hasn't gotten to my server yet (and one of
> the reasons I tolerate it's line counting is because it does
> have good connectivity) so I suspect that the original was
> canceled fairly quickly.
> Not conclusive of course, but someone with more interest than I
> should still be able see if the cancel was issued (instructions
> on how to do this are in one of the FAQ's for the news.admin
> heirarchy, probably NANA).
> That would pretty well establish that it was unintentional.
> Brett K. Heath
> PS Last I heard, Deja doesn't honor cancels (to obviate forged
> cancels I suspect).
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=692679688&fmt=text
---- Paul J. Gans
MARTIN REBOUL
Heather Rose Jones wrote
> I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering the
> possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious piece of bait
> _deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to see how many fish he can
> reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it this way, if
> he wanted to post something that would get him a lot of attention ....
First thing that crossed my mind Heather. I don't think so however..... too
embarrassing for the poor chap! He doesn't understand the concept of self
depracation.
cheers
Martin
Gryphon801
neither he nor PN have bothered to deny that it was sent or that it was
received. So the proof of a "conspiracy" against Gans is clear for all to
read. Denials, anyone?
MARTIN REBOUL
Simon Pugh wrote
> >It's real. Compare the header lines to posts made by DSH within
> >the hour (e.g. in the "What is this thing" thread) and they are
> >identical. Particularly note the NNTP-Posting-Host: line.
> >
> >It's not the first time he's sent email accidentally to Usenet, he
> >once posted an email where he sent a copy of my .sig file to a
> >friend called Ken.
> >
> >It is only Usenet, it doesn't matter, but we can all get a good
> >hearty laugh at DSH, which is all he has ever been good for
> >anyway. (DB)
> >
> David Brewer seems to be right - the original header:
>
> Xref: news.demon.co.uk soc.history.medieval:104468
> Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
> From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
> Subject: Salutations
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 04:31:39 -0000
> Organization: Apsley West
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> Message-ID: <OoMxmGGTAHA.323@cpmsnbbsa09>
> Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust45.tnt1.honolulu2.hi.da.uu.net 63.24.98.45
> Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.
> net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.
> cwix.com!cpmsnbbsb04!cpmsnbbsa09
> Lines: 73
>
> And another:
>
> Xref: news.demon.co.uk soc.history.medieval:104469
> Reply-To: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
> From: "D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu>
> References: <8uf77t$6d7$2...@bob.news.rcn.net> <S%FO5.60$b72.437@typhoon.
> nyu.edu> <u0Ud9dqSAHA.249@cpmsnbbsa09> <8uhfoj$2r...@theusc.csd.sc.edu>
> <8uhk17$7c8$1...@uranium.btinternet.com> <8uicqb$965$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
> <8ujphh$6nu$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com> <8uk8nf$qce$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
> <uSjP5.36$gn4...@typhoon.nyu.edu> <8ukkah$8n6$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>
> <KTnP5.68$gn4...@typhoon.nyu.edu> <3A0E0C53...@texas.net>
> <ycoP5.74$gn4...@typhoon.nyu.edu> <EEoP5.1922$Uo2.37387@newscontent-
> 01.sprint.ca> <8jpP5.87$gn4...@typhoon.nyu.edu>
> Subject: Re: OT - US ONLY - Ain't it Great?
> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 05:02:15 -0000
> Organization: Apsley West
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> Message-ID: <Oc9GQXGTAHA.320@cpmsnbbsa09>
> Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust45.tnt1.honolulu2.hi.da.uu.net 63.24.98.45
> Path: news.demon.co.uk!demon!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!diablo.netcom.
> net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.
> cwix.com!cpmsnbbsb04!cpmsnbbsa09
> Lines: 65
>
> QED?
I'm not sure yet......can't see alt.soc.spanking in their anywhere... I'll
check it again.
tiglath
Gryphon801 <gryph...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001113233332...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
He is as quite as a church mouse...
He knows that the less you stir caca the less it stinks.
tiglath
"Brett K. Heath" <bhe...@csun1.csun.edu> wrote in message
news:qv1ru8...@s69n171.csun.edu...
> tiglath wrote:
> > "Heather Rose Jones" <hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in
> > message news:3A10B675...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
> > > I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering
> > > the possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious
> > > piece of bait _deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to
> > > see how many fish he can
> > > reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it
> > > this way, if he wanted to post something that would get him a
> > > lot of attention ....
> > >
> > Never. Hines never laughs at himself. Never.
>
> the reasons I tolerate it's line counting is because it does
> have good connectivity) so I suspect that the original was
> canceled fairly quickly.
>
> Not conclusive of course,
Cui bono?
How would Hines benefit from sending such a thing in jest. I don't see the
hook in it. Why do some folks think him ultra-clever, when he plainly
screws the pooch? His record doesn't warrant the assumption.
Brett K. Heath
> "Brett K. Heath" <bhe...@csun1.csun.edu> wrote in message
> news:qv1ru8...@s69n171.csun.edu...
> > tiglath wrote:
[snip Heather speculating it was a set-up]
> > > Never. Hines never laughs at himself. Never.
> >
> > More to the point, it hasn't gotten to my server yet (and one
> > of the reasons I tolerate it's line counting is because it
> > does have good connectivity) so I suspect that the original
> > was canceled fairly quickly.
> >
> > Not conclusive of course,
> Cui bono?
Sorry, you'll have to translate that.
I'll assume you're wondering why I said it was more to the point
to check on whether a cancel had been issued. It's simple, the
existence of the post and the existence of the cancel are facts
which can be independently verified.
Interpretations of his behavior (such as being mind numbingly
self-important) are just that, interpretations, and therefore
speculative. They require you to make assumptions about his
motivations.
> How would Hines benefit from sending such a thing in jest. I
> don't see the
> hook in it. Why do some folks think him ultra-clever, when he
> plainly
> screws the pooch? His record doesn't warrant the assumption.
I happen to agree with your interpretation (ie he takes himself
_way_ to seriously to play that particular game), but it remains
an interpretation. As to Hines being ultra-clever, methinks you
misunderstand my position. Hines is devious and monomaniacal,
but not particularly clever ("[he's] about as sharp as a bowling
ball", with apologies to Foghorn Leghorn)
Is that what you where asking?
Brett K. Heath
Heather Rose Jones
>
> "Brett K. Heath" <bhe...@csun1.csun.edu> wrote in message
> news:qv1ru8...@s69n171.csun.edu...
> > tiglath wrote:
> > > message news:3A10B675...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
> > > > I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering
> > > > the possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious
> > > > piece of bait _deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to
> > > > see how many fish he can
> > > > reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it
> > > > this way, if he wanted to post something that would get him a
> > > > lot of attention ....
> > > >
> > > Never. Hines never laughs at himself. Never.
> >
> > the reasons I tolerate it's line counting is because it does
> > have good connectivity) so I suspect that the original was
> > canceled fairly quickly.
> >
> > Not conclusive of course,
>
> Cui bono?
>
> hook in it. Why do some folks think him ultra-clever, when he plainly
> screws the pooch? His record doesn't warrant the assumption.
Here's the hypothetical scenario:
- Post a message describing an "alliance" that doesn't actually exist,
but make it look as if this was an accidental disclosure.
- Let lots of people spend lots of time and energy not only making a
fuss about this presumed "alliance" but making a variety of
extrapolations and accusations based on it.
- Reveal that the "alliance" was a deliberate fiction.
- Castigate the aforementioned people for being gullible and making
accusations based on what is revealed to be no basis at all.
- Make repetitive, boring, and tiresome posts for years to come
recounting how everyone obligingly jumped through the hoop.
- Invent some peculiar logic by which this reflects badly on everyone
except the original poster.
Frankly, it's no more convoluted than lots of stuff that's already
happened on this group. Or maybe I watch too many spy movies.
tiglath
> tiglath wrote:
> > "Brett K. Heath" <bhe...@csun1.csun.edu> wrote in message
> > news:qv1ru8...@s69n171.csun.edu...
> > > tiglath wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > of the reasons I tolerate it's line counting is because it
> > > does have good connectivity) so I suspect that the original
> > > was canceled fairly quickly.
> > >
> > > Not conclusive of course,
>
> > Cui bono?
>
Sorry I got a bout or DSHitis. Cui bono = Who benefits?
>
> I'll assume you're wondering why I said it was more to the point
> to check on whether a cancel had been issued. It's simple, the
> existence of the post and the existence of the cancel are facts
> which can be independently verified.
Yep.
>
> I happen to agree with your interpretation (ie he takes himself
> _way_ to seriously to play that particular game), but it remains
> an interpretation. As to Hines being ultra-clever, methinks you
> misunderstand my position. Hines is devious and monomaniacal,
> but not particularly clever ("[he's] about as sharp as a bowling
> ball", with apologies to Foghorn Leghorn)
You'll find an eager consensus here.
>
> Is that what you where asking?
Yep.
tiglath
> tiglath wrote:
> >
> > "Brett K. Heath" <bhe...@csun1.csun.edu> wrote in message
> > news:qv1ru8...@s69n171.csun.edu...
> > > tiglath wrote:
> > > > message news:3A10B675...@socrates.berkeley.edu...
> > > > > I'm somewhat surprised that nobody seems to be considering
> > > > > the possibility that "Salutations" is a purely fictitious
> > > > > piece of bait _deliberately_ "accidentally posted" by dsh to
> > > > > see how many fish he can
> > > > > reel in before saying "ha, ha, made you look". Look at it
> > > > > this way, if he wanted to post something that would get him a
> > > > > lot of attention ....
> > > > >
> > > > Never. Hines never laughs at himself. Never.
> > >
> > > the reasons I tolerate it's line counting is because it does
> > > have good connectivity) so I suspect that the original was
> > > canceled fairly quickly.
> > >
> > > Not conclusive of course,
> >
> > Cui bono?
> >
the
> > hook in it. Why do some folks think him ultra-clever, when he plainly
> > screws the pooch? His record doesn't warrant the assumption.
>
> Here's the hypothetical scenario:
>
> - Post a message describing an "alliance" that doesn't actually exist,
> but make it look as if this was an accidental disclosure.
>
> - Let lots of people spend lots of time and energy not only making a
> fuss about this presumed "alliance" but making a variety of
> extrapolations and accusations based on it.
>
> - Reveal that the "alliance" was a deliberate fiction.
>
> - Castigate the aforementioned people for being gullible and making
> accusations based on what is revealed to be no basis at all.
>
> - Make repetitive, boring, and tiresome posts for years to come
> recounting how everyone obligingly jumped through the hoop.
>
> - Invent some peculiar logic by which this reflects badly on everyone
> except the original poster.
>
> Frankly, it's no more convoluted than lots of stuff that's already
> happened on this group. Or maybe I watch too many spy movies.
>
Ahah.
tiglath
> Here's the hypothetical scenario:
The reality seems to be that Mr. Hines has a soft spot for professors. In
his latest faux pas we see he has a very pregnant chad for professor Nyikos.
Brett K. Heath
> > tiglath wrote:
[Snip, edit, and truncate for my server]
> > > Cui bono?
> > Sorry, you'll have to translate that.
Not to worry, it seems to be contagious, but treatable.
> ....Cui bono = Who benefits?
Thank you.
Brett K. Heath
MARTIN REBOUL
Heather Rose Jones wrote...
> >(Tiglath) How would Hines benefit from sending such a thing in jest. I
don't see
> > the hook in it. Why do some folks think him ultra-clever, when he
plainly
> > screws the pooch? His record doesn't warrant the assumption.
>
> Here's the hypothetical scenario:
>
> - Post a message describing an "alliance" that doesn't actually exist,
> but make it look as if this was an accidental disclosure.
>
> - Let lots of people spend lots of time and energy not only making a
> fuss about this presumed "alliance" but making a variety of
> extrapolations and accusations based on it.
Good points, but if you look, you'll see that energy is mostly taken up with
gleeful crowing, ridicule, or expressions of amusement at Hiney's personal
expense. This is not something he could bear to see, for he has no known
sense of humour, and is far far too conceited to sacrifice any portion of
his 'pride','face' or 'dignity' in order to score points, or even to win a
major victory (as he would see it). Even if he were, the subtlety and
craftiness to compose such a thing are way beyond his capabilities.
> - Reveal that the "alliance" was a deliberate fiction.
Not easy - what 'evidence' could he possibly produce that would convince
anyone, that I have to ask? Anyway, whether the two connive and plot or not,
they openly support each other in their persecution of Paul Gans...?
> - Castigate the aforementioned people for being gullible and making
> accusations based on what is revealed to be no basis at all.
Rather difficult I think, in view of the circumstances.
> - Make repetitive, boring, and tiresome posts for years to come
> recounting how everyone obligingly jumped through the hoop.
Oh, he'll do that anyway as will his dreary compadre. Whether they are right
or wrong is of no consequence to either of them, they'll argue, accuse,
whine and whinge about anything, fact or fiction, as neither of them can
bear to admit they were wrong other than as a token gesture on some trivial
point.
> - Invent some peculiar logic by which this reflects badly on everyone
> except the original poster.
I think that would have to be far too "peculiar" to be considered logic at
all.
> Frankly, it's no more convoluted than lots of stuff that's already
> happened on this group. Or maybe I watch too many spy movies.
Not at all. However, if Dave were the sort of person who'd take pleasure
from sitting back and snickering quietly to himself at the sight of everyone
wasting time over a clever red herring, I'd say you were right. But they
aren't doing that, they're mocking him and laughing at his stupidity.....
enjoying themselves at his expense. Such generosity is completely outside
his nature, for whatever fell purpose! Also, he couldn't possibly resist
keeping silent for so long - you'll notice his absence from this thread, and
his pathetic and increasingly desperate attempts to start others since, to
no avail. I think the word is "Pratfall"! How sweet it is!
Cheers
Martin