=off topic= {about learning manners} (was) XML Not good for Big Files (vs Flat Files)
Kent Paul Dolan
> Don't be so pompous.
Says the man still evading confessing his just
documented habit of posting falsehoods as fact
> You are just begging for someone to humiliate you.
Last happened in 1990 or so, in the rec.arts.sf reorg
debacle. Care to push your luck, Roedy? Or are you
going to suck it up and confess that you are wrong
not merely in detail but in general?
Don't argue with me Roedy.
Nobody _ever_ wins at that game.
You have nothing to win, and your reputation to lose.
Listen to it eroding away as you continue to dodge
admitting your well-documented guilt here in public.
Rot, rot, rot. Crumble, crumble, crumble.
xanthian; it helps to remember, I do this for fun..
===== selected archival quality quote =====
[to somebody attempting a trans-newsgroup fracas
with Kent:]
if you are going to crosspost to t.b in an
attempt to win a pissing contest with one of
usenet's longest running stubborn, insane
hyperlexic bulldogs, then at least be
interesting or clever or amusing as you go about
it.
-- astri <as...@lava.net>
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>Last happened in 1990 or so, in the rec.arts.sf reorg
>debacle. Care to push your luck, Roedy? Or are you
>going to suck it up and confess that you are wrong
>not merely in detail but in general?
what a conceited asshole! No wonder you win every argument, people
plonk you in disgust.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Last happened in 1990 or so, in the rec.arts.sf reorg
>debacle.
You are delusional. Since there is no judge of who "wins" arguments,
you are under the delusion you brought everyone around to you point of
view. You are preposterously full of yourself.
Kent Paul Dolan
> what a conceited asshole!
We'll notice that i never mentioned
_who_ would be destroying your reputation.
I never have to do the job myself, I work on
the "enough rope" plan.
Hint: it's the fellow who's run out of vocabulary,
and started spewing obscenities in sheer
incompetence to do otherwise. It's the fellow
whose falsehood-posting behavior has just been
documented for all to confirm, yet still will not
apologize for that behavior.
And by the way, my reputation in the "conceited"
field, while abundant, has no chance, ever, of
holding a candle to your own.
> No wonder you win every argument, people
> plonk you in disgust.
Really? Astri, who wrote the previously quoted
comment on the utility of trying to "win" an
argumeht with me at least a decade ago, still
reads what I write. I have no idea _why_, but
she does.
Moreover, my postings, despite that I've been
pillorying malefactors such as you prove
yourself to be for about two decades on
Usenet, still seem to find _plenty_ of
responses. A search on my full name will
easily document that point.
Now, once more, when are you going to find
sufficient manhood to simply confess your
ugly and frequent habit of posting falsehoods
as truth, under the shelter of your reputation
as a "well respected authority", in hopes of
bullying those who oppose you?
Surely you don't think you're going to get off
the hook on this issue by screaming
obscenities at a retired submariner, who can
curse rings around you, and ignore your
cursing as kindergarden-level efforts, but no
longer feels the need for frequently spewing
obscenities in times of stress?
Surely you didn't think you were going to get a
break merely because your life circumstances
rate several uncontested choruses of "poor,
poor, pitiful me"? So do mine, though I may
well outlive you despite them.
HTH
xanthian.
Ironic that you should start screaming
obscenities under a retitled subject
"about learning manners", but then i
guess you're a slow study in that
regard.
Alex Hunsley
> Roedy Green wrote:
>
>> what a conceited asshole!
>
> We'll notice that i never mentioned
> _who_ would be destroying your reputation.
> I never have to do the job myself, I work on
> the "enough rope" plan.
> Surely you didn't think you were going to get a
> break merely because your life circumstances
> rate several uncontested choruses of "poor,
> poor, pitiful me"? So do mine, though I may
> well outlive you despite them.
<bemused>
I can't see anything Roedy has written that could warrant this outburst
in response.
</bemused>
Kent Paul Dolan
> You are delusional.
Probably not, though my housemate is. I'm pretty
mentally ill, but not in ways that have any import
in this discussion.
> Since there is no judge of who "wins" arguments,
> you are under the delusion you brought everyone
> around to you point of view.
Well, no.
So, first you contend that I _do_ win arguments,
because I'm so conceited that people refuse to read
any longer what I write, then you contend that I _do
not_ win arguments, since I'm delusional in claiming
to win arguments, because I think I brought everyone
around to my point of view?
Are you schizophrenic this much very often?
Point of fact, most people who try to win arguments
with me, instead leave the newsgroups in which we
meet, never to return. I have no delusion of having
"brought them around", merely of having defeated
them soundly and publically.
Trying to win an argument with someone who confronts
your misstatements with facts easily checked by
onlookers, at every turn, isn't sane behavior, and
the unsane have trouble prevailing in arguments in
any venue.
Most of these people who choose to argue on when
their errors have been documented to them and others
suffer from some mix of invincible ignorance,
pathological lying, or severe sociopathy, though
sheer (formally defined) stupidity does enter the
mix off and on.
I'd take the trouble to name dozens of names as
examples, but then you can do web searches as well
as I can, and I don't need to convince myself of the
truths of history, or dwell overlong on past
victories, so I don't intend to waste the time
myself.
> You are preposterously full of yourself.
Says the man who still refuses to admit his
behavior is exactly as he has been accused
of behaving, even when it is quoted back to
him word for word.
Rave on, Roedy, you have only yourself to destroy
by your current behavior. I certainly don't hold your
reputation at any high value, and the more of this
dodging of taking responsibility for your actions you
provide for review by onlookers, the less value you
must set on that reputation yourself, and the more
damage you do to it, and the more quickly that
damage occurs.
Apologize to the nice people Roedy, it's your only
hope, and it will make the next time so _much_
easier.
HTH
xanthian, finding joy at the same old chores,
applying social feedback as needed to assure
that actions have appropriate consequences.
Kent Paul Dolan
> I can't see anything Roedy has writte
> that could warrant this outburst
> in response.
Yes. Neither can Roedy, yet he is
already screaming obscenities rather
than bother seeing what he is doing.
[To me, _that_ constitutes an "outburst",
one of immature behavior, but your
concept of an "outburst" may vary.]
That's rather the point; Roedy has a
large disconnect between his behavior
and his perception of that behavior.
Examples of his (habitual) misbehavior,
of stating falsehoods firmly as threads,
seen in this thread, were sufficiently
egregious that I chose to call him to
account to see if his behavior could be
improved by bringing its obviousness
to his attention.
So far, his common sense hasn't been
brought into play, so he is still in total
denial that he has been confronted and
appropriately so.
Having nothing better to do in retirement,
when he contradicts my correct
assertions, than prove him wrong and
beat him over the head with the proof,
that's how I'm spending my evening.
Cheers.
xanthian.
And I consider it a sufficient "win" that
Roedy make such a fool of himself as
to permit me to ignore his further
responses in full confidence that others
will have reached the same evaluation.
He's well past that point, but I have no
reason to give up the fray when I'm
still having so much fun.
Kent Paul Dolan
> I can't see anything Roedy has writte that could
> warrant this outburst in response.
Yes. Neither can Roedy, yet he is already screaming
obscenities rather than bother seeing what he is
doing.
[To me, _that_ constitutes an "outburst", one of
immature behavior, but your concept of an
"outburst" may vary.]
That's rather the point; Roedy has a large
disconnect between his behavior and his perception
of that behavior.
Examples of his (habitual) misbehavior, of stating
falsehoods firmly as facts, hoping to shelter that
behavior with his reputation as an authority figure,
seen in this thread (and recently and widely
elsewhere in this newsgroup), were sufficiently
egregious that I chose to call him to account to see
if his behavior could be improved by bringing its
obviousness to his attention.
So far, his common sense hasn't been brought into
play, so he is still in total denial that he has
been duly confronted and appropriately so.
Having nothing better to do in retirement, when he
contradicts my correct assertions, than prove him
wrong by documenting those assertions for everyone
to see, and then beat him over the head with the
proof when he remains in denial, that's how I'm
spending my evening.
It passes the time.
Drazen Gemic
wrong.
DG
Kent Paul Dolan
> I've been watching the thread and think that Roedy
> is right and you are wrong.
Really? So you think that in response to Lasse
Reichstein Nielsen's:
"CPU based compression is so much faster than disk
based IO (or network IO for that matter) that the
time spent compressing is more than paid for by
the time saved saving or sending it."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/baafdbebd1044f8a
Roedy was perfectly okay in stating unreservedly as
fact the following, of which the latter three
sentences are falsehoods, in an attempt to win an
argument:
"I would have thought with all the improvements in
CPU power that by now transmissions would be
routinely compressed.
But they are not, ONLY when the file can be
precompressed, such as program downloads. Nobody
compresses JSP on the fly. Nobody even
precompresses HTML."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/55dbc7b954770659
despite that examples, with URLs, of some several
rather important and well known "nobody"s doing
precisely that latter on their websites, were
quite promptly presented to him by Timo Stamm:
> www.google.com
> www.msdn.com
> www.ibm.com
> www.sun.com
> ... they all send gzip compressed HTML.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/3889a1546e4af76e
To which Roedy cheerfully admitted implicitly
that he was broadcasting misinformation here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/f4fbe8230863b88f
But still denies in response to my accusation
that he does this habitually.
Oh no?
Consider this lovely little exchange:
====================================================
Roedy Green mistates the facts:
"Think of a desktop with ADSL or cable connection.
It does NOT work by having a classical modem that
creates "sound" that is digitised and sent off in
packets to an IAP."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/bac29d65c80f8923
Andrew MacDonagh politely corrects him:
"Well....actually... ADSL does work by sending
'sounds'. It actually uses the frequencies
outside of the standard telephone range by
advanced DSPs to get that extra capacity. These
sounds encode ATM (Asychronous Transfer Mode)
signals which is a transport protocol."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/5aa9ebdc681d49c8
Roedy Green responds with an insult and dismisses
the correction without admitting his error:
"Cut it out. That is not the issue and you know it.
You are just being obtuse."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/451905cf85329f2e?dmode=source
====================================================
Things didn't end at that point, Roedy kept
defending his incorrect statements for a couple more
rounds, but that gets tedious to quote.
Who's correct? Not Roedy:
> "FAQs about DSL"
> 6.2 What is modulation?
> Modulation is a prescribed method of encoding
> digital (or analog) signals onto a waveform (the
> carrier signal). Once encoded, an inverse process
> called demodulation may recover the original signal.
> Modulation is performed to adapt the signal to a
> different frequency range than that of the original
> signal.
> Here's how it flows:
> bits -> modulator -> audio -> phone network -> audio
> -> demodulator -> bits
> Hence the name MODEM short for
> modulator/demodulator. The modem is necessary
> because the phone network transmits audio, not data
> bits. The modem is for compatibility with existing
> equipment.
http://www.broadxent.com/about_dsl/about_dsl_faqs_6.asp
[ADSL is a flavor of DSL whose upstream and
downstream available data transfer rates are
different from one another, but otherwise the same
technology as DSL.]
And "audio" is of course just another word for
"sound", so exactly as much as a plain old telephone
uses "sound" to transfer its data, so does ADSL.
Anyway, right about there was where I chipped in,
responding to Roedy's bogus attempts to defend his
errors with:
"Roedy, as long as you try to defend your positions
by posting obvious falsehoods, people are going to
correct you."
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/69c3d9727f99057f
So you think that Roedy is correct in continuing to
defend such dishonesty, rather than to apologize for
it, and in diverting the discussion to the
definition of FUD, rather than confronting his
dishonesty and admitting to it?
That's simply an amazing position you are taking.
I'd love to be trying to sell you a used car.
That support from you in direct conflict with
documented proof, which you, if you are not too
lazy, can check for yourself using information
readily available from archives of the current
thread
[as I have just demonstrated by quoting all the
relevant information and the URLs from which it
was derived to document that my quotes are
correct]
that Roedy is wrong, merely emphasizes just how
damaging to the community of discourse Roedy's
dishonest behavior in misuse of his authority to try
to pass fiction off as fact to win arguments is.
It does not convey that Roedy is at all correct.
You now have put yourself forward as one excellent
example victim of Roedy's dishonesty, lured by his
reputation to ignore factual easily checked evidence
of his misbehavior.
I hope you use better methods of deciding what is
true elsewhere in your life, say, when dealing with
used car salesmen, who share Roedy's habit of using
dishonesty for persuasion.
Please try to get it through your head, this isn't a
popularity contest to be decided by a vote.
Roedy's misuse of his popularity is precisely the
issue. This is a condemnation of dishonest behavior
by Roedy, behavior already documented so that
anyone, even you, can confirm Roedy's dishonesty.
Someone with the patience (not me, two is my limit)
can document endless similar cases of Roedy stating
as fact what turns out not to be true. I've been
noticing them for years in many newsgroups, and
challenged them when I had the time and impulse.
I hope that message of the difference between
popularity and truthfullness penetrates your
gullibility, but I am not optimistic that such
penetration is possible in your case, or that of
anyone else springing to defend Roedy in his
well documented dishonesty.
HTH
xanthian.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is
that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Kent Paul Dolan
> May I respectfully suggest to both of you that this
> conversation would perhaps be a little less
> inappropriate in private e-mail or alt.flame?
Feel perfectly free to make the suggestion, but since the
enterprise at hand is documenting as _a *public* warning to
others in the newsgroups he frequents_ that Roedy uses
firmly stated falsehoods to prevail in arguments, a
discussion in private or far from the misbehavior loci would
not serve the purpose.
Instead, notice that the discussion is clearly marked "off
topic", originally by me, as a warning that you might not
want to bother reading it, and then do desist from reading
it if it annoys you, a path others are equally free to choose.
After all, unless you feel that "about learning manners" is a
rivetingly interesting java programming topic to you, you
have probably been sufficiently warned, by the off-topic flag
and that sub-thread retitling, never to have opened even the
first such posting. Past such warnings, I can't much
dissuade you from reading on anyway if morbid curiosity is
your main driving force.
HNTH
xanthian.
astri
> Really? Astri, who wrote the previously quoted
astri
the nym doesn't get a capital.
> comment on the utility of trying to "win" an
> argumeht with me at least a decade ago, still
nah. wasn't much more than a couple of years.
> reads what I write. I have no idea _why_, but
> she does.
i enjoy poking the soft underbelly and watching the organism squirm.
hth
-- astri
======================
to email send to astri
======================
at volcano dot org
======================
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Last happened in 1990 or so, in the rec.arts.sf reorg
>debacle. Care to push your luck, Roedy?
>
>Don't argue with me Roedy.
>Nobody _ever_ wins at that game.
I don't know what has got into you. You don't sound like yourself.
These boasts are delusions of grandeur. People hardly ever publicly
admit an argument persuaded them, perhaps a minor fact, but not a full
scale argument. The male ape in us would not allow the loss of face.
I am bipolar myself so I am well aware of how that can affect
behaviour. You have always been friendly to me over the years. I have
made plenty of mistakes before, and you never reacted like this.
You are disturbed about and perhaps envious of the respect people show
me. That comes not from brilliance but from the slog work I have done
documenting what I learn in the Java glossary.
I admit freely I am not as intelligent as I once was. AIDS and aging
have taken their toll. However, I don't think I am so senile I should
stop posting altogether. I hope people will tell me when that time
comes.
Timo Stamm
> Roedy was perfectly okay in stating unreservedly as
> fact the following, of which the latter three
> sentences are falsehoods, in an attempt to win an
> argument:
> "I would have thought with all the improvements in
> CPU power that by now transmissions would be
> routinely compressed.
>
> But they are not, ONLY when the file can be
> precompressed, such as program downloads. Nobody
> compresses JSP on the fly. Nobody even
> precompresses HTML."
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/55dbc7b954770659
He didn't know about gzip compression in HTTP. So what? I fail to see
any bad intentions.
> despite that examples, with URLs, of some several
> rather important and well known "nobody"s doing
> precisely that latter on their websites, were
> quite promptly presented to him by Timo Stamm:
> > www.google.com
> > www.msdn.com
> > www.ibm.com
> > www.sun.com
> > ... they all send gzip compressed HTML.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/3889a1546e4af76e
>
> To which Roedy cheerfully admitted implicitly
> that he was broadcasting misinformation here:
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/f4fbe8230863b88f
Why do you care wether he admits an mistake or not? If someone makes an
error, just point it out so that other people can create their own
opinion. But don't expect any appreciation or gratitude for your postings.
Timo
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Why do you care wether he admits an mistake or not? If someone makes an
>error, just point it out so that other people can create their own
>opinion. But don't expect any appreciation or gratitude for your postings.
When somebody pointed out that Google had started gzipping I wrote a
post that expressed joy that the world was finally getting around to
html compression, the lack of which had bugged me for years. I did not
even demand evidence that Google was doing this. I was happy to be
wrong. I did not contest this in any way.
.
I don"t ever recall Google gzip being discussed in these newsgroups
before. So don't see how I was unusually negligent not to know about
this development.
Timo Stamm
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:22:24 +0200, Timo Stamm <timo....@arcor.de>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>> Why do you care wether he admits an mistake or not? If someone makes an
>> error, just point it out so that other people can create their own
>> opinion. But don't expect any appreciation or gratitude for your postings.
>
> When somebody pointed out that Google had started gzipping
That was me.
> I wrote a
> post that expressed joy that the world was finally getting around to
> html compression, the lack of which had bugged me for years. I did not
> even demand evidence that Google was doing this. I was happy to be
> wrong. I did not contest this in any way.
No, you didn't. And when I pointed out that google uses gzip, it was not
meant as an attack.
I don't know why Kent Paul Dolan takes this discussion for a battle, but
I can live with him "winning" it.
Timo
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>> I wrote a
>> post that expressed joy that the world was finally getting around to
>> html compression, the lack of which had bugged me for years. I did not
>> even demand evidence that Google was doing this. I was happy to be
>> wrong. I did not contest this in any way.
>
>No, you didn't. And when I pointed out that google uses gzip, it was not
>meant as an attack.
Let me quote it. There are over 200 messages in that argumentative
thread, so I don't blame you for overlooking one.
"You made my day. Transmitting files as fluffy as HTML irritated the
heck out of me for years. I am tickled that was handled so
transparently too.
Now if only I can get my ISP to let me run a server that will do
that."
// u l i e n
"Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com> wrote in message
news:1145026571.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>> May I respectfully suggest to both of you that this
>> conversation would perhaps be a little less
>> inappropriate in private e-mail or alt.flame?
>
> Feel perfectly free to make the suggestion, but since the
> enterprise at hand is documenting as _a *public* warning to
Shut the fuck up. You're off your meds and it shows.
Timo Stamm
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 02:35:57 +0200, Timo Stamm <timo....@arcor.de>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>>> I did not contest this in any way.
>>
>> No, you didn't. And when I pointed out that google uses gzip, it was not
>> meant as an attack.
>
> Let me quote it. There are over 200 messages in that argumentative
I did read this message, and I did notice your enjoyment :) That's why I
agree that you didn't contest my point.
Maybe I should have written "Yes, you didn't"? Stupid ambiguious natural
languages ;) English is not my native language.
Timo
Ace Lightning
>Shut the fuck up. You're off your meds and it shows.
now who's being rude?
Oliver Wong
"Timo Stamm" <timo....@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:4440518c$0$18266$9b4e...@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
When someone says a statement that contains a negation, I've found that
different English speakers have different interpretation of what "yes" and
"no" means.
Person 1: "Not A?"
Person 2: "Yes."
Interpretation 1: "Yes A".
Interpretation 2: "Yes, not A."
Person 1: "Not A?"
Person 2: "No."
Interpretation 1: "Not A".
Interpretation 2: "No, A."
Personally, I prefer interpretation 2. That is, I'm answering your
question, rather than stating the truth value of A itself. But when I speak,
I try to be explicit and repeat person's claim, e.g. "Yes, not A." or "No,
A."
In your case, Timmo, you used interpretation 1 ("No" to mean agreement),
but you followed it with the repetition ("You didn't"), so I managed to
understand what you meant.
Anyway, all that to say even the native English speakers seem to have
problems with this ambiguity.
- Oliver
Roedy Green
<hostil...@yahoo.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :
>
>Shut the fuck up. You're off your meds and it shows.
He is being rude, but seriously, Kent, you are coming across as an
"angry manic". I am a "happy manic" when I go off. You feel fine,
energised, in charge. It feels like the problem is not you, but the
world. When I go into manic phase, it seems the world has suddenly
become a bunch of stuffed shirt stick in the muds. I'm fine, better
than fine, brimming with good will toward all the people complaining
about me. Angry manics are perfectionistic, and let everyone know
they need to shape up. I am in a bleak phase right now.
The problem is when you go manic, social interactions get very
problematic very quickly. Other people can't handle you. They may even
be afraid of you.
When you take lithium carbonate or one of the newer drugs, it chops
off the manic high, but it also cuts off the deep despair to some
extent which is the other more persistent half of being bipolar. You
might say it is not worth it, but it makes your life more manageable,
less drama but not so contentious. Try it both ways.
It is not a cure. I still have stronger mood swings than most people.
I still think about suicide nearly every day. I still sometimes drive
my room mate nuts when I am so busy "saving the world" I can't see the
point of doing dishes.
Kent Paul Dolan
And going manic again, and thereby probably making
accusations better pointed at himself.
xanthian, took _my_ meds six hours ago. Choking down
6 pills at a time is no picnic.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Ace Lightning
>xanthian, took _my_ meds six hours ago. Choking down
>6 pills at a time is no picnic.
i'm pretty sure you don't have to swallow all of them
at once - two at a time, in three swallows, would
probably work just as well.
Josh Hayes
news:4441BADF...@comcast.net:
Well, sure, but then there's the shot of carbolic acid, and the half-cup of
10-40W (none of those synthetics, please, they dissolve the nanoids), a
level tablespoon of drywall anchors, and two jiggers of juggo. Or is it two
jugs of jello? It's so hard to read prescriptions.
Add it all up, and what do you get? Sure, a top-selling soft drink. But
it's also KPD's reason for living, his sine qua non, his de fucking
gustifuckingbus non dispufuckingfuckfucktandemfuck (mmm...tandem fuck) est-
a-roonie!
-JAH
mmm...twins on a tandem.....
Kent Paul Dolan
> mmm...twins on a tandem.....
Where the _hell_ do you get off to from decade to decade, Josh?
xanthian.
rone
For once, i have to sympathize with Ace. Julian telling someone else
they're off their meds, well, that's pretty rich.
rone
but i still love you, julian
--
"Somebody stole my set list?! Oh well, that's IT! I'm just going
to have to TALK for forty minutes!" - Kristin Hersh
Kent Paul Dolan
for over two decades.
Being lied to still makes me angry.
Most people have the same reaction.
xanthian.
Josh Hayes
I only live about one day in twenty. Keeps life interesting.
-JAH
and the food bills are nice and small, if you don't mind waking up with
rats nibbling on your toes.
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Being lied to still makes me angry.
Please quote the alleged lie.
Roedy Green
>I've been on Welbutrin for many years, Roedy, and on meds
>for over two decades.
If you are bipolar, you have to stop taking antidepressants during a
manic phase. Check with your doctor.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Please quote the alleged lie.
Umm, are you grown senile as well?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.bizarre/msg/21c092c0a10c7a3a
xanthian.
Roedy Green
wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>> Please quote the alleged lie.
>
>Umm, are you grown senile as well?
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.bizarre/msg/21c092c0a10c7a3a
My request is that you quote the lie not point to the thread in which
you believe somewhere I lied. Please understand that I don't believe I
lied and that you are unjustly accusing me, perhaps of merely
disagreeing with you, which you may be equating to lying since you
seem to think you are infallible at the moment and that your logic is
so impeccable that any disagreement would have to be disingenuous.
// u l i e n
"rone" <^*&#$@ennui.org> wrote in message
news:rone.e1tv32$1d0b$1...@ennui.org...
> In article <444070E8...@comcast.net>,
> Ace Lightning <acelig...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>>// u l i e n wrote:
>>>Shut the fuck up. You're off your meds and it shows.
>>now who's being rude?
>
> For once, i have to sympathize with Ace. Julian telling someone else
> they're off their meds, well, that's pretty rich.
>
> rone
> but i still love you, julian
I was trying to show that it is free to call someone on being off meds. It's
free, but it costs the person you accuse, and you can't beat that kind of
economics.
// u l i e n
"Roedy Green" <my_email_is_post...@munged.invalid> wrote in
message news:h6q742hn111kdt917...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Apr 2006 23:35:09 -0700, "Kent Paul Dolan" <xant...@well.com>
> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>> Please quote the alleged lie.
>>
>>Umm, are you grown senile as well?
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.bizarre/msg/21c092c0a10c7a3a
>
> My request is that you quote the lie not point to the thread in which
> you believe somewhere I lied. Please understand that I don't believe I
> lied and that you are unjustly accusing me, perhaps of merely
> disagreeing with you, which you may be equating to lying since you
> seem to think you are infallible at the moment and that your logic is
> so impeccable that any disagreement would have to be disingenuous.
>
Please keep in mind that if you have lied in Kent Paul Dolanworld, you have
become a non-person and effectively died. There is no greater harm than
lying in Kent Paul Dolanworld. It sets you up for a future of non responded
posts, just a Kent Paul Dolanpost to your lie, showing that you are dead to
him, and can no longer be a part of functionable debate.
Roedy Green
<hostil...@yahoo.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :
>
>Please keep in mind that if you have lied in Kent Paul Dolanworld, you have
>become a non-person and effectively died. There is no greater harm than
>lying in Kent Paul Dolanworld. It sets you up for a future of non responded
>posts, just a Kent Paul Dolanpost to your lie, showing that you are dead to
>him, and can no longer be a part of functionable debate.
Do you think he means lie in the Canadian sense of deliberately
deceive or the informal sense of say something that was not true?
If the second, I am doomed.
rone
// u l i e n <hostil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I was trying to show that it is free to call someone on being off meds. It's
>free, but it costs the person you accuse, and you can't beat that kind of
>economics.
I'll thank you not to dance on John Kenneth Galbraith's corpse, pal.
rone