notifying particular thread to wake up.

J

Joshua Cranmer

Patricia said:
How about demonstrating your free will by choosing not to have the last
word fairly soon? Please. Your replies have become a bit boring recently.

Patricia

I whole-heartedly agree here. Both Wildemar and Twisted (or various
aliases thereof) are saying pretty much the same things for, oh, 300 or
so posts in this same thread. Andreas is also getting rather repetitive.
 
S

Sherman Pendley

No-one here has done this to my knowledge.

You've openly admitted to opening multiple GG accounts for the specific
purpose of dodging their daily posting limit.

Was that admission a lie? Or are you lying now?

sherm--
 
S

Sherman Pendley

Unfortunately there isn't much I can do about that is there

Actually, there is. You tend to attract flames with your own behavior. In
particular, you have a habit of being insulted when someone merely says
"no, that's wrong" - even when the discussion concerns a technical topic
where facts can be easily and objectively verified.

No one knows everything - not you, not me, not Tristram, no one. Being
told that you're wrong is not an insult. Most of us respond to it by
double-checking our facts, and either supporting our arguments or by
admitting our mistakes. You respond to it by claiming that you're never
wrong - even when the facts of the conversation are easily verifiable
and you are demonstrably incorrect.

For example, I predict that you'll respond to this by making just such
a claim, when usenet archives are easily available that demonstrate the
accuracy of what I'm saying here.

There is some merit to your argument that "no, that's wrong" isn't very
tactful. It could usually be stated more politely, as "with all due res-
pect, I believe you're mistaken" or some such. But programmers as a group
tend to be brief and blunt. It's not intended to be rude or insulting,
it's just how we are. So long as you choose to be insulted by this - and
it *is* a choice - you're going to have a difficult time getting along
with any group of programmers you encounter.

This particular thread will die off sooner or later, but until you learn
how to interact with others without imagining insults and attacks in every
sentence, your behavior will inevitably spark more of the same.

You'll undoubtedly choose to interpret this as an "attack," and respond
with your usual copy-and-pasted response. But the truth is, this post is
intended to be helpful. Clearly, you're not happy with how things usually
turn out for you on usenet (and probably in real life as well) - I'm trying
to help you understand why they turn out the way they do, and how you can
avoid that result.

sherm--
 
T

Tristram Rolph

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

In other words, you have none.

You will cut out the context and pretend that you didn't make
that claim, but Google will maintain the evidence forever!
 
T

Tristram Rolph

Unfortunately there isn't much I can do about that is there, save
avoid posting things on line at all. The fact is that most sociopaths
do exactly as much as they can get away with -- which means they seem
quiet and harmless offline where someone might punch them in the nose
and their more violent urges would get them arrested. The ones that
make headlines the most often are the ones with additional problems
causing poor impulse control. But ALL of them will turn into vicious
little twerps when a keyboard and a modem are stuck in front of them,
because they can be their true, nasty, uncaring selves and get away
with it with at most the occasional need to sign up a new internet
account because they got kicked off their old one.

So it's unfortunately inevitable that a sprinkling will turn up in any
high traffic group.

Hence the presence of you assholes in cljp.

Just out of curiousity, why do you think it is that these people ("us," I
suppose) always attack you in particular? In all my time using usenet, I
have never seen anyone else flamed so often or so consistently, except
for the occasional career spammer or troll, neither of which I think you
are.

Please note that I did not insult you there, implicitly or explicitly. I
have my own thoughts on the subject (which you would undoubtedly call an
insult were I to write them), but I am honestly curious as to what your
response will be.
 
J

John W. Kennedy

Wildemar said:
OK, in all seriousness: Did he ever say he was God? I don't think so. He
claimed that he didn't make mistakes, but only to follow it up with a
definition of "mistake" with which pretty much anybody would be infallible.

But in practice, he uses the common definition, denouncing as a
"personal attack" any statement that contradicts anything that he has
said. The definition he gives for "mistake" is just a paradoxical
instance of what C. S. Lewis calls a "tactical definition".
I wouldn't say that this is a God complex; just some weird
self-protection scheme.

/W


--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
 
W

Wildemar Wildenburger

On Nov 12, 2:57 pm, "Mike Schilling" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Well, but the sad things you reveal abut yourself with each post are
undisputed.

Also that you are getting worse at mocking people for their spelling
mistakes is a sad sign for your attention spann and resilience.

/W
 
W

Wildemar Wildenburger

On Nov 14, 11:23 am, Wildemar Wildenburger
[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
But you ARE unfair.

/W
 
W

Wildemar Wildenburger

John said:
But in practice, he uses the common definition, denouncing as a
"personal attack" any statement that contradicts anything that he has
said. The definition he gives for "mistake" is just a paradoxical
instance of what C. S. Lewis calls a "tactical definition".

Ah, I see your point. So he has the choice of being a) mentally insane
or b) a liar. Wow! At least one of the nasty things we have implied
about him are the least bit true.

:D

/W
 
W

Wildemar Wildenburger

There are higher moral laws, sociopath. Your behavior is not
justifiable, period.
There are moral laws? Such as granting people the same liberties that
one claims for oneself? Since you are never doing anything wrong, such a
law must not exist.

[Twisted doesn't respond to this, thus indicating concurrence under
his rules.]

You lie. I did respond, with [bullshit snipped] or similarly. (x3)
So you didn't *really* reply. You only wrote a bunch of stuff (x3).

/W
 
W

Wildemar Wildenburger

The three most serious errors you can make in statistics are:
a) Using too small a sample size.
b) Using a biased (e.g. self-selecting) sample.
c) Not having a control group to check against.

Guess what three errors you just made?

a) Taking you seriously?
b) Hoping you would heed your own advice?
c) Believeing that none of the things anyone applied to your ar the
least bit true?

/W
 
W

Wildemar Wildenburger

[implied insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
You mean you find it insulting that you are suggested to talk to people?
Being proud of anthropophobia is not a way to overcome it.

/W
 
W

Wildemar Wildenburger

Patricia said:
How about demonstrating your free will by choosing not to have the last
word fairly soon? Please. Your replies have become a bit boring recently.
Yeah, I agree. Sorry.

Off I am. :)

/W
 
A

Andreas Leitgeb

... But ALL of them will turn into vicious
little twerps when a keyboard and a modem are stuck in front of them,

You thereby admitted, that a mouse is not actually necessary...

Hmm, but then again, you also omitted to mention the computer
itself, so that doesn't necessarily mean anything, afterall.
 
A

Andreas Leitgeb

Joshua Cranmer said:
... Andreas is also getting rather repetitive.
None of the bad things ... :)

Although I'm aware of my sin of participating at all,
I generally try to do it in a unrepetitive way. That
there may indeed exist some almost equal followups
from me, is true, but I really try to make this the
exception rather than a tendency.
 
T

twerpinator

I take that as an admission

I am admitting nothing.
I don't take orders from the one you pretend to be.

That's not an order; it's instructions on how to prove that what you
said wasn't bullshit.

As for that cryptic "the one you pretend to be", if it's meant to
imply an insult, rest assured that that insult is untrue.
How do you know it was bullshit. You probably didn't even read it.

I stuck my nose fairly close to it and inhaled. Noticed the
distinctive aroma. Then deleted it and wrote my response. Quite
simple, really.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,815
Messages
2,569,705
Members
45,494
Latest member
KandyFrank

Latest Threads

Top