Petition Google for the removal of "Colonel Harlan Sanders"

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010.

  1. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    Please sign if you agree,
    But I don't give a **** if nobody agrees with me

    Google:

    Whereas the account "Colonel Harlan Sanders" was created by an
    anonymous poster strictly for the purpose of "trolling", where
    "trolling" may be said to be anonymous abuse, we the undersigned ask
    Google to remove this account.

    Edward G. Nilges spinoza1111
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. spinoza1111

    Shao Miller Guest

    spinoza1111 wrote:
    > Please sign if you agree,
    > But I don't give a **** if nobody agrees with me
    >
    > Google:
    >
    > Whereas the account "Colonel Harlan Sanders" was created by an
    > anonymous poster strictly for the purpose of "trolling", where
    > "trolling" may be said to be anonymous abuse, we the undersigned ask
    > Google to remove this account.
    >
    > Edward G. Nilges spinoza1111

    spinoza1111, I most certainly and sincerely appreciate that you have
    publicly criticized certain posts as being personal attacks; I agree
    that it's important for posters to be tolerant of one another and to
    engage in civil discussion. I am hopeful that such criticisms will be
    met with open minds.

    I am very sorry to read about a personal conflict between you and an
    anonymous poster, which does associate in my mind as uncivil discussion.
    I am hopeful that this conflict could be either dissolved or resolved.

    From my humble perspective (may all judge as they will for what it's
    worth to them), I expect that only certain conditions could lead to such
    dissolution or resolution.

    A condition that could potentially result in a dissolution might be to
    ignore the poster's posts. The personal back-and-forth discussion does
    associate in my mind with inflammation of a negative situation.

    A condition that could potentially result in a resolution might be an
    agreement between both parties, such as, "I will try not to aggravate
    you and I will expect the same from you," in both directions.

    The only petition I would feel comfortable signing would be a petition
    towards civil discussion in this comp.lang.c Usenet forum. I do not
    feel comfortable singling out an individual in the manner of your
    petition, I am sorry to report.

    One notion that I try to keep in mind for each person is "there is a
    human, with potential behavioural compatibilities and incompatibilities
    with other humans. They might have qualities which benefit the world in
    some way, which I cannot judge on behalf of all. There might even be
    humans that care about such a human, and I can recursively regard those
    humans much the same."

    I respectfully request that you and this anonymous poster either
    dissolve or resolve the conflict, so that each of you might feel
    comfortable. If neither of you choose or only one of you chooses this
    direction, I will be sorry to continue to read about future conflict.

    Please do accept my appreciation for some of your previous public
    criticisms, spinoza1111. My personal frame of reference perceives good
    intentions for them. I hope that you accept mine, in this post.

    I most obviously do not attempt to speak on behalf of any other readers
    here. This is a personal matter, and my personal response is certainly
    free to be discarded where it has no value for a recipient. I have not
    been judged in this forum to arbitrate or to serve any role for conflict
    prevention; this is a humble attempt.

    My apologies that I am unwilling to help in the manner you have sought,
    spinoza1111.

    To the anonymous poster with the apparent identity of a certain Master
    of Fried Chicken Restaurants: Would you be so kind as to help to halt
    this conflict, if you please? It really seems to be upsetting spinoza1111.

    And to you, spinoza1111: You have expressed that you desire a halt to
    this conflict. Would you be so kind as to attempt to avoid further
    aggravation to this anonymous poster with whom you are engaged in this
    conflict?

    Please do take care, both of you.
     
    Shao Miller, Aug 14, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. [OT] Petition Google for the removal of "Spinoza1111"

    On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    <> wrote:

    >Please sign if you agree,
    >But I don't give a **** if nobody agrees with me
    >
    >Google:
    >
    >Whereas the account "Colonel Harlan Sanders" was created by an
    >anonymous poster strictly for the purpose of "trolling", where
    >"trolling" may be said to be anonymous abuse, we the undersigned ask
    >Google to remove this account.
    >
    >Edward G. Nilges spinoza1111



    Come on, you aren't really this stupid, are you?

    Google doesn't give a shit about Usenet abuse, spam, trolls, or
    anything else. That you imagine they will read your post here and take
    action is quite quaint. Look at all the links to porno, Paypal scams,
    Sportshoe and fake watch ads; all posted via Google accounts.

    And more importantly, I don't post via Google. I don't use a Google
    account at all.

    Your invincible ignorance about how Usent works, for someone who has
    beeen abusing it for 20 years, is quite an achievement.

    And of course, you are the prime troll in this newsgroup. You fill it
    day after day with off-topic and abusive posts. And even worse, your
    poetry.

    You recently threatened me, personally and apparently physically:

    >Therefore I will have to continue to confront this guy on my
    >own, up to and including threats of violence, threats of legal action
    >and foul language, and this situation may at any time go non-linear.


    though of course I know this is just hot air.
    (And "go non-linear"? Do you imagine you can give yourself a licence
    to commit violence by saying that? Idiot.)

    I am aware that my posts responding to some of your foolish and
    offensive remarks may be annoying to others, so I limit them. I think
    I post much less than 1% of the number, and certainly the verbiage,
    than you do.
     
    Colonel Harlan Sanders, Aug 14, 2010
    #3
  4. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 14, 11:13 am, Shao Miller <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111 wrote:
    > > Please sign if you agree,
    > > But I don't give a **** if nobody agrees with me

    >
    > > Google:

    >
    > > Whereas the account "Colonel Harlan Sanders" was created by an
    > > anonymous poster strictly for the purpose of "trolling", where
    > > "trolling" may be said to be anonymous abuse, we the undersigned ask
    > > Google to remove this account.

    >
    > > Edward G. Nilges spinoza1111

    >
    > spinoza1111, I most certainly and sincerely appreciate that you have
    > publicly criticized certain posts as being personal attacks; I agree
    > that it's important for posters to be tolerant of one another and to
    > engage in civil discussion.  I am hopeful that such criticisms will be
    > met with open minds.
    >
    > I am very sorry to read about a personal conflict between you and an
    > anonymous poster, which does associate in my mind as uncivil discussion.
    >   I am hopeful that this conflict could be either dissolved or resolved..
    >
    >  From my humble perspective (may all judge as they will for what it's
    > worth to them), I expect that only certain conditions could lead to such
    > dissolution or resolution.
    >
    > A condition that could potentially result in a dissolution might be to
    > ignore the poster's posts.  The personal back-and-forth discussion does
    > associate in my mind with inflammation of a negative situation.
    >
    > A condition that could potentially result in a resolution might be an
    > agreement between both parties, such as, "I will try not to aggravate
    > you and I will expect the same from you," in both directions.
    >
    > The only petition I would feel comfortable signing would be a petition
    > towards civil discussion in this comp.lang.c Usenet forum.  I do not
    > feel comfortable singling out an individual in the manner of your
    > petition, I am sorry to report.
    >
    > One notion that I try to keep in mind for each person is "there is a
    > human, with potential behavioural compatibilities and incompatibilities
    > with other humans.  They might have qualities which benefit the world in
    > some way, which I cannot judge on behalf of all.  There might even be
    > humans that care about such a human, and I can recursively regard those
    > humans much the same."
    >
    > I respectfully request that you and this anonymous poster either
    > dissolve or resolve the conflict, so that each of you might feel
    > comfortable.  If neither of you choose or only one of you chooses this
    > direction, I will be sorry to continue to read about future conflict.
    >
    > Please do accept my appreciation for some of your previous public
    > criticisms, spinoza1111.  My personal frame of reference perceives good
    > intentions for them.  I hope that you accept mine, in this post.
    >
    > I most obviously do not attempt to speak on behalf of any other readers
    > here.  This is a personal matter, and my personal response is certainly
    > free to be discarded where it has no value for a recipient.  I have not
    > been judged in this forum to arbitrate or to serve any role for conflict
    > prevention; this is a humble attempt.
    >
    > My apologies that I am unwilling to help in the manner you have sought,
    > spinoza1111.
    >
    > To the anonymous poster with the apparent identity of a certain Master
    > of Fried Chicken Restaurants: Would you be so kind as to help to halt
    > this conflict, if you please?  It really seems to be upsetting spinoza1111.
    >
    > And to you, spinoza1111: You have expressed that you desire a halt to
    > this conflict.  Would you be so kind as to attempt to avoid further
    > aggravation to this anonymous poster with whom you are engaged in this
    > conflict?
    >
    > Please do take care, both of you.


    Let's blame the victim and feel all right. Shao, this even-handedness
    is enabling.

    I work as a teacher in a school. Modern thinking on school bullying
    always takes the side of the victim, for it's been found that any
    "even handedness" encourages and enables the bullies.

    You came in here with decency and courtesy and you were attacked by a
    person (Seebach) who padded his resume by volunteering to work on C99,
    thereby seeming to attack Schildt from a position of authority. But we
    have found that Seebach cannot code a single line without a bug and he
    has boasted that he has taken NO computer science classes whatsoever
    at any time.

    Yet, while making numerous errors, he enabled a mass attack on the
    reputation of a somewhat limited but competent computer author based
    on a trivial list of errors. Seebach continues to implicitly ask for
    charity and decency as an "ADD victim" while never extending this to
    others.

    There is NOTHING in my behavior even SLIGHTLY comparable to getting a
    Google account solely for the purposes of anonymous abuse, nor to the
    detailed speculations in that abuse as to my relations with my father
    or personal situation. My conclusions about Seebach are germane to the
    needs of this newsgroup because he is misleading people about C and
    the usefulness of Schildt's work, and wasting our time. Whereas to try
    to marshal mockery of my personal and financial situation in my second
    career is actionable civil libel and COMPLETELY off topic.

    And if you do not realize this, you, sir, are another useless
    corporate enabler and you, sir, can go to hell.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #4
  5. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    Re: Petition Google for the removal of "Spinoza1111"

    On Aug 14, 11:39 am, Colonel Harlan Sanders <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >Please sign if you agree,
    > >But I don't give a **** if nobody agrees with me

    >
    > >Google:

    >
    > >Whereas the account "Colonel Harlan Sanders" was created by an
    > >anonymous poster strictly for the purpose of "trolling", where
    > >"trolling" may be said to be anonymous abuse, we the undersigned ask
    > >Google to remove this account.

    >
    > >Edward G. Nilges spinoza1111

    >
    > Come on, you aren't really this stupid, are you?
    >
    > Google doesn't give a shit about Usenet abuse, spam, trolls, or
    > anything else. That you imagine they will read your post here and take
    > action is quite quaint. Look at all the links to porno, Paypal scams,
    > Sportshoe and fake watch ads; all posted via Google accounts.


    The criminal scum and the dullest fool
    Loves saying, "you are another"
    He points to the degringolade as a rule
    In order to silence the screams of his brother.
    Not to add light to what's left of light
    But to add shit to the pre-existent pile
    And find confirmation of your fog and night
    That is about it, the total of your wile.
    Well, you're an asshole and a piece of shit
    A proper troll, in the book of Lanier
    That's about the sum total...that's it
    That's you in a nutshell, 'tis you, I fear.
    And if you **** with me physically
    I'll kick your ass most joyfully.

    >
    > And more importantly, I don't post via Google. I don't use a Google
    > account at all.
    >
    > Your invincible ignorance about how Usent works, for someone who has
    > beeen abusing it for 20 years, is quite an achievement.
    >
    > And of course, you are the prime troll in this newsgroup. You fill it
    > day after day with off-topic and abusive  posts. And even worse, your
    > poetry.


    And even worse my poetry, my scorn
    Which rolls right over your ignorance,
    Leaving you all sad and so forlorn
    You, the tough guy who does not dance.
    My poems are "bad" for only one reason
    And this is that you cannot write them
    You're the killer ape in the ape's own season
    Who screams and gibbers at art that mocks him.
    You hope to be the rage of the latter age
    And you're offended by contrary word
    Up-ended by being a loser to the sage
    And from one like me getting the bird.
    But now you know that what I say is true
    Ask me my name, my name is "**** you".

    >
    > You recently threatened me, personally and apparently physically:
    >
    > >Therefore I will have to continue to confront this guy on my
    > >own, up to and including threats of violence, threats of legal action
    > >and foul language, and this situation may at any time go non-linear.


    That is: if you're "Alan" or quertyuiop, then you may go berserk where
    I live in meatspace and physically assault me, in which case, you're
    going to get your ass kicked once you lay a hand on me. Learn to read.
    >
    > though of course I know this is just hot air.
    > (And "go non-linear"? Do you imagine you can give yourself a licence
    > to commit violence by saying that? Idiot.)
    >
    > I am aware that my posts responding to some of your foolish and
    > offensive remarks  may be annoying to others, so I limit them. I think
    > I post much less than 1% of the number, and certainly the verbiage,
    > than you do.


    These "strong" and silent types who bay
    At the moon of presumed pretension
    Have to use words when they do say
    What few thoughts they wish to bring to our attention.
    But they are not Eliot's Apeneck Sweeney,
    Who had to use words when he talked to you,
    They write checks with their mouths so feebly
    That their brains can never cash, boo hoo.
    They seek to write at a "higher level"
    They seek power over their fellow man
    And eventually they lose it and turn to evil
    To try to make us all their shit, understand
    From Abu Ghraib to Gitmo they foul the sweet earth
    With their importent howling rage and their utter dearth.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #5
  6. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    Re: Petition Google for the removal of "Spinoza1111"

    On Aug 14, 11:39 am, Colonel Harlan Sanders <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >Please sign if you agree,
    > >But I don't give a **** if nobody agrees with me

    >
    > >Google:

    >
    > >Whereas the account "Colonel Harlan Sanders" was created by an
    > >anonymous poster strictly for the purpose of "trolling", where
    > >"trolling" may be said to be anonymous abuse, we the undersigned ask
    > >Google to remove this account.

    >
    > >Edward G. Nilges spinoza1111

    >
    > Come on, you aren't really this stupid, are you?
    >
    > Google doesn't give a shit about Usenet abuse, spam, trolls, or
    > anything else. That you imagine they will read your post here and take
    > action is quite quaint. Look at all the links to porno, Paypal scams,
    > Sportshoe and fake watch ads; all posted via Google accounts.
    >
    > And more importantly, I don't post via Google. I don't use a Google
    > account at all.
    >
    > Your invincible ignorance about how Usent works, for someone who has
    > beeen abusing it for 20 years, is quite an achievement.
    >
    > And of course, you are the prime troll in this newsgroup. You fill it
    > day after day with off-topic and abusive  posts. And even worse, your
    > poetry.
    >
    > You recently threatened me, personally and apparently physically:
    >
    > >Therefore I will have to continue to confront this guy on my
    > >own, up to and including threats of violence, threats of legal action
    > >and foul language, and this situation may at any time go non-linear.

    >
    > though of course I know this is just hot air.
    > (And "go non-linear"? Do you imagine you can give yourself a licence
    > to commit violence by saying that? Idiot.)
    >
    > I am aware that my posts responding to some of your foolish and
    > offensive remarks  may be annoying to others, so I limit them. I think
    > I post much less than 1% of the number, and certainly the verbiage,
    > than you do.


    Shao, if at this time it is technically impossible to remove Sanders,
    then if you are concerned with the bullying in this ng, you need to
    post a complaint to Sanders in public.

    My behavior, which is the use of free speech to counter uncalled-for
    personal attacks, is not germane. If necessary, I will post modern-
    format sonnets in foul language in response to Sanders.

    I'm asking you to see the difference between setting up an account to
    attack individuals off-topic, and a brisk response to those attacks
    for which I take full and non-anonymous responsibility.

    There is an absence of mutually supportive behavior in this ng save
    amongst people who show themselves willing to be reputation-killers:
    the people who are unwilling to read email from their targets, like
    Seebach, and the people who constantly claim to be "ignoring the
    troll" whilst constantly calling the troll a troll in a way meant to
    wound and to damage people professionally.

    As Yeats said, the good lack all conviction while the worst are full
    of passionate intensity.

    You were recently nagged to death by Seebs to think as he does about
    void pointers despite the fact that a few months ago, a real, working
    developer of a significant C product came in here and said, "hi, I use
    'em, they work, bye".

    Now, Seebie's Mommy may wuv him. Guess what? I don't care, because
    when I tried to spare this ng a flame war and sent him an email
    requesting an offline discussion, he posted in public the statement
    that he deleted that email unread. He clearly was unwilling to discuss
    things like a man, so I proceeded to watch his posts and study his
    code, to find that he was not only uneducated in computer science but
    an incompetent coder and a wannabe.

    I said so, under my name in a way that is fully traceable, taking
    responsibility for every line I've written, ready to defend what I
    have said by re-learning C, a language which Princeton thought me
    competent in, since they had me teach new CS majors that language and
    assist John Nash wrt C. I used foul language, because the real
    foulness is deliberately destroying a professional reputation in
    dulcet terms as Seebs does with Schildt. I used poetry, because the
    ability to write original metrical and rhyming verse is guaranteed to
    create Shock and Awe in the sort of techies who can only paste rock
    lyrics.

    And in so doing, I created well-attended and useful threads ABOUT THE
    C LANGUAGE. I wrote code, I fixed code, and I read other people's
    code. This drove the killer apes here wild, since one's not supposed
    to be simultaneously literate, and a good coder.

    When two kids say simultaneously "he started it", guess what. One of
    them probably did. I am tired of having to kick ass here in self-
    defense and in defense of others. I realize that the corporate world
    runs on the management of what remains a brutal, twilight struggle
    between killer apes. I think we can change that. We'd better.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #6
  7. spinoza1111

    Shao Miller Guest

    spinoza1111 wrote:
    > Let's blame the victim and feel all right. Shao, this even-handedness
    > is enabling.

    No blame; but interactions with consequences. I don't know the
    "Colonel's" frame of reference for why he or she or else produces the
    posts they produce that upset you. Am I qualified to judge who is
    victim and who is bully? Isn't the very best that I can do to post what
    I posted?

    Also, no feeling all right. It doesn't make me feel good to read
    continued conflict.

    >
    > I work as a teacher in a school. Modern thinking on school bullying
    > always takes the side of the victim, for it's been found that any
    > "even handedness" encourages and enables the bullies.
    >

    Well then perhaps you are more qualified than I to judge victim versus
    bully. My request to both parties which you perceive as "even-handed"
    might have been better off done without, if it further enables conflict.
    Why don't we find out? Is it possible for a statistically minor
    occurrence, here?

    > ... ... ...
    > And if you do not realize this, you, sir, are another useless
    > corporate enabler and you, sir, can go to hell.
    >

    Before my response, this predicate on my person would have been
    indeterminate. I will take that to mean that I would have been better
    off without engaging the subject. :)

    I think it's entirely reasonable to initially acknowledge your upset,
    request acknowledgment from the other party, then suggest dissolution or
    resolution of the conflict. If that initial sequence results in the
    "Colonel" saying that you use words in your posts which cause an
    electric shock, well then we've identified that there is negative
    influence in both directions and can work with that. If the "Colonel"
    says, "Ha ha ha, I don't care," well that would qualify as bullying in
    my opinion. I'd suggest that we find out, but I think your response to
    me is cause for me to stay outside of the matter from now on.

    I apologize for not meeting your expectations. I apologize that you do
    not agree with my strategy. It has worked for me historically, so the
    Bayes over my shoulder advises not to give it up, despite the evidence
    you've provided about bullying in modern school systems. I'll tell you
    what: I happen to know an expert on bullying, I will ask them what they
    advise. I should have done that first; for that, I apologize yet again.

    Also, please kindly refrain from wishing me an ill fortune, especially
    in public, where others might join in. I have wished the very opposite
    for you (and continue to do so), so it is not reciprocal, and is
    un-civil. I find it more likely that your positive influences for
    change will be more effective without expressing such sentiments. May
    those influences meet with success. :)

    Please be assured that your previous response in this matter shall not
    influence my judgment of any valuable C discussion you offer. Those
    discussions have their own merits.
     
    Shao Miller, Aug 14, 2010
    #7
  8. spinoza1111

    John Kelly Guest

    On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:54:49 -0400, Shao Miller <>
    wrote:

    >Also, please kindly refrain from wishing me an ill fortune, especially
    >in public, where others might join in. I have wished the very opposite
    >for you (and continue to do so), so it is not reciprocal, and is
    >un-civil.


    Shao, some of these guys are nuts. Wacko. Netkooks. Whatever you want
    to call them, they're crazy.

    You can't reason with crazy people. It's just a big waste of time. And
    that's what they like to do, is WASTE YOUR TIME.


    --
    Web mail, POP3, and SMTP
    http://www.beewyz.com/freeaccounts.php
     
    John Kelly, Aug 14, 2010
    #8
  9. spinoza1111

    Rob Kendrick Guest

    Re: Petition Google for the removal of "Spinoza1111"

    On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
    spinoza1111 <> wrote:

    > > And more importantly, I don't post via Google. I don't use a Google
    > > account at all.
    > >
    > > Your invincible ignorance about how Usent works, for someone who has
    > > beeen abusing it for 20 years, is quite an achievement.
    > >
    > > And of course, you are the prime troll in this newsgroup. You fill
    > > it day after day with off-topic and abusive  posts. And even worse,
    > > your poetry.

    >
    > And even worse my poetry, my scorn


    <snip Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One
    Midsummer Morning>

    You know, these conversations might have some value if you responded to
    people pointing out you're wrong, rather than filling the group with
    dreadful poetry that everybody just skips over.

    B.
     
    Rob Kendrick, Aug 14, 2010
    #9
  10. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    Re: Petition Google for the removal of "Spinoza1111"

    On Aug 14, 5:38 pm, Rob Kendrick <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
    >
    > spinoza1111<> wrote:
    > > > And more importantly, I don't post via Google. I don't use a Google
    > > > account at all.

    >
    > > > Your invincible ignorance about how Usent works, for someone who has
    > > > beeen abusing it for 20 years, is quite an achievement.

    >
    > > > And of course, you are the prime troll in this newsgroup. You fill
    > > > it day after day with off-topic and abusive  posts. And even worse,
    > > > your poetry.  

    >
    > > And even worse my poetry, my scorn

    >
    > <snip Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One
    > Midsummer Morning>
    >
    > You know, these conversations might have some value if you responded to
    > people pointing out you're wrong, rather than filling the group with
    > dreadful poetry that everybody just skips over.


    But Robbie baby... Harlan doesn't "point out I'm wrong". He has
    created an account solely to call me a bad person without even knowing
    me, which is an evil and stupid thing to do.

    Don't you dare confuse technical correction with personal criticism,
    asshole. That was long ago identified as a leading killer of effective
    technical discussion. The problem being that the regs here are so very
    unqualified (Seebs without computer science education, Heathfield a
    Sams hack, Keith a corporate drone) that they regularly run out of
    meaningful, scientific technical arguments, and at this point, they
    start bullying people.

    Furthermore, and as to the poetry
    Hmm, let us see,
    If you skip over it, how do you know it is dreadful?
    It would seem to me that of shit you are full.

    The real problem when I reply in verse
    Is that I demonstrate that I am better: you are worse
    It bugs you that if you dared reply
    Using original po-et-try,
    Your efforts would expose your ill-lit-rass-ee,
    So at best you cut and paste rock minstrelsy.

    All poetry is a mean and nasty trick played on dullards and fools
    To them, it's just tricks that breaks their grey rules
    It ain't fair to you, it ain't swell
    It's like shootin little fishies in a big old barr-ell.
    >
    > B.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #10
  11. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 14, 5:38 pm, Rob Kendrick <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
    >
    > spinoza1111<> wrote:
    > > > And more importantly, I don't post via Google. I don't use a Google
    > > > account at all.

    >
    > > > Your invincible ignorance about how Usent works, for someone who has
    > > > beeen abusing it for 20 years, is quite an achievement.

    >
    > > > And of course, you are the prime troll in this newsgroup. You fill
    > > > it day after day with off-topic and abusive  posts. And even worse,
    > > > your poetry.  

    >
    > > And even worse my poetry, my scorn

    >
    > <snip Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One
    > Midsummer Morning>
    >
    > You know, these conversations might have some value if you responded to
    > people pointing out you're wrong, rather than filling the group with
    > dreadful poetry that everybody just skips over.
    >
    > B.


    Oh yeah, edit subject
    How very clever to change it
    What a moron and what a reject
    To think that stunt doth cleverness, project.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #11
  12. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    Re: Petition Google for the removal of "Spinoza1111"

    On Aug 14, 12:56 pm, pete <> wrote:
    > Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT),spinoza1111
    > > <> wrote:
    > > >Google:

    >
    > > >Whereas the account "Colonel Harlan Sanders" was created by an
    > > >anonymous poster strictly for the purpose of "trolling", where
    > > >"trolling" may be said to be anonymous abuse, we the undersigned ask
    > > >Google to remove this account.

    >
    > > >Edward G. Nilgesspinoza1111

    >
    > > Come on, you aren't really this stupid, are you?
    > > I don't post via Google. I don't use a Google account at all.

    >
    > http://open-dictionary.com/Nilgewater
    >
    > I'd like to see the word "nilgewater" used more often.


    It's raining Nilge Water
    To many it tastes like piss
    Others love this golden shower
    They say, what nectar is this.
    They might be few and far between
    But they are smarter than the mean
    And their respect is what counts
    Not the worship of you cunts.

    >
    > --
    > pete
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #12
  13. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 14, 12:54 pm, Shao Miller <> wrote:
    > spinoza1111wrote:
    > > Let's blame the victim and feel all right. Shao, this even-handedness
    > > is enabling.

    >
    > No blame; but interactions with consequences.  I don't know the
    > "Colonel's" frame of reference for why he or she or else produces the
    > posts they produce that upset you.  Am I qualified to judge who is
    > victim and who is bully?  Isn't the very best that I can do to post what
    > I posted?


    Shao, it's obvious he's a bully. Had you exercised such suspended
    judgement on Hitler (yeah, Hitler: Mike Godwin is a limited man with
    whom I have served on an online panel), then you would have been
    responsible for Hitler's rise.
    >
    > Also, no feeling all right.  It doesn't make me feel good to read
    > continued conflict.


    It is confined to a few threads.

    >
    >
    >
    > > I work as a teacher in a school. Modern thinking on school bullying
    > > always takes the side of the victim, for it's been found that any
    > > "even handedness" encourages and enables the bullies.

    >
    > Well then perhaps you are more qualified than I to judge victim versus
    > bully.  My request to both parties which you perceive as "even-handed"
    > might have been better off done without, if it further enables conflict.
    >   Why don't we find out?  Is it possible for a statistically minor
    > occurrence, here?


    Well, I've been around for ten years, and NOTHING EVER CHANGES.
    >
    > > ... ... ...
    > > And if you do not realize this, you, sir, are another useless
    > > corporate enabler and you, sir, can go to hell.

    >
    > Before my response, this predicate on my person would have been
    > indeterminate.  I will take that to mean that I would have been better
    > off without engaging the subject. :)
    >
    > I think it's entirely reasonable to initially acknowledge your upset,
    > request acknowledgment from the other party, then suggest dissolution or
    > resolution of the conflict.  If that initial sequence results in the
    > "Colonel" saying that you use words in your posts which cause an
    > electric shock, well then we've identified that there is negative
    > influence in both directions and can work with that.  If the "Colonel"
    > says, "Ha ha ha, I don't care," well that would qualify as bullying in
    > my opinion.  I'd suggest that we find out, but I think your response to
    > me is cause for me to stay outside of the matter from now on.


    Have you not noticed this is a tough neighborhood? I am for one sick
    to death of people hiding their feelings save hatred and out of
    control anger. "You, sir, can go to hell", meant conditionally, is
    that rare text here, controlled anger to try to get you to see how the
    bullies have ruined this ng.

    >
    > I apologize for not meeting your expectations.  I apologize that you do
    > not agree with my strategy.  It has worked for me historically, so the
    > Bayes over my shoulder advises not to give it up, despite the evidence
    > you've provided about bullying in modern school systems.  I'll tell you
    > what: I happen to know an expert on bullying, I will ask them what they
    > advise.  I should have done that first; for that, I apologize yet again..
    >
    > Also, please kindly refrain from wishing me an ill fortune, especially
    > in public, where others might join in.  I have wished the very opposite
    > for you (and continue to do so), so it is not reciprocal, and is
    > un-civil.  I find it more likely that your positive influences for
    > change will be more effective without expressing such sentiments.  May
    > those influences meet with success. :)
    >

    All the best as long as you do not enable the bullies, Shao. You have
    the technical chops I lack to become a thought leader here, but to do
    so, you need to confront the bullies.

    > Please be assured that your previous response in this matter shall not
    > influence my judgment of any valuable C discussion you offer.  Those
    > discussions have their own merits.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #13
  14. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    On Aug 14, 9:15 pm, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
    > On Aug 14, 12:54 pm, Shao Miller <> wrote:
    >
    > > spinoza1111wrote:
    > > > Let's blame the victim and feel all right. Shao, this even-handedness
    > > > is enabling.

    >
    > > No blame; but interactions with consequences.  I don't know the
    > > "Colonel's" frame of reference for why he or she or else produces the
    > > posts they produce that upset you.  Am I qualified to judge who is
    > > victim and who is bully?  Isn't the very best that I can do to post what
    > > I posted?

    >
    > Shao, it's obvious he's a bully. Had you exercised such suspended
    > judgement on Hitler (yeah, Hitler: Mike Godwin is a limited man with
    > whom I have served on an online panel), then you would have been
    > responsible for Hitler's rise.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Also, no feeling all right.  It doesn't make me feel good to read
    > > continued conflict.

    >
    > It is confined to a few threads.
    >
    >
    >
    > > > I work as a teacher in a school. Modern thinking on school bullying
    > > > always takes the side of the victim, for it's been found that any
    > > > "even handedness" encourages and enables the bullies.

    >
    > > Well then perhaps you are more qualified than I to judge victim versus
    > > bully.  My request to both parties which you perceive as "even-handed"
    > > might have been better off done without, if it further enables conflict..
    > >   Why don't we find out?  Is it possible for a statistically minor
    > > occurrence, here?

    >
    > Well, I've been around for ten years, and NOTHING EVER CHANGES.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > > ... ... ...
    > > > And if you do not realize this, you, sir, are another useless
    > > > corporate enabler and you, sir, can go to hell.

    >
    > > Before my response, this predicate on my person would have been
    > > indeterminate.  I will take that to mean that I would have been better
    > > off without engaging the subject. :)

    >
    > > I think it's entirely reasonable to initially acknowledge your upset,
    > > request acknowledgment from the other party, then suggest dissolution or
    > > resolution of the conflict.  If that initial sequence results in the
    > > "Colonel" saying that you use words in your posts which cause an
    > > electric shock, well then we've identified that there is negative
    > > influence in both directions and can work with that.  If the "Colonel"
    > > says, "Ha ha ha, I don't care," well that would qualify as bullying in
    > > my opinion.  I'd suggest that we find out, but I think your response to
    > > me is cause for me to stay outside of the matter from now on.

    >
    > Have you not noticed this is a tough neighborhood? I am for one sick
    > to death of people hiding their feelings save hatred and out of
    > control anger. "You, sir, can go to hell", meant conditionally, is
    > that rare text here, controlled anger to try to get you to see how the
    > bullies have ruined this ng.
    >
    >
    >
    > > I apologize for not meeting your expectations.  I apologize that you do
    > > not agree with my strategy.  It has worked for me historically, so the
    > > Bayes over my shoulder advises not to give it up, despite the evidence
    > > you've provided about bullying in modern school systems.  I'll tell you
    > > what: I happen to know an expert on bullying, I will ask them what they
    > > advise.  I should have done that first; for that, I apologize yet again.

    >
    > > Also, please kindly refrain from wishing me an ill fortune, especially
    > > in public, where others might join in.  I have wished the very opposite
    > > for you (and continue to do so), so it is not reciprocal, and is
    > > un-civil.  I find it more likely that your positive influences for
    > > change will be more effective without expressing such sentiments.  May
    > > those influences meet with success. :)

    >
    > All the best as long as you do not enable the bullies, Shao. You have
    > the technical chops I lack to become a thought leader here, but to do
    > so, you need to confront the bullies.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Please be assured that your previous response in this matter shall not
    > > influence my judgment of any valuable C discussion you offer.  Those
    > > discussions have their own merits.


    Shao, please check

    http://groups.google.com.hk/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=ULwocw4AAABHj7VgGAGDKYKqEsAl2NK_

    "Colonel Harlan Sanders" has posted 122 times since the account was
    created in Sep 2009. Each post is some sort of attack on me. This
    behavior constitutes Internet stalking and it is illegal in many
    communities.

    Now, please go and ask him to desist...or you can indeed go to hell. I
    mean it. You're part of the solution or part of the problem.
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #14
  15. spinoza1111

    spinoza1111 Guest

    Re: Petition Google for the removal of "Spinoza1111"

    On Aug 14, 12:56 pm, pete <> wrote:
    > Colonel Harlan Sanders wrote:
    >
    > > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:15:17 -0700 (PDT), spinoza1111
    > > <> wrote:
    > > >Google:

    >
    > > >Whereas the account "Colonel Harlan Sanders" was created by an
    > > >anonymous poster strictly for the purpose of "trolling", where
    > > >"trolling" may be said to be anonymous abuse, we the undersigned ask
    > > >Google to remove this account.

    >
    > > >Edward G. Nilges spinoza1111

    >
    > > Come on, you aren't really this stupid, are you?
    > > I don't post via Google. I don't use a Google account at all.

    >
    > http://open-dictionary.com/Nilgewater
    >
    > I'd like to see the word "nilgewater" used more often.


    http://groups.google.com.hk/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=ULwocw4AAABHj7VgGAGDKYKqEsAl2NK_

    Pete, you've been suckered by an anonymous troll who created the
    "Sanders" account in 2009 solely to stalk me. Nice going, asshole.
    >
    > --
    > pete
     
    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010
    #15
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nils O. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E5sdal?=

    Sun Java spinoff petition.

    Nils O. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sel=E5sdal?=, Oct 8, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    353
    Tim Tyler
    Oct 11, 2003
  2. Andrew Thompson

    FAQ - references to Google/Google Groups

    Andrew Thompson, Jun 20, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    673
    Andrew Thompson
    Jun 20, 2005
  3. Campaigner

    e-petition/please help

    Campaigner, Oct 8, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    Campaigner
    Oct 8, 2007
  4. spinoza1111

    In the matter of "Colonel Harlan Sanders"

    spinoza1111, Aug 14, 2010, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    544
    spinoza1111
    Aug 15, 2010
  5. Andrew Stuart
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    192
    Andrew S. Townley
    Sep 12, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page