notifying particular thread to wake up.

[Patricia Shanahan]

(e-mail address removed) wrote: ....
I chose when to not have the last word, not you. As far as I can see,
you don't chose at all.

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

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

On Nov 9, 6:04 pm, Jernau Gurgeh <[email protected]>
wrote:
[About bbound's brother's Internet presence]

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

Everything I wrote in that posting is true, to the best of my
knowledge.

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

No, it is not a ... non-sequitur; it is an analogy.

It is both, they are not mutually exclusive.

Whether a shop can prevent a mugging in it's forecourt has nothing to
do with whether usenet is public in the way that a "public place" is
public.

You posted some of your personal details where the general public may
view them.

 

[twerpinator]

[insult deleted]

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

 

[twerpinator]

[insults deleted]

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

this "anyone that can not see I am being unfairly attacked is delusional" way
of thinking.

Well, some of them might simply be blind, or stupid. And the vast
majority simply do not read this newsgroup, and therefore don't even
know that it is happening at all. But yeah, some of you are clearly
delusional. Seek help.

No but we got a sample.

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?

 

[Daniel Pitts]

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?

The same the you did?

 

[twerpinator]

[implied insult deleted]

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

if X lead to Y in the past, then it probably will in the future
too, so if I want Z I need to try something different than X

But what if doing X leads usually to Y, with a chance of Z, but doing
anything else (or not doing anything) leads to Y and to things worse
than Y, with no chance of Z?

 

[twerpinator]

Well - everybody that has spoken (except you) think there is ...

I have done nothing wrong.

It is quite common for the only people to speak up a lot on an issue
to be the extremists of some stripe or another.

 

[twerpinator]

[bullshit deleted]

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

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

Twerpina... wrote:
[something]

Arne wrote:
I think I will call you twerpie.

Twerpina... wrote:
[clichéd response] And that is non- negotiable.

I wrote:
What makes you think Arne is negotiating?

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

It was a simple question.

 

[twerpinator]

Perhaps the fact that every other group that you've posted to for any
length of time seems to have the same sort of sociopaths that
latch onto you for no discernable reason could have given you a
clue that this one would too?

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.

 

[twerpinator]

[implied insult deleted] if someone arguing with
reasonable arguments looks into it, an asshole looks back throwing
canned phrases, rather than a reasonable guy answering to logical
arguments.

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

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

It is never correct to contradict me.

Are you unaware how deranged that is.

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

Are you sure?

 

[twerpinator]

On Nov 14, 10:45 am, Andreas Leitgeb <[email protected]>
wrote:
[calls me a liar]

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

 

[twerpinator]

YOU have admitted that you can't get a date, why is that my fault?

I've done nothing of the sort, you liar.

 

[nebulous99]

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.

 

[nebulous99]

On Nov 14, 11:22 am, Andreas Leitgeb <[email protected]>
wrote:
[implied insults deleted]

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

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

Wrong answer.

[are not so <stamps foot>]

Are too!

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

[nebulous thinks that because one person is alleged to be a bully that
therefore people in general cannot be trusted]

No, that because one person is demonstrably a bully that that person
cannot be trusted.

That contradicts what you've written previously.

[several clichés deleted]

Not every person bullies unless constrained from doing so.

Nope;

Aha - you admit you were wrong. I feel vindicated

[juvenile insult omitted]

You think Descartes hallucinated?

I never claimed any such thing.

Me:
"Descartes argues in his Meditations on First Philosophy that, while
humans can doubt almost all aspects of reality as illusions, humans
can be certain of their consciousness, which is therefore the only
truth"

Me:
You've mistaken an existential statement for an accusation of
insanity. Why so defensive?

You:
I was accused of hallucinating or else
of holding solipsistic or similarly illogical beliefs.

[more nonsense deleted]

I see no need for me (or anyone else) to do that!

Then why did you?

I didn't, since you'd already done it, it wasn't necessary for anyone
else to do it.

[[Wrong,]] lots of strange behaviour can be and is tolerated in this
world.

I'm sorry, but I must reserve the right to be sole arbiter of what I
choose to tolerate and to not tolerate.

What you failed to understand was that what you tolerate and what
people in general tolerate are very different.

[cliché deleted]

Yawn.

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

On Nov 6, 4:19 pm, Jernau Gurgeh <[email protected]>
wrote:
[[accurate] description of some earlier posts deleted]
[[common sense] deleted]

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

That's a tired old Cliché.

My commending Patricia's restraint is hardly an insult to anyone else.
It would be stretching things to say that it is more than a mild
rebuke to those who lack that restraint. I'd not even go that far.

Have you nothing pertinent to say on the subject?