So, you attack me by calling me a liar and you didn't even read what I
wrote.
I read up to the part where it became apparent that the sole purpose
of your post was to publicly lie about me. At that point, it became
apparent that the remainder of it was likely utterly without merit,
and therefore would have been a waste of my time to read.
So, now you are attacking me by saying I'm irrational
You have made numerous implausible claims regarding the purported
capabilities of terminal-mode software, and you have viciously
attacked a complete stranger without provocation. Delusional psychoses
are a plausible hypothesis to explain such behavior.
I would respond similarly if I were accosted on the street by a man
haranguing me about black helicopters of highly improbable stealth and
speed, imploring me to beware of government programs of highly
implausible secrecy in the era of Wikileaks, and then, after I had
expressed my skepticism, accusing me loudly of being a CIA agent.
You must have one hell of an ego to think anyone could be bothered
writing anything about you one way or the other.
And yet, several people have, though little of it was either
flattering or accurate.
My post was not about you, it was about correcting incorrect statements
I do not make incorrect statements. This is an excellent example of a
remark about me that is neither flattering nor accurate.
You as a person are totally irrelevant.
As is this.
You are contradicting yourself every few sentences. This is another
reason for one to call you irrational.
You have admitted that you only read the first couple of
sentences. Where in those sentences did I 'bad mouth you'?
When you accused me of incompetence, if not of outright dishonesty.
In reality, what your saying is that you believe, without any evidence
whatever, that I attacked and bad mouthed you.
I have plenty of evidence, as does the Google Groups archive.
There is a term for what you have - paranoia
This, of course, constitutes one more piece of evidence.
With your every post, you dig yourself into a deeper hole by saying
you have no hostility towards me and no desire to personally attack
me, while simultaneously posting yet more personal attacks.
You didn't read the rest, so you wouldn't know if I bad mouthed you or
not.
The part that I did read had already done so, so I did know that you
had.
Did you think it had been just a lucky guess?
Just for the record, I did not.
This is clearly a lie. The record speaks for itself: you implied
negative things about me, repeatedly.
Your attack on me is completely unjustified.
On the contrary, it is quite justified. It is your attack on me that
is unjustified.
I posted impersonal statements about computer software. You responded
with counterfactual claims, insults, and other retorts some of them
designed to elicit negative opinions of me in other people. At this
point, I called you on your violent and antisocial behavior. You were
the first to become uncivil.
All I did was attempt to point out where you were in error.
And that, of course, was yours. Error, that is.
1. I made no error.
2. Even if I had, it would not have been polite for you to publicly
accuse me of having done so, instead of employing a private mode
of communication.
3. Regardless, what you said implied, in public, negative things
about me, which has undesirable side effects I am now endeavoring
to correct.
4. Compounding your error, you are now making containing said side
effects extremely difficult. I suspect you are doing so
intentionally, in which case you cannot claim that this is an
accident and must admit that you have hostile motives and that
these acts of yours constitute deliberate attacks.
In fact, the paragraphs that followed did not reference you at all.
Not directly. They nonetheless implied certain inaccurate and unwanted
claims about me.
I believe you realise you got things totally wrong
I did not.
and now your trying to get back face
If that were true, it would seem that you are going to a great deal of
effort to deny me that opportunity. And since you apparently believe
your assertions to be true, then you clearly harbor an intent to deny
me that opportunity. Such an intent is clearly a hostile one,
contradicting, once again, your earlier claim to have no hostile
motives toward me.
a rather poor attempt at wit
Personal attacks like this, of course, furnish further evidence.
Since you have demonstrated clear hostility in multiple ways, while
repeatedly denying harboring any, it is the inescapable conclusion of
logic that you, sir, are a liar, and therefore that none of what you
have written about me should be considered credible by anybody reading
this thread. There are in fact two reasons to disbelieve all negative
claims you have made, or implied, about me: 1. your proven track
record as a liar and 2. your demonstrated hostility, which is an
obvious reason to suspect bias even in the statements you make that
you believe to be true.
The ironic part of this is that your statements about emacs were the ones
that were counterfactual.
Calling me a liar is not going to help you much now that you have been
proven to be the liar here. It merely creates the appearance of
projection, a dishonest attempt to deflect blame, and possibly "sour
grapes".
Talk about pot calling the kettle black
The only irony here is that your personal attack, laced with terms
such as "stupid" and accusations of "errors", is laced with multiple
spelling and grammar errors of your own making.
For the record, I don't have any opinion regarding eclipse. I happen to
like emacs, but I don't care if nobody else likes it.
Then you have no "horse in this race" and no logical reason to
continue posting, unless, of course, it's personal. Which you've
claimed it's not, a claim already established as being almost
certainly a lie.
As I stated in my original e-mail, different strokes for different folks.
What e-mail?
All I was doing was correcting your errors.
I have none for you to correct. What you actually were doing was
publicly smearing a complete stranger. This aggressively hostile act
suggests a need for you to find some alternative outlet for the
frustrations in your life.
You have made statements in previous messages that I have lied and I
have bad mouthed you, neither of which are true.
I have just proven that you have, indeed, both lied and bad-mouthed
me. Compounding your moral and strategic errors by telling additional,
easily-refuted lies is not in your best interests, Tim.
Of course I know you will say otherwise. My challenge to you would
be to show actual instances where I have lied or bad mouthed you.
I have done so above.
I used the term misinformation because I thought maybe you would read it
and not consider it a personal attack.
Accusing someone of spreading misinformation is, of course, a personal
attack.
The bottom line is that statements you made about emacs are incorrect.
No, they are not. It is the statements you have made about me that are
incorrect, and many of the statements you have made appear now to be
outright lies.
Call it being wrong, being in error or misinformation, whatever you like.
I call it unwarranted and, at least initially, personal attacks on me
by yourself.
Shame on you.
If that is your aim, I regret to inform you that this has not been the
outcome.
Is that a threat?
You attacked me for doing nothing more than attempt to correct your
mistaken beliefs
I have no mistaken beliefs for you to correct.
I attacked you for attacking me in public, which I hope you are now
coming to realize was a grievous error. Perhaps many people roll over
and submit to your particular form of abuse, and allow you to tell the
world what idiots they supposedly are, but you have found, in me, a
person who is unwilling to tolerate that and will fight back.
Next time, choose your target more carefully, or better yet, find a
better method of stress-relief than publicly dumping on random persons
on the Internet.
My only criticism of you at that time was to say [deleted]
Your error was not in the content of your criticism of me. It was in
the fact of your criticism of me. Do not publicly criticize me.
In return, you called me a liar and then later said I bad mouthed you
Because you had.
Again, I challenge you to show me one example of where I have bad mouthed
you.
Every post to this thread bearing your name, or nearly so.
Failing that, I expect a full and sincere apology.
Expect what you wish, but as the saying goes, "do not hold your
breath".
If you make a statement of error in a public forum, why is it not also
acceptable for others in that public forum to correct you.
I did not make "a statement of error" in a public forum.
If I only correct you privately, how does that help others who could
be led astray by your error?
Your response is yet another vicious accusation. I do not lead people
astray. You will desist from publicly accusing me of that or any other
malfeasance or you will face the consequences. I have already
mentioned, in other posts, that falsely accusing people publicly
without evidence is commonly a tort. That means I can sue you.
I also find this a rather large contradiction. You have stated on more
than one occasion that you cannot let things people have written about
you go without being addressed because they are wrong and could have a
negative impact - what you referred to as keeping face.
Keeping face is not quite technically accurate, since that would only
be applicable were I guilty, and I am not.
At the same time, you don't want anyone to correct your public
mistakes in public, only privately.
I have no public mistakes. Furthermore, there is a difference between
my defending myself when personally badmouthed, and your defending an
unfeeling, inanimate piece of computer software when you feel it is
being badmouthed. The latter certainly is not a situation justifying
badmouthing human beings, even the one that badmouthed your favorite
software.
Human beings have rights, as well as feelings, that software lacks.
Hence the difference, and hence the lack of the symmetry you seem to
be trying to imply.
Another violation of that implied symmetry is that my criticisms of
emacs are valid; your criticisms of me are not.
I do not "kid".
Your posts have been chock a block full of errors of fact
They have not.
The remaining lies and other pieces of nonsense in your post, of which
there were numerous, have been deleted. This includes a blatant and
probably-illegal attempt to incite hostility in others, multiple
accusations of lying, accusations of various forms of stupidity and
incompetence, and, unsurprisingly, also accusations of mental illness,
as well as such childish namecalling as calling me an "ass" and my
name "childish".
I note that nothing remains after the deletion of all the nonsense.
Your posts seem to have a signal-to-noise ratio of zero. I suggest you
avoid making any more of them.
