the Afghan Transducer

[Eric Sosman]

If you want to talk statistics, Roedy can end speculation about this
very easily.

 

[Lew]

I am expressing my opinion and I have supported it with statistics.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means."
- Inigo Montoya, /The Princess Bride/

You have neither supported your opinion nor used statistics. You used
numbers, pulled out of you-know-where. That is not statistics.
Statistics fundamentally are objective measurements of reality, built
on evidence. Your numbers are subjective speculation built on your
fundament.

The onus should be on the spammer to justify his actions, not on me.

The onus is on you. Roedy explained what happened. It is your
privilege to doubt him, but to make objective and rather vicious
accusations against him as you've done requires that the accuser
provide evidence. It's what we here in the good old U.S. of A. term
"the presumption of innocence". A scenario where the accused must
prove innocence is completely unfair. It is entirely up to the
accuser to prove his case beyond the shadow of a doubt.

"Prove" means with objective, verifiable facts, not the horse manure
you've been flinging.

Simply calling Roedy a "spammer" doesn't prove anything, certainly not
that he has to defend himself against such a question-begging
accusation. You have not established that he is a spammer. You
cannot use the accusation itself as a basis for him to do anything.
The onus is entirely on you, Qu0ll.

You are being a troll. Follow Patricia's advice.

 

[Qu0ll]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means."
- Inigo Montoya, /The Princess Bride/

You have neither supported your opinion nor used statistics. You used
numbers, pulled out of you-know-where. That is not statistics.
Statistics fundamentally are objective measurements of reality, built
on evidence. Your numbers are subjective speculation built on your
fundament.


The onus is on you. Roedy explained what happened. It is your
privilege to doubt him, but to make objective and rather vicious
accusations against him as you've done requires that the accuser
provide evidence. It's what we here in the good old U.S. of A. term
"the presumption of innocence". A scenario where the accused must
prove innocence is completely unfair. It is entirely up to the
accuser to prove his case beyond the shadow of a doubt.

"Prove" means with objective, verifiable facts, not the horse manure
you've been flinging.

Simply calling Roedy a "spammer" doesn't prove anything, certainly not
that he has to defend himself against such a question-begging
accusation. You have not established that he is a spammer. You
cannot use the accusation itself as a basis for him to do anything.
The onus is entirely on you, Qu0ll.

You are being a troll. Follow Patricia's advice.

It's clear I am not making any friends with this line of investigation. No,
I can't prove anything and I guess everyone has the right to be gullible.
So be it.

--
And loving it,

-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]

 

[Lew]

It's clear I am not making any friends with this line of investigation.  No,
I can't prove anything and I guess everyone has the right to be gullible.
So be it.

Gullible? At least we didn't fall for your guff.

Since you admit you can't prove anything, then you need to follow
Patricia's advice and apologize.

 

[Qu0ll]

Gullible? At least we didn't fall for your guff.

Since you admit you can't prove anything, then you need to follow
Patricia's advice and apologize.

I just don't get all the hostility towards me. I hate spammers. I didn't
know that was a crime.

--
And loving it,

-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]

 

[Qu0ll]

The problem is that this whole thread is also a waste of bandwidth, and
Roedy gets the benefit of the doubt because of his contributions to the
group.

I agree - on on both points - which is why I have withdrawn my allegations
and apologised in another thread.

So, in the future, have a good case to present before you accuse Roedy of
deliberately causing people grief. I suspect he's telling the truth.

I was going through a difficult time. You can see that earlier in the
thread I was not troubled by Roedy's misplaced posts and actually found them
funny. I have no idea whether Roedy is telling the truth or not but, as I
said, my opinion is irrelevant and I should never have aired it in a public
forum in the form of an accusation. Roedy has made many, many useful
contributions to this newsgroup and to Java in general over many years and
whilst this doesn't entitle him to spam, the latter is unproven and remains
just a possibility that I should have ignored given this history. Whilst
Roedy may reduce his fan base by posting similar material in a technical
newsgroup in the future, I can assure everyone that my "assume the worst and
condemn" reaction will not happen again.

I deeply regret the entire incident. It has seriously tarnished my own
reputation not to mention Roedy's and wasted a lot of bandwidth on something
other than Java. If I could take it back I would in a heartbeat. Normally
I only see the good in people and a review of my posts in other forums will
show that I tolerate most things and people far more than the average person
(with the exception of genuine spammers). Last week I was in a dark, dark
place to which I hope never to return. I can only once again express my
sincerest apologies to Roedy and to the group in general.

I believe Java is one of the most awesome achievements in computing history
as it provides a standard reference platform on top of any underlying
architecture and OS. All software should be written in Java! You haven't
programmed till you have programmed in Java. It's a brilliant language and
environment and I for one intend to keep trumpeting its virtues in this and
other groups if permitted.

--
And loving it,

-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]

 

[Darth Kronos]

There is a Canadian in deep do for arranging atransducerto be
shipped to Dubai. [...]

     Not surprising.  On the evidence, Canadians [racism deleted]

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

 

[Lew]

There is a Canadian in deep do for arranging atransducerto be
shipped to Dubai. [...]

Not surprising. On the evidence, Canadians [racism deleted]

Strictly speaking, insults based on nationality are not racist. Xenophobic,
perhaps.

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

I don't think there's a nation on Earth that doesn't have unfair stereotypes
hurled at it. This very thread included comparisons (by a Canadian) of
another nationality to Nazis.

I've even heard vicious things said about Francophone Canadians by other
Canadians. Likewise by U.S. citizens about other U.S. citizens. I think most
people here are enlightened enough to recognize such bigotry as such and to
reject it as the unfounded claptrap that it is.

Good on ya for defending the honor of Canadians, though, mate. Personally,
I'm a U.S.'er and generally quite fond of my neighbors to the north.