Joseph wrote:
> Some Guy <noemailformethanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:j%IPg.3353$nL2.2287@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>>Joseph wrote:
>>
>>>Some Guy <noemailformethanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>news:WuFPg.3332$nL2.216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Joseph wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>>>>news:qaednVOfSPJJCZHYnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Joseph" <nonexistent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:Xns9840A7912EC87619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lizard" <lizard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 10 Sep 2006 09:22:03 -0700, "Bill Wayne" <HWayne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>>wrotC:DRIVE_E
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I never quite understood this. Who in their right minds would
>>>>>>>>>>get their views on life from a *movie*?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Who in their right minds would get their views on life from a
>>>>>>>>>4000 year old book?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Excellent retort, sir.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not really
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, really.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Keep on digging your own grave. He can't even get the date close to
>>>>>being right. I doubt he was talking about the earliest Egyptian
>>>>>Books of the Dead after all.
>>>>
>>>>But you didn't find out, did you?
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually I did.
>>
>>Not before you posted.
>
>
> I like to take chances sometimes. It shows insight when you're right,
> and it's boring to always play it safe.
I bet bank tellers find you intriguing.
>>>Read Lizard's replay to me -- he was indeed referring to
>>>the Bible. I didn't misinterpret Lizard after all. Does Malachias
>>>acknowledge that? No. In fact, Lizard shows some of the same
>>>stupidity Malachias referred to:
>>>
>>>Lizard "Point is, deriving morality/ethics/etc from a compilation of
>>>ancient
>>>tomes is pretty silly..."
>>>Malachias "Joseph:> Neither extreme age nor being in a book
>>>disqualifies excellence in
>>>
>>>
>>>>philosophy,
>>>
>>>
>>>No ****, moron. Neither modernity nor being in a movie disqualifies
>>>it either. I guess you missed the point. Again."
>>
>>Post hoc confirmation doesn't get you off the hook for jumping the
>>gun.
>>
>>
>>>Does the cur acknowledge this? Again, No. And he read that post, for
>>>he replied to it. Indeed, he continues to applaud Lizard! Let's get
>>>real here -- Mal doesn't have an honest bone in his body when
>>>challenged.
>>
>>Are you saying he won't admit when he's wrong? I think Google would
>>disagree with you in that regard. Shall we have a look through the
>>archives?
>
>
> I am saying that he has a strong tendency for that when he has a
> negative attitude towards a poster or position, although it's less
> common on the threads that aren't crossposted flamebaits.
So you're saying he's going to lie more when he's challenged if he
doens't like the poster? I'm referring to your "doesn't have an honest
bone in his body when challenged" remark.
>>>>>>>but I expect such mediocrity from you, Invictus.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Strange, but last time I checked it was Lizard who made the clever
>>>>>>retort.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Idiot, you said the retort was excellent and now clever and you
>>>>>can't figure out I'm critiquing your opinion of his retort as
>>>>>mediocre.
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps you should try clearer writing, then.
>>>
>>>
>>>Given I was replying to Malachias, not Lizard, it really should not
>>>have been much of an issue.
>>
>>Clear writing is always a worthy goal regardless of its audience.
>
>
>>>If one praises a mediocre post (regardless of
>>>whether Lizard's post was or not), one might be prepared for
>>>criticism especially on Usenet.
>>
>>One should expect criticism on Usenet despite the relevance, clarity,
>>or accuracy of one's posts. It goes with the territory. Needless to
>>say, having clear writing reduces the number of fronts on which your
>>post can be justifiably questioned.
>
>
> Well, yes, and I've certainly struggled with it.
Who hasn't? But it's good of you to recognize that.
>>>>>>>Neither extreme age nor being in a book disqualifies excellence in
>>>>>>>philosophy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No ****, moron. Neither modernity nor being in a movie
>>>>>>disqualifies it either. I guess you missed the point. Again.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That only works if the retort was good. It was piss-poor. And your
>>>>>reply below shows that wasn't your point. I don't know Lizard but
>>>>>I've read posts from you attacking older material just because it
>>>>>was held in esteem by age old tradition. And with your usual
>>>>>anti-religion crusade, it is not hard to connect the dots.
>>>>
>>>>"Crusade"?
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe you should reference a good dictionary.
>>
>>I've not seen the anti-religion crusade by Mal you're referring to in
>>this group. Were you talking about a different time or different
>>group, perhaps? If so, you might have wanted to specify that.
>
>
> I believe it goes back to the BBK days with those long atheism threads.
When was that?
> Recently, you can look at those witchcraft threads he was hip-deep in
> (plus his laughable excursion into the Wicca newsgroup recently). And it
> is fun to tweak his nose by using that term.
I don't see that it bothers him, so I'm not sure it tweaks his nose.
And I'm not sure what he does in the Wicca NG has relevance here,
particularly since I still don't see this "crusade" you're referring to.
>>>>>It's time to fess up atheist, or shut up.
>>>>
>>>>You say that like it's a bad thing. Are you sure it's accurate?
>>>
>>>
>>>It a very good inference given Malachias repeated posts on theistic
>>>religions. And atheist was used as a descriptive label? Why should an
>>>atheist be uncomfortable being labled as one in a post referring to
>>>the Bible. I don't believe Mal was, though.
>>
>>No, he's admitted to being an atheist. But you were implying that
>>somehow he had an atheistic bent he was trying to hide, somehow, and
>>that I don't think is accurate.
>
>
> That is your inference, and you are wrong.
Possibly. But what else can one infer from "fess up, atheist," given
what we already know about Mal from his posts?
>>>>>>>even if it comes from a religious text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I never asserted otherwise, fool.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And I wasn't commenting on you here, jackass. I was stating my
>>>>>opinion on the matter.
>>>>
>>>>Was Lizard referencing a religious text? You don't seem to have
>>>>confirmed this before commenting on it, which strikes me as a flawed
>>>>approach to take before one begins one's expostulation.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's called interperation.
>>
>>Even if you turned out to be correct after the fact, it would have
>>been embarassing if you hadn't. Since it would have been trivially
>>easy to ask what book he was referring to before hand, why did you
>>skip that step?
>
>
> As I said above, I like to take risks. And my D&D interest has waned
> somewhat, so I had better find something interesting while I'm here.
So in other words you're trolling? Well, at least you admit it.
>>>>>>>One can, after all, take many insights about human life and
>>>>>>>culture
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from a great work of literature like the Bible
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Our definitions of "great work of literature" differ greatly, then.
>>>>>>As literature, the Christian Bible is crap. I have seen
>>>>>>collections of short stories written by different authors that had
>>>>>>more consistency.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Your lack of taste is noted. And poor consistency over a near
>>>>>millennium worth of varied authors of two different religions is not
>>>>>a major defect. Your short story reference is insipid, dear.
>>>>
>>>>It is if one is proclaiming it as the divinly inspired word of God.
>>>>Unless you're OK with God changing his mind that often, and changing
>>>>his mind in the same way and with the same goals as political
>>>>factions on Earth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And you don't have a cogent argument of why Lizard's notion, that
>>>>>taking views of life from ancient books is a poor, nay, crazy thing
>>>>>to do, is an excellent assertion. Mayhap because now you know that's
>>>>>nonsense and your diversion into, I was just applauding clever
>>>>>rhetoric, is a desperate diversionary tactic.
>>>>
>>>>Diversionary from WHAT?
>>>
>>>
>>>When people harshly criticize him or his posts, he almost invariably
>>>turns the insults (whether deserved or not) on the flamer without
>>>really addressing his own weaknesses. Notice, he started using
>>>insults like fool and moron first. I'm certainly culpable for
>>>hostility too, but I'm calling him an egomaniac.
>>
>>Uh, this is Usenet, you realize. Your description is a common, not
>>uncommon, response to such criticisms for many posters. I have not
>>seen that Mal is more prone to that than the average poster.
>
>
> And I don't believe there is some magical ****tal that Usenet posters
> enter that influences them to behave that way.
Yet a casual reading of many NGs will reveal that those criticized
harshly (your words) will react in exactly that way. What makes Mal any
different?
>Usenet is composed of
> postings from individuals. Why should people feel the need to treat
> Usenet as a giant public shooting range to vent their frustrations or
> sewer to urinate in to amuse themselves? Do it in meatspace too, and
> I'll give you some credit.
Sociology is a fascinating field. You could find lots in it to
interest you, I bet.
>>>>>That's your track record, after all.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Coming from Joseph The Stupid, that's funny. Don't you remember the
>>>>spanking you got last year?
>>>
>>>
>>>I remember you giving me that title last year.
>>
>>And several people agreed with me, at least one by that same title, if
>>not more.
>
>
> I'm not here for public approval.
That's obvious.
>>>I also remember the
>>>rhetorical thra****ngs *you* got from almost every regular poster of
>>>rec.games.frp.dnd in 2005.
>>
>>A. I *was* a regular poster to RGFD in 2005.
>
>
> Like duh.
>
>
>>B. Name a regular poster who didn't get into a fight with another
>>regular poster in RGFD at one time or another. If you're limiting it
>>to 2005, name what constitutes a regular poster and what constitutes a
>>"thra****ng," IYO.
>
>
> Occasional spats are one thing, but this was more like a veritable
> tsunami towards your isolated island. That has stopped, though.
Not significantly more than any other poster.
>>C. I backed up every one of my contentions with facts, whether others
>>agreed with my interpretations of those facts or not. Where I was
>>clearly wrong, I admitted it, even for the most monumental
>>face-plants.
>> Would you like some message IDs to go with that crow, sir?
>>
>>Now, can you honestly say that you have done the same?
>
>
> I try to be honest here, but if you judge that I fail than so be it. I
> don't exalt honesty as a great virtue anyway.
What an interesting statement.
>>>It may have exceeded the spectacle of
>>>Christopher Burke's flameout a few years ago.
>
>
>>Bull****.
>>I never took Usenet discussions outside the group by
>>contacting someone's employer over their posts here, or threatened to
>>destroy the group out of spite, or tried to imply that the
>>Terry-stalker who filled up the group with trash while following Terry
>>around was actually my making good on that threat. All those were
>>Burke's doing, and he deserved everything he got for exhibiting that
>>behavior.
>
>
> Who really knows what happened between Brown and Burke? Hell, by current
> U.S. law against "annoying Internet posts" I guess it is a tempest in a
> teapot. I certainly did not slow Mr. Brown down any.
I'm glad you didn't slow him down. Were you trying to?
> Burke's threats were a complete joke, and made me laugh on occasion.
Regardless of how comical *he* was, what he *did* was not.
> Really the only thing that upset me was Burke's post forging, and he
> couldn't even do that right. Burke was like a stupid stoned out ninny
> who *tried* to be nasty by really only succeeded in pissing on himself.
>
> You, though, were like some Ultimate Annoying Nerd Gamer from Hell who
> couldn't stop making a pest of himself in almost every significant rules
> thread.
Hardly.
>>>What's funny is that you are playing Little Buddy to Malachias
>>>Invictus. You tried to do the same with MSB, but you know what's
>>>different.
>>
>>I've fought with both Mal and MSB before on issues, and I've agreed
>>with them on other issues. I don't decide my stance on an issue by
>>who is posting. I decide on the issue itself.
>
>
> Well, you shouldn't solely, but sometimes the poster is an issue or
> *the* issue.
Which isn't the same as the original point you were making, e.g.
accusing me of brown-nosing Mal. How could I possibly get along with
someone who doesn't like Coors? ;-)
>>>MSB actually had talent. Mal just has the vileness and the posting
>>>endurance.
>>>
>>
>>There will never be another MSB, but it's hardly fair to accuse Mal of
>>that behavior. It's more descriptive of someone like Terry than Mal.
>>Post for post, Mal is on-topic much more in RGFD than Terry, which
>>reduces the accuracy of your contention significantly.
>
>
> First of all, you and Mal need to drop the obsession with Terry Austin.
Uh, you have that backwards bucko. Terry is apparently obsessed with me.
> It's pathetic, and you are not going to change Terry.
I don't intend to.
> Yes, Mal has far more on-topic posts than Terry, but Mal also has more
> off topic posts than Terry in recent years because Terry has reduced his
> posting from years ago and Mal is prolific as ever.
Which is a stupid argument. It's percentage, not quantity, and even if
Mal were 50/50 (which I don't grant), Terry is about 1/1000. Who's
worse in that case?
>And what does Terry
> and Mal have to do with what I said about MSB and Mal.
You're the one using loaded language. I do what I have to to refute it,
and pointing to a poster more deserving of your description is a natural
part of that. There simply isn't anyone else posting here currently who
fits your description of Mal's alleged bad habits than Terry. Did you
want me to choose a character from fiction or something?
Again, stop
> projecting your obsession with Terry into things.
Given that I've stopped replying to Terry, but he continues to dog my
posts, I think you've got your obsession thing backwards. But here's a
proposition: who do you think is the poster I've referred to most in
the third person among my scribblings herein? Do you think it's Terry?
|
