Joseph wrote:
> Some Guy <noemailformethanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:WZLPg.3375$nL2.3257@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>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.
>
>
> Yes, also when he posts something stupid he'll every bullying trick he
> knows to distract people in those situations.
You mean like this:
Message ID: hYednWj-Gv9bs2_fRVn-pg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mistake. Apologies.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
Wow, that's some pretty harsh bullying there.
>>>>>>>>>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?
>
>
> Before my time here actually, if you look in Google you'll find St.
> Baldwin and MSB (sometimes Mal) attacking atheists in crossposts to
> alt.atheism. I think it started in the late 90's or very early 2000's
> but it continued after that on and off.
Why would an atheist attack atheists? Or did you mean "attacking
theists?"
And why should I care about what he did over five years ago? You talk
like it's an ongoing, recent problem in this group or something, and as
I've said I've not seen that here.
>>>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.
>
>
> No loss to me, though. And he does use Usenet to belittle theism any
> chance he can get.
Aside from a recent thread *started* by a theist, and who was thus
asking for comments, when has he gone on any such crusade here lately?
When has he gone out and brought it up as an unrelated issue in a
different thread, for example?
>>>>>>>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?
>
>
> Well, this is posted on three newsgroups...
I still don't see what "fess up, atheist," was supposed to indicate,
except that you clearly implied he was hiding his atheism. I don't see
that as being the case.
>>>>>>>>>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.
>
>
> Um, no. I don't know how interesting non-D&D conservation equals
> trolling in your mind.
It's your method that sets the tone of your approach.
>>>>>>>>>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?
>
>
> He's the number offender, here. Indeed, he would be number on in feces
> throwing in many newsgroups.
Again, I don't see any indication that he's somehow noticibly different
than the other regulars here in their reaction to harsh criticim (as
differentiated from non-harsh criticism).
>>>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.
>
>
> The problem is in finding time. Right now I'm immersed in American
> football. :p
The Chargers are 2-0, and stomped a hole in Oakland's scoreboard their
first week (27-0). It makes up for the spectacular failure of the
Padres last night to hold a four-run lead, not once but TWICE, the
second time in a spectacular fa****on. Woo hoo!
http://s****ts.espn.go.com/nfl/standings
>>>>>>>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.
>
>
> And as long as I'm not here to be a public menance that's fine.
You can't argue with a confident man.
>>>>>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.
>
>
> Your memory isn't working. And denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Did you care to provide some examples?
>>>>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's an honest one. :D
I'd expect nothing less!
>>>>>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?
>
>
> That's a typo; I meant "It certainly did not slow Mr. Brown down any.
> (Burke's behavior)
Ah, I see. Carry on.
The point of course is not whether or not it *worked,* but whether or
not it was a reprehensible thing to do. It most certainly was, and
outside of his sockpuppets I don't remember anyone sup****ting Burke's
doing that. Do you?
>>>Burke's threats were a complete joke, and made me laugh on occasion.
>>
>>Regardless of how comical *he* was, what he *did* was not.
>
>
> I don't view as so serious but YMMV. There certainly was not enough
> criticism at the time on Burke's worst enemies who were behaving badly.
What did Burke's "worst enemies" do that was so bad? Tell Burke he was
an idiot? Come on, that's normal for Usenet. And Burke being the jerk
that he is, he immediately escalated it beyond what was called for.
>>>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.
>
>
> Actually yes. I'll point to your year long feud with Bradd that stunk up
> newsgroup as a prime example.
To do so, you'll have to overlook both that fact that I actually agreed
with Bradd on some issues, and Bradd's tendency to overreact to being
challenged by spewing venom. You know, the thing you're accusing Mal of
doing. And let's not forget post-editing and general whininess, too.
>>>>>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? ;-)
>
>
> Yea, you'll have your civil disagreements, but when it comes time to
> smite the enemy... you'll gang up.
Bosh and blunderbusses. If Mal and I both dislike someone and we both
decide to write posts to that effect, it's hardly "ganging up," as we
don't coordinate our posts.
And I wouldn't call some of my spats with Mal "civil," either. I can
think of one that was particularly vitriolic.
>>>>>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.
>
>
> Wrong, but you keep on believing that.
Explain how that's wrong. I don't respond to him any more, but he keeps
responding to me. That's an obsession HE has with ME.
>>>It's pathetic, and you are not going to change Terry.
>>
>>I don't intend to.
>
>
> You do intend to remain Terry's plaything, though.
Stealing material from Terry again? THAT's pathetic.
>>>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?
>
>
> Pee-Wee Herman quotes don't offend me for one thing.
How does that affect signal to noise ratios, which was allegedly your
concern?
>>>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?
>
>
> Go check Mal's posts in RGFD this year. Mal has really been picking up
> the slack with MSB gone in being a bully and a slob.
Let's see what we see about that. Here are the 10 earliest posts still
available in my newsreader from Mal, starting around mid-April:
Message ID: CPOdnebq6fFmW9zZnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: A4WdnZhenthvWtzZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: jaednYmRMp5wU9_ZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: afCdnQM_e8SzUt_ZRVn-uQ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: hZudnY9dhNx3ZNnZ4p2dnA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: 1JmdnUIPQIceZtnZRVn-gg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: mdKdnRvr5YAjYdnZRVn-pw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: b4SdndKcgqxqzdjZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: EsWdnZe-5MKozNjZRVn-tw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ID: muadnXzud5aGJ9jZRVn-tA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
this as a sample, where is the bullying or slovenliness? There's
nothing worse than than him questioning Aaron's presumptions, and no
insults at all.
In fact, I don't seem him even using as harsh a word as "moron" until
June 8th. So over two months without so much as a pissing contest. And
that constitutes a "bully and a slob" to you?
>Terry hasn't come
> close to that low standard, here. And Mal's on-topic posts have
> decreased this year.
Terry, by contrast, is already throwing feces around by April 15th. IN
fact, he started a couple of days earlier:
Message ID: Xns97A48C2DF1C40taustingmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
's Terry who starts the hostilities with Ralph Glatt and then
Madkaugh, and his posts are far worse in tone than either Ralph's or
Madkaugh's.
And when Terry & Mal got into it over the D&D minis, it was a civil
discussion until *Terry* started with the name-calling, not Mal. Case
in point:
Message ID: idqdnexdzOIEWQfZnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
's post about the marketing. Nary an insult to be found. There's a
"bull****," but that's directed at Terry's argument.
Message ID: Xns97EA661744017taustingmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
's response includes the obviously inflammatory series of "****ing
idiot," "No, you're a ****ing idiot," "Go buy some more minis, and STFU
here," and "If you even respond to this, you're a hypocrite." Note that
last one in particular and tell me who's being the bully here?
>>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.
>
>
> Do you think replying to other people's posts (instead of Terry himself)
> when you are talking smack about Terry fools anyone? It makes you look
> more pathetic!
How is that?
>>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?
>
>
> It never ends.
I see you're unwilling to back up your position with facts. Not that I
should be surprised from someone who thinks honesty is overrated.
|
