This references Message ID: Xns9844185439F5B619void@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> First of all this post is so long Xnews won't even allow a proper reply
>by normal means. :D
That's not it, it's that I mistaken copied the first part of Mal's .sig,
and so your newsreader is probably doing what is, i.e. treating that as
the end of the post. So I'll have to do this manually, it looks like.
Joseph wrote:
>And Google turns up nothing for that ID, so I can't really comment
>besides that I did say his tendency was less common in "normal
>threads",
>so I don't expect anything close to a 99% correlation.
I don't see why it wouldn't. Google is how I found it. Here, try this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.dnd/msg/70916e3d41d1ff6c?hl=en
Jospeh wrote:
>Damn, I don't know how atheists got in there, except I think I vaguely
>recall some intra-atheist strife concerning strong and weak atheism
>among some posters.
So in other words, he wasn't pu****ng his atheism on theists, then, as
you claimed.
Joseph wrote:
>I don't think it's a major problem; his abrasive way he goes about
>talking about theism irritates me, I suppose. Actually I'll admit his
>whole personality he displays on Usenet does the same.
Well, that's Usenet for ya. But saying "he tasks me," O Khan, is not
really an indictment of his behavior towards othes, is it?
Joseph wrote:
>Perhaps I'm projecting too much of the bad old days on Mal's behavior
>now. I just thought the subject came up too often, and I've seen the
>arguments over and over again.
Then perhaps you owe Mal an apology for unjustly accusing him.
Joseph wrote:
>Since I was talking about the Bible, I'm just using that label in case
>people didn't know that. Besides at the time I thought he was laughing
>at the Bible.
So "fess up atheist" was intended to tar him with an epithet?
Joseph wrote:
>I *have* gotten more cranky with posters in which I have negative
>views.
ITYM "with whom" instead of "in which," si? Otherwise, an
interpretation arises which you may not have intended.
Joseph wrote:
>I don't agree with that at all. Mal is God-King of Abuse; he looks for
>fights after all.
I don't see that, at least not here. I don't follow his posts in other
NGs like you do, so I can't comment on those. As I said, a two month
sample shows precisely one post in which he even uses strong language.
This is hardly indicative of the foul behavior you paint.
Joseph wrote:
>And I'm a Miami Dolphins fan. They always seem to tease you then break
>your heart. :-(
On the other hand, Miami's baseball team has won two World Series' in
the last 10 years. Mine has none. :-(
Joseph wrote:
>Sorry, I'm really not in the mood to go back in the archives.
This must make it very easy to hold opinions with absolultely no basis
in reality.
Joseph wrote:
>No, but I thought it deserved only a short rebuke, instead of the way
>over the top responses. Such as the calls for Burkeicide (a term Bradd
>used in condemning calls for his self-inflicted death). Mal salivated
>with glee over the neologism -- see why I call him a slob?
No. Burke was (and may still be) someone whose conduct provoked those
responses, and his subsequent behavior shows that they may well have
been warranted.
Joseph wrote:
>Well, calling for his death, even a few times *threatening to kill him*
>though not Mal and MSB to his credit told whoever did it to stop.
>
>And the "war" really fouled up the newsgroup for everyone else. Burke
>wasn't the only one behaving like a baby.
First of all, who threatened to kill him? As I recall, that was a
charge Burke made, and one which turned out to be unsubstantiated. He
claimed as much but failed to produce a message ID for the alleged death
threat.
Second of all, Burke caused the war in the same way that other long, OT
threads do. You can't stop those from happening, but you CAN refrain
from prolonging them if you choose by not posting. Burke failed to
learn that lesson.
Joseph wrote:
>Of course.
With reference to me agreeing with Bradd. So how does that sup****t your
contention?
Joseph wrote:
>I think Bradd's long feud with MSB affected him in those areas for the
>worse. He was no innocent, but he was usually more right than you were.
>And you would not stop. Mal usually can… except recently with Austin.
Hockeysticks. Bradd was right on some things and wrong on others. I
wouldn't have disagreed with him if he'd been right. ;-)
And you yourself pointed out that I do stop on occasion, remember?
Joseph wrote:
>It's not premeditated, I think, but you know how flame wars are. Groups
>will naturally form, and you and Mal have fed off the other's hostility
>as encouragement if you will.
But your contention that Mal and I form some sort of natural cabal is
silly. In the cases where he & I have challenged the same poster, it's
not always been even for the same reasons. And of course, you also need
to consider the multiple threads in which only one of us was involved
and the other was absent before coming to such a conclusion, because
there are a BUNCH of those.
Joseph wrote:
>Well, I don't read all your posts, so that is quite possible.
I am immensely crestfallen that there's actually one person who doesn't
read my writing. ;-)
Joseph wrote:
>You are just another name in a long list of conquests in his eyes. I
>don't really care about him one way or the other, much. Better to
>regard
>him as a colorful piece of scenery and move on. I have told him in the
>past that he posts a lot of drivel.
Lots of people have told him that, which has about as much effect as
trying to build a snowman on a radiator. And as for being a conquest,
you're really stupid if you think that.
Joseph wrote:
>It's quite accurate.
It's accurate that you steal Terry's material? Well, at least you admit
it. Good thing you're honest and all. ;-)
Joseph wrote:
>Wasn't my only concern, not even my first concern when we get into
>really bad abuse. That kind of stuff drives people away from the
>newsgroups (so does the off-topic stuff, but I believe it is worse with
>this).
So your comment about posting volume was irrelevant, then? Why did you
make it?
Joseph wrote:
>Much of what I'm thinking of is before that and after June.
My sample covered before June. And if you had a specific period in
mind, why didn't you say so up front?
Joseph wrote:
>I don't believe Aaron has ever been on his "****wit" list. That makes a
>big difference. It's also funny you pick a thread where Mal is trying
>to
>pick a fight with Terry.
I don't know what you're smoking, but you may want to check the bowl
before you pack it next time. It's Terry that starts the abuse, not
Mal. That was kind of my point, which you seem to have not noticed.
Joseph wrote:
>Well, his pissing contest with Gunner came right before that, and Mal
>during that period didn't do much but post in a Star Wars thread. Real
>mild stuff in general, but that's not a good sample.
Gunner was an idiot who had a lot of people wrangling with him, myself
included. So much for your theory that Mal had a chip on his shoulder,
or still does.
Joseph wrote:
>You don't need to convince me that he's a troll who is willing to be
>vulgar.
>
>Message ID: Xns97A48C2DF1C40taustingmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
good, because you'd be really inept if you somehow didn't see
that. But it's interesting that you chose that particular sample.
Joseph wrote:
>And you can almost see the smoke coming out of Mal's ears since Terry
>pushed his hot button of selling D&D miniatures. Things really went
>south between them after that. And yeah Terry is an asshole. As a side
>note, did you see Mal's recent reply to me when he went on an economic
>kookrant worthy of Shawn Wilson? Stating he tried to convince people
>how
>easy it was to make money, but all the stupid people won't take the
>easy
>way (like selling D&D miniatures) and instead do hard labor. Nice
>economy you got there, Mal. I have yet to see his book at Barnes and
>Noble! :-D
So you admit that Terry instigated things? Kind of puts a hole in your
theory about Mal being a quick-trigger, then, doesn't it?
And no, I didn't see the thread you're referring to. Like most people,
I don't read every thread here. Can you provide more details?
Joseph wrote:
>I suggest you show a little more backbone.
Ignoring someone who's trying to provoke you IS showing backbone, in
case you didn't notice.
Joseph wrote:
>I'm just not that interested.
Or in being honest, either. So why are you here?
|
