notifying particular thread to wake up.

[Jernau Gurgeh]

It is not an unproven hypothesis; it is a proven false one. I have
seen this type of cyber-bullying happen to someone else in the past.
At one point the beleaguered victim tried the tactic of "do nothing"
and initially the attackers posted one round of fresh attacks and
waited. And waited. And waited. And after they realized no response
was forthcoming, started posting nasty rumors about the girl again,
purely spontaneously, and then in response to each other's posts
adding more and more elaborate nasty fantasy to each new message.

You are confusing the general with the specific, just because one cat
is a tabby doesn't mean that every cat is a tabby.

Obviously it's been tried and doesn't work.

When did you try it recently?

Shut up, liar.

"Descartes argues in his Meditations on First Philosophy that, while
humans can doubt almost all aspects of reality as illusions, humans
can be certain of their consciousness, which is therefore the only
truth"

You have confused an existential statement for an accusation of
insanity. Why so defensive?

If Arne exists, perhaps he also tells the truth?

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

Is not.

Is.

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

Not really,

It really is obvious.

or why would he have bothered to make another useless,
insulting, yet ineffective post and thereby waste his time?

lets say you gave the option one second of consideration and he gave
it twenty. That can be true and yet after giving it far more
consideration than you, he may nevertheless have chosen a different
option on this occasion. Just because he chooses one option does not
mean that he gave little consideration to his other options. It is a
shame you are unable to understand this type of reasoning.

The only thing it implies about me is that I am losing patience with
assholes like you!

I suppose losing patience is "nasty" Your choosing to respond and
choice of words implies more than that to me.

I think that anyone who has demonstrated inimical hostility towards me
cannot be trusted,

Irrelevant, belief is not a synonym of trust. Someone you neither
trust nor believe may yet say something useful of which the truth can
be tested.

yes; logically, whatever they say to me will be
motivated by their desire to destroy me,

Words posted here cannot destroy you. For example, Sherm's continued
participation here is proof of the futility of your words wishing to
have him destroyed.

I really doubt that "they" desire to destroy you. Doesn't that phrase
seem a little paranoid to you?

"Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive
anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.
Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs concerning a
perceived threat."

Have you not noticed that your obsessive behaviour in this newsgroup
(and others) is unique and far from the norm. You can change this.

rather than by any kind of
helpful or altruistic motive. To treat anything any of them said as
anything but suspect would be foolhardy, and contrary to what you may
have read in their various nasty insults when they convinced you to
join them,

My current opinion of you was formed overwhelmingly from the words you
wrote.

I am not an idiot. Oh, no indeed.

OK you wish to talk about yourself, lets do that a little.

I am not an idiot. Oh, no indeed.

Yet you often have the appearance of one. At least, you have the
appearance of what used to be referred to as idiot-savant. As I'm sure
you know, the current term is autistic-savant. On some subjects you
seem, on occasion, to be lucid and intelligent, on other subjects and
at other times you seem ignorant, perplexed and obnoxious.

It seems to me that even an idiot may utter the words "I am not an
idiot". If you truly are not one, you'll know that merely typing that
phrase is insufficient to demonstrate so.

I am not an idiot. Oh, no indeed.

The "Oh no indeed" seems a little strained. Why did you add that
unnecessary phrase? I think the true weight of words is not measured
by counting them.

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

Anyone who would stand by and watch his own name get
dragged through the mud

bbound99 is not your name, why should you care if it is dragged
through the mud?

 

[Sherman Pendley]

Monty Python? It's not in that sketch as far as I can tell.

I took some liberties. Never let accuracy get in the way of a good joke!

sherm--

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

**** OFF!
**** OFF!

Wrong. It implied that I'm stupid, or a moron, or a similarly nasty
thing. That implication is wrong, i.e. not a fact, and I'm disputing
it, i.e. it is not undisputable either.

That is a long way of saying

isnt.

Even when I was five I found this form of argument rather
unconvincing.

Which means I have to go back and read what Lasse wrote.

Which is quite convincing.

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

[[politely shows how a beginner at chess can do something nebulous said a master would find extremely difficult]]

Shame you decided to jump back in with a hostile post. Now I have to
denounce you as a liar and point out that none of the negative things
you implied about me are at all true.

I note that Patricia is smart enough not to respond to your foolish
slur. That restraint reflects well on her.

To me it vividly demonstrates the foolishness of any statement to the
effect that it is never "smart" to leave insults unrefuted.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

No; in this case the asshole is essentially inciting violence *against
himself* simply by being such an asshole. I was simply warning him of
the potential consequences of continuing his present pattern of
behavior. I guess I'm kind of charitable that way sometimes.

So if people warn you about the consequences of your behaviour, then
you will be grateful ????

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

No insult you state or imply about me is true. Nothing nasty anyone
here is claiming or implying about me is true. And that is non-
negotiable.

As I have tried to explain then:

#It is quite trivial.
#
#Try learning it.
#
#KQ-K and KR-K is very easy.
#
#KBB-K either requires training or some heavy thinking.
#
#KBKn-K requires training or the 50 move rule will come
#in effect.

can never be an insult.

People who deny that just insult themselves.

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Besides, as I've already noted, every last bit of Usenet
appears to be privately owned and operated anyway.

Totally wrong.

Nobody owns usenet.

Somebody owns the systems and the lines used to distribute
usenet.

Arne

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

I took some liberties. Never let accuracy get in the way of a good joke!

Germans see no merit in inaccuracies. I refuse to laugh at something
that is not a precice rendition of what is known to be funny.

/W
(I was subconciously hoping that you would point me to a part/version of
the sketch that I was unaware of. )

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

Is.

Is not!

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

shame you are unable to understand this type of reasoning.

I personally think he understands a lot more than he actually accepts.
This is my peeve with him: While I am never ever upset when someone does
not know or understand something I get close to furious when someone
actively "doesn't want to know". (Which by the way is the meaning ofthe
German word "Ignoranz"; I've yet to find an english word with the same
meaning.)

[Has bbound] not noticed that [his] obsessive behaviour in this newsgroup
(and others) is unique and far from the norm[?]

This is indeed a very good point, and I wonder why it hasn't been made
that clearly up to this point. If we define "normal" as "what most
people do", Twisted's behavior is clearly abnormal. Which is funny in
the light of his strong support of UI-conventions.


/W

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

As I have tried to explain then:

#It is quite trivial.
#
#Try learning it.
#
#KQ-K and KR-K is very easy.
#
#KBB-K either requires training or some heavy thinking.
#
#KBKn-K requires training or the 50 move rule will come
#in effect.

can never be an insult.

People who deny that just insult themselves.

The way he sees it is that you are explaining that it is easy, therefore
any mediocre chess player can do it. Now, either bbound considers
himself at least mediocre, in which case his not knowing it is an
implied insult, or he is not at least mediocre, which is implying an
insult that he cannot play chess too well. Any way you look at it, it
must be an insult to him.

My reasoning is slightly different: to see how a king-and-rook checkmate
can be done is not immediately evident (well, for me at least), and, in
all likelihood, bbound is not spending too much time thinking about what
he is posting before doing so. It took me at least a minute of
visualizing the chess moves in my head before I saw that it could be
done--I do consider myself merely mediocre, by the way; to someone who
has not seen it shown to him or her before, it can, at first glance,
appear extremely difficult. The fault would lie at those who taught the
person (if self-taught, the materials from which aforesaid learned), not
at the person him/herself.

</pontification>

 

[Mike Schilling]

I personally think he understands a lot more than he actually accepts.
This is my peeve with him: While I am never ever upset when someone
does not know or understand something I get close to furious when
someone actively "doesn't want to know". (Which by the way is the
meaning ofthe German word "Ignoranz"; I've yet to find an english
word with the same meaning.)

The phease "invincibly ignorant" is close.

 

[Lew]

The phease "invincibly ignorant" is close.

The usual phrase is "willfully ignorant".

The English word "ignorant" includes the meaning, but the American slang
variant "ign'ant" comes the closest.

 

[Tristram Rolph]

My reasoning is slightly different: to see how a king-and-rook checkmate
can be done is not immediately evident (well, for me at least), and, in
all likelihood, bbound is not spending too much time thinking about what
he is posting before doing so. It took me at least a minute of
visualizing the chess moves in my head before I saw that it could be
done--I do consider myself merely mediocre, by the way; to someone who
has not seen it shown to him or her before, it can, at first glance,
appear extremely difficult. The fault would lie at those who taught the
person (if self-taught, the materials from which aforesaid learned), not
at the person him/herself.

There's not necessarily any fault at all in not knowing how to
do a mate with either a rook or a queen, or in not knowing that
it is easy and possible -- I certainly don't expect people who
don't play chess, or who only know the very basics, to know it.

Now if someone plays more than very occasionally, then you might
be able to fault their teacher a bit; knowing such things is
important enough that anyone beyond the beginner stage will have
to learn them.

Claiming that it's impossible, or that it's only possible for
a master, is kind of a silly thing for someone who knows little
about chess to say; one would expect them to verify such a
claim before making it. But I don't think that anyone reasonable
would fault someone who makes such a claim, perhaps based on
misunderstanding what they have been told, but then graciously
accepts a correction from someone else more knowledgable on
the subject.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

[Has bbound] not noticed that [his] obsessive behaviour in this newsgroup
(and others) is unique and far from the norm[?]

This is indeed a very good point, and I wonder why it hasn't been made
that clearly up to this point. If we define "normal" as "what most
people do", Twisted's behavior is clearly abnormal. Which is funny in
the light of his strong support of UI-conventions.

It has been discussed previously.

He apparently think there is a big silent majority here that
supports him.

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

..................................... but then graciously
accepts a correction from someone else more knowledgable on
the subject.

Somehow I don't think that description matches the person
in question very well !



Arne

 

[Owen Jacobson]

[Has bbound] not noticed that [his] obsessive behaviour in this newsgroup
(and others) is unique and far from the norm[?]

This is indeed a very good point, and I wonder why it hasn't been made
that clearly up to this point. If we define "normal" as "what most
people do", Twisted's behavior is clearly abnormal. Which is funny in
the light of his strong support of UI-conventions.

It has been discussed previously.

He apparently think there is a big silent majority here that
supports him.

I did a little research and came up with a very good reason not to
bother debating anything with Twisted, actually. If you get a chance,
look up "Paranoid Personality Disorder".

Since I'm not a psychaitrist, obviously I can't claim to have
diagnosed him with anything, but his behaviour matches the symptoms
very closely. Therefore, I don't feel that I can make useful headway
communicating with him, eitherm whether or not he suffers from that
disorder. If he does, I feel rather sorry for him since I doubt it
will ever be treated and will haunt him for the rest of his life. If
he does not, then he's simply not somebody I can have a constructive
conversation with.