notifying particular thread to wake up.

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

The usual phrase is "willfully ignorant".

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

It does? Well, I'll be damned. Never noticed it to this day.

Learning is fun

/W

 

[bbound]

It is of course therefore a pun, since you do not make mistakes.

Got it in one! It is, of course, a pun. In the future however I will
not waste my sense of humor on anything demonstrably unable to
appreciate it. This includes bricks, rocks, trees, and any
participants in this thread that have even lower IQs.

What is an "insulting loaded question"? Did you mean "insulting, loaded
question"? What does "loaded" mean in that case (I'm not a native
speaker, so I may be not aware of all possible meanings).
GIYF.

your command of your own language [insult deleted]

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

 

[bbound]

There seem to be a handful of delusional people here [...]

Not long ago Mike Shilling called you delusional and you felt insulted
(as communicated by your [insult deleted] catchphrase). Now you call a
whole bunch of people on this newsgroup delusional. A little fairness,
Twisted?

There's a key difference you're not taking into account, deliberately
I suspect: I'm actually not; you actually are.

On a sidenote: You say "here". Yet in another post you deny usenet the
quality of a "place". How is that not inconsistent, bbound?

Actually, I denied usenet the quality of a "public place", on the
grounds that its physical infrastructure is largely-to-entirely
privately owned.

 

[bbound]

No, he states an opinion.

No, he lies. No negative opinion of me can be true, and he knows that;
therefore it is a lie.

Again, lay off the non-native speakers.

I don't know where this is coming from. I don't know who is or is not
a non-native speaker. It certainly is not the case that a non-native
speaker, in the hypothetical instance that any particular individual
involved here was one, would have some peculiar difficulty with using
an automated spell-checker, unless the spell-checker itself was ALSO a
non-native speaker.

And if you want to discuss
things and actually get to convincing people of your opinion, you better
answer questions

You fundamentally misunderstand the situation.
1. I am not trying to convince people of my opinion; I am stating
facts, in particular that none of the nasty things that you have said
or implied about me are at all true.
2. There is nothing to discuss. None of those nasty things are true
and that is non-negotiable, any more than the laws of physics are
negotiable.
3. I do not answer to you. "You better" is not something you are in
ANY position to start a sentence with except to your employees (if
anyone is so unfortunate as to have you for their boss at work).

You seem to have an inordinate fondness for ordering people around as
if they were your toy soldiers. I can't, of course, help much with
this; that will require you to seek professional help.

And that makes usenet not openly acessible? That is the reason why
people may not freely express their opinions? I don't see that logic and
would very much appreciate if you explained.

I don't see people freely expressing opinions here. I see some nasty
little fucks getting their jollies by bullying someone and generally
behaving like asses, which is not behavior any constitution was
intended to protect. I see attempts to invade someone's privacy and
incite physical violence against them; attempts (unfortunately
somewhat successful) to recruit new people to a "cause" that is
defined solely by hate (and hate speech is commonly illegal even where
freedom of speech is otherwise generally supported); and gross
violations of this newsgroup's charter. And I don't see opinions; I
see lies.

In short, I see abusive behavior not deserving of any protections.

 

[bbound]

Dude, [insult deleted]

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

I would assume Sherman has had his address up on his site for quite a
long time and he is obviously still alive and posting.

Perhaps he's only been behaving like a vicious dog infected with
rabies for a short time, however.

Believe it or not, some people are actually brave enough to engage
contact with other people. Try it once. It's pretty cool, most of the time.

I already have more contact with you and your band of merry men than I
want, TYVM. I think it's obvious to the SANE readers here that, in
light of your behavior, my choice to limit my contact with you
assholes as much as is humanly possible is perfectly logical, and
indeed the only sane choice for me to make.

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

There seems to be a lot of people who think you do.
There seem to be a handful of delusional people here [...]

Not long ago Mike Shilling called you delusional and you felt insulted
(as communicated by your [insult deleted] catchphrase). Now you call a
whole bunch of people on this newsgroup delusional. A little fairness,
Twisted?

There's a key difference you're not taking into account, deliberately
I suspect: I'm actually not; you actually are.

On a sidenote: You say "here". Yet in another post you deny usenet the
quality of a "place". How is that not inconsistent, bbound?

Actually, I denied usenet the quality of a "public place", on the
grounds that its physical infrastructure is largely-to-entirely
privately owned.

At least in the US, "public" when applied to a space is more related to
whether it is open to the general public than to whether it is privately
owned or not. For example, a shop may not be able to prevent political
activity such as petition signature collection in its forecourt and
parking lot, regardless of the fact that the land is privately owned.

Patricia

 

[bbound]

On Nov 5, 9:57 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger
[snip unwelcome quoting of attack post I snipped with good reason]

You don't like it when people quote spammer URLs unmunged. Well I
don't like it when people quote attack posts unmunged and for much the
same reason.

Do you always feel attacked when someone ...

I always feel attacked when someone is clearly attempting to make me
look like a fool in public. As, I suspect, does anyone else sane.

 

[bbound]

I would even say that it is the norm to post under your real name
and not try to hide.

Interesting how the "enemies of privacy and civil rights"* always try
to claim that people using anonymity, encryption, etc. are "trying to
hide" and implying that they MUST have malicious, explicitly criminal,
or even treasonous motives.

* I'd use a short single word here instead, but suspect that it would
invoke Godwin's Law.

[calls my posts "not worth posting"]

You lie!

I do not have to justify my choice to be pseudonymous to you. You do
not have the right to decide on my behalf whether or not I should be
permitted anonymity or pseudonymity. In my country not even the
government has that right absent evidence of criminal behavior
sufficient to get some kind of a warrant; certainly not as part of a
mere fishing expedition.

If you feel that my pseudonymity makes my posts "not worth reading"
then your sole legitimate recourse is to use your killfile. Now do us
all a favor and add me to it, AND all of the inflamed threads.

 

[bbound]

**** you, liar.

[snip]
OK, could be an inaccurate, insulting characterization. 1/3 points.

Excuse me? All it takes is one lie in his post and he is a liar. In
fact, technically all it takes is one lie *ever* and he is a liar, or
at least, one reasonably recent lie. Knowing this asshole, he probably
lies more often than he tells the truth, and perhaps as often as he
exhales. He probably lies on his tax returns, lies to his buddies
about all the action he's supposedly getting, and lies about his
height, weight, and age. Hell, he probably practises law or holds
public office somewhere; he's certainly more than satisfied those
professions' restrictions on maximum IQ and maximum honesty.

I think there was content in sherms post, but that could be because I
don't know what the term "content-free" means. Would you care to define
it's meaning, possible taking this very post as an example? Much obliged.

Well, since you asked politely, for the first time in recorded
history ...

It means that it had nothing meaningful/useful to say. Which is true;
it clearly belonged in /dev/null by this newsgroup's charter and, for
that matter, as a plain old pointless waste of valuable electrons.

 

[bbound]

[falsely claims to have the right to decide things on my behalf]

Wrong.

Oh, and none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about
me are at all true.

 

[bbound]

This is not obvious to me (us, may I say?) since you do not provide a
link for us to verify your story. For all I know you could have made
this story up. I'm not saying that you did, but I would like proof that
you didn't.

Sorry -- confidential. The poor girl already went through a terrible
experience; to have her confidant betray her trust a couple of years
later would be an awful thing.

But I'm sure there are other examples out there. There certainly seems
to be no shortage of nasty, vicious cyber-bullies willing to tear
other people down more or less at random rather than seek a healthier
fix for their insecurities and ego issues from a qualified therapist.
There will therefore be no shortage of incidents resembling that one.

GIYF.

 

[bbound]

[insult deleted; something suspiciously close in spelling to "idiot"]

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

Also, nothing about this situation merits the use of the word
"fortunate".

 

[bbound]

Wow. I thought everyone makes mistakes every once in a while. Never been
an idiot in front af a girl? Never ate a piece of food that was too hot?
Never misspelled anything?

None of the things you describe are wrongdoings. None would represent
fault on my part, any more than being hit by lightning after having
taken all reasonable precautions to minimize the risk of that.
Unfortunate things sometimes happen to you, but they are not your
fault if you were duly diligent about avoiding them. For some risks,
such as being conked on the head by a meteorite, just going about your
business unconcerned is due diligence because it's so improbable and
it's not something you could do much to prevent anyway, short of such
extreme methods as living your whole life in a bunker or bomb shelter
that offer poorer risk/reward ratios than normal living. On the other
hand, others, such as being in a car crash, while not perfectly
preventable, are certainly reasonably reducible. Due diligence there
includes defensive driving, not to mention, to improve your odds if a
crash happens anyway, wearing your seat belt.

Since I do not take pointless risks when I know how to avoid them I
cannot be accused of fault in any accidental occurrence. And since I
do not behave maliciously towards anyone without strong evidence that
they've done something to deserve it, I also cannot be accused of
fault in intent.

 

[bbound]

On Nov 5, 10:27 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger
[implied insult deleted]

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

 

[nebulous99]

[insult deleted] You make dozens of posts at
once. I do not post tens of replies to them.

I make dozens of posts over a period of dozens of minutes, not "at
once". You personally post (right now) a small number of attack posts.
You collectively post a fucking ludicrous number of attack posts, now
nearly forty a day on average, so many that IMO the lot of you ought
to be shot by a firing squad composed of IETF members on the grounds
that you pose a threat to the network infrastructure graver than
spammers. (Evidence for this: usenet spam from spammers is growing
at one or two percent a year or so, and no faster than network
infrastructure and cancels and the like. Your spew is, of late,
growing at one or two percent a DAY. At that rate you will be posting
thousands of attack posts a day by Christmas, and millions by
February; as many as the spammers by April, and the vast majority of
all network traffic by July. And like the spam, the cancels will grow
in equal proportion, but the network infrastructure in this case is
growing much more slowly and will be saturated well before 2009 and
probably much sooner.

In practise, though, your ISPs will all toss you long before it
reaches that point, on the grounds that you are an excessive source of
traffic and complaints -- that huge a volume of off-topic usenet posts
will surely generate plenty of complaints that you've become, for all
intents and purpuses, a bunch of spammers.

And in case anyone forgets, none of the nasty things that you have
said or implied about me are at all true.

 

[nebulous99]

[insult deleted]

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

 

[nebulous99]

Here you go:

<http://www.wv-www.net/about.html>

And what assurance do I have that this is really the actual home
address of the asshole that's been posting crap under the name "Sherm
Pendley"?

Why, none whatsoever of course, save your word for it, which with your
proven track record as a liar to make Richard Nixon proud is not worth
shit.

Like I said, Paul

That is not my name.

[threat deleted]

I do not take kindly to threats.

 

[nebulous99]

[insults some guy named Paul]

If Paul were here to defend himself, I imagine he'd say that none of
the nasty things that you have said or implied about him are at all
true. But of course I can't know for certain, since I don't know that
poor fella you've developed such a hard-on for.

 

[nebulous99]

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, it's not healthy.

I was referring to you people, moron. I'm not behaving in at all a
similar manner. In fact if I liken you lot to spammers, then I'm like
the guys that send cancels for the spams. You to villains, me to the
hero, and so forth. You attack without provocation and without mercy.
I do not. You attack people that aren't present to defend themselves.
I do not. You take formerly on-topic threads off-topic with rabid
attack posts. I do not. Your intentions are clearly malicious and
destructive. Mine are self-defense. There is simply no comparison here
whatsoever.

 

[nebulous99]

I knew it. I should have said please, and I'm sorry for omitting it.
Still, you fail to prove your point. If you want your claims to be taken
seriously, you *should* on all accounts cite a reference. (Ever written
a paper?)

If this were a civil academic discourse about some obscure point of
contention regarding artifacts purported to be from the ancient Ming
Dynasty or fusion reactions in stars or other such esoterica, then you
might have had a point.

Of course, this kerfuffle resembles a civil academic discourse on
ancient artifacts or fusion reactions to much the same extent that a
lone innocent man in an alley fighting for his life against a gang of
knife-wielding thugs resembles an NBA basketball game.

There is nothing to discuss. There is no technical point, political
opinion, religious tenet, or interpretation of such under civilized
dispute. There is simply a war: several people spouting vicious lies
to try to destroy me and me valiantly slogging through a mountain of
smelly shit every day to undo the damage, not only to myself but to
some guy named Paul that you feel the need to also constantly and
viciously attack despite his absence.

And for that it suffices for me to say that none of the nasty things
that you say or imply about me (or him) are at all true.

I take it you have no personal vendetta against Arne Vajhøj or Sherman
Pendley or Lew (one of your "mortal enemies", as you state)?

Of course not. If they shut up today, I'd probably forget about them
tomorrow, rather than pursuing any kind of harassment campaign or
other attacks against them. Unless and until, of course, they did
something stupid to call themselves to my attention, such as starting
this shit up again someday.

"Mortal enemies" of course is true; you bunch are attempting violently
to destroy me by the means available to you. (Fortunately, only words,
at least so long as you keep failing to correctly locate me offline;
and if in the meantime you off any innocent person I'll be making an
anonymous tip to the police. For instance if I ever hear that that
Paul guy has died under suspicious circumstances or been assaulted or
similarly.)

That doesn't mean that I hate you; just the other way around. Rather,
I am concerned that you pose a threat to myself and to others and that
you are a colossal waste of bandwidth, and further concerned that all
of you clearly have severely disturbed ego structures, a condition
that I am not qualified to properly diagnose and treat and for which
you all steadfastly refuse to seek the required medically-qualified
help.