notifying particular thread to wake up.

N

nebulous99

Second time I'm asking this question: And that doesn't make it publicly
accessible?
Irrelevant.

You feel miserable? Sorry. Really. I thought you were having as much fun
as i did.

Then you thought wrong; hardly surprising, given that all the
available evidence (your posts) places your IQ somewhere between that
of the little borer beetle that sometimes ruins turnip crops and that
of the turnip. :p
But it's not. I don't want to destroy you.

That's funny. You're trying awfully hard to do so, which of course
makes me suspect that (surprise, surprise) you're lying.
I don't even know who *you* is [sic]. I have nothing against you, really.

Then you should treat me with respect and leave me alone instead of
continuing your smear campaign against me.

If you continue to harass me, I will take that as strong evidence that
you have once again told a big fat whopper. Actions speak louder than
words. When your mouth says that you have nothing against someone
while your arm continues to beat him with a stick, people will tend to
believe what the arm says, instead of what the mouth says. Of course,
it's entirely possible for both to be telling the truth in a sense,
but that requires you to be severely brain-damaged or schizophrenic or
something like that; you'd need to ask a qualified psychiatrist for a
precise diagnosis.
You're just fun to play with.

I am a human being, not some toy for you to fiddle with and abuse as
you see fit.

You know what?

I think maybe I am actually knowledgeable enough to diagnose you,
after all.

Textbook sociopath. The only sensible treatment for you is a five-by-
nine barred cell in a Supermax somewhere, which won't technically cure
you but will make sure that you've tortured your last stray cat,
poisoned your last neighbor's dog, and killed your last (and hopefully
before actually killing any at all) human being.
I am admittedly of not much use on this newsgroup right now. But then
again, I'm striving to improve.

Then, by all means, please leave.
As for the purpose of pestering you: I don't generally go out mocking
people in the real world

Of course not; they'd punch you in the nose, and rightly so.
Unfortunately online you can get away with such gross disrespect and
clearly sociopathic behavior.

You know, the warning sign of a Jeffrey Dahmer to be used to be the
kid that kept lighting bugs on fire and watching them writhe and in
whose neighborhood pets kept disappearing or dying under mysterious
circumstances. Now, I think there is another one: vicious usenet posts
and other online harassment of innocent people with absolutely no sign
of conscience or remorse whatsoever. Do your parents know what you get
up to online? I'm guessing no, or they'd have dragged you out back and
shot you to ensure you never get to grow up to make front-page
headlines, get your first set of mug shots, get your first conviction,
then your first trial as an adult, and eventually get your one and
only lethal injection. :p
You wouldn go around in your dayjob calling people asswipe, arnehole, etc.
would you?

If they treated me like some piece of trash they found by the road,
and weren't my boss, I would. (If they were my boss, I would start
cutting out want ads and making inquiries and such until I had a new
job lined up and *then* call them an arsehole during the elaborate
process of saying "I quit" with the right degree of eloquence and
explanation.)
I have a real life and currently this is distraction from it. Fair?

Another good reason to exercise your killfile a little bit or perhaps
just douse your modem in concentrated H2SO4, add a sprinkle of
cyanide, stir the resulting mush until thoroughly mixed, and then eat
it. (This recipe is recommended for all budding young sociopaths.
Should I copyright it? Nah, that would be hypocritical, and besides,
society is far better off if it's widely administered even if I never
see a dime in profits.)

[snip various cryptic nonsense]
Nobody knows what is true about you and what is not. What counts is your
reaction to these things.

And my reaction to "these things" is to state clearly for the record
that none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.
 
N

nebulous99

Some might say it is hypocritical to ask that when you have previously
expressed concern about concealing your own identity? Do you wish to
discuss identities?

Consider it shorthand for "What the hell is your connection to this,
that you stick your head in out of the blue and take sides?" ... or to
put it bluntly "OK, which of you assholes has a new sock puppet?"

You're obviously not some random bystander; you're saying more or less
exactly the same sorts of bullcrap people like Arnehole are saying.
Which makes me suspect you're probably him. Sherm would be fucking
with the headers to try to make google misdirect my reply, and so
would that Tristram guy, who I suspect is a sock puppet of Sherm's for
more or less the same reason you "smell like Arne". But I'll entertain
Werner and Owen and Nick as dark-horse candidates for the guy whose
hand is writing your posts. :p

[snip implied insult and run-on sentence]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
You seem confused. Is there something you'd like explained?

No. There's someone I'd like shut up though.

[snip unwanted invitation to be the subject of conversation]

No thanks.
 
N

nebulous99

You are [false accusation deleted]

You are a liar.
just because one cat
is a tabby doesn't mean that every cat is a tabby.

False analogy. Just because one fire does damage if allowed to spread
in an urban area does mean that every fire does damage if allowed to
spread in an urban area. It's simple physics. And likewise, every
smear campaign *will* influence people if allowed to spread unchecked.
That is why all threatening fires, and all smear campaigns, need
dousing, without exception.
When did you try it recently?

This question is irrelevant. All that matters is that leaving a fire
alone allows it to spread, and that leaving a smear campaign alone
also has disastrous consequences. Both have been observed. Both will
grow in a similar manner. The fire will burn fuel and grow hotter,
which causes it to be able to ignite matter at a further distance,
which will cause more fuel to ignite and grow the fire's size, and so
forth until it is put out or somehow contained by materials unsuitable
as fuel. Likewise, once an online smear campaign has begun it will
tend to occasionally generate converts (like you, if you're not in
fact a sock puppet) that will add to a growing number of hostile
individuals; the more there are, the louder their collective voice
(the hotter the fire) and the faster they will recruit still more
people. Obviously this, too, will accelerate destructively if no
action is taken to douse or contain the flames. Unfortunately, the
online environment precludes ready containment, as has been observed,
lamentably, on many occasions. That leaves dousing. So prepare for a
dunking!

[snip attempt to sound sophisticated and lend credence to his
nonsense]
[false accusation deleted] an existential statement for an accusation of
insanity. Why so defensive?

I've done nothing of the sort; I was accused of hallucinating or else
of holding solipsistic or similarly illogical beliefs. That is quite
clearly an insult, or at best a misattribution, putting words in my
mouth. No such behavior can be tolerated.

[snip incorrect suggestion that Arne might have told the truth]

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

nebulous99

[contradicts me]

Incorrect. It is never correct to contradict me. Don't do it again.
he may nevertheless have chosen a different option on this occasion.

No, he cannot. A person with any brains that carefully considers their
possible courses of action does not then embark on a futile one when
doing nothing would be a more efficient means of achieving the same
results.

[insults deleted]

You're a liar.
Irrelevant, belief is not a synonym of trust.

Liar. Hostility indicates malicious motives. Malicious motives clearly
indicate untrustworthiness.

If someone attacks then obviously they are an opponent, not an ally.
If an opponent attempts to influence my behavior, it may be presumed
that this manipulation if effective will serve their ends, and that
what's good for them and involves me is going to be bad for me.
Therefore resisting their influence is essential. Anything they say is
therefore suspect. It may be a simple fabrication. It may be a half-
truth, or even technically true but not the whole truth, but intended
to mislead or deceive nonetheless; they may correctly indicate the
shorter route but fail to indicate that that route happens to be
largely straight up or down, or similarly provide partial information
that, while accurate, would nonetheless lead to the wrong action being
performed if taken at face value. Simply put their motives can not be
trusted.
Someone you neither trust nor believe may yet say something useful
of which the truth can be tested.

See above. Even if they say something that's true that something will
still have been selected with a bad motive in mind, and acting on it
would be foolish. It cannot be assumed not to be an incomplete and
ultimately misleading piece of information.
Words posted here cannot destroy you.

False. I've explained time and again that an online smear campaign
against a person can have serious negative repercussions for them. But
of course you know that or you wouldn't bother trying, would you? You
merely wish to lure me into a false sense of security so that enough
of your nasty claims end up entering the record unopposed by any
dissenting claims that people will be influenced and biased against me
from then on, which would damage me in a variety of ways. Needless to
say I will not fall for such a stupid trick. Your lies will not
convince me of anything but your untrustworthiness.
For example, Sherm's continued participation here is proof of the
futility of your words wishing to have him destroyed.

But I don't wish to have him destroyed. I wish he'd shut up about me
and likewise that the rest of you would start minding your own fucking
beeswax and getting on with your lives. Failing that, I wish you'd be
forcibly shut up, perhaps by your ISPs getting fed up of your ongoing
blatant misconduct. If you live happily ever after but without net
access or simply choosing to leave me alone I won't give a shit. Do
so; I won't lift a finger to stop you. That's far more courtesy than
you have accorded me.
I really doubt that "they" desire to destroy you.

Their behavior speaks volumes; that it diametrically opposes some of
the things that come out of their mouths only proves them all liars,
just like you.

[insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
My current opinion of you was formed overwhelmingly from the words you
wrote.

Obviously not, liar. If they had been, you would be defending me,
since it is clear to any objective observer that I'm the beleaguered
but valiant defender who was unfairly attacked ... mugged at
knifepoint in effect when he'd been harmlessly going about minding his
own business moments before. You on the other hand are a bunch of
malicious twerps with too much time on your hands and too little
conscience or concern for other people; malicious vandals who see
destroying other peoples' reputations and dragging their names through
the mud as a pastime rather than as a vicious crime without any
possible justification the way a normal person would.

Actions speak louder than words. What do I do? I defend myself, with
reason where reasonable and with blunt denials of the lies told about
me where necessary. I don't post anything nasty-sounding or off-topic
except to respond in kind after being attacked. What do you do? You
attack without provocation. You continue attacking, even when you have
the option to withdraw without negative consequences for doing so.
Nothing I've written requires you to respond to defend yourselves; you
could just ignore me and it wouldn't be at your peril. You could even
stop posting attack posts while reserving the right to post "None of
the nasty things you said or implied about me are at all true" in
response to anything I said that might be construed as denigrating one
of you, but I don't see any of you choosing such a pattern of
behavior. Because you are not harmless people minding their own
business, nor are you valiant defenders of anything; no, you are
attackers, vicious ones that seek to cause pain and destruction for
your own personal gain in some fashion or another. No, any sensible
observer will clearly have little sympathy for any of you, and plenty
for me.

Your opinions were clearly influenced very strongly by the bullshit
you read about me, *despite* my efforts to correct those
misapprehensions. I can only imagine how many more of you there'd be
without my efforts. That is, unless you're just Arnehole or one of the
others creating sock puppets to artificially amplify his voice and
therefore his nasty, unwanted influence.

[insults deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
If you truly are not one, you'll know that merely typing that
phrase is insufficient to demonstrate so.

Likewise, I know that your merely typing an insulting phrase is
insufficient to demonstrate otherwise. Since both of us make bald
assertions with exactly the same (in this case zero) amount of
supporting evidence the influence should cancel out. Which is, of
course, what so frustrates you lot -- every bit of hard work you do
trying to destroy me is so easily neutralized. It's like digging a
hole whose sides keep falling in and refilling it as fast as you can
shovel. You shovel faster and faster (now forty fucking attack posts a
day or so!) and the sides just fall in faster too. You get nowhere.
What you fail to realize with your tiny brains is that you need to
give up instead of continuing to ... what is the proverb? Beat your
head against the wall?

[ponderously pontificates on the "true weight of words"]

Here's a tip: leave the attempts at showing sophistication and complex
reasoning to people who have three-digit IQs and stick to basket-
weaving and other such inconsequential pursuits. And while you're at
it, please tell one of the guys in the white coats that give you your
daily happy pills that you really don't think giving you patients
unmonitored internet access was such a hot idea.
 
N

nebulous99

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

Apparently you never got the memo. Fact is, a bunch of you assholes
try from time to time to find out what my real name is. If one of you
were to eventually succeed, it would be dragged through the same mud.
Already some innocent schmuck's been mistaken for me and has been
given a faceful of smelly brown shit. So a) innocent people other than
me are getting hurt and b) I'm clearly at risk too. I can't just
ignore a clear and present threat. We've got 1) people who demonstrate
every day that their intentions towards me are inimically hostile, 2)
some of those same people trying to find out my name so they can do
some real damage, and 3) if they try to locate me physically, that may
go beyond reputation damage to actual physical harm, to my property or
my person or both. This is obviously not a situation that it would be
safe to simply ignore; only a fool would be indifferent in the face of
a lynch mob of clearly conscience-less sociopaths actively prying to
discover who they are and where they live!
 
N

nebulous99

On Nov 6, 4:19 pm, Jernau Gurgeh <[email protected]>
wrote:
[distorted description of some earlier posts deleted]
[insult deleted]

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

nebulous99

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

In theory, if such a warning were truthful rather than, say, a lying
insult, or a nasty threat in disguise.

In practise, there is nothing at all wrong with my behavior, and it
follows that any such warning WILL be one of the latter two things.
 
T

twerpinator

[implied insults deleted]

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

twerpinator

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.
Somebody owns the systems and the lines used to distribute
usenet.

And without those, there is no usenet.
 
T

twerpinator

On Nov 7, 1:02 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger
[insults deleted]

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

twerpinator

[insults deleted]

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

twerpinator

On Nov 8, 12:31 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger
[some assholes discuss among themselves which of two or three closely-
related insulting names to call me, then declare this discussion to be
"fun"]

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

twerpinator

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.

Yet it should certainly be able to prevent a mugging.
 
S

Sherman Pendley

I always feel attacked when someone is clearly attempting to make me
look like a fool in public.

No one needs to make you look like a fool, Paul. You're doing quite well
with that all by yourself.

sherm--
 
T

Tristram Rolph

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

Please, enlighten us on the good reason for snipping the fact that
a king and rook checkmate is very easy. Are you hoping to use that
knowledge as your secret weapon in your next chess tournament?
 
J

Jernau Gurgeh

On Nov 6, 2:29 pm, Jernau Gurgeh <[email protected]>
wrote:

[nebulous thinks that because one person is alleged to be a bully that
therefore people in general cannot be trusted]
You are [[confusing the general with the specific]]

You are a liar.

You are wrong, I am telling the truth.
False analogy.

No, good analogy. cat - people, tabby - liars.
Just because one fire does damage if allowed to spread
in an urban area

False analogy. Rather tortuously constructed. Not every person bullies
unless constrained from doing so.
This question is irrelevant.

No it isn't. Just try it for a week.

[large volume of nonsense deleted]

[snip [Descartes quotation which bbound doesn't understand]]
[[you have confused]] an existential statement for an accusation of
insanity. Why so defensive?

I've done nothing of the sort; I was accused of hallucinating or else
of holding solipsistic or similarly illogical beliefs.

You think Descartes hallucinated?

That is quite clearly an insult

No it isn't,

You wrote: "for all I know you are lying"
I wrote: "for all you know we are all figments of your imagination"

Quite clearly I was contrasting the two statements. Either may be true
but neither prevent you testing their truth.

or at best a misattribution, putting words in my
mouth.

I see no need for me (or anyone else) to do that!

No such behavior can be tolerated.

Wrong, lots of strange behaviour can be and is tolerated in this
world.

[snip [snip] suggestion that Arne might have told the truth]
None of the nasty things that you or Arne have said or implied about
me are at all true.

You are mortal. You are fallible. You have made mistakes.
You consider these things to be unpleasant. You label them as "lies".
Yet they are all true.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,907
Messages
2,570,008
Members
46,367
Latest member
EmorySimpk

Latest Threads

Top