notifying particular thread to wake up.

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

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.

You are genuinely unfriendly, Twisted.

/W

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

Yet it should certainly be able to prevent a mugging.

This is a non-sequiteur. Muggings can occur in either public or
private places. It has no bearing on whether Usenet constitutes a
public place.

Since the public have legal access to it, Usenet has most of the the
qualities of a public place. In particular, any information placed
here is placed in public view.

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

On Nov 5, 9:43 pm, Wildemar Wildenburger

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

Oh, very clever. But you realize of course, that this is too easy. To
paraphrase Hermes Conrad: I'm from Germany, the show-me country. So show
me I'm delousional. (I don't even get why *I* am suddenly one of the
delousional ones too, but if you find a way to convince me, I'll believe
you and have something done about my delousions.)

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

I said:
To which you replied:

> Usenet is not a place. What it is is composed of various computer
> servers that are, by and large, all private property.

So, while you said what you said you said, you also said what I said you
said.

And you still haven't explained why the privatly owned servers hinder an
open access to usenet (making it effectively "public").

/W

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

Yet it should certainly be able to prevent a mugging.

No why should it?

Also, how does that relate to the point of the argument?

/W

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

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.

You *do* wish to discuss identities in public!

Did you know that, despite recent conversations, your brother Ian
still has some material in public view that makes it possible to
identify his full name, and by association, yours? Perhaps you'd
better have another word with him.

Your turn.

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

Irrelevant.

How so?

That's funny. You're trying awfully hard to do so, which of course
makes me suspect that (surprise, surprise) you're lying.

No, I keep saying: I'm not trying to destroy you. I'm just not. You may
feel that you get destroyed but that is entirely something different and
absolutely not what my intention is.

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.

You see, just because I have nothing against you, doesn't mean I must
respect you. I if you behave in a way that makes me lose respect for
you, I will make fun of you as I see fit. And I grant everyone the same
liberty. I think that is possibly the main difference between you and me.

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

Well, i said "play with" and you think it means "play against". Many
people think like that. Pitty. You play the game just as much as I do,
otherwise there'd be no point for me to play it.

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.

That's an insult, not an earnest advice.

Then, by all means, please leave.

I said improve, not leave.

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 agian miss vital parts: I said "generally". I will do it if someone
exhibits behaviour that I deem truely laughable. You're actually the
first guy I do that with on the the net.

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.

1. You imply that I'm still living with my parents, possibly being a
child? Not the case. Not unthinkable (for you), but wrong.
2. We don't have the death penalty in Germany.

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.)

Your imagination certainly goes places. As does mine. I'd just wanted to
note.

[snip various cryptic nonsense]

You find the word "DOING", a link explaining it and the sentence "Just
because you don't read it doesn't mean I didn't write it." cryptic? Do
we agree on what "cryptic" means?


/W

 

[Tristram Rolph]

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.

How would you know? Perhaps Derbyshire is a jerk.

"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.)

Oh, no, he already did!
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2190072.ece

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

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

You keep saying that. How come you are infallible?

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.

A (non-human) spell checker is never a native-speaker.
Also, just for niceness, you could assume that somebody with a
scandinavian name, admitting he is from scandinavia is, in fact,
scandinavian.

I mean, as long as you get what the guy is saying and you see he's
making some effort. Oh, well whatever, be intolerant then. You're
certainly not working towards convincing me you're a nice guy.

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.

That may be true, and you may know it for a fact, but everyone else
doesn't. Proofs can help that.

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.

Again with the laws of physics. I happen to study physics, and one thing
the laws of physics provide is means of verifying them (well, falsifying
actually, but both appoaches help convince you of what is true).

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).

It was a general statement, expressing a requirement on a form of
behaviour that I (as most people, I would argue) demand to take
someone's points seriously. I might have said "One better ...", but then
again, I was talking to you so. I don't know. As I said, I get the
impression that you feel offended right about the time you read the word
"you".

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 another hint towards mental illness.

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.

Nobody was talking of protections. Somebody said: This is a public
forum, so anybody can say what they want. You said: No it isn't so they
can't.

And you can go on and on with this, without ever getting any further or
you can finally get your act together an have a lawyer settle this for
you. That's what they're for, after all.

/W

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

[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.

Not as we know it. But the software is free (or at least the concept),
so anybody can build a usenet if they put their mind to it.

I wonder: Can you use what you just said to back up the original point
that prompted you to saying it?

/W

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

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

So, how long do you figure he will survive?

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.

That's not what I meant.

/W

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

[threat deleted]

I do not take kindly to threats.

Yes, you keep telling us that. But what actually do you do about them?

(BTW: What Sherm said was a challange, not a thread. He invited you to
follow up on the address.)

/W

 

[Jernau Gurgeh]

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

http://tinyurl.com/3xyvh5

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

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.

Is there any possibility that you can misbehave? I'd like a short
example, please. With that, I hope to finally understand why your
previous behavior was not wrong.

/W

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

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.

May I sum up your point thusly: Nothing you do with your best of
intentions can be categorized as wrong.

Fine, I like to see it quite the same way.

But I know there are lots of things that I now think I should (and, from
my present judgement, could) have done differently. These I would call
"my mistakes". You never have such regrets?

/W

 

[Tristram Rolph]

[contradicts me]

Incorrect. It is never correct to contradict me. Don't do it again.

But it is fun!

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.

Your crusade to keep people from insulting you and revealing that
you're Paul Derbyshire has been working out real well, hasn't it?

But I don't wish to have him destroyed.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/75f14ed52faa11d1
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/18d95e02e66c1a3f
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/a41c90c5bc4fe9a6
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.java.programmer/msg/fb3e153b6d43cca7

Your opinions were clearly influenced very strongly by the bullshit
you read about me, *despite* my efforts to correct those
misapprehensions.

So you're saying that your "none of the nasty things etc." posts
didn't cancel everything out? I can't imagine why. I mean, you
proved logically that they would.

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

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.

I didn't see an attack in there, so I quoted it for context. That was
the whole point of the post.

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.

It depends. Let's assume I am sane.
I, then, say: "Beam me up, Scotty" is a Star Trek quote (which I
believed until a few years ago (and I was a Trekkie!)). And someone
tells me: "Nope, not said in that show. Here is a link with all epsiode
transcripts.". Then I'd look kind of dumb, surely. But wouldn't I look
even dumber if I proclaimed that "The evidence you showed still doesn't
make my claim wrong?". Wouldn't I look much smarter if I said "Oh, I
didn't know that, thank you."?

/W

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

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.

Yeah, I was wondering, because usually you will drop the brick on anyone
attempting the same kind of humor.

GIYF.

Well, OK. It seems to be used that way. Not very often though (one page
of google results.), which would explain why it didn't "feel right" for
me. Carry on.

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.

In that case: Your completely right. My bad.

/W

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

**** you, liar.

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

Again you snipped snipped creatively:

> Followups set appropriately, to [possibly inaccurate characterization]
> own personal group.
>

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

I was clearly referring to that part of the message. He *did* set the
followup-to, and it was to a group that is dedicated to someonehe thinks
is [possibly inaccurate characterization]. Hence: Possibly 1/3 correct
on your part. Possibly, not proven.

Your "**** you, liar" was a response to the phrase "Words are cheap".

Even if you don't agree with him, I fail to see how this phrase can
conceivably be a lie.

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.

Lots of "possibly"s in there. Is that your excuse for your own batch of
implied insults? At any rate, why even bother verbalizing these admitted
phantasies of yours? Isn't that what you call a "smear campaign"?

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

That is demonstrably not true (I've asked you things politely before.)
and if you want, I will cite references for this.

It means that it had nothing meaningful/useful to say.
>

Well, that is what the word "content-free" already bears. I thought you
might have an aditional connotation in it, that I'm unaware of.

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.

I can find no (act of) reasoning in this description. It is just a
series of statements that you say are true/clear/plain. (BTW, electrons
are not "wasted", their number remains constant, as far as the physcal
side of /dev/null is concerned.)

So I still maintain that "words are cheap" and the following challange
to you to let actions speak very much full of content (the latter part
especially).

/W

 

[Mike Schilling]

Ha!

I hope he's dating girls now, so he'll leave me alone.

 

[Wildemar Wildenburger]

Oh, no, he already did!
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2190072.ece

Well, off to the police it is for Twisted.

/W