Re: Another Fogel Lie from the Archives

Ozark Bicycle said:

On Feb 4, 10:16 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
 Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>>  Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Tom, have you really been holding onto a grudge against Carl for this
>> pretty minor affront since 2004?!?!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I had hardly thought of it until the recent flare up. However, I
> apparently have exceptional memory retention for events.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I almost admire your single-mindedness, though I gravely doubt your
>> sense of proportion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Have you noticed that Mr. Fogel has pretended I do not exist since that
> episode? What is your comment on that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Killfiles work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The longer version is that there's no such thing as a right to be paid
attention to. If anyone cares to ignore my posts, I don't hold it
against them. Ignoring people on Usenet does not reflect badly on the
ignorer, who may have any number of reasons.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thinking that being ignored is a big deal reflects badly only on the
person doing it....

Quoted message said:

So why do I get held to a different standard than Mr. Fogel? Why is my
remembering that he falsely accused me of lying different than Mr. Fogel
still having me in a kill-file over three (3) years later?

IMO, you might be "held to a different standard" because people
already *know* what a sleazy, weasel-like wacko Carl Fogel is.

Some tolerate Fogel because they "enjoy" his Google scrounging
"finds", the same way a family tolerates a vicious dog because it
"protects" the homestead.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In the Sheldon Brown thread, Peter Cole wrote something that may be
apropos here:

"A few years ago, I was
involved in a rather sharp exchange on a local (Boston) bike list. I
don't remember who brought it up when I next visited Sheldon's shop,
but
I started to go on about how rigid, etc. I thought the other guy was.
Sheldon only looked pained. "You both are good guys," he said "you
should be friends." He was right, as usual. He couldn't see the sense
of
two people with so much in common getting petty over some trivial
issue.
It genuinely bothered him that two people he liked could fail to like
each other.

We are in this group because of our connection to cycling, and on
this
thread because of our connection to Sheldon. The things that bring us
together are deep, those that divide us, shallow. I feel a little
awkward, he'd never sermonize like this, but I know that's the way he
felt. "

Bob Dole said:

On Feb 5, 6:16 am, Ozark Bicycle

Quoted message said:

On Feb 4, 10:16 pm, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>,
>  Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>>>  Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Tom, have you really been holding onto a grudge against Carl for this
>>> pretty minor affront since 2004?!?!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> I had hardly thought of it until the recent flare up. However, I
>> apparently have exceptional memory retention for events.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I almost admire your single-mindedness, though I gravely doubt your
>>> sense of proportion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Have you noticed that Mr. Fogel has pretended I do not exist since that
>> episode? What is your comment on that?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Killfiles work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> The longer version is that there's no such thing as a right to be paid
> attention to. If anyone cares to ignore my posts, I don't hold it
> against them. Ignoring people on Usenet does not reflect badly on the
> ignorer, who may have any number of reasons.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Thinking that being ignored is a big deal reflects badly only on the
> person doing it....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So why do I get held to a different standard than Mr. Fogel? Why is my
remembering that he falsely accused me of lying different than Mr. Fogel
still having me in a kill-file over three (3) years later?

Quoted message said:

IMO, you might be "held to a different standard" because people
already *know* what a sleazy, weasel-like wacko Carl Fogel is.

Quoted message said:

Some tolerate Fogel because they "enjoy" his Google scrounging
"finds", the same way a family tolerates a vicious dog because it
"protects" the homestead.- Hide quoted text -

Quoted message said:

- Show quoted text -

In the Sheldon Brown thread, Peter Cole wrote something that may be
apropos here:

"A few years ago, I was
involved in a rather sharp exchange on a local (Boston) bike list. I
don't remember who brought it up when I next visited Sheldon's shop,
but
I started to go on about how rigid, etc. I thought the other guy was.
Sheldon only looked pained. "You both are good guys," he said "you
should be friends." He was right, as usual. He couldn't see the sense
of
two people with so much in common getting petty over some trivial
issue.
It genuinely bothered him that two people he liked could fail to like
each other.

We are in this group because of our connection to cycling, and on
this
thread because of our connection to Sheldon. The things that bring us
together are deep, those that divide us, shallow. I feel a little
awkward, he'd never sermonize like this, but I know that's the way he
felt. "

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

Ozark Bicycle said:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him. Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.

- Frank Krygowski

Ozark Bicycle said:

that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

No doubt Fogel justified these foul deeds with lipsmacking moralizing
about how the people whose families he assaulted were "liars". Only in
Fogel-land is the unproven (in Fogel *telepathy* future) sins of the
fathers visited on the wives and children by some self-appointed
internet hero called Carl Fogel.

It is despicable for trash like Carl Fogel to react to his petty fear
of brighter people on the newsgroup by including their friends and
families in his sneaky attacks. It is no doubt starting to dawn on
some why from the beginning I called Fogel "scum".

It is not difficult to spot scumbags of Fogel's type. For a start they
always have a loyal gang to blow smoke over their crimes, in this case
Michael Press and Ryan Cousineau and Frank Krygowski and some
campfollowers whose names I can't be bothered to remember. For
another, they cannot help conforming to their own pattern of
psychopathology: Fogel, for instance, doesn't appear to understand
that it is immoral and wrong for him to substitute his personal likes
and dislikes and fears for the due democratic process in which someone
is innocent until proven guilty; his repeated false accusations, his
repeated cries of "liar", his stoking up of his gang into a lynch mob,
demonstrate his disease to use all too visibly.

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice. -- J M Keynes

Ozark Bicycle said:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

Dude, you're such a stud to pile on an older man.

Hey, are you coming to NYC?

aka Frank Krygowski said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him. Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.

Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
-tom

Tom Nakashima said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
-tom

IOW, it happened to me, and Carl Fogel was the perp.

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Tom Nakashima said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
-tom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IOW, it happened to me, and Carl Fogel was the perp.

So was it a personal attack against you or your family, or an attack
on your business?
It sounds quite serious, but this is the first time I heard of a newsgroup
member going outside of the RBT boundaries for personal attacks.
-tom

Tom Nakashima said:

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Tom Nakashima said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
>that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
>nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
>has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
>experience).

Quoted message said:

This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
-tom

Quoted message said:

IOW, it happened to me, and Carl Fogel was the perp.

So was it a personal attack against you or your family, or an attack
on your business?
It sounds quite serious, but this is the first time I heard of a newsgroup
member going outside of the RBT boundaries for personal attacks.
-tom

Apparently, some folks can't tell where Usenet ends and the real world
begins. Carl Fogel would be a prime example. The attacks were personal
in nature.

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Tom Nakashima said:

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Tom Nakashima said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
>that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
>nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
>has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
>experience).

Quoted message said:

This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
-tom

Quoted message said:

IOW, it happened to me, and Carl Fogel was the perp.

So was it a personal attack against you or your family, or an attack
on your business?
It sounds quite serious, but this is the first time I heard of a newsgroup
member going outside of the RBT boundaries for personal attacks.
-tom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Apparently, some folks can't tell where Usenet ends and the real world
begins. Carl Fogel would be a prime example. The attacks were personal
in nature.

Sorry to hear that,
I would have to say that's crossing the line and going a bit too far.
-tom

On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

aka Frank Krygowski said:

On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

Quoted message said:

I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him. Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.

Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable. I have no admiration
from those who agree.

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
> that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
> nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
> has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
> experience).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him.  Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.

Quoted message said:

Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

Apparently, you have no problem with guys whos forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh? Nor with
those who send nasty snail mails to posters family members, either.

Quoted message said:

I have no admiration
from those who agree.

Imagine the horror of not having the "admiration" of Frank Krygowski!
The horror! The horror!!

Ozark Bicycle said:

Quoted message said:

On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
>> that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
>> nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
>> has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
>> experience).
> I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
> the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him. Only a
> few here have ever stooped to that level.
Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

Apparently, you have no problem with guys whos forward, unsolicited,
private emails...

I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Quoted message said:

On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
> that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
> nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
> has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
> experience).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him.  Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.

Quoted message said:

Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.

Explain to us, Krygo, how it is not willful defamation for Carl Fogel
to call someone a liar on absolutely zero evidence. Explain to us how
it is not defamation for Carl Fogel, when offered the opportunity to
deny he called someone a liar, to confirm that he did call him a liar
by saying explicitly and emphatically that he won't apologize: "I
won't," said Carl Fogel. (Anyone hear a whining teenager cutting off
his nose to spite his face?)

Contrast the careful way I have marshaled the proof of Fogel's crimes
before I called him a false accuser and a liar. Notice that I
evaluated Fogel's crimes and made a further case that they were
against the common weal of RBT before I decided someone as sneakily an
unrepentantly antisocial as Fogel is scum and deserves to be called
scum.

Quoted message said:

We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.  I have no admiration
from those who agree.

This whine from Krygowski translates into, "If you don't keep quiet
about our extortions, you can't belong to our gang." That's the
authentic voice of the Krygo-Fogel Axis telling us what we can say and
how we can say it, raising the question: Who elected these control
freaks to lordship over us?

This sort of dumb social pressure you, Frank Krygowski, are trying to
apply in justification of sweeping Fogel's crimes under the carpet is
the hallmark of street corner bullies, gangbangers, drive-by shooters,
net-curtain twitchers, and witch hunters from Salem to McCarthy to
modern-day Detroit. Quite contrary to your hypocrisy, it is our *duty*
to expose cowardly bullies like Fogel before they damage free speech
on the unmoderated internet conferences even further than they have
already; it is our *duty* to call Creepy Carl exactly what he is,
which is anti-social scum.

I warned you, Krygowski, you don't have what it takes to enter
polemics with intelligent people. We see right through your spaniel-
like devotion to Creepy Carl. I couldn't wish a worse fate on even
Creepy Carl than a friend as clumsy as you, Krygo. You're a worse
burden than a hernia.

Quoted message said:

- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute
Out of the mouths of babes

Frank Krygowski opined:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

I then asked Krygowski:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?

Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...

and then replied to his version of my question:

Quoted message said:

I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.

Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

Ozark Bicycle said:

Frank Krygowski opined:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

I then asked Krygowski:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?

Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...

and then replied to his version of my question:

Quoted message said:

I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.

Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
the question was directed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 9, 12:35 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Frank Krygowski opined:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom.  We've got a small,
>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

Quoted message said:

I then asked Krygowski:

Quoted message said:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
> private emails...

Quoted message said:

and then replied to his version of my question:

Quoted message said:

I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.

Quoted message said:

Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
the question was directed.

In this instance I agree with Oz.. Just "forwarding private e-mails"
is merely foul manners; par for the course for Carl Fogel, and below
the radar of people like Frank Krygowski.

But Oz is accusing Carl Fogel of "forwarding private emails (as a
form of character assassination)", a crime several magnitudes above
mere bad manners.

I think, on balance, given the context, it might have been better not
to trim Oz's short post or, alternatively, to have given it in full
below your signature, which allows you above your signature to do with
it whatever you like.

Just my two cents.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute said:

On Feb 9, 12:35 am, Tom Sherman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

Frank Krygowski opined:
>>> Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
>>> juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
>>> "_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
>> Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
>> private emails...
and then replied to his version of my question:
> I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
> the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
> public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
the question was directed.

In this instance I agree with Oz.. Just "forwarding private e-mails"
is merely foul manners; par for the course for Carl Fogel, and below
the radar of people like Frank Krygowski.

But Oz is accusing Carl Fogel of "forwarding private emails (as a
form of character assassination)", a crime several magnitudes above
mere bad manners.

I think, on balance, given the context, it might have been better not
to trim Oz's short post or, alternatively, to have given it in full
below your signature, which allows you above your signature to do with
it whatever you like.

With a threaded newsreader, anyone interested can read Ozark Bicycle's
post in its entirety.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful