Chalo among the fashion victims and other impressionables



A

Andrew Price

Guest
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:59:55 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

[---]

>On the other hand, it's also possible he's a lying troll.


And not a very good one - good trolls can be very amusing. With his
big mouth and excellent opinion of himself, Mr Jute was merely
tiresome.
 
T

Tim McNamara

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ben C? wrote:
> >>>>> On 2008-01-26, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote: [...]
> >>>>>> Mr. Jute's post was a troll in that it did attempt to lead
> >>>>>> people down the wrong path. However, Mr. Fogel has some
> >>>>>> history on this newsgroup of coming to the wrong conclusions,
> >>>>>> but never admitting his error.
> >>>>> What makes you so sure Mr Jute isn't lying? I thought Mr Fogel
> >>>>> made a good case.
> >>>> >
> >>>> I do not know if Mr. Jute is lying or not. Neither does Mr.
> >>>> Fogel.
> >>> There can be little doubt that Mr. Jute is lying. The
> >>> overwhelming whiff of troll has been evident for quite some time.
> >> >
> >> Where is the evidence that Mr. Jute is lying? How can it be proved
> >> that there was no truck, no Irish farm road, no Mr. Jute on a
> >> bicycle, etc?
> >>
> >> Stating that Mr. Jute is lying is an opinion, not a fact.
> >>
> >> There are plenty of people who perform various stunts, so why is
> >> drafting a truck so improbable?

> >
> > Others have debunked the veracity of Jute's story, perhaps you have
> > read those posts. Jute's history in other newsgroups lends
> > credence to his being a troll and lying his head off yet again.
> >

> I read all the other posts in this thread, and nothing was convincing
> to "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that Mr. Jute's reported feat
> could not have taken place. An OPINION of highly unlikely is NOT the
> same as PROOF.
>
> As to my belief in the veracity of Mr. Jute's claim, it would be
> irrelevant, since I have no knowledge of the actual events of his
> life.


It's highly relevant, Tom, because it allows you to continue to justify
your resentment of Carl. In order for you to carry on your grudge, you
have to find new fuel for the fire and as a result, you want Jute's
very, very improbable story to be true or at least to have sufficient
truthiness.

Indeed, the interesting thing is that Carl's post- the one which you
have amplified to such a deadly insult- amounted to "I don't believe
Andre Jute." That's different than coming out accusing Jute of being a
liar. I have done so, but Carl hasn't. Yet it's Carl you've chosen to
castigate for doing so.

You're ****** at Carl because he called you a liar in the past several
years ago? Grow up and get over it. All you are doing with this thread
is demonstrating pettiness.
 
T

Tim McNamara

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 25, 2:27 am, Tom Sherman
> >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:> On Jan 24, 7:25
> >>>>>> am, Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Yes, I was amazed that Fogel should start calling me a liar
> >>>>>>>> before I could even answer.
> >>>>>>> Hmm. I didn't realize he'd called you a liar. What I see
> >>>>>>> instead is this rather mild statement: "I'd love to be
> >>>>>>> convinced that Andre has actually gone well over 100 kmh down
> >>>>>>> some private farm road on that bike, but experience leads me
> >>>>>>> to expect otherwise."...
> >>>>>> "Dear Carl's" meaning was perfectly clear.
> >>>>> And repeated several times. No one except the blind and deaf or
> >>>>> unthinkingly partisan could mistake Carl Fogel's intention to
> >>>>> call me a liar before I even had a chance to answer Clive
> >>>>> George's question..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I deliberately delayed giving a full explanation, and several
> >>>>> times gave Fogel the tip that he made wrong assumptions, to
> >>>>> give him time to apologize. He didn't.
> >>>> >
> >>>> Do not hold your breath waiting for an apology or retraction
> >>>> from Mr. Fogel - this is at least the third time he has posted
> >>>> false accusations of lying or rec.bicycles.tech, and has never
> >>>> recanted on the first two.
> >>> Tom, you seem to be overlooking the obvious- which is that "Andre
> >>> Jute" is indeed lying. That would make you the incorrect accuser
> >>> here, not Carl. Are you going to offer him an apology now?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Mr. Jute's post was misdirection, not a lie. The moral character
> >> of that behavior is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

> >
> > It is an obvious lie, Tom, about events which quite obviously did
> > not happen at all. This is relevant because it is the foundation
> > of your accusation against Carl in this thread. It suits your
> > purpose to case Jute's posts as a "misdirection," which is a
> > further lie on your part.
> >

> How do you KNOW Mr. Jute's post is a lie? Could you convince an
> impartial jury with the evidence at hand that Mr. Jute is lying
> beyond a reasonable doubt? Unless someone has being tracking Mr. Jute
> ALL the time since the earliest possible date his ride could have
> taken place (when the bicycle that was reportedly used first came on
> the market), it can not be definitively proved that his post is a
> lie. Anyone who believes differently needs a remedial course in
> logic.


You've got it backwards. Read the thread over again. Jute was
obviously stringing people along for his own amusement and adding "new"
details as he went along which became increasingly implausible. The sum
effect is that it didn't happen.

> Furthermore, I do not see anything physically impossible in Mr.
> Jute's claim. I have drafted city buses and a hay wagon pulled by a
> pick-up truck, and the drag reduction was so significant I could
> maintain speeds near 50 kph without great exertion. On a smooth
> downhill road, 100 kph does not seem ridiculously impossible.


Have you ever seen an Irish backroad? "Smooth" is hardly the word.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joecashin/sets/1437198/

> As for the last sentence in the above paragraph by Mr. McNamara, it
> is hardly worth commenting on, and certainly not up to the normal
> standards of his posts to this group.


You've lost all rational perspective on this, Tom. Your anger is
distorting your thinking. You are defending Jute- an obvious troll-
because it rationalizes your anger towards Carl.

> >> If I wrote "my mountain bike has gone down hill at over 70 mph" it
> >> would not be a lie. However, without further explanation, it would
> >> be misdirection, since it was in the back of my Honda Civic at the
> >> time, and not being ridden. What has Mr. Jute done differently?
> >>
> >> Mr. Jute set a trap, and Mr. Fogel fell for it. Mr. Fogel accused
> >> Mr. Jute of lying, when Mr. Fogel had no means of ascertaining the
> >> truth of the matter.

> >
> > The truth of the matter is that Jute's story was an obvious
> > fabrication from whole cloth and that he is just a fairly obvious
> > troll.
> >

> Truth? How can the truth be proclaimed by reading a few posts on
> Usenet? Or is there some supernatural font that allows for
> omniscience?


Truth is a matter of what can be demonstrated. Mr. Jute has failed to
demonstrate the veracity of his account in any plausible manner. His
behavior in the thread is classic trollishness. 2 + 2 is a fairly
simple equation.

> >> As for apologies, Mr. Fogel still owes me one from several years
> >> ago, but I am not holding my breath.

> >
> > No, but you are still carrying a grudge which is coloring your
> > perception in this thread.
> >

> That merely makes me more aware of the behavior of Mr. Fogel.


Unfortunately, it merely makes you petty.

I've had enough of this hooey. Carry on if it makes you happy to do so.
Or stop if it doesn't. The only one it really affects is you.
 
B

Ben C

Guest
On 2008-01-27, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]
>> Sorry, Tom, I think you're pretty much alone on this. And I agree
>> with Tim's evaluation of the reason.
>>

> Well, at least two other people have posted in agreement with me on this
> matter of Mr. Fogel's behavior - neither of whom professes much like for
> me (an understatement). Please pay attention.


You're being very silly. Your enemy's enemy is not your friend so stop
absurdly defending Jute.

And it's even more absurd to keep going on about Fogel's "behaviour"
etc. The man is obviously a perfect gentleman. If he slighted you once
then just forget about it and move on, I'm sure everyone else has.
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Jan 27, 4:54 pm, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2008-01-27, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

> [...]
> >> Sorry, Tom, I think you're pretty much alone on this.  And I agree
> >> with Tim's evaluation of the reason.

>
> > Well, at least two other people have posted in agreement with me on this
> > matter of Mr. Fogel's behavior - neither of whom professes much like for
> > me (an understatement). Please pay attention.

>
> You're being very silly. Your enemy's enemy is not your friend so stop
> absurdly defending Jute.
>
> And it's even more absurd to keep going on about Fogel's "behaviour"
> etc. The man is obviously a perfect gentleman.


Take a closer look; you might find that Fogel is, in fact, a smarmy
fraud.


> If he slighted you once
> then just forget about it and move on, I'm sure everyone else has.
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
Ben C? wrote:
> On 2008-01-27, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

> [...]
>>> Sorry, Tom, I think you're pretty much alone on this. And I agree
>>> with Tim's evaluation of the reason.
>>>

>> Well, at least two other people have posted in agreement with me on this
>> matter of Mr. Fogel's behavior - neither of whom professes much like for
>> me (an understatement). Please pay attention.

>
> You're being very silly. Your enemy's enemy is not your friend so stop
> absurdly defending Jute.
>

Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jute is lying?

> And it's even more absurd to keep going on about Fogel's "behaviour"
> etc. The man is obviously a perfect gentleman. If he slighted you once
> then just forget about it and move on, I'm sure everyone else has.
>

I think there are at least three mistakes in the above paragraph. Do not
let superficial charm fool you.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
A

Andre Jute

Guest
On Jan 27, 4:44 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

> You've got it backwards.  Read the thread over again.  Jute was
> obviously stringing people along for his own amusement


You're half right, sonny. I was stringing Fogel along *after* he
called me a liar, but for everyone's amusement, not just mine.

>and adding "new"
> details as he went along which became increasingly implausible.  The sum
> effect is that it didn't happen.


Well then, prove it.

> Have you ever seen an Irish backroad?  "Smooth" is hardly the word.


This is not proof, it is prejudice, pure and simple.

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/joecashin/sets/1437198/


This is your proof, McNamara? The compilers of this collection of
vintage photos describe the roads pictures as "some old and some
forgotten roads and lanes and passage ways from the past. Some of them
may be called " Boreens" A boreen is an unpaved road, usually used by
farmers gaining access to different fields. In the past Boreens used
to link villages and passage ways to Church etc."

This is your proof that there are no roads in Ireland suitable for
doing a 100kph? You truly are a moron.

What makes this hysterical reaching for justification of Fogel's
vicious lie by you and Krygowski so much more ludicrous is that
photographs of the road in question has been sitting on my netsite
since last year, many months now.

But nobody -- nobody! -- has asked me for a photograph of the road.

We know why that is. You fear the truth. You'd rather tell your lies.

This attempt at deceifully downgrading Irish roads makes you a
deliberate liar, Tim McNamara. You're a false accuser. That makes you
scum. The only possible excuse is mental handicap. Do you want to
claim it?

Andre Jute
 
A

Andre Jute

Guest
On Jan 26, 5:25 pm, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2008-01-26, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > Mr. Jute's post was a troll in that it did attempt to lead people down
> > the wrong path. However, Mr. Fogel has some history on this newsgroup of
> > coming to the wrong conclusions, but never admitting his error.

>
> What makes you so sure Mr Jute isn't lying? I thought Mr Fogel made a
> good case.


LOL. Fogel claims to know what I will think in future, and in advance
declares it a lie. And Ben thinks it "a good case"! There's more of
the same irrationality for to enjoy, Ben:
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...66ded/fac974f5a1ad7470?hl=en#fac974f5a1ad7470

Tell us, Ben, where were you educated?

Andre Jute
 
M

Michael Press

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

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> On Jan 25, 2:27 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:> On Jan 24, 7:25 am,
> >>>> Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes, I was amazed that Fogel should start calling me a liar
> >>>>>> before I could even answer.
> >>>>> Hmm. I didn't realize he'd called you a liar. What I see
> >>>>> instead is this rather mild statement: "I'd love to be convinced
> >>>>> that Andre has actually gone well over 100 kmh down some private
> >>>>> farm road on that bike, but experience leads me to expect
> >>>>> otherwise."...
> >>>> "Dear Carl's" meaning was perfectly clear.
> >>> And repeated several times. No one except the blind and deaf or
> >>> unthinkingly partisan could mistake Carl Fogel's intention to call
> >>> me a liar before I even had a chance to answer Clive George's
> >>> question..
> >>>
> >>> I deliberately delayed giving a full explanation, and several times
> >>> gave Fogel the tip that he made wrong assumptions, to give him time
> >>> to apologize. He didn't.
> >> >
> >> Do not hold your breath waiting for an apology or retraction from Mr.
> >> Fogel - this is at least the third time he has posted false
> >> accusations of lying or rec.bicycles.tech, and has never recanted on
> >> the first two.

> >
> > Tom, you seem to be overlooking the obvious- which is that "Andre Jute"
> > is indeed lying. That would make you the incorrect accuser here, not
> > Carl. Are you going to offer him an apology now?
> >

> Mr. Jute's post was misdirection, not a lie.


Yes. In McCoy's case it is deliberate misdirection for
his on aggrandizement, and to discomfit others; not
misdirection for entertainment. Upon further review he lied.

--
Michael Press
 
A

Andre Jute

Guest
On Jan 27, 2:27 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>  Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:


> > There are plenty of people who perform various stunts, so why is
> > drafting a truck so improbable?

>
> Others have debunked the veracity of Jute's story, perhaps you have read
> those posts.  


I have, and most amusing I found them too, the hysterical Frank
Krygowski, the prescient Fogel, why, even your own dumb diversions,
Timmie. And my replies are rather devastating, among other reasons
because that entire scum who accuse me of lying simply cannot help
lying and lying and lying, and are ever so easily caught out. See:

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...b341f/187129fc0c959e77?hl=en#187129fc0c959e77

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...2283c/e83d2516afc3b09d?hl=en#e83d2516afc3b09d

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...15e3d/89b24b92c5bf71ee?hl=en#89b24b92c5bf71ee

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...66ded/fac974f5a1ad7470?hl=en#fac974f5a1ad7470

>Jute's history in other newsgroups lends credence to his
> being a troll


It seems a troll is anyone who doesn't agree with the top dung beetle.
That's easily fixed. You just knock el maximo cigarogem Fogel off his
perch and the problem is solved, you're no longer a troll. Any
consultant can tell you that.

>and lying his head off yet again.


You should prove that, Timmie. Assertion is neither truth nor proof.

I have already proved that you lied about Irish roads, as an example
to you and the other little wannabe flame warriors on RBT. Now the
question becomes, What else has Tim McNamara lied about?

Andre Jute
Perdition awaits you, sonny
 
K

Kerry Montgomery

Guest
"Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On Jan 27, 2:27 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:


> > There are plenty of people who perform various stunts, so why is
> > drafting a truck so improbable?

>
> Others have debunked the veracity of Jute's story, perhaps you have read
> those posts.


I have, and most amusing I found them too, the hysterical Frank
Krygowski, the prescient Fogel, why, even your own dumb diversions,
Timmie. And my replies are rather devastating, among other reasons
because that entire scum who accuse me of lying simply cannot help
lying and lying and lying, and are ever so easily caught out. See:

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...b341f/187129fc0c959e77?hl=en#187129fc0c959e77

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...2283c/e83d2516afc3b09d?hl=en#e83d2516afc3b09d

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...15e3d/89b24b92c5bf71ee?hl=en#89b24b92c5bf71ee

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...66ded/fac974f5a1ad7470?hl=en#fac974f5a1ad7470

>Jute's history in other newsgroups lends credence to his
> being a troll


It seems a troll is anyone who doesn't agree with the top dung beetle.
That's easily fixed. You just knock el maximo cigarogem Fogel off his
perch and the problem is solved, you're no longer a troll. Any
consultant can tell you that.

>and lying his head off yet again.


You should prove that, Timmie. Assertion is neither truth nor proof.

I have already proved that you lied about Irish roads, as an example
to you and the other little wannabe flame warriors on RBT. Now the
question becomes, What else has Tim McNamara lied about?



Andre,
What is a cigarogem? The only results of a Google search on that term are
postings by you.
Thanks,
Kerry
 
On Jan 27, 5:33 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> > By the way, if you continue believing Jute, please contact us before
> > buying a bridge from him.

>
> Please stop putting false words in my mouth. I never said I believe Mr.
> Jute. What I have said is that others can not prove Mr. Jute is lying.
> The two statements are not the same, you know.


OK, you're right in that the two statements are not the same.

I'll note, though, that except perhaps in mathematics, "proof" is in
the eye of the beholder. And the more a person is tied to a certain
ideology, the more impossible their standards for proof.

I know a few people who still claim that Saddam Hussein was behind the
9/11 attacks, and that he had WMDs ready to go. There is apparently
no proof to which they can't object. You shouldn't let your dislike
for Carl affect your standards in the same way.

- Frank Krygowski
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:33 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>> By the way, if you continue believing Jute, please contact us before
>>> buying a bridge from him.

>> Please stop putting false words in my mouth. I never said I believe Mr.
>> Jute. What I have said is that others can not prove Mr. Jute is lying.
>> The two statements are not the same, you know.

>
> OK, you're right in that the two statements are not the same.
>

So why was a false statement about my beliefs posted?

> I'll note, though, that except perhaps in mathematics, "proof" is in
> the eye of the beholder. And the more a person is tied to a certain
> ideology, the more impossible their standards for proof.
>
> I know a few people who still claim that Saddam Hussein was behind the
> 9/11 attacks, and that he had WMDs ready to go. There is apparently
> no proof to which they can't object. You shouldn't let your dislike
> for Carl affect your standards in the same way.
>

That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
obvious falsehood.

Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style. However, there can be
little doubt (but of course, not absolute proof) of what Mr. Fogel's
intent and meaning was.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
A

Andre Jute

Guest
On Jan 28, 2:20 am, "Kerry Montgomery" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
> On Jan 27, 2:27 am, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > There are plenty of people who perform various stunts, so why is
> > > drafting a truck so improbable?

>
> > Others have debunked the veracity of Jute's story, perhaps you have read
> > those posts.

>
> I have, and most amusing I found them too, the hysterical Frank
> Krygowski, the prescient Fogel, why, even your own dumb diversions,
> Timmie. And my replies are rather devastating, among other reasons
> because that entire scum who accuse me of lying simply cannot help
> lying and lying and lying, and are ever so easily caught out. See:
>
> http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/...
>
> http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/...
>
> http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/...
>
> http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/...
>
> >Jute's history in other newsgroups lends credence to his
> > being a troll

>
> It seems a troll is anyone who doesn't agree with the top dung beetle.
> That's easily fixed. You just knock el maximo cigarogem Fogel off his
> perch and the problem is solved, you're no longer a troll. Any
> consultant can tell you that.
>
> >and lying his head off yet again.

>
> You should prove that, Timmie. Assertion is neither truth nor proof.
>
> I have already proved that you lied about Irish roads, as an example
> to you and the other little wannabe flame warriors on RBT. Now the
> question becomes, What else has Tim McNamara lied about?
>
> Andre,
> What is a cigarogem? The only results of a Google search on that term are
> postings by you.
> Thanks,
> Kerry


The truth is, Kerry, I can't remember conclusively. It may be a small
foul "coffee-sized" cigarillo made with chopped instead of rolled
tobacco that a client once marketed or perhaps only test-marketed, or
it might just have been our internal name for dumb ideas by the
client's marketing department. A lady who was once my assistant and is
now the wife of an earl came by a few years ago before I gave up
smoking, and when I lit a Romeo y Julietta corona she said, "Ooh, I
see you still stoke the foul Cigarogems!" Anyway, when I run across a
smarmy stinker on the net, I am always reminded of the foul smell of
Cigarogems... Fogel definitely qualifies as a smarmy stinker.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Words failed me once -- and I learned to carry extra batteries
 
On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
> Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
> obvious falsehood.


Well, that's a judgment call. There were several people who judged
they saw several clues both in his tale, and elsewhere in his
postings.

> Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
> avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style.


Let's calm down and examine the issue of insinuations. First, you
know and I know that there are people who have posted lies on Usenet,
right?

If a person strongly suspects a person's account isn't correct or
factual, how should it be handled?

Should we immediately yell "Liar!!"? I agree, we should not.

Should we believe absolutely everything that's posted? Not a good
strategy.

Should we always remain silent, and hope someone else does the heavy
lifting? Well, one could, but it's not contributing much to the
online community.

How about stating "I'd love to believe that, but it seems unlikely,"
or words to that effect, and perhaps giving an explanation of the
reasons for doubt?

That seems reasonable. It doesn't say "liar," because it allows for
other explanations, such as remembering wrongly, technical recording
errors, creative fiction, etc. It's a polite way of expressing doubt
- something we must do from time to time, if we're not to be paralyzed
by political correctness.

And AFAICT, it's what Carl did.

What would you do?

(And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
style??)

- Frank Krygowski
 
O

Ozark Bicycle

Guest
On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:

- on "Carl Fogel" -

<snipped>

> Do not let superficial charm fool you.
>


By "superficial charm" do you mean Fogel's weasel-like, slimy, back-
handed , smarmy "style"?
 
M

Michael Press

Guest
In article
<[email protected]m>,
Andre Jute <[email protected]> wrote:

> Carl Fogel saw his opportunity through such a passion that he didn't
> even realize I hadn't yet made the statement he intended to call a
> lie, and shot his wad into empty space. Specifically, in the eighteen
> hours before I put the facts on the table, Fogel twice volunteered the
> accusation that I was a liar, then sneered at someone who told him I
> should be given time to respond, then carried on a sneering jeering
> correspondence with his street corner gang in which the presumtion was
> that I had lied. Later, to cover up for the fact that I had in fact as
> yet said nothing, Fogel developed the fiction that anything I said in
> future would also be a lie, which ties in nicely with "clues ...
> elsewhere in his postings". Here's the timeline of Carl Fogel's crime
> passionelle (LOL):
> http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...2283c/50506d685c4116b3?hl=en#50506d685c4116b3
> and here is Fogel's claim that whatever I say in future will be a lie:
> http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.b...66ded/d92f449b8146a486?hl=en#d92f449b8146a486


Carl Fogel never said you are a liar, and never said that you lied.

--
Michael Press
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:41 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> - on "Carl Fogel" -
>
> <snipped>
>
>> Do not let superficial charm fool you.
>>

>
> By "superficial charm" do you mean Fogel's weasel-like, slimy, back-
> handed , smarmy "style"?
>

Well, Mr. Fogel's style does not wear well with time; as it did not seem
objectionable when he first started posting to rec.bicycles.*. Of
course, when the "friendly" dog bites when you turn your back, you stop
seeing the behavior as friendly - this may also influence a person's
opinion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
T

Tom Sherman

Guest
[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
>> Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
>> obvious falsehood.

>
> Well, that's a judgment call. There were several people who judged
> they saw several clues both in his tale, and elsewhere in his
> postings.
>
>> Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
>> avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style.

>
> Let's calm down and examine the issue of insinuations. First, you
> know and I know that there are people who have posted lies on Usenet,
> right?
>
> If a person strongly suspects a person's account isn't correct or
> factual, how should it be handled?
>
> Should we immediately yell "Liar!!"? I agree, we should not.
>
> Should we believe absolutely everything that's posted? Not a good
> strategy.
>
> Should we always remain silent, and hope someone else does the heavy
> lifting? Well, one could, but it's not contributing much to the
> online community.
>
> How about stating "I'd love to believe that, but it seems unlikely,"
> or words to that effect, and perhaps giving an explanation of the
> reasons for doubt?
>

That to me comes over as an accusation of lying, while allowing the
poster to later weasel out of saying he/she was lying. Especially when
the poster has a history of false accusations and baiting other posters
(Google "Jobst and goatheads").

> That seems reasonable. It doesn't say "liar," because it allows for
> other explanations, such as remembering wrongly, technical recording
> errors, creative fiction, etc. It's a polite way of expressing doubt
> - something we must do from time to time, if we're not to be paralyzed
> by political correctness.
>

If one believes it may have been a simple mistake, then why not ask that
directly?

> And AFAICT, it's what Carl did.
>
> What would you do?
>

I would come straight out and say I did not believe what was written,
without the weasel words.

> (And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
> style??)
>

Yes.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth
 
A

Andre Jute

Guest
Hey Fogel, hey Krygo, here is another opportunity for you two false
accusers and liars to come say it was all a misunderstanding, you're
just underprivileged juvenile delinquents and we should cut you a
break. So, will you stand up like men to confess your vicious lies and
apologize for them or shall we close this sordid episode in your
undistinguished histories by leaving you standing as liars, false
accusers and scum?

Andre Jute
Prisoners slow you down

PS Left to myself I wouldn't spit on willful slime like you Fogel, and
you Krygowski, if you were alight; I offer merely to retain the
respect of the marshmallow liberals on RBT, and because a thorough job
of putting you down permanently will take time I'd rather give to
promoting the career of my literary protege.

On Jan 29, 2:31 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Jan 27, 9:52 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> That has nothing to do with it. I read Mr. Jute's post before Mr.
> >> Fogel's reply, and did not see anything that pointed to it being an
> >> obvious falsehood.

>
> > Well, that's a judgment call.  There were several people who judged
> > they saw several clues both in his tale, and elsewhere in his
> > postings.

>
> >> Furthermore, it appears that Mr. Fogel posted an insinuation, while
> >> avoiding a direct accusation, which is his style.

>
> > Let's calm down and examine the issue of insinuations.  First, you
> > know and I know that there are people who have posted lies on Usenet,
> > right?

>
> > If a person strongly suspects a person's account isn't correct or
> > factual, how should it be handled?

>
> > Should we immediately yell "Liar!!"?  I agree, we should not.

>
> > Should we believe absolutely everything that's posted?  Not a good
> > strategy.

>
> > Should we always remain silent, and hope someone else does the heavy
> > lifting?  Well, one could, but it's not contributing much to the
> > online community.

>
> > How about stating "I'd love to believe that, but it seems unlikely,"
> > or words to that effect, and perhaps giving an explanation of the
> > reasons for doubt?

>
> That to me comes over as an accusation of lying, while allowing the
> poster to later weasel out of saying he/she was lying. Especially when
> the poster has a history of false accusations and baiting other posters
> (Google "Jobst and goatheads").
>
> > That seems reasonable.  It doesn't say "liar," because it allows for
> > other explanations, such as remembering wrongly, technical recording
> > errors, creative fiction, etc.  It's a polite way of expressing doubt
> > - something we must do from time to time, if we're not to be paralyzed
> > by political correctness.

>
> If one believes it may have been a simple mistake, then why not ask that
> directly?
>
> > And AFAICT, it's what Carl did.

>
> > What would you do?

>
> I would come straight out and say I did not believe what was written,
> without the weasel words.
>
> > (And as an aside - do you _really_ prefer Jute's style to Carl's
> > style??)

>
> Yes.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> "And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
> - A. Derleth
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
9
Views
2K
C