DRS - A legend in his own mind

[AustinMN]

DRS wrote:
> "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > DRS wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> Since you've agreed that the fact of the post being an obituary is
> >> neither here nor there then it follows I didn't display any lack of
> >> sensitivity.
> >
> > If someone brushes against you in a crowded location and says "excuse
> > me" do you then say to them "If you knew it was wrong, then you
> > shouldn't have done it?"
> >
> > That is your real lack of sense or sensitivity.
>
> Your analogy is completely **** about and displays only your lack of
> understanding of the issue. In your analogy the brush is unforseen and
> there is nothing to indicate it was intentional. It's completely the
> opposite of this case, where the OP "apologized" first and went ahead
> anyway.

I've seen hundreds of situations where people apologized for minor
infractions beforehand. Ever have someone trying to get past you say
"excuse me" or "pardon me" before brushing past you?

You are way, way too anal about this. You were wrong, and all of your
arguments to the contrary won't change that.

Austin

 

[AustinMN]

DRS wrote:
> "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > DRS wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> Since you've agreed that the fact of the post being an obituary is
> >> neither here nor there then it follows I didn't display any lack of
> >> sensitivity.
> >
> > If someone brushes against you in a crowded location and says "excuse
> > me" do you then say to them "If you knew it was wrong, then you
> > shouldn't have done it?"
> >
> > That is your real lack of sense or sensitivity.
>
> Your analogy is completely **** about and displays only your lack of
> understanding of the issue. In your analogy the brush is unforseen and
> there is nothing to indicate it was intentional. It's completely the
> opposite of this case, where the OP "apologized" first and went ahead
> anyway.

I've seen hundreds of situations where people apologized for minor
infractions beforehand. Ever have someone trying to get past you say
"excuse me" or "pardon me" before brushing past you?

You are way, way too anal about this. You were wrong, and all of your
arguments to the contrary won't change that.

Austin

 

[DRS]

"AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS wrote:
>> "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> DRS wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> Since you've agreed that the fact of the post being an obituary is
>>>> neither here nor there then it follows I didn't display any lack of
>>>> sensitivity.
>>>
>>> If someone brushes against you in a crowded location and says
>>> "excuse me" do you then say to them "If you knew it was wrong, then
>>> you shouldn't have done it?"
>>>
>>> That is your real lack of sense or sensitivity.
>>
>> Your analogy is completely **** about and displays only your lack of
>> understanding of the issue. In your analogy the brush is unforseen
>> and there is nothing to indicate it was intentional. It's
>> completely the opposite of this case, where the OP "apologized"
>> first and went ahead anyway.
>
> I've seen hundreds of situations where people apologized for minor
> infractions beforehand. Ever have someone trying to get past you say
> "excuse me" or "pardon me" before brushing past you?

That's not necessarily an infraction.

> You are way, way too anal about this. You were wrong, and all of your
> arguments to the contrary won't change that.

No, you were wrong, and all of your false analogies to the contrary won't
change that.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[DRS]

"Doug Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> No, I'm not. All I did was call out a self-confessed top-poster.
>
> But that isn't "all" you did, is it?

Yes, it is.

> First, you decided to launch a crusade against top posters without
> actually understanding when the term is applicable.

Wrong.

> Then you appoint yourself as some sort of vigillante.

Wrong.

> Then you start mouthing off in your particularly obnoxious fashion.

Wrong.

> Then you choose to have a go at someone under circumstances that could
> only be called extremely crass.

Wrong.

> Then you ignore everybody who takes the trouble to explain to you why
> you were wrong about existance of an actual incident of top posting
> (despite the explantions being clear, detailed, and in some cases
> undeservedly polite).

Not one was right.

> Then you start screaming "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right", when you
> are so very clearly wrong, in the manner of the spoilt snot nosed brat
> that we can all see you are.

Wrong.

> And you *really* believe that you are not the most despised person
> posting on this group?

Yes. I'm too much an optimist to believe the majority in here are as stupid
and overwrought as you and your fellow fools.

> That truly does show your confused, bewildered and self delusional
> state in high relief.

Wrong.

You're really not doing very well.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[AustinMN]

DRS wrote:
> No, you were wrong, and all of your false analogies to the contrary won't
> change that.

Abraham Lincoln once said "When one man calls you a jackass, think nothing
of it. When ten men call you a jackass, it's time to check to see if you're
wearing a saddle."

Nobody is on your side.

Have a nice day.

Austin

 

[DRS]

"AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS wrote:
>> No, you were wrong, and all of your false analogies to the contrary
>> won't change that.
>
> Abraham Lincoln once said "When one man calls you a jackass, think
> nothing of it. When ten men call you a jackass, it's time to check
> to see if you're wearing a saddle."
>
> Nobody is on your side.

You have to be at least the third or fourth twit who has commited that
particular fallacy even after I keep pointing it out and even identifying it
for you lot (argumentum ad numerum). And you people wonder why you have no
credibility.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[AustinMN]

DRS wrote:
> You have to be at least the third or fourth twit who has commited that
> particular fallacy even after I keep pointing it out and even identifying
it
> for you lot (argumentum ad numerum). And you people wonder why you have
no
> credibility.

The only thing that has cost me any credibility here is arguing with a fool.

All done. Have a nice day.

Austin

 

[DRS]

"AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS wrote:
>> You have to be at least the third or fourth twit who has commited
>> that particular fallacy even after I keep pointing it out and even
>> identifying it for you lot (argumentum ad numerum). And you people
>> wonder why you have no credibility.
>
> The only thing that has cost me any credibility here is arguing with
> a fool.

Run away and lick your wounds.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Mary Thompson]

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:28:36 +1000, "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> DRS wrote:
>>> You have to be at least the third or fourth twit who has commited
>>> that particular fallacy even after I keep pointing it out and even
>>> identifying it for you lot (argumentum ad numerum). And you people
>>> wonder why you have no credibility.
>>
>> The only thing that has cost me any credibility here is arguing with
>> a fool.
>
>Run away and lick your wounds.

Oh, you ARE a silly, SILLY little boy.

The only one here who has been wounded is you - every single time you post, if
only you were not so blind to your own, many faults.

Mary

 

[DRS]

"Mary Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 03:28:36 +1000, "DRS"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>> You have to be at least the third or fourth twit who has commited
>>>> that particular fallacy even after I keep pointing it out and even
>>>> identifying it for you lot (argumentum ad numerum). And you people
>>>> wonder why you have no credibility.
>>>
>>> The only thing that has cost me any credibility here is arguing with
>>> a fool.
>>
>> Run away and lick your wounds.
>
> Oh, you ARE a silly, SILLY little boy.

Er, no.

> The only one here who has been wounded is you

That's not possible, since I have only ever stuck to the one, correct line
of argument. I don't care if you don't like that.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[R.White]

"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "AustinMN" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > DRS wrote:
> >> No, you were wrong, and all of your false analogies to the contrary
> >> won't change that.
> >
> > Abraham Lincoln once said "When one man calls you a jackass, think
> > nothing of it. When ten men call you a jackass, it's time to check
> > to see if you're wearing a saddle."
> >
> > Nobody is on your side.
>
> You have to be at least the third or fourth twit who has commited that
> particular fallacy even after I keep pointing it out and even identifying it
> for you lot (argumentum ad numerum). And you people wonder why you have no
> credibility.

Make it five.

Let's have a show of hands those who agree with DRS?

 

[Jeff Starr]

A: DRS
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (R.White) writes:

> Let's have a show of hands those who agree with DRS?

This picking sides stuff is so schoolyard. In fact,
that's the raison d'etre for the original post in
this thread -- rallying 'everybody else' against DRS.
It's not good.

Anyhow, I choose to blame retrograde Mercury for the
current screw-ups in communications & transportation.
Astrologers have it this is a time when what we
intend to mean is likely to be misconstrued, and we
might thoughtlessly blurt stuff we otherwise wouldn't,
in a clumsier manner than we'd like.

Hey, it's as good a scapegoat as any.

We'll all supposed to start to get back to normal,
come Sept 2nd. In the meantime, it might help to temper
our stronger opinions with respect for other people's
differing ideas, consider what we say before we say it,
and to be as forgiving as we'd want to be forgiven for
our own occasional badly mis-worded statements (I know
I've suffered foot-in-mouth disease more than once.)

Come to think of it, that might work all the time,
despite astrological razmatazz.


I wish everyone well, and to have good rides,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[DRS]

"R.White" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

>> You have to be at least the third or fourth twit who has commited
>> that particular fallacy even after I keep pointing it out and even
>> identifying it for you lot (argumentum ad numerum). And you people
>> wonder why you have no credibility.
>
> Make it five.
>
> Let's have a show of hands those who agree with DRS?

Sheesh. *Another* idiot who thinks there's a relationship between the truth
of a proposition and the number of people who believe it to be true. Is
there no end to this roll call of stupidity?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[DRS]

"Tom Keats" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (R.White) writes:
>
>> Let's have a show of hands those who agree with DRS?
>
> This picking sides stuff is so schoolyard. In fact,
> that's the raison d'etre for the original post in
> this thread -- rallying 'everybody else' against DRS.
> It's not good.
>
> Anyhow, I choose to blame retrograde Mercury for the
> current screw-ups in communications & transportation.
> Astrologers have it this is a time when what we
> intend to mean is likely to be misconstrued, and we
> might thoughtlessly blurt stuff we otherwise wouldn't,
> in a clumsier manner than we'd like.

You know, if you're going to pretend to be trying to hose things down it's a
really bad idea to make snide sidewipes like that.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[David Reuteler]

DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> You know, if you're going to pretend to be trying to hose things down it's a
> really bad idea to make snide sidewipes like that.

dig, dig, dig.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[DRS]

"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You know, if you're going to pretend to be trying to hose things
>> down it's a really bad idea to make snide sidewipes like that.
>
> dig, dig, dig.

Er, no.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[David Reuteler]

DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> You know, if you're going to pretend to be trying to hose things
>>> down it's a really bad idea to make snide sidewipes like that.
>>
>> dig, dig, dig.
>
> Er, no.

'fraid so.
--
david reuteler
[email protected]

 

[DRS]

"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You know, if you're going to pretend to be trying to hose things
>>>> down it's a really bad idea to make snide sidewipes like that.
>>>
>>> dig, dig, dig.
>>
>> Er, no.

Only in your fevered dreams.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[DRS]

"David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> "David Reuteler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> DRS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> You know, if you're going to pretend to be trying to hose things
>>>> down it's a really bad idea to make snide sidewipes like that.
>>>
>>> dig, dig, dig.
>>
>> Er, no.
>
> 'fraid so.

Only in your fevered dreams.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?