Interesting eBay auction



"Dr Curious" <[email protected]> writes:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > And? An accurate observation does not become less accurate
> > for being repeated. In case you want a third opinion, I too
> > think you're a paranoid ****wit. So sue me.

>
> Why should I care what a clown like you thinks ?
>
> 3 buffoons each with an IQ of 93, can still only ever have
> a combined IQ of 93, no matter what they try and do.
>

I think you're sailing close to the wind if you're trying to call me,
Simon, Guy, Jon or Michael dim. This is not the impression I have of
any of these people.

A
 
Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I think you're sailing close to the wind if you're trying to call me,
> Simon, Guy, Jon or Michael dim. This is not the impression I have of
> any of these people.
>


Maybe he types in hex? :) Mind you, the only thing a high IQ accurately
represents is a good ability to do IQ tests.

Graeme
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
<some stuff about distressing remarks>

OK. Since you clearly missed the point entirely, we'll have another go.

You said:

"Even if what you suggest were true, how exactly can telling people how
other people view them, be considered hurtful?"

So I suggested a course of action that would demonstrate that the above
would be hurtful:

"Walk up to the next overweight person that you find and tell them that
you find their physique revolting. If you wouldn't do this, then don't
do it here. Simple."

To which you assumed that I was making a remark about the overweight and
successfully answered your own question.

The reason that telling people how others view them can be hurtful, is
that self-image and actual image are two different things. This (to
continue along the nutrition line) manifests itself in other cases such
as anorexia.

Do try to keep up at the back. :)

Jon
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...

> While Jon hasn't actually called me a "****wit".


Yet!

> Unlike you who've already called me a "****wit" twice.
>
> So again, why should I place any credence in your opinion anyway?
>
> You see Ambrose, once you call a person a "****wit" you cease to
> have any credibility in their eyes anyway.


You mean I have credibility in your eyes? I didn't think that you held
anyone's opinions as credible.

Jon
 
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> writes:
> > "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > And? An accurate observation does not become less accurate
> > > for being repeated. In case you want a third opinion, I too
> > > think you're a paranoid ****wit. So sue me.

> >
> > Why should I care what a clown like you thinks ?
> >
> > 3 buffoons each with an IQ of 93, can still only ever have
> > a combined IQ of 93, no matter what they try and do.
> >

> I think you're sailing close to the wind if you're trying to call me,
> Simon, Guy, Jon or Michael dim. This is not the impression I have of
> any of these people.
>
> A



That's five people you've named there, not three.

While Jon hasn't actually called me a "****wit".

Unlike you who've already called me a "****wit" twice.

So again, why should I place any credence in your opinion anyway?

You see Ambrose, once you call a person a "****wit" you cease to
have any credibility in their eyes anyway.


Curious
 
"Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in news:2m74mrFjt8gcU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> That's five people you've named there, not three.


He used "or", not "and", which gives you the option to chose which of the
stated names you are calling dim.

Graeme
 
"Graeme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in news:2m74mrFjt8gcU1@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
> > That's five people you've named there, not three.

>
> He used "or", not "and", which gives you the option to chose which of the
> stated names you are calling dim.
>
> Graeme
>


I simply made the statement.

"That's five people you've named there, not three."

so -

a) Are you claiming that statement is false ?

b) Are you seeking to draw your own, possibly totally
unwarrented implications from that statement, and thereby
trying to prove me wrong?

c) Do you have rather too much time on your hands?


Curious
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> I simply made the statement.
>
> "That's five people you've named there, not three."
>
> so -
>
> a) Are you claiming that statement is false ?
>
> b) Are you seeking to draw your own, possibly totally
> unwarrented implications from that statement, and thereby
> trying to prove me wrong?
>
> c) Do you have rather too much time on your hands?


That's twice you've used the word "are" there. If you did not imply that
Ambrose had named five people rather than three because he was having
trouble counting, then you could have used considerably clearer English
to demonstrate this fact.

Jon
 
"Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in news:2m763vFjf5rtU1@uni-
berlin.de:

> a) Are you claiming that statement is false ?


No, but if that is what you're claiming then the relevance to what was
originally said is even more tenuous than your normal posts.

> b) Are you seeking to draw your own, possibly totally
> unwarrented implications from that statement, and thereby
> trying to prove me wrong?


No. Proving you wrong seems to be rather a pointless exercise.

> c) Do you have rather too much time on your hands?


I wish. Usenet it just a displacement activity.

Graeme
 
"Jon Senior" <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > I simply made the statement.
> >
> > "That's five people you've named there, not three."
> >
> > so -
> >
> > a) Are you claiming that statement is false ?
> >
> > b) Are you seeking to draw your own, possibly totally
> > unwarrented implications from that statement, and thereby
> > trying to prove me wrong?
> >
> > c) Do you have rather too much time on your hands?

>
> That's twice you've used the word "are" there. If you did not imply that
> Ambrose had named five people rather than three because he was having
> trouble counting, then you could have used considerably clearer English
> to demonstrate this fact.
>
> Jon



I didn't imply anything. I simply made a statement.

"That's five people you've named there, not three."

A statement which happens to be true.

If you wish to infer things from that statement than that's
your privilege.

However please don't try and hold me accountable for the workings
of your mind, or any possible unfamiliarity there may be on your
part, with the canons of deductive logic.


Curious
 
"Graeme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Dr Curious" <[email protected]> wrote in news:2m763vFjf5rtU1@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
> > a) Are you claiming that statement is false ?

>
> No, but if that is what you're claiming then the relevance to
> what was originally said is even more tenuous than your normal posts.
>
> Graeme
>


I'm sorry would you mind clarifying?

What precisely is the "that", which you're suggesting I'm claiming?


Curious
 
[snip]
>
> I simply made the statement.
>
> "That's five people you've named there, not three."
>
> so -
>
> a) Are you claiming that statement is false ?
>
> b) Are you seeking to draw your own, possibly totally
> unwarrented implications from that statement, and thereby
> trying to prove me wrong?
>
> c) Do you have rather too much time on your hands?
>
>
> Curious
>


Ooh, a false trichotomy, so much rarer and more fun than the boring old
di kind.

Peter
 
"Peter Amey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [snip]
> >
> > I simply made the statement.
> >
> > "That's five people you've named there, not three."
> >
> > so -
> >
> > a) Are you claiming that statement is false ?
> >
> > b) Are you seeking to draw your own, possibly totally
> > unwarrented implications from that statement, and thereby
> > trying to prove me wrong?
> >
> > c) Do you have rather too much time on your hands?
> >
> >
> > Curious
> >

>
> Ooh, a false trichotomy, so much rarer and more fun than the boring old
> di kind.
>
> Peter
>


If it wasn't for the marked absence of any exclusive "ors", that is.

The respondent could have entirely consistently, answered "no"
to all three. Or offered one of any number of combinations of
answers.

Maybe it's a long time since you filled in a Tax Return.


Curious
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> I didn't imply anything. I simply made a statement.


In the context of the post to which you responded, there was an
implication, intended or otherwise. If you do not mean to imply then
take care in your choice of words.

> "That's five people you've named there, not three."
>
> A statement which happens to be true.


As is the statement, "The sun is currently shining where I am". My
statement has no relevance to the topic in hand, and if you claim to
have "simply made a statement" then neither has yours. This would
suggest that you simply post random, accurate, but totally irrelevant
statements. If this is the case, then why limit yourself to observations
on the preceding posts when you could just as usefully tell us about
other things that you have noticed. What colour(s) is your keyboard? How
many buses did you see this morning? How many times did you blink in the
last minute?

> If you wish to infer things from that statement than that's
> your privilege.


Not just me, but all concerned it would appear. It could be a mass
delusion, but the judicious application of a certain philosophical razor
would suggest that you in fact attempted to suggest that Ambrose
couldn't count and that said attempt fell flat on its face.

> However please don't try and hold me accountable for the workings
> of your mind, or any possible unfamiliarity there may be on your
> part, with the canons of deductive logic.


When logic (deductive or otherwise) begins to creep into your posts, I
shall sit up and take notice. Until such a time, I will consider uses
for all the ice when hell freezes over. ;-)

Jon
 
"Jon Senior" <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not just me, but all concerned it would appear. It could be a mass
> delusion, but the judicious application of a certain philosophical razor
> would suggest that you in fact attempted to suggest that Ambrose
> couldn't count and that said attempt fell flat on its face.


On the other hand it might equaly well be suggested that Ambrose
was implying that I couldn't count! I just happened to mention
the figure three, and Ambrose then happened to mention five
people. Coincidence or what ?

Before you go around accusing people of things I think you should
get your facts straight!

As it happens the three was OTTOMH, because I have rather better
things to do with my time than search Google Groups to verify
precisely how many people on this NewsGroup have called me a
"****wit" up to now.

>
> When logic (deductive or otherwise) begins to creep into your
> posts, I shall sit up and take notice.



Oh and will that before or after, these preposterous claims of
yours that Gates was a lousy coder?






Curious




> Jon
 
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:03:13 +0100, Dr Curious <[email protected]>
wrote:

> As it happens the three was OTTOMH, because I have rather better
> things to do with my time than search Google Groups to verify
> precisely how many people on this NewsGroup have called me a
> "****wit" up to now.


I can imagine that would be a long job.

Colin
 
"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:03:13 +0100, Dr Curious <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > As it happens the three was OTTOMH, because I have rather better
> > things to do with my time than search Google Groups to verify
> > precisely how many people on this NewsGroup have called me a
> > "****wit" up to now.

>
> I can imagine that would be a long job.
>
> Colin




Not killfiled me yet then, lickul Colin?


Curious
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On the other hand it might equaly well be suggested that Ambrose
> was implying that I couldn't count! I just happened to mention
> the figure three, and Ambrose then happened to mention five
> people. Coincidence or what ?


Ambrose didn't make a direct reference to numbers. He just listed the
five people who have been involved recently in direct "debate" with you.
You made a point of noting that Ambrose had given five names. Even by
your usual standards this is clutching at straws.

> Before you go around accusing people of things I think you should
> get your facts straight!


I did. Or are you accusing me of lying. ;-)

> As it happens the three was OTTOMH, because I have rather better
> things to do with my time than search Google Groups to verify
> precisely how many people on this NewsGroup have called me a
> "****wit" up to now.


But you don't have better things to do with your time than post
aggressive and argumentative statements that have little or nothing to
do with the matter under discussion? I understand that it is clearly
personal (You've already stated as much) but what exactly do you do with
your time?

> Oh and will that before or after, these preposterous claims of
> yours that Gates was a lousy coder?


Will that what "before or after"?

Gates was a lousy coder. He was a lazy coder. His company still produces
lousy code and programs that encourage lousy / lazy coding. This is in
no way a reflection of his business acumen, since despite this his
company dominates the computer industry.

Jon
 
"Graeme" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > I think you're sailing close to the wind if you're trying to call me,
> > Simon, Guy, Jon or Michael dim. This is not the impression I have of
> > any of these people.
> >

>
> Maybe he types in hex? :) Mind you, the only thing a high IQ accurately
> represents is a good ability to do IQ tests.
>
> Graeme



IQ is simply a metaphor for ability of all kinds.

Simply adding individuals at a particular ability level
to a group, doesn't raise the overall ability level of the group
one jot.

And in the same way if people are willing to demean themselves to
the extent of calling me a "****wit", then no matter how many of
them choose to do so, it still doesn't make their doing so any the
less demeaning for them as individuals. They're simply all wallowing
in it together.


Curious
 
"Jon Senior" <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> <some stuff about distressing remarks>
>
> OK. Since you clearly missed the point entirely, we'll have another go.
>
> You said:
>
> "Even if what you suggest were true, how exactly can telling people how
> other people view them, be considered hurtful?"
>
> So I suggested a course of action that would demonstrate that the above
> would be hurtful:
>
> "Walk up to the next overweight person that you find and tell them that
> you find their physique revolting. If you wouldn't do this, then don't
> do it here. Simple."
>
> To which you assumed that I was making a remark about the overweight and
> successfully answered your own question.



No you were using an all to common attitude towards the overweight
as an example. Basically what you were saying was that " walking up to
an overweight person and telling them you find their physique revolting"
is a credible scenario. Otherwise you wouldn't have chosen it to make
your point.

You chose to use that example I didn't.

And it was totally innapproprite for three reasons.

First by drawing attention to the fact that such attitudes
are credible in order to illustrate a point, all you achieve is
to cause possible distress unecessarily. Overweight people don't
need to be reminded of society's attitudes towards them in this
way. Not on a cycling group at least. If they read obesity
support groups then possibly, unfortunate though it is, they
can expect all the abuse and insults going.

Second if you need to use extreme examples to prove your point
then your point probably isn't very good to start with.

Third your citing that example rested on the assumption that I
could identify with the action proposed. I couldn't, and I find
all such thinking deeply offensive and only one step away from
racism. All appearenceism is equally objectionable in my book.
I could I suppose, almost consider such a choice of example as
being insulting but I'll choose no to do so.


>
> The reason that telling people how others view them can be
> hurtful, is that self-image and actual image are two different
> things. This (to continue along the nutrition line) manifests
> itself in other cases such as anorexia.


I wasn't concerned with people's appearance at all, but helping
them communicate better. Its patently obvious that some individuals
very often succeed in creating precisely the opposite effect to
that which they intend. In terms of communicating nobody
consciously wants to make a fool of themselves or come across as
flustered or over-anxious and that's precisely what many people do.
And if these are people you care about, then its your duty to try
and help them in any way you can.



Curious


>
> Do try to keep up at the back. :)
>
> Jon



Appearencist!