[email protected] (R.White) wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
>
[email protected] (Spider) wrote in message
> news:<
[email protected]>...
> >
[email protected] (R.White) wrote in message
> > news:<
[email protected]>...
> > >
[email protected] (Spider) wrote in message
> > > news:<
[email protected]>...
> > > > What is the functional difference between JD flaming someone and what you have done in this
> > > > post?
> > >
> > > JD flames a poster (newbie) for asking a simple question. AFAIK, I've never done that.
> >
> > So, flaming isn't the problem, but who gets flamed is. That's an artificial distinction that I
> > don't recognize as significant.
>
> Good for you. Others see it differently.
Other people also think the world is flat, and that the moon landings were faked. I don't put much
stock in what any particular group of people think.
> > If you are whining about somebody being an asshole, being one yourself carries no moral
> > authority.
>
> Said the pot.
Heh. I'm not whining about anyone being an asshole. I'm not posting *****ing about it, or calling
names about it, or any other thing. So, it is *not* actually the pot calling the kettle black, but
exposing your hypocrisy on the issue.
> > > When I was a newbie and on Webtv to boot, JD would email me asking me not to leave am-b
> > > because I had been in flame wars with more experianced posters and he didn't want all the
> > > webtv people being run off. Now, as soon as a newbie posts, he's all over their ass for being
> > > stupid (in his opinion) and they post a little, then give up.
> >
> > But some don't. The fact is, too many people come to view USENET as some magical "free answer
> > zone." Frankly, if they don't like the iniation, they don't have to join the club. Anyone who
> > lurks for a few days could figure out that this ng has a certain cast of characters.
> >
> > If you're not adult enough to take some heat for a dumb question, then you shouldn't be hanging
> > out in USENET.
>
> So who gets to deterime what's dumb and what's not? JD? You?
Yes. And you, and Duhski and anyone else. There are plenty of people who have trouble with what the
"alt" in the newsgroup hierarchy means, and you seem to be one of them. If you or he or anyone else
doesn't like my methods or posts, you are quite free to learn to operate your newsreader in a manner
that facilitates filtering on authors or content - or both.
I have posed some dumb questions in USENET, and taken heat. Life is hard. I got over it. What's
your excuse?
> > > > I'll wait for the good hypocrite to be courageous and admit his logical error, or try and
> > > > attempt more obfuscation. RW, you may want to think twice about that - I know my way around.
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't accept your artificial distinction. But it is a very nice weasel.
>
> Others do.
Reference faked moon landings.
> Your influence on what I percieve to be true is insignificant.
Ahh, but I am not trying to influence you in any way. As I have said before, in case you weren't
paying attention, I do not believe that you can change anybody who does not wish to change, and in
USENET, the only real influence someone has is on themselves. Having a laugh at the expense of the
hypocritical fools who think that they can stop flaming by flaming is all part of this great medium
that provides so much enjoyment.
I speak to you about logic because I had imagined that you would be able to discern logical truth
from logical fallacy. I am sorry that I was wrong.
Spider