question for jobst brandt

[Andre Jute]

Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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

 

[Andre Jute]

On Feb 6, 5:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> For those who seem to have lost track, here's the actual quote, by
> Carl, that triggered Jute's belligerence:
>
> "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. A link to a specific spot on an internet topo map
> would be a starting point."
>
> The quoted statement is a version of "I don't believe that," not "I
> don't believe you."
>
> And anyone who claims Carl called Jute a liar is... well, mistaken, at
> best.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

You're a deliberate liar, too, Frank Krygowsky, by deliberately
deceitful editing. Here is the sequence which by the timing makes it
clear that Creepy Carl Fogel called me a liar in his very first
message on the subject:

The dates and times show that Carl Fogel called me a liar before I
could even answer questions:

Andre Jute Jan 23, 12:34 am (in the thread "Chalo among the fashion
victims and other impressionables" (1)):
"Gazelle Toulouse ... I've done well over 100Km/h on that bike, going
downhill of course."

Clive George Jan 23, 5.20pm:
"That's pretty fast - what hill?"

Andre Jute Jan 23, 5:42 pm:
"Not a famous hill. A tarmacadam farm lane."

Clive George Jan 23, 6:09 pm:
"Whereabouts is it?"

Carl Fogel Jan 23, 7:00 pm, less than an hour later calls me a liar
without waiting for my reply to Clive:
"I'm not surprised that you got no real answer beyond that vague
tarmacadam farm lane that only one farmer uses, continent
unspecified...etc"

If that isn't an accusation of lying, what is? Fogel doesn't just call
me a liar on those facts, he claims (as he later even more explicitly
claimed elsewhere) that everything I say is a lie ("I am not
suprised...").

Carl Fogel Jan 23, 7:43 pm, only an hour and a half after Clive asked
his question, and still without waiting for my reply, repeats the
accusation that I'm a liar:
"And I'd still be pleased to find that my skepticism is wrong and that
there is a paved farm lane long enough and steep enough for that kind
of bike to do well over 100 kmh."

Fogel meanwhile sneers and jeers his way through the me-too posts of
his gang getting in their knocks. I don't know anything about all this
for another 16 hours...

It is the next day before I even see Clive's question!

Andre Jute
The truth always comes to those who tease out the strands with logic
and added caffeine

 

[Clive George]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f843a94e-d3d4-43c1-a212-17b67c9d4bb5@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

>"Whining"? Mr. Jute is not whining, IMO. Rather, he is shining a harsh
>light on an established Usenet maggot, the smarmy, despicable Carl
>Fogel.

Hmm. Your "harsh light" seems rather more like "deranged obsession" to me.

You sure you're not letting your dislike of Carl (even though it may be for
good reason) blind you to the fact that Mr Jute has spent rather a lot of
posts saying not much at all?

clive

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Feb 6, 4:41 pm, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:f843a94e-d3d4-43c1-a212-17b67c9d4bb5@v17g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >"Whining"? Mr. Jute is not whining, IMO. Rather, he is shining a harsh
> >light on an established Usenet maggot, the smarmy, despicable Carl
> >Fogel.
>
> Hmm. Your "harsh light" seems rather more like "deranged obsession" to me.

We differ, then.


>
> You sure you're not letting your dislike of Carl (even though it may be for
> good reason) blind you to the fact that Mr Jute has spent rather a lot of
> posts saying not much at all?
>

Mr. Jute's methods might not be the ones I would choose, but his cause
is just and his points well taken.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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

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

Hey, are you coming to NYC?

 

[Michael Press]

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

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Press wrote:
> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Michael Press wrote:
> >>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
> >>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> delurker WHO? anonymously posts:
> >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> May I ask you a personal question, why do you feed the kooks? Yes Jute is
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrong about Carl calling him a liar,...
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> "delurker" needs to re-read what Mr. Fogel posted - the insinuation that
> >>>>>>>>>> Mr. Jute was lying was clearly made by Mr. Fogel.
> >>>>>>>>> At best, he insinuated that Mr. Jute was mistaken. It is somewhere
> >>>>>>>>> between uncharitable and paranoid to claim otherwise.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have a pretty good idea why Andre Jute might say so, but Tom, what's
> >>>>>>>>> your excuse?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Mr. Fogel has made similar incorrect accusations in the past, but to
> >>>>>>>> this day has refused to admit his error.
> >>>>>>> What error was that? Questioning an extraordinary claim (which turned
> >>>>>>> out to be supportable only by the rather extraordinary measure of
> >>>>>>> motorpacing)?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You're supposed to question extraordinary claims! Especially on Usenet!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Sheesh.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mr. Fogel apparently believes he can read the minds of others and
> >>>>> How do you know this? Do you read Mr. Fogel's mind?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> determine their true intentions. That is more of a stretch that
> >>>>>> exceeding 100 kph with the assist of a relatively straight and steep
> >>>>>> downhill section of well paved road with the assist of a cube van.
> >>>> Mr. Fogel stated he knew the motivation behind what I wrote. Unless Mr.
> >>>> Fogel can read minds, his statement was a lie.
> >>> Would you give the Message-ID of the article where he said this?
> >>>
> >> You can skip the first 80 messages:
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/fdafa5577b5d5112/55c14737cd6e586e?hl=en&tvc=1&q=kerry+bicycle#55c14737cd6e586e>.
> >
> > I am not going searching. You know the message. Provide the MessageID:
> > Failing that, find the message in google groups, click `Show original'
> > and provide that URL.
> >
> Go to the "Options" tab, select View as Tree", and all 562 messages will
> show on the left hand side. The relevant exchange is contained in
> message numbers eighty-one (81) through eighty-nine (89).
>
> I believe the above is an adequate reference for anyone who has a
> working knowledge of using the Internet and is not being an obstructionist.

Done. Thinking about it, the statement "I do not
believe you" can be, depending on context, tantamount
to an accusation of lying. In any case, it is highly
inflamatory. To quote you from that thread

"To diverge from the above, one should not participate
in off-topic Usenet discussions on political topics
unless one is willing to deal with the resulting
ugliness. In my case I have been called among other
things a Communist, Al Qaida supporter, Saddam Hussein
supporter, Kim II Jung supporter, an anti-Semite, a
terrorist sympathizer, a rectal opening, anti-American,
an extremist wacko nut, a god dammed liberal, a piece
of excrement, and an apologist for murder: this list is
by no means exhaustive."

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

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

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> > <rcousine-00C6AA.19142404022008@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]>,
> > Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>>> Tom Sherman
> >>>>>>> Mr. Fogel stated he knew the motivation behind what I wrote. Unless Mr.
> >>>>>>> Fogel can read minds, his statement was a lie.
> >>>> Michael Press
> >>>>>> Would you give the Message-ID of the article where he said this?
> >>>> Tom Sherman
> >>>>> You can skip the first 80 messages:
> >>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/fdafa55
> >>>>> 77b5d5112/55c14737cd6e586e?hl=en&tvc=1&q=kerry+bicycle#55c14737cd6e586e>.
> >>>> Carl Fogel in message 88 of the thread referenced above writes to Mr
> >>>> Sherman:
> >>>>
> >>>> "I'm sorry to say that I don't believe you."
> >>>>
> >>>> That is to say, Creepy Carl calls Mr Sherman a liar. Creepy Carl then
> >>>> continues:
> >>>>
> >>>> "I think that you're in the uncomfortable
> >>>> position of threatening other people if
> >>>> they don't shut up and stop disagreeing
> >>>> with you--and now you deny it."
> >>>>
> >>>> Here Creepy Carl Fogel claims to know that Mr Sherman actually thinks
> >>>> something which Mr Sherman has already denied. That bears out in full
> >>>> Mr Sherman's statement, "Mr. Fogel stated he knew the motivation
> >>>> behind what I wrote."
> >>>>
> >>>> Since no one will believe that Creepy Carl can read minds, we must
> >>>> also accept the truth of Mr Sherman's conclusion: "Unless Mr. Fogel
> >>>> can read minds, his statement was a lie."
> >>>>
> >>>> But then we already know Creepy Carl is a liar and a false accuser.
> >>>> The proof merely keeps piling up.
> >>>>
> >>>> You owe Mr Sherman an apology, Press. And Creepy Carl Fogel owes Mr
> >>>> Sherman about ten years of community service.
> >>>>
> >>> What brought this on at that time was a bicycle dealer [1] who had told
> >>> me (s)he wished (s)he could post what (s)he thought on
> >>> political/economic topics, but was afraid it would cost her/him too much
> >>> business.
> >>>
> >>> [1] Someone who for obvious reasons will remain nameless. Furthermore,
> >>> this person to the best of my knowledge has not posted to rec.bicycles.*
> >>> in this millennium - I mention this to keep anyone from thinking it was
> >>> one of the regulars.
> >> Tom, have you really been holding onto a grudge against Carl for this
> >> pretty minor affront since 2004?!?!
> >>
> >> I almost admire your single-mindedness, though I gravely doubt your
> >> sense of proportion.
> >>
> >> For future reference, here's the Message-ID you want:
> >>
> >> <[email protected]>
> >
> > OK. I read it. Carl Fogel says he does not believe Tom Sherman.
> > This is not tantamount to accusation of lying.
> >
> Mr. Fogel's meaning was clear from the context.

I reread it and think that "I do not believe you"
is as logically equivalent to "You are lying."

>
> > We all remain at liberty to take that position toward anyone,
> > without having to defend an accusation of accusing another of lying.
> > _I_ think that what Tom actually objects to is Carl Fogel claiming
> > that Tom Sherman is
> > "threatening other people if they
> > don't shut up and stop disagreeing with you."
> >
> Mr. Press is mistaken in his thoughts posted above.
>
> To his credit, Mr. Press states his belief as an opinion and not a fact,
> avoiding the immoral error Mr. Fogel committed.

Yes, opinion. I do not mind being called a liar,
and mind very much suggestions that I employ of strong-arm methods.

> > Strong words indeed.
> >
> I can think of a LBS proprietor who political and economic opinions are
> diametrically opposed to mine. Yet I have recommended his shop for both
> sales and services, both privately and on this newsgroup, due to the
> value and quality of his service.
>
> My objections to Mr. Hickey that set Mr. Fogel off had much more to do
> with the way Mr. Hickey expressed his opinions than the opinions themselves.

--
Michael Press

 

[Tom Sherman]

[email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email protected]> 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?

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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> delurker WHO? anonymously posts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> May I ask you a personal question, why do you feed the kooks? Yes Jute is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong about Carl calling him a liar,...
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> "delurker" needs to re-read what Mr. Fogel posted - the insinuation that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Jute was lying was clearly made by Mr. Fogel.
>>>>>>>>>>> At best, he insinuated that Mr. Jute was mistaken. It is somewhere
>>>>>>>>>>> between uncharitable and paranoid to claim otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have a pretty good idea why Andre Jute might say so, but Tom, what's
>>>>>>>>>>> your excuse?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mr. Fogel has made similar incorrect accusations in the past, but to
>>>>>>>>>> this day has refused to admit his error.
>>>>>>>>> What error was that? Questioning an extraordinary claim (which turned
>>>>>>>>> out to be supportable only by the rather extraordinary measure of
>>>>>>>>> motorpacing)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're supposed to question extraordinary claims! Especially on Usenet!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sheesh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mr. Fogel apparently believes he can read the minds of others and
>>>>>>> How do you know this? Do you read Mr. Fogel's mind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> determine their true intentions. That is more of a stretch that
>>>>>>>> exceeding 100 kph with the assist of a relatively straight and steep
>>>>>>>> downhill section of well paved road with the assist of a cube van.
>>>>>> Mr. Fogel stated he knew the motivation behind what I wrote. Unless Mr.
>>>>>> Fogel can read minds, his statement was a lie.
>>>>> Would you give the Message-ID of the article where he said this?
>>>>>
>>>> You can skip the first 80 messages:
>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_frm/thread/fdafa5577b5d5112/55c14737cd6e586e?hl=en&tvc=1&q=kerry+bicycle#55c14737cd6e586e>.
>>> I am not going searching. You know the message. Provide the MessageID:
>>> Failing that, find the message in google groups, click `Show original'
>>> and provide that URL.
>>>
>> Go to the "Options" tab, select View as Tree", and all 562 messages will
>> show on the left hand side. The relevant exchange is contained in
>> message numbers eighty-one (81) through eighty-nine (89).
>>
>> I believe the above is an adequate reference for anyone who has a
>> working knowledge of using the Internet and is not being an obstructionist.
>
> Done. Thinking about it, the statement "I do not
> believe you" can be, depending on context, tantamount
> to an accusation of lying. In any case, it is highly
> inflamatory.

Indeed.

> To quote you from that thread
>
> "To diverge from the above, one should not participate
> in off-topic Usenet discussions on political topics
> unless one is willing to deal with the resulting
> ugliness. In my case I have been called among other
> things a Communist, Al Qaida supporter, Saddam Hussein
> supporter, Kim II Jung supporter, an anti-Semite, a
> terrorist sympathizer, a rectal opening, anti-American,
> an extremist wacko nut, a god dammed liberal, a piece
> of excrement, and an apologist for murder: this list is
> by no means exhaustive."
>
Maybe I will use that in my signature line.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"To diverge from the above, one should not participate
in off-topic Usenet discussions on political topics
unless one is willing to deal with the resulting
ugliness. In my case I have been called among other
things a Communist, Al Qaeda supporter, Saddam Hussein
supporter, Kim Il Jung supporter, an anti-Semite, a
terrorist sympathizer, a rectal opening, anti-American,
an extremist wacko nut, a god dammed liberal, a piece
of excrement, and an apologist for murder: this list is
by no means exhaustive."

 

[Tom Nakashima]

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

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

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Feb 7, 8:16 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
> > <[email protected]> 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).
>
> This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
> -tom

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

 

[Tom Nakashima]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:40bbe7cf-bc25-49e6-aeef-d52d473ab155@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 8:16 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
> > <[email protected]> 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).
>
> This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
> -tom

>>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

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Feb 7, 8:32 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:40bbe7cf-bc25-49e6-aeef-d52d473ab155@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 8:16 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
> > > <[email protected]> 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).
>
> > This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
> > -tom
> >>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.

 

[Tom Nakashima]

"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ecb0604a-870a-4ace-9c69-d94f7239766a@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 8:32 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:40bbe7cf-bc25-49e6-aeef-d52d473ab155@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 8:16 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
> > > <[email protected]> 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).
>
> > This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
> > -tom
> >>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.

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

 

[Harry Brogan]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:59:05 -0800, "Tom Nakashima"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:ecb0604a-870a-4ace-9c69-d94f7239766a@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 7, 8:32 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:40bbe7cf-bc25-49e6-aeef-d52d473ab155@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 7, 8:16 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
>> > > <[email protected]> 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).
>>
>> > This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
>> > -tom
>> >>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.
>
>Sorry to hear that,
>I would have to say that's crossing the line and going a bit too far.
>-tom
>


The internet remionds me of the old C.B. Radio days. When people
would hide behind the microphone flipping **** to people. Usually
came to a stop when someone would park in ront of the persons house
and flip on a linear amplifier and fry their radio.

Same thing as now....just seems that people take some of this WAY too
seriously.

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
> > <[email protected]> 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. I have no admiration
from those who agree.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Feb 7, 3:16 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
> > > <[email protected]> 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 (as a form of character assassination), eh? Nor with
those who send nasty snail mails to posters family members, either.


> I have no admiration
> from those who agree.


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

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Feb 7, 3:16 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
>>>> <[email protected]> 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

 

[Andre Jute]

On Feb 7, 9:16 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [email protected] aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
> > > <[email protected]> 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.  

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.

>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.

> - Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute
Out of the mouths of babes

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Harry Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:59:05 -0800, "Tom Nakashima"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:ecb0604a-870a-4ace-9c69-d94f7239766a@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >On Feb 7, 8:32 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:40bbe7cf-bc25-49e6-aeef-d52d473ab155@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Feb 7, 8:16 am, "Tom Nakashima" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
> >> > > <[email protected]> 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).
> >>
> >> > This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
> >> > -tom
> >> >>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.
> >
> >Sorry to hear that,
> >I would have to say that's crossing the line and going a bit too far.
> >-tom
> >
>
>
> The internet remionds me of the old C.B. Radio days. When people
> would hide behind the microphone flipping **** to people. Usually
> came to a stop when someone would park in ront of the persons house
> and flip on a linear amplifier and fry their radio.

Will you provide details of how the frying transpires, please?
The linear amplifier is connected to what?
Does a signal go to the victims receiving antenna?
What component fries?

--
Michael Press