Re: It *is* becoming common practice (Re: Imagine if this ever became common practice)

On 28 Jan 2008 14:31:40 GMT, Ultraviolet <violette@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> writed:

On 26 Jan 2008 14:55:10 GMT, Ultraviolet <violette@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Been fourteen days since I don't know when, and I just saw Josh
Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> with my best friend:

But the first two have a serious purpose, the sharing of
information and opinions. If that weren't the case, I would
never mention economics, which I find stultifyingly boring.


A serious purpose? On Usenet? Gawd, Josh.

And why not? No one ever made a rule that there couldn't be,
Paula. In fact, the primary purpose of many groups is serious.


The point that seems to have whooshed you is that it's all a waste
of time. It's not "better" to blather on about economics here than
it is to post song parodies, ask stupid questions, barf up links to
biased news articles, talk about your cats, whine about Scientology,
make fun of peeps, or whatever. Simply by being a "MIG," one
concedes a priori that they've decided to waste time here instead of
doing anything more productive.

I don't see those activities as co-equal, and even if I did, I don't
regard this place as entirely a waste of time, or even all recreation
as a waste of time.

I have no great desire to call Stan and Sylvia names. But since
they keep calling me names, I reciprocate.

I see. "Mommy, they did it first!"

Why do women always seem to think that doesn't matter? It matters
terribly. It's the difference between aggression and offense, and
as such it matters terribly. And, as a matter of practice, I can't
control their behavior.


I didn't say it didn't matter. But you still have the choice of what
to do next. You've decided to engage in the same behavior, which
says something about you. Not that you're worse than they are, but
that you are now the same and can't claim superiority, even if you
still tell yourself that.

Plus the fact is that it's impossible to tell now who keeps what
going. You casually toss slurs about them into various discussions
when they may not have mentioned you for a few hours or days.

That's been amply demonstrated, Paula. To begin with, I offered Stan a
cease fire, and he even agreed, only to renege on his agreement in a
particularly sleazy way: it's a vein of sleaziness I've come to expect
from him. As things now stand, he's publicly on record as saying that
he would not stop, and I'm publicly on record as saying that I would,
though as I can no longer trust him to behave with minimal integrity
he would have to show by his actions that he intended to follow
through with his promise. Furthermore, I have stopped insulting Stan
several times here. In one case, Gekko checked into it, and her
statistics confirmed it, although the lying cunt tried to wiggle out
of it. It does not work.

And that is where it stands, and people can blather about it from here
until doomsday but the ball is in that shit's court and there's
nothing I can do about it.

As to when I mention Stan, don't forget that I see his posts only when
they're quoted. I can't tell how often he's mentioning me.

Well, I hope you don't quit. Then I'd hardly have anyone to
pester.

But if you continue to pester me, it's more likely that I'll quit.
Or just stop reading your posts.

I have a moral obligation to do what I do, so I'll just have to live
with that.

Your "moral obligation" would be a bit more convincing if you didn't
so assiduously ignore the people who attack me. Or am I missing the
posts in which you criticize Stan, who has been stalking me for
several years and has refused to stop doing so? And what about Geno?
You say he's a troll and so you ignore him, but does the fact that
he's a troll make his bigotry any less offensive to those of us who
are the targets of it? Or Gekko, who most recently addressed me with
an anti-Semitic slur? Or Sylvia, a moral grub of a woman who has
repeatedly told out and out lies about me and even lied about me to
people on another newsgroup?

--
Josh

"My name is not Strangelove. I don't know about Strangelove. I'm not
interested in Strangelove. What else can I say? . . . Look, say it
three times more, and I throw you out of this office."

--Edward Teller
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: mythomania is the opposite of what?
    ... is shit on the floor, is not to track it around. ... But Stan goes on whether I respond to him or not. ... these posts from others. ... They seem to think a killfile is some ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: "Your actions speak louder than your lies" - Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad
    ... nonsensical foolery (or is it Stan's nonsensical foolery or is Stan ... You quoted Zero; Fundoc quoted ... $Z uses 'slander' in the same way Josh is being dissed for. ... some of Zero's posts, which I don't ordinarily see, and found this: ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: "Your actions speak louder than your lies" - Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad
    ... nonsensical foolery (or is it Stan's nonsensical foolery or is Stan ... You quoted Zero; Fundoc quoted ... $Z uses 'slander' in the same way Josh is being dissed for. ... some of Zero's posts, which I don't ordinarily see, and found this: ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: "Your actions speak louder than your lies" - Miz Anderson to Ray Haddad
    ... very hard failed to respond to the posts by Fundoc, Towse, and others ... nonsensical foolery (or is it Stan's nonsensical foolery or is Stan ... You quoted Zero; Fundoc quoted Zen, ... Must mean Josh ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: Today
    ... So Josh Hill ... >>>posts without the middleman. ... I'm not going to go away because of Stan, ... It's over his claim that I don't have him in my killfile. ...
    (misc.writing)