Re: I just don't understand why...

in article bqm3dz06ss1z$.1k76eyyby32cp$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxx, RkyMtnHootOwl at
rkymtnhoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/13/05 9:12 AM:

> On 12 Dec 2005 08:26:11 -0800, Oci-One Kanubi wrote:
>
> snip
>>
>> Dood:
>>
>> a) newsgroups are NOT like a PRIVATE conversation; they are more like a
>> coctail party, a gathering of people with some common interest or
>> association.
>
> Duude: Welcome back from your trip, I hope you had a good time!
>
> In Regards to your current post, please preruse the following,
>
> a) On 12/10, at 1:04 AM, I posted in this thread, that the NG is like
> a party, where many discussions are going on at the same time. You
> called it a cocktail Party, so I think I understand the concept!
> Though I would also point out it is not a Birthday party where it is
> expected that one would always be the center of attention.
>
>> As such it is entirely appropriate for anyone to wander
>> up to a conversation group (thread) listen for as long or as briefly as
>> he wishes, and then to offer his views on the topic of discussion.
>
> And I have no problem with that, which is what you did, for the
> discussion between Kman & I was an open conversation with an implied
> invitation to participate. Your participation was a welcome break from
> the continuing harangue with Kman . However when I directed a comment
> directly to you, because I wanted to hear from you, and Kman crashed
> all over it, I pointed out to Kman, that I thought he was being
> boorish, rude, and immature!

Actually, it was made as a statement, rather than a "thought" of yours.
Sadly, you still don't understand newsgroups, or how to keep from flapping
off ignorantly and embarassing yourself.

> However if I am totally wrong, and you are correct, then I am even
> more so within the bounds of the conversational free for all, that you
> describe as being the nature of the newsgroup. I am free to tell Kman
> the exact thing that I told him, and he is completely free to continue
> being boorish, rude, and immature! Which he apparently chooses!

You (incorrectly) stated that it was inappropriate for me to participate in
the thread in the way that I did. Thus, you are being boorish, rude, and
immature by continuing to whine about your own error.

> And similarly, there is no reason that I have to give any more details
> than I choose to divulge about the substance of the statements I made
> regarding the accidental death.

That's right, you don't. But as a result of your vague and unexplained smear
of these two accident victims, you have, as usual, humiliated yourself.

>I can say whatsoever I choose, to whom
> I choose, and when I choose! And Kman can demand details, and throw a
> temper tantrum until he is blue in the face, and I am under no
> constraint to provide any other info! As you have ablely set out
> above!

Who is suggesting that you can be forced into not looking like an idiot? Not
me. I know that you are fully determined - as is your right - to look like
as big of an idiot as possible.

>> It
>> is probably not a wise and intelligent idea for you to lecture people
>> on the nature of newsgroups when you don't understand the nature of
>> newsgroup. Pontificating from ignorance makes you look... well...
>> really STOOpid.
>>
> Obviously it is not wise to lecture anyone who is not wise or
> intelligent enough to hear what is being said!
>
> Yes you should get all the facts, or you look STOOpid, as you did when
> you came into the ongoing conversation, blabbing about stuff that was
> not even being discussed ie, Christianity. If you want to discuss that
> I will be glad to meet you in some other thread, where that can be the
> subject, or here if the original subject is being relinguished.
>
> But otherwise, yes, you did look really STOOpid!!!

Brilliant! Do you have an idea what you are trying to say?

>> b) if what you are saying were so, it should be ME you are chastising,
>> since it was actually I who wandered into a discussion thread between
>> you and KMAN.
>>
> Yes you did, and I had no paticular problem with that, as descibed
> above. If you made a habit of it, and of pushing your way to the
> center of every conversation, and then making no substantive
> contribution, but instead insisted on making OT comments, and trying
> to establish your own agenda. I would eventually determine that you
> also are rude, boorish, and immature! You also are free to choose!
>
>> c) gee-Zeus, it is actually KMAN who is trying to have a serious
>> conversation with YOU (a serious conversation you keep avoiding). I am
>> the one interjecting random brain farts, for Pete's sake.
>>
> Yes you did interject some random brain farts, which I largely chose
> to ignore, recognizing them for what they were! However, you are much
> to generous to describe Kman's comments as "serious".

You don't thinking trying to get to the bottom of comments about people who
have died is serious? I guess that's your problem. You don't take human life
seriously. And you don't hold personal accountability as a value.

> Now, I
> understand that his continuing one liners may stretch some individuals
> IQ, and may seem cute, but I would hardly call his lack of
> intellectual commitment "serious". It is easy for Kman to set back and
> throw oneliners at someone who has made an intellectual commitment, by
> going out on a limb, by making a statement like I did about the
> particular situation of the kayaker that drown, and what may have been
> a contributing factor.

What is "intellectual" about refusing to explain your comments?

>> It's just that he is such an optimist, with such faith in the essential
>> goodness of mankind,
>
> Unless we are fundementalist, evangelical Christians, which makes us
> not a part of that privileged group of essentially good mankind. Then,
> we are not the subject of his secular humanistic liberal optimism

What the christ are you talking about?

> but
> his scorn, and dare I say intolerant hadred! Subject to his rants, or
> yours as you demonstrated in your previous post to this thread. If he
> were trully such an optimist as you describe, I would expect his
> altruism to extend beyond the tip of his pointed verbal immature jabs!

I still believe you have it in you to recognize that your unfounded and
unexmplained smear of those two dead people was morally corrupt. I am,
indeed, an optimist.

>> that he persists in trying to get you to respond
>> politely; to engage in civilized discourse.
>
> I'm regret to inform you, that there was nothing very civil about his
> commemtary. All he did was use the "stupid" word over and over.

Balderdash.

> If he
> really disagreed with me, let him state where he thought I was off
> course, and what I needed to do to correct my understanding

I did that again and again.

> instead
> of making general statements about my intellegence, or lack there of.
> His comments have been childish and immature. If he is interviewing me
> to get at the heart of my statement, let him learn to ask intelligent
> questions. Even Howard Sterns and Barb Walters does better!

LOL. Childish? This from the guy who refuses to explain his own comments and
asks over and over again for people to take a guess? That sort of behaviour
is idiotic, and I said so. And it's still true. You are being an idiot.

> My reluctance in delving beyond enuendo, was that in the course of the
> discussion, we were discussing what elements of failed thinking may
> have contributed to the accidental death. I saw no need to go into any
> detailed description of any such activity, since we were not given any
> such detail to build some story board.

What kind of bull*** is that? Did you mean what you said or not? And if you
did, what the hell were you saying beyond your vague statements - the
meaning of which you urged others to take a guess at.

> It should have been enough for the discussion, to say that there could
> have been some major distracting going on. Obviously we all have our
> own ideas of what that particular activity may have been, as you
> demonstrated with your grasp of the enuendo, and your outrage at the
> suggestion, and Kman's suggestion they were making love on the deck of
> the kayak. ( case in point regarding Kman's optimism, if he thinks any
> of us could pull that number off without drowning one, or the other,
> or both! I wonder if K&J have tried that? I will have to ask him next
> time I talk to him!) Now I am being indiscrete, and there is no
> enuendo! Which do you prefer?

I would "prefer" that you quite being pathetically evasive, and have the
integrity to explain the meaning of your comments.

> To recognize the reality of a possible situation of compromise, with
> out needing to go into the graphic detail I prefer to call being
> discrete, though I used enuendo, to make that statement on this NG!
>
> Please understand, I was not saying that in fact that there was
> anything going on, but that it appeared that it could have been, and
> that if it had been going on, that could have been a major
> distraction, and contributor to the accident, which afterall was the
> subject of the discussion.

Christ, we could speculate that someone is bashing your skull with a
baseball bat every time you sit down to write your posts in this newsgroup,
Tinkernhootowl. There's much stronger foundation available to pose that
theory that there is for your vague smear of those two paddlers.

> I have done further Googling about the story, and found the following
> link:
>
> http://www.mercedsunstar.com/local/story/11567048p-12300973c.html
>
> in which additional info was brought out beyond the original article
> that started this post. Two points primairly,
>
> 1) Yu and his colleague had signed forms saying they wouldn't be
> wearing life jackets, police said.

So? What sort of guide/guide company lets people out on the ocean without
them? Idiots.

> 2) Yu was a Master Sergeant with the 349th Air Mobility Wing based out
> of Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield

So?

> Apparently the bad decisions started before they were even on the
> water, in not understanding the conditions they were going into, and
> also estimating their ability paddle or else swim in WW surf.
>
> Secondly, the issues of fratinizing is a sensitive issue that a Master
> Sergeant should have been aware of. Though as a Sergeant, he would
> have been within the Rules of Military Conduct, to spend R&R with
> other enlisted colleagues, he was pushing the borders because he was
> married to spend time with a colleague of the opposite sex, no matter
> what the actual relationship was.

Are you in a time warp?

> The military is as much concerned
> with the appearance, as the actual affair, and how it would reflect on
> the military.

The military is typically more concerned with the appearance of things than
right or wrong.

BTW, are you currently helping in the search for the WMD?

> He should have been concerned with how it appeared to
> the military, to his wife and others, even as we discuss it here on
> this NG, and especially how it affected his life decisions.

Bull***. You are smearing with speculation - speculations that thus far
don't even have a bearing on the fact that these people died while paddling.

> Apparently there were some bad decisions that were made, and if we can
> learn anything, it is the necessity to keep our heads clear and
> unencumbered when making life affecting decisions, such as whether we
> wear a PFD while kayaking in WW surf.

What the christ is that supposed to mean? Can't you just spit it out,
whatever it is you are trying to say? Are you saying this guy was boning
this woman and therefore they decided not to wear life jackets? If so, I
have to ask - is someone currently bashing your skull with a baseball bat?
If not, what the hell are you trying to say?

>> I know better, I know I'll
>> never get a straightforward, honest and well-intentioned answer out of
>> you, so I just pop into the "conversation" occasionally, toss in my
>> slander, and leave.
>>
>> -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
>
> Now I don't know whether that is "straightforward, honest and well
> intentioned" enough for you, but it was for me.

You've still said nothing.

> And as you ably
> pointed out earlier, that is all that really matters as far as I am
> concerned in the wooly wild west of the Usenet NG.
>
> Life is about each moment of breath,
> Living, about each breathless moment!
>
> Thanks, KnesisKnosis, aka Tinkerntom, aka TnT
>
> and now a friendlier, "RkyMtnHootOwl" 0v0
>
> at rkymtnhoothoothootowl@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 2 WW kayaks,
> '73 Folbot Super,
> pre '60 Klepper AEII
> 77 Hobie Cat 16
>
> To email, use only one "hoot", and I'll get the message!

Get well soon, Tinkernhootowl!

.