From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 23:40:38 MDT
On 5 Sep 2002 at 22:08, Kalkor wrote:
> [Joe]
> And fuck you. too, BBS denizen! The vast majority of Hermit's
> contributions here have historically been cut'n'paste bullus shittus
> combined with snide comments; ifnya need any reminder, check both the
> list archives and 'Best of Virus' and commence a comparative analysis.
> When I adopted his tactics as the only available way to counter his
> list flooding, I am condemned, but not him, who has done so since list
> time immemorial. Go ahead and filter me, fuckwad! I care not, since
> your obviously precast opinion is of no consequence whatsoever to me.
> It'll be YOU who are missing out, not me.
>
> [Kalkor]
> Again, I'll address your "points" in chronological order:
> 1) "Fuck you. too(sic)"? I'd like you to quote me saying something
> even remotely similar to you in this thread. Of course, I have used
> the same words: "fuck", "you", and "too". The context, however, was
> quite different. Sounds like a preemptive retaliation...
>
The threat of a filter is nothing if not a 'fuck you".
>
> 2) "BBS Denizen": and this means what, exactly? That I am a member of
> the BBS? I certainly read the list a lot more than the BBS, and to
> date have posted 2 private messages on the BBS that I can recall. In
> the last day, my activity on the list has been far more prolific than
> my cumulative BBS activity over the last year. This makes me a "BBS
> Denizen"... which brings me back to the point: what, exactly, does
> that have to do with anything?
>
The fact that you are siding with BBS over the list.
>
> 3) "The vast majority of Hermit's
> contributions here have historically been cut'n'paste bullus shittus
> combined with snide comments; ifnya need any reminder, check both the
> list archives and 'Best of Virus' and commence a comparative
> analysis." Please provide me with some facts to back up your
> assertion. The burden of proof lies with you, not me. Besides which,
> this statement of "fact" sounds suspiciously like opinion to me.
>
All you have to do is what I asked you to do; check the files. That
provides fact enough.
>
> 4) "When I adopted his tactics as the only available way to
> counter his list flooding" There is far too much in this clause that
> is suspect to me. "his tactics", please refer to #3 above. "the only
> available way" sounds like a false dilemma. "his list flooding", again
> refer to #3 above.
>
Again, refer to the list archives. You either are a relative newbie or
possess a selective memory.
>
> 5) "I am condemned, but not him, who has done so
> since list time immemorial. ", Condemned eh? Is that what you call
> initially polite and increasingly incensed requests by almost all the
> active members of the list to curtail your activities?
>
The tidal wave of support I have received onlist in the last week belies
your lie.
>
>"who has done
> so since list time immemorial." Please refer to #3 above again, and
> further, how can I compile his activity for comparison, as you
> admonish me to do, if the activity drops off in list prehistory?
>
The list archives are available back until 1995, or didn't you bother to
check?
>
> In
> addition, not having been here as long as either of you, how can I
> take your word for it that you posted less drivel than he in the list
> prehistory? Assuming I were to research the facts behind YOUR
> assertion, I will come upon a list prehistory wall that prevents me
> from gathering all the data.
>
See above. Your assumption has NOT made an ass of me.
>
> 6) "Go ahead and filter me, fuckwad!" I will do so, as soon as I
> finish composing this email. Note the first of the name-calling begins
> in my general direction.
>
I sure hope so; you are not worth my time to read what I post.
>
> 7) "I care not," and "is of no consequence whatsoever to me." This is
> obvious, on many levels. Primarily the level dealing with our requests
> for you to tone it down a bit. You appear to not give a flying fuck at
> a running squirrel.
>
Or at your diarrheal donut.
>
> 8) "your obviously precast opinion" Bravo! For once, you're paying
> attention! Keep up the good work!
>
Bigotrous bias and precast prejudice are as easy to recognize as a
snowflake in sunshine.
>
> As far as the missing out part goes, I just don't have the time to get
> started on that one. Besides, that matters to me and to me alone. I
> don't think I'll be missing out. You think I will be missing out. In
> fact, in your subsequent post, you indicate that what I'll be missing
> out on is your contribution to the list. Well, if your future
> contribution to the list is going to be anything like what I've seen
> in the past weeks, then frankly I'll be better off without it. The
> replies of others to your posts are far more entertaining to me,
> contain far more supported assertions (when indeed YOUR posts contain
> assertions at all), and just generally put less of a frown and more of
> a smile on my face. Not to mention filling up my inbox less...
>
The directions of our preferences are configured to the capacities of our
minds.
>
> Bah, that's enough crap outta me for tonight. I look forward to
> recieving less garbage over the next few days/weeks/months... when
> your daily post volume drops below the level of any one other person
> on the list, or your posts start containing enough material to
> interest me in, oh say the first half-page, I'll remove my filters.
> Not that I expect you to care ;-}
>
You have more than amply proven that you are not worth my care.
>
> Kalkor
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:56 MDT