Re: MV is the most published author of SAP

From: Jason Eshleman (jae_at_vici.ucdavis.edu)
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:40:38 +0000 (UTC)

In article <1103598277.777951.71240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Algis Kuliukas <algis@RiverApes.com> wrote:
>
>Jason Eshleman wrote:
>> In article <1103591924.736239.172230@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>I agree. He would do better to avoid some of the tactics which you
>describe below which make him an easy target for hostility.

He would do better to avoid more than 90% of his posts. He is an easy
target for hostility because he is so often hostile. He is hostile far
more often than he is not.

>> He does not spend time supporting this
>> view, but rather spends time calling people idiots and imbecil(e)s
>and
>> posting the same macro. It requires that he be sufficiently
>distanced
>> from reality to believe that simply calling people idiots is
>discussion.
>> It requires that he be sufficiently distanced from reality to believe
>that
>> reposting verbatim his same post, time and time and time again is
>> discussion. I see frustration, misguided frustration but frustration
>
>> nonetheless, in your posts. But frustration accumulates from trying
>to do
>> something and gaining no headway. In his posts I do not see
>frustration
>> as I see no attempt to do anything more than insult and regurgitate.
>His
>> posts appear to be for the actual purpose of calling damn near
>everyone
>> idiots. This is all he attempts to do and all he accomplishes. It
>> doesn't seem to frustrate him, but rather he seems to be acheiving
>his
>> goal, strange and twisted and sociopathic as it is.

>By heaping such insults on him, you realise, you are not helping the
>situation.

I don't give a rat's ass if I'm helping a situation with Marc or not.
Marc was insulting people before I started posting, insulted people when I
responded to him, insulted people when I didn't respond and now that
googlenews has up and made itself a pain in the ass and my new reader
isn't as efficient at avoiding the MV drool, appears to be doing it more.
He is insulting to new posters who don't initially toe his line.
I do not believe my actions in any way have any influence on what Marc
does or does not do. Marc is an ***, and that's completely
independent of his views about wet apes. His behavior indicates to me
he's likely crazy (though probably functional in his day-to-day life where
similar behavior is more likely to result in a response of physical
violence). His behavior indicates he's incorrigible. His behavior
indicates that he's pleased as punch to demonstrate that he's a
substandard human being.

I don't like Marc. I think he is a poor excuse for a human being, a
individual who routinely presents himself as a sub-human piece of s**t.
Your apologies for him don't help either. They only serve to make me
think less of you when you spout such bull*** like that there are other
posters who are "far worse." There are other abusive posters, but no one
is in his league. No one is close.

>> >I distance myself from his tactics, though. I agree with you that he
>> >tends to regurgipost too often and debates too rarely. I further
>agree
>> >that he is too ready to slip into insult-mode, although I understand
>> >his frustrations at dealing with some people here who are even
>worse.
>>
>> Are you actually suggesting that anyone else is worse than Marc?
>That
>> anyone insults so many so often? I HIGHLY question your objectivity
>if
>> you do so. There is no one here who is worse than Marc when it comes
>to
>> rapidly insulting so many. No one acheives his volume or comes
>anywhere
>> close.
>
>Michael Clark is a character here who is, in my opinion, far worse than
>MV. All he does is post nasty vitriolic abuse against me or Marc or
>anyone who has the unspeakable affliction of daring to hold the view
>that the AAH might not be so crazy as we have all been led to believe.

The volume of Michael's posts don't come close to Marc's.

>Marc might regirgipost too much, but MC does not even do that. The
>amount of content he has posted on this newsgroup is almost nil and is
>only bottomed by that other content-free poster - firstjois, him of the
>inane sig lines.

Her actually, and that you've not figured this out over the years
indicates that you haven't been paying enough attention to give your claim
much credibility.

>All we ever get from Clark is shitty abuse. I'm just sick of responding
>to him and I refuse to do so until he starts treating me as a human
>being, instead of some kind of unter-menschen. I've tried siding with
>him against a creationist on another newsgroup but to no avail. He
>continues to treat me like a piece of ***.
>
>It is illuminating that you heap abuse in copious amounts on people
>like Marc, with some justification, but never seem to criticise the
>likes of Clark. Why's that, Jason?

Your memory is faulty, and thus your question is moot. Your comment that
I've never criticized Michael is false. I do not think Michael's behavior
is very good. I've said so. You appear either to have not read this or
have simply ignored this for some reason or another.

I do not think Michael's behavior has stooped anywhere near that of
Verhaegen though and consequently I don't criticize him in the same
manner. Michael has targeted you specifically and this bothers you. But
Verhaegen takes a shotgun approach, butting into threads apparently for
the sole purpose of calling MANY people idiots. The volume of Marc's
posts far, far exceeds anyone elses. I believe that this was the initial
point of this thread.

[snip]

>Well it was my point. I'm not pretending to be a saint. I tend to go
>too far in my hostility to Jim Moore, I accept, but then I think his
>web site is a shocking attempt at a gross deception - adopting
>double-speak tactics in insinuating that Morgan's life's work is such a
>gross deception in itself. It makes me angry that people have just
>accepted his slurs without bothering to investigate them and that he
>continues to masquerade www.aquatcape.org as a 'scientific critique'
>when it does not even contain a single link to my counter-view. I
>notice that you have nothing to say about that, Jason.

You notice I've never called for him to provide a link! WOW! Shame on me
for neglecting my duties as officer for fairness-in-site-linking! You
notice I have "nothing to say about that." That's a really peculiar way of
phrasing the statement, seeming to imply that I'm either purposely
avoiding something or that it's a subject that I'm somehow incapable of
addressing. No, I've never called on him to put a link to your page, but
since I've also seldom posted *anything* referencing his page, I'm not
sure why you find it peculiar that I've not spent the time insisting that
he put in a link. You appear to be trying to insinuate that in not saying
this, I'm purposely omitting something, doing this for the express purpose
of protecting Jim. This is a bizarre interpretation on your part if I
read your intent correctly. You've on occassion put posts that either say
or insinuate that I hold some special reverence for his page though I've
not the slightest idea where you're coming up with that. It appears to me
to be a fabrication of your mind.

You notice so many things wrong, Algis, but the point was that there's
bitter irony in a post where you seem bent on pointing out how unfair and
viscious people are towards you, but cannot at the same time refrain from
attacking someone whom you elsewhere ON THE SAME DAY bring in a third
party into the mix to insult him. You accuse others (I believe it's me
specifically) of cowardice, though it appears to me that you are engaging
in a particularly cowardly tactic of the veiled insult.

I have nothing POLITE to say about your response to Jim's page, other than
that the color scheme makes the text easy on the eyes. I've read your
response and find it lacking, find your critique to miss the mark in near
total and it appears to me that you do not understand Jim's points. That
you raised such a stink claiming that he lied about citations You admitted
you misread this point, misrepresenting his statement "you won't find
these problems here." You claimed he was refering to his reference
standard, though rather immediately proceeding, he admitted that he lacked
references in some places. His statement was with regards to *altering*
quotes. This mistake has been pointed out to you and you admitted that
you made the mistake. You haven't corrected your site on this point, one
you harp on in your critique over and over and over again. This is not
the only point where you miss the mark, but while you masaquerade your
"critique" of Jim with the false claim that he said his references were
perfect. This is such a monumental error on your part that the rest of
your criticism, which often returns to this false point, is rather
meaningless. That you haven't corrected it (for starters, you could take
it down if you don't have the time to edit) doesn't indicate that your
serious about playing fair like you insinuate you wnat to do.
  
Jim's site isn't perfect, and I'm sure I could find mistakes if I cared to
look--I believe he says that it's not perfect and says so EXPLICITLY-- but
what I've checked up on has been more or less on the mark. I cannot say
the same for what I've seen from you.

>So, in the spirit of fair play and getting down from high horses, then,
>how about you urge Jim Moore to put in a link to my critique of his web
>site? Would you do that? That would make it more objective and fair
>wouldn't it? That would allow readers to make their own minds up,
>right? It would be more transparent and more, what's the word,
>scientific.

I'm not sure how a link makes anything more objective or scientific. You
are using the term scientific in a most peculiar and rather incorrect way.
Your plea makes it sound like he's hiding your site from the eyes of
others. He owes you no specific link unless he specifically references
your work. Your plea seems again to be some special request for equal
time. Are you similarly going to lobby Morgan to include a reference to
Jim's site in her preface?

[snip more of the same]

Quantcast