Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 03/25/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:17:35 -0500

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:8t6741hbn9ck2qslth1m82jn0nr76nichc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:18:39 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:rdg6419rhrnvpgouigpdiljm4omrf3joj6@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 05:41:47 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>news:dli441dl1q46p7fa7f1kka05l7mc2kglni@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:02:50 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:8254411j6ghsbf102k8bvn2aacm1ctm4t6@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:43:35 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>>>> <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:1gr341h0d8fvr1fjmb4u94mnfo6vc28s0v@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On 23 Mar 2005 13:44:40 -0800, a.manansala@attbi.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.anthropology.paleo, created a message ID
>>>>>>>>>>> news:1111596969.347053.66080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [I thought the guy was in my killfile]
>>>>>>>>>>> <plonk>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I've never been in your "killfile" and you know this very well.
>>>>>>>>>>You even join other groups to read my messages. <plonk>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Philip claims to have a kill file but it never seems to work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Pot, kettle, black.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And you claim to have me on "ignore", by which you claim to mean
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>only reply to posts that you think warrant a reply. How you
>>>>>>>>determine
>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>posts those are without reading all of the posts remains an
>>>>>>>>"unsolved
>>>>>>>>mystery", and evidently involves a somewhat unique definition of the
>>>>>>>>word
>>>>>>>>"ignore."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "somewhat unique" LOL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who would hire a lawyer who mangles logic so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>? Perhaps you might have understood if I had written "somewhat
>>>>>>unique."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since you evidently need it spelled out for you try this: Unless you
>>>>>>are
>>>>>>using a "somewhat unique" definition of the word "ignore", you
>>>>>>_aren't_
>>>>>>ignoring a post by reading it. and you _aren't_ ignoring anything
>>>>>>posted
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>me if you read everything I post in order to find the posts that you
>>>>>>think
>>>>>>"requires" a reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a 3-1/2 year old granddaughter playing in the room below. I'm
>>>>> aware of what she is doing but I continue to ignore it until she goes
>>>>> too far. I am sure you can follow the analogy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not even the best lawyer on the planet could extricate you from the
>>>>>>knots
>>>>>>you've tied yourself in trying to get yourself out of having been
>>>>>>caught
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>a baldfaced lie. You claimed to have me "on ignore" (note the
>>>>>>inclusion
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>the word on in the quotation marks; see: http://tinyurl.com/3wr9x )
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>that lasted about 1 post made the next day. You are the last person
>>>>>>entitled to call someone else on a claim of having kill filed another
>>>>>>poster.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bet I'm not. Do you want to bet?
>>>>
>>>>Sure Eric. What shall we bet, and how would you prove your point?
>>>
>>> Sorry Steve. It's not my point, it's yours. Remember "You are the last
>>> person entitled to call someone else on a claim of having kill filed
>>> another". My bet is that I am not the last person to be so entitled. I
>>> am sure that if we wait for long enough someone else will be similarly
>>> entitled. And then someone after that. Or didn't you realise that that
>>> was the point I was making? Surely you understand the explicit meaning
>>> of your own words?
>>
>>Absolutely. "The last person entitled" is idiomatic usage, quite common
>>in
>>English, and has nothing at all to do with the literal meaning of the
>>words.
>>For example, see ""It is known whose interests Kostov defended in the last
>>few years. They certainly were not the national interests, but his own and
>>his family's. He is the last person entitled to level accusations at us,
>>claiming that we are defending special interests other than the national
>>ones," Velchev said." from:
>>
>>http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/war-of-words-on-bonds/id_4112/catid_23
>>
>>or "Prime Minister Ehud Barak said that the meeting in Vienna "is
>>troubling
>>from a moral point of view." MK Tzvi Hendel (National Union) retorted
>>that
>>the Prime Minister is the last person entitled to cast aspersions of this
>>kind, "given his appointment of Yossi Ginossar as a political emissary,
>>who
>>has major economic interests in the Palestinian Authority." from
>>
>>http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarchive/0102/010218_a.html
>>
>>or "Mr. Perez is, in fact, the last person entitled to speak about
>>terrorism, being directly responsible for the death of one hundred and two
>>children, women and elders killed at Cana by the Israeli shelling that
>>tracked them to the UNIFIL tent they sought refuge in." from:
>>
>>http://www.lebanemb.org.au/Aboutus/Speech.html
>>
>>Yet another example of you not understanding your native tongue. Nota
>>bene
>>the international character of the websites linked; perhaps you would like
>>to claim that the idiomatic phrase in question hasn't made it to New
>>Zealand
>>from Australia.
>
> I'm disappointed. You are now defending the failure of your native wit
> to recognise that I was responding to the literal meaning of your
> words. Now, when I point it out to you, you get all indignant. "I
> didn't mean what I literally said!"

Of course _you_ were responding to the literal meaning of the words. The
problem is that **no one** could take what I had written as being other than
the idiomatic useage of the phrase. Having no answer for that, you promptly
generated squink. Typical.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>poster.
>>>> Perhaps
>>>>by claiming that I lied re the plug-in that was installed on my old
>>>>16-bit
>>>>sytem that enabled me to kill file Usenet posts. How would you prove
>>>>your
>>>>claim? And you claim to be someone who deals with evidence for a
>>>>living.
>>>
>>> And I gave an explicit argument as to why I thought you were lying.
>>> Anyone who wants to know more can use Google.
>>
>>Indeed. Which argument was wrong. Now you are arguing that one can
>>ignore
>>posts (which can't be heard, smelled, tasted or otherwise sensed) by
>>reading
>>them, every one. A classic Stevens squink generation.
>
> Where have I said that? There is no reason why I can't skim them to
> see if you have said anything particularly reprehensible.

You never said skim, you said "read." And of course, "skimming" is reading,
just more quickly. It is interesting to watch you get trapped in the very
cloud of squid ink that you generated; it's not difficult to imagine that
you typically "skim" all posts that you "read" because it's not unusual for
your response to a given post to be such as to indicate that you've either
totally ignored the poster's point, or totally missed the point.

> You are
> trying to equate me ignoring most of what you have written with having
> you in a kill-file. Well, it isn't the same thing as you should well
> know.

And you are trying to explain that you are ignoring what I've written by
first reading it. If you had any command of your native tongue, you might
have originally written something like "I read (or skim) what you write, and
choose to mostly ignore your posts rather than responding to them."
Instead, you chose to write "you are on ignore", which is precisely the
result that can be obtained when someone is placed in a kill file; that
someone's posts are ignored by the filter and the newsreader never presents
them for review.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or didn't you quite mean what you wrote in that last sentence either?
>>>>
>>>>I meant every word. While we are at it, should be discuss your claim
>>>>that
>>>>I'm a patent attorney?? As it happens, the proof that I'm not is
>>>>readily
>>>>available on the Internet. Last time I offered to show your claim to be
>>>>wrong, you shut up about it pretty damned quickly.
>>>
>>> You are getting twitchy. You have denied that you are a patent
>>> attorney but have never offered any support for that claim.
>>
>>I expressly stated that if you required proof, I would be happy to supply
>>it. See:
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4tdoy
>>
>>Yet another Stevens lie. The above post must have been one of my posts
>>that
>>you "ignored" by reading it, and then, having seen that you were about to
>>be
>>outmaneuvered, you didn't take me up on my offer.
>
> That's offering to offer support. I never bothered to take you up on
> it but, why don't you lead us to the evidence that you are not a
> patent attorney?

Sure. Just as soon as we see the evidence you have that I am a patent
attoreny. So far, you've opined that I have a quasi-legal disclaimer in my
sig file, and I ofter write at length on aspects of patent law. I pointed
out that I also write at length on aspects of archaeology, and on matters
involving cardiology, (and all posts have the same sig file), but I'm quite
clearly neither an archaeologist or a cardiologist. It is nice of you to
demonstrate to the newsgroup just how low your standard of proof of a
proposition really is, how you view the flimsiest of evidence as a license
to speculate, and to then post as though your speculation were true (you
write that I **am** a patent attorney).

>>
>>> I would be
>>> happy to follow it up if you offered it.
>>
>>But I did. You've yet to ask for the proof.
>
> I have now.

And you'll get it just as soon as you post all of the proof that you have
that I am a patent attorney.

>>
>>> But you do dress many of your
>>> posts with a quasi-legal disclaimer and anyone who browses
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4ncs4 will find that you write often and at length
>>> on aspects of patent law.
>>
>>I am also frequently a poster on sci.med.cardiology, but that doesn't make
>>me a cardiac surgeon, any more than my posts on sci.archaeology make me an
>>archaeologist. I have a deep interest in intellectual property matters,
>>not
>>something that is strange for an attorney.
>>
>>I can tell you that patent attorneys are required to join a special bar
>>association before being permitted to practice patent law, and that the
>>roster of such attorneys is available on the Internet, as well as
>>information confirming the need for patent attorneys to be members of that
>>special bar association. Ask, and I'll even do the research for you,
>>since
>>you seem intent on proving yourself a liar with respect to what my
>>profession is.
>
> Wrong, perhaps, but a liar no. I have no reason to misstate your
> profession.

Except that you did misstate it, posting what my profession is as though it
were true. I believe the exact words were "Steve Marcus **is** a patent
attorney. (My emphasis.) If you had any reason at all to post what you
thought my profession is, then you certainly had reason enough to misstate
it intentionally.

>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You should read Lewis Carrol on the subject.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I know what sarcasm is and don't need Carrol or dictionary to
>>>>explain
>>>>it to me. That you failed to understand that "somewhat unique" was
>>>>sarcastic (perhaps because I didn't originally put the phrase in quotes;
>>>>given that you appear to have difficulty reading for comprehension, that
>>>>certainly was my bad) doesn't mean that I, and others, share your
>>>>failure.
>>>
>>> No doubt you wrote the above when your computer was 'somewhat on'.
>>
>>Still don't understand the meaning of sarcasm, do you?
>
> Here we go back to the beginning. I will quote your original statement
> and interpolate comments:
>
> And you claim to have me on "ignore", by which you claim to mean
> that you only reply to posts that you think warrant a reply.
>
> [That's a reasonably accurate summation of what I have several
> times said.]
>
> How you determine which posts those are without reading all of the
> posts remains an "unsolved mystery", ....
>
> [Here is where you go off the rails. There is no reason why I have
> to read ALL your posts to pick up something worthy of a comment.
> Consider the rest of your above sentence]
>
> .... and evidently involves a somewhat unique definition of the
> word "ignore."
>
> [At this point I picked you up on your usage of 'unique'. Something
> either is unique or it is not. It can't be somewhat unique.
> Hence my reference to'somewhat pregnant'and later, to your computer
> being 'somewhat on'. You seem to be trying to ignore the point I
> made and now are claiming that you wrote it in sarcasm. It still
> looks much more like some sloppy vernacular to me.]

Squink. If you meant you read only some of my posts, it was easy enough to
have said so. The context of your original post stating that you have put
me "on ignore" is that you only look for those posts that you deem to be
worthy of a reply because what I state in such posts is outrageous enough
that they "need" to be replied to.

At the end of the day, it's clear that for all your pretensions about being
this genius in forensic analysis, often called to court to testify and with
clients for whom you generate (presumably in writing) reports on various
matters, you actually can't write clearly enough to post something on Usenet
that actually means what you intend it to mean. Coupled with your displays
of illogic and your biases to anything that is not the generally accepted
norm, I feel genuinely sorry for the Courts in which you appear and the
clients that you represent.

Post your evidence showing that I'm a patent attorney. Then I just might
post evidence clearly proving the negative. I think, however, that I'll
require you to promise to admit having lied about my profession, before I
post the that evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens

Steve 

-- 
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either.  This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view.  To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil
    ... and has nothing at all to do with the literal meaning of the ... >>posts by ... Just as soon as we see the evidence you have that I am a patent ... write that I **am** a patent attorney). ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Santa Bill McReynolds
    ... There are so many posts going back ... The movie deal was brought up by ... Ramseys watched any of those movies, let's see some evidence that ... Ramsey was a Promise Keepers member? ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Sock Puppet Fun Revisited [was Re: McCall - no guts, no glory; put up or shutup
    ... your posts to know the way this goes. ... The Burden of Proof Principle ... When people ask "what do you mean by compelling evidence?" ... The Acceptability Principle ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: My journey through RMB archives
    ... "Yoko tried to murder John" nonsense. ... side and the anti-Yoko (Seaman) side. ... skepticism that he expressed elsewhere in his posts. ... no evidence for any of it whatsoever. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)
  • Re: Clear Proof of Harassment and Libelous Malice
    ... -- Brad Jesness ... BUT there is NO evidence of this: ... > training in psychotherapy, who has lied about having faculty ... > posts from even way, ...
    (sci.psychology.psychotherapy)