Re: False accusation

From: Philip Deitiker (Donevenask_at_worlnet.att.net)
Date: 03/21/05 

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:08:44 GMT

"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> says in
news:Gch%d.65962$7z6.3487@lakeread04:

>> That is not apparently what you do, with your unceasing attacks
>> against her !
>> And you are right, not ignoring her : what she writes is
>> generally VERY INTERESTING, although you don't like it !
>
>> grapheus

[Note grapheus, like inger and all her psueds are buried deep within
my killfile. Birds, in this case loons, of a feather flock together]

> If we wanted "very interesting" fiction, we could post to an
> alternative history newsgroup, or a newsgroup dealing with
> mythology, or even read a good novel. People in the newsgroups
> to which this post is directed are interested in archaeology
> and/or medieval history. Inger has posted essentially zero
> (that's ziltch, zip, nada, cero, bupkis, the Big 0) of any value
> in either discipline. And she's done it over a period of years.
> And she's taken to insulting and libeling people who reply to
> her drivel by pointing out that it _is_ drivel.
>
> Ignoring Inger is something that I happen to believe is a good
> solution, as a general proposition. But some posters have a
> problem with ignoring Inger; they fear that her drivel will be
> read and believed by people who are novices (or just blank
> slates looking to learn some things that are both interesting
> and true) in these disciplines

Anyone who is niave enough to believe Inger's drivel deserves to
believe her drivel, Grapheus is a case in point. She needs to be
ignored {Actually she needs to be under a psychiatrist's care but we
have no control over that, do we?]. You guys have spun out of control
trying to kill her ISP, shouting profanities, always responding to
her utter psuedoscientific nonsense.
  If you wanted to respond to Inger, create a new thread and expose
the propoganda techniques, rhetorical techniques, and hyperbole
without directly addressing the mdm, that way the so-called ignorant
newbies can identify these themselves and they won't need the
'defenders of science truth' for every on 1000s of instances that
Inger throws out BS. FAQs sheets on her frequently used BS lines will
deal with the rest.

 
  

Quantcast