Re: Doug and Tom stop stalking

bogart.lloy@xxxxxxxxx wrote: 1130604781.837910.82770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

[posted to sci.archaeology)

Peter Alaca wrote:
[snip]

She explained the system in a similar case*:

(Insertion by Lloyd: the following is presented as a
quote from Inger]

    Alaca, if you don't see what the implication is
    of letting abusive lines of the per son you
    answer to be standing and write your own line
    under, which juridically normally means that
    you agree if you don't say otherwise, then I
    can't help you understand what your own line
    meant not only to me but to other readers as
    well.(I am not talking of naysayers and
    abusers).

*I.E_Johansson, 12 May 2005 10:48:14 GMT
in "Scandinavians and The Frisian Islands"
soc.history.medieval and soc.culture.nordic.
That was the thread were she said she heard
of Peter Alaca before he posted here.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°



And so... let me be *sure* I get this right...

IF I respond to one of her posts, on a public newsgroup,
And IF, in doing so, I quote, say, some dubious statement
     of Inger's, of thie following type: 'the mark on that tree in
     Minnesota was made in 1430, by a Scandahoovian',

And IF I then write something below that quote,
And IF I don't explicitely disagree with the quoted
     material (Inger's statement)

THEN logically and juridically I'm *agreeing* with her
statement?

BWAAAAAHHHHHHHaaaaahaaaahhaaaaa.  (gasp, hack).

I guess I'm just lucky -- it hasn't been difficult to consistently
express disagreement with that wrong-headed fool.

But just so nobody thinks I agree with, or SUB-SCRIBE to
the quote included above.  (hah!)

I DISAGREE ENTIRELY WITH THE QUOTE ABOVE,
AND WITH THE DEFICIENT AND TWISTED LOGIC
THAT PRODUCED IT.

(But I'd LOVE to see the matter taken to court.  Maybe
Inger could obtain the same sort of public legal spanking
that has so added to the reputation of another troll.)

Lloyd
*****


The keypoint in this Positivist Holistic Linchpinnian Logic
is, I think, that you agree with her unless you explicitly
say otherwise. That means ignoring her is no solution
since that means you agree with her.
You must reply to her to experess your disagreement,
and of course that makes you a naysayer, abuser,
stalker, sexpornmailer and criminal. We are trapped.

--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Nob Really Dr. Joseph Goebbels?
    ... >> And even the people you quote disagree with you. ... I note that you do not provide links to show them saying what you claim ... If you want a better analogy, how about this one: most scientists agree ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... I disagree about mixing taxonomic and descriptive material toogether. ... But the definition you quote is mostly descriptive, ... "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Adaptive learning CPU
    ... end quote; ... Scientists disagree with each other all the time, ... Newtons Laws of Motion are not structures. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Doug and Tom stop stalking
    ... And IF, in doing so, I quote, say, some dubious statement ... And IF I don't explicitely disagree with the quoted ... Inger could obtain the same sort of public legal spanking ... the next previous poster creates a liability particular to me for ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Nova Scotia results
    ... > Joe, I certainly do think that is what he meant. ... I am not "his mouthpiece". ... I agree with what he posted and disagree with ... It seems to help your weak point of disagreement to quote out of context, ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)