Re: Torkel Franzén Lives!

On 18 Aug 2006 15:29:45 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On 16 Aug 2006 14:37:06 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:

I find it hard to believe how polite people are being to George here.
[...]
(Uh, George: Probably you're a little pissed off by the above. That's
too fucking bad - when you behave the way you're behaving you forfeit
your right to be treated politely.)

The only thing that pisses me off is your pretence around your motive.

Huh? What did I say about my motive?

You're claiming a moral justification for being an @sshole wrt me.

Uh, that's not answering the question. Exactly where did I make
any such claim?

When in fact you're an @sshole wrt just about everyone, just for your
own amusement.

If you'd only come clean about that and admitted (as Torkel did, quite
openly) that you post that kind of nastiness purely for fun, I'd have
no problem with any of it: For one thing, because it's so OTT that I
doubt that any reasonable reader would take any of it seriously; for
another, because your hiding your reply to me in a post to someone else
gives me an opportunity to point out the connection between bullying
and cowardice that is crucial to understanding that type of posting
behavior.

Right. Giggle.

Giggling might convince some to take you more seriously.

Since I made this post on usenet, saying that I "hid" it would
be pretty funny regardless. But since that post that I supposedly
tried to hide from you contained a paragraph specifically addressed
to you, by name, saying that I "hid" it is simply idiotic. Nice
work on that.

Hey, if you want to argue that the way to 'specifically address' a
comment to someone is to include his first name in a post addressed to
someone else, and then post it anywhere on "usenet", be my guest.

This is very curious - I don't recall claiming _that_ either.

I'm
sure the readers are perfectly capable of judging idiocy for
themselves.

(Actually the reason my post was addressed as a reply to Aatu's post
was because I was replying to his post. I guess that's a little
hard to follow, sorry.)

No, your logic's easy enough to follow; you relied to Aatu because you
replied to Aatu.
I don't quite see how that deduction of yours supports your conclusion
that you were 'specifically address[ing]" me and not Aatu, but I'm sure
you'll be happy to explain that.

It doesn't support that. I didn't say it did. I was explaining
why the post was a reply to his post instead of to yours.

All I "claimed" was that (i) there was a paragraph in my
post specifically addressed to you (this doesn't need
"support", anyone can _see_ that paragraph) and (ii)
in light of (i) your complaint about me trying to "hide"
my post from you is even more idiotic than it would be
otherwise.

I like the bit about "cowardice". Nobody can say anything like that
about you. Why, you're brave enough to post idiotic tirades against
people who are no longer alive.

Can you give an example or two of such "tirades"? Or are you just
making up *** again?

Very manly. Somewhat lacking in
what just about anyone would regard as common decency, but nobody's
perfect.

Oh, really? It offends 'comon deceny' to give out factual information
about a dead person, if it might make the deceased look bad in any way?
Do you seriously believe that as a general moral rule?



************************

David C. Ullrich
.

Quantcast