Re: JSH: Sweep likely

From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 07/13/04 

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:42:21 +0200

anonymous@anonymous.com (Anonymous) writes:

> On 13 Jul 2004, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>I'm not above calling an *** an ***.
>>
>>Why would you think so?
>
> If you want to degenerate this into an
> exchange of insults, I can gladly comply. At
> most, I've called you childish and a baby.
> I don't see why you want to use worse language.

Please. I'm not the one that's lowering the bar of civil discourse
here by threatening to send hostile emails to third parties.
Insulting you is considerably better behaved than your threats to
Quinn have been.

> Ever since I _politely_ countered your buddy Wade,
> you've been trolling me, simply or initially
> because my pseudonym, and insulting me.

I don't recall your exchange regarding Wade. I've insulted you
because I think that your behavior has been reprehensible, beginning
with your use of a juvenile pseudonym (and later complaining about
Quinn's failure to post under his full name while you still hide
behind anonymity). Lately, you've been even more annoying, as this
quote shows:

,----
| Perhaps while James Harris threatens the Ph.Ds of others on this
| newsgroup in his other asinine threads, I'll look into forwarding
| copies of yours and his silly posts to your high-IQ friends
| (anonymously of course!), and suggest they kick your sorry asses out
| of their membership.
`----

> So if I were to, perhaps, call you an ***
> or worse, and if I were happen to troll you and,
> without commenting on your mathematics, call you
> an *** or worse in response to *any* of your
> mathematical posts, you and everyone else on this
> newsgroup shouldn't be surprised.

When did you *ever* write any mathematical posts? Specifically, when
have you written any to which I've responded? I don't recall it.

> Ugh, flame wars can be ugly. And trolling is
> childish. But if Jesse Hughes isn't above it,
> then the bar is lowered in sci.math. Fine.

Please. The anonymous poster formerly known as "James Harris is Nuts"
accuses me of trolling.

>>Quinn hasn't done anything deserving of abuse
>
> As is apparent, I think he has.

Like what? What is his horrible offense? Claiming that James isn't a
bad guy?

>>aside from failing to
>>defer to your superior analysis of James's mathematics. Oh, wait.
>>You haven't said anything of substance about James's mathematics, have
>>you?
>
> What world are you living in? James Harris and others
> make plenty of non-mathematical posts. Oh, what of Wade's
> wry comment to me to "get a life"?

I didn't say that there weren't plenty of non-math posts here. I make
them too (evidently). That wasn't my point.

My point is that you have complained that Quinn doesn't simply dismiss
Harris's mathematics, but you personally haven't shown any
mathematical errors in it.

> Why don't you go harass Uncle Al for trolling Shead?

Uncle Al is a much bigger *** than you are, if that's any comfort.

> How about that Daryl guy with his relentless garbage involving
> children?

He's killfiled, too.

I might not have seen *your* recent posts if you hadn't changed your
posting address.

> You're applying a double standard to me, what, because
> of my pseudonym?

I never claimed to respond to all assholes without bias. Why do you
think it's my duty?

> Wake up - I do not need to and I do not choose to address
> James Harris' mathematics.
>
> Or are you so dense that you didn't read my response to you
> ages ago that I defer to those with more expertise in the
> mathematics?
>
> Oh, wait, you once said you sometimes don't read my
> postings, or not the entire response. What a guy you
> are, Jesse! Selectively reading my posts, trolling me,
> and insulting me with "***" and other terms.

Of *course* I selectively read your posts and I respond to the ones I
choose. Why would you expect anything else? What duty do I have to
read all of your posts? As far as "trolling" you: I am not. I'm
telling you that your behavior is repulsive and that if you had a
shred of dignity you would cut it out. You seem to have the sense to
be a bit ashamed, given the fact that you won't post under a real
name, but you could use a bit more shame.

>>You are not "defending" mathematics or anything similar. You're just
>>being an ass. You're deliberately trying to stir up trouble and
>>threaten Quinn for failing to toe your line. Ain't no reason for >it.
>
> As I responded to Rick Decker and now to you, when
> James Harris goes away, so shall I. Don't hold your
> breath.
>
> So accept reality, Jesse. I will abuse James Harris
> and Quinn Tyler Jackson *without* mathematics, so long
> as they post garbage, with Hammers, evasion, and stupidity.
>
> And I will continue to use a pseudonym, regardless of
> YOUR opinion of it.
>
> So grow up, Jesse.

You're adorable, you know that. Simply adorable. Like a puppy. 

-- 
But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the
system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed,
analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses.
   -- Bruce Leverett (presumably with apologies to Ambrose Bierce)
Quantcast