Re: ATTN: Scott Grissom - four specific questions

From: Rhonda Lea Kirk (rhondaleakirk_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/29/05 

Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 08:09:45 -0500

Top posted:

Okay, now you're doing it* again, Andre, and I have
better uses for my time.

*"it" defined:
http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
http://www.proft.org/tips/conv-terror.html

And yes, I know, you're unable to link to the web while
reading news. Not my problem. But to put it simply, I
don't do discourse with conversational terrorists. And
to put it even more simply, this isn't soc.men, and I'm
not interested in playing soc.men word games.

Andre Lieven (dg411@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> Rhonda Lea Kirk writes:
>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk writes:
>>>> Andre Lieven wrote:
>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk writes:
>>>>>> Scott Grissom wrote:
>>>>>>> OM wrote:
>>>>>>>> Alan Erskine wrote:
>>
>>>>>> <snipped>
>>
>>>>>> Why can't someone ask Scott about something
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> than what was surely the worst event of his
>>>>>> life?
>>
>>>>> Why can't scott, some 38 years later, offer
>>>>> anything other than juvenile potty language ?
>>
>>>> He has, actually. If forced, I will google for the
>>>> posts. Or you can just take my word for it.
>>
>>> Well, if thats so, then it's been a very tiny
>>> minority. I've been reading here a few years, and I
>>> can recall that almost all of his posts are
>>> childish
>>> namecallings.
>>
>>> I say " almost all " because my memory isn't
>>> perfect.
>>> But, had I seen him do what you say, that I would
>>> have noted, for it's sheer novelty...
>>
>> Okay, here's a novelty:
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.space.history/browse_frm/thread/8ef6cd11970f4a09/2d925f95c1367f6f?q=corvette+group:sci.space.history+author:scott&_done=%2Fgroups%3Fas_q%3Dcorvette%26num%3D100%26scoring%3Dr%26hl%3Den%26ie%3DUTF-8%26as_epq%3D%26as_oq%3D%26as_eq%3D%26as_ugroup%3Dsci.space.history%26as_usubject%3D%26as_uauthors%3Dscott%26lr%3D%26as_drrb%3Dq%26as_qdr%3D%26as_mind%3D1%26as_minm%3D1%26as_miny%3D1981%26as_maxd%3D28%26as_maxm%3D1%26as_maxy%3D2005%26safe%3Doff%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+Search&
>> &d#2d925f95c1367f6f
>
> I have, more than once, mentioned that my newsreader
> program does not allow me to web, while on
> newsgroups.
>
>>>>>> Scott, could you tell a childhood tale of your
>>>>>> father?
>>
>>>>> I'm willing to bet, no, not without calling
>>>>> someone
>>>>> here names...
>>
>>>> <shrug> Well, I guess we'll see. I know he's
>>>> posted
>>>> in response to me both ways--with and without,
>>>> depending on whether I provoked him or not--and I
>>>> possess (on the computer in New Jersey) emails
>>>> from
>>>> him that contain neither name-calling nor foul
>>>> language, but instead, stories and pictures and
>>>> conversation.
>>
>>> E-mails don't count. They're not written for public
>>> consumption.
>>
>> My point was not about e-mails but about a)
>> provocation
>> and b) Scott's ability to be civil--and even
>> kind--in
>> the absence of same. Moreover, in spite of all my
>> poking at him, he gave me another chance to act like
>> a
>> human being rather than a <insert perjorative of
>> choice>.
>
> Ok, maybe he has some kind of thing for you. That
> doesn't
> seem to translate to his, as I said before, Jay W.'s
> factual questions about the A1 fire, to which scott's
> replies were namecalling.
>
>>>> I can document that he has absolutely no reason to
>>>> be nice to me--i.e., I started it--but in the
>>>> absence
>>>> of provocation, he has been a gentleman
>>>> nonetheless.
>>
>>> Then, thats with one...
>>
>> When I wasn't being an *** to him, yes, that's
>> with
>> one.
>>
>> But when I behaved like a childish brat, he gave me
>> just what I had coming.
>
> OK. So does OM. Yet, OM answers factual questions,
> and
> does a host of other Good Stuff, that more than
> covers
> his occasional 'Net crankiness times.
>
>>> But, no one else here...
>>
>> I beg to differ. But I may have to let you have this
>> one, because it is not a pot I'm willing to stir.
>
> No proof offered ? Claim fails.
>
>>> And,
>>> not even when Jay Whindey asked him very polite but
>>> specific questions, on the specifics of scott's
>>> claims.
>>
>>> All scott did to a *potential supporter* was to
>>> call
>>> him names...
>>
>> Jay came in *way* late, after a couple of years of
>> scab-picking. From what I've seen, Jay is a polite
>> and
>> reasonable guy. There was no hope at that point,
>> however, that there could ever be a polite and
>> reasonable discussion of *that* subject on *this*
>> group.
>
> Not the point, and you should know that.
>
> The point is that when Jay directly and politely
> addressed scott, all scott offered was bile.
>
>>> That showed me all I needed to know...
>
> Indeed. Thats my point, following scott's chosen
> behavior.
>
>> I am not going to defend what Scott has done or not
>> done except as it applies to his behavior towards
>> me.
>> But I'm not talking about fanning the flames of
>> controversy. There is no question that the majority
>> of
>> the group takes one position and Scott takes its
>> polar
>> opposite. My position is that if perhaps all you
>> grown
>> men could agree to disagree, you might possibly be
>> able
>> to engage in productive discussion on the subject of
>> space history.
>
> That takes two. scott has to meet that standard, and,
> as yet, he refuses to.
>
> Neither I nor anyone else are responsible for how a
> more than grown man chooses to behave. Thats his
> choice,
> and the resulting consequences are likewise, his.
>
>> Um, Andre...if you respond to this post, do you
>> think
>> you could trim it a bit? I'm not inclined to go down
>> that road again with you, but if you do the
>> snipping,
>> I'll not complain.
>
> Well, next round, if necessary. So far, everything
> looks
> like it's in appropriate context. I tightened some
> line
> wraps, to somewhat reduce overall line count. OK ?
>
> ( On another newsgroup, I had one exchange develop
> line counts of over 900... <g> )
>
> Andre

Quantcast