Re: ATTN: Scott Grissom - four specific questions

From: Andre Lieven (dg411_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: 30 Jan 2005 06:00:10 GMT

"Rhonda Lea Kirk" (rhondaleakirk@yahoo.com) writes:
> Top posted:

Well, so much for your complaint about 'Netiquette, when
you have no problem violating it yourself...
 
> 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.

Thanks for pointing out that your purpose is NOT to
communicate, but to badger and bluster. Got it.

> 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.

<shrug> I say what I will say: See " Freedom Of Speech ",
tootsie.

Oh, on " conversational terrorists ":

<Projection>
 
As for my writings on soc.men, well, like not a few
good folks here, I suffer fools not well. Nor should
anyone have to suffer fools, or bigots well. Such
beings deserve the derision they attract.

> 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+Searc
h&
>>> &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 

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
                                    The Man Prayer, Red Green.