At 16:01 07-07-2002 -0400, Erik Reuter wrote: >Let's recap: > >FACTS: > >1) Analysis said it was about AmericanPatriot >2) Analysis is a "record" for being far away from you >3) Analysis said it was worthless and for "laughs" >4) When I asked you if you thought it was ethical to post > private emails, I got no straight response > >Your conclusion: > >The onus is on me to prove that the analysis is not about you and >I should post private emails.
FACTS: 1) You implied that I have mental problems. 2) I asked you to explain why I must have mental problems, but you reply by giving a "psycho-analysis" of someone else (American Patriot) for no apparent reason. 3) You state that AmPat issued threats in his posts, and that he tried to impose his will upon others. 4) I quote AmPat's posts and show that there is nothing in there that can be considered a threat to listmembers or an attempt to impose his will upon other listmembers. 5) You subsequently claim it is based on off-list communications but refuse to provide the relevant data. 6) You even admit that you do not have those e-mails saved but are working from memory, which makes that data worthless. >My conclusion: > >The logic seems weak to me, as does the data. Didn't you call such >things fantasizing? Since you seem so concerned, I was considering >quoting the emails from memory (I don't have them saved to copy them >verbatim), but without hearing your opinion on whether that would be >ethical, I won't be doing it. That's why I asked your opinion on the >subject, but I got no straight answer. I see no problem with posting AmPat's private e-mails, given that it is used for a scientific purpose. Of course, since you admit to not actually having those e-mails saved, the value of that data is zero. And speaking of unanswered questions: 1) I posted a fake chat-transcript that connects you to porn (including child pornography), and asked you if you would consider yourself a jerk for complaining about it, given the possibility that it might hurt your career. You did not answer the question. 2) I quoted AmPat's posts and asked you to show me in which posts he threatens a listmember and/or tries to impose his will upon others. You did not answer the question. 3) You claim that I fail to see certain things in AmPat's posts, things which you saw very clearly. I asked you to prove me wrong by giving a very detailed analysis of his posts, but so far you have not done so. 4) I asked if you think it is ethical to post an amateur psycho-analysis of someone without that person's permission. You did not answer the question. 5) You claim AmPat is still on this list, and even claim he is subscribed under more than one alias, but when asked under which aliases he is subscribed, you did not answer the question. 6) You mention that AmPat could also read Brin-L on the WWW, but when I asked if you could actually prove he does that, you did not answer. So, in summary, what we really have here is: 1) a non-proven claim about me having mental problems 2) a not-asked-for amateur psycho-analysis of someone else, 3) which is based on data of which one part does not exist 4) and of which the other part is data you claim does exist but do not disclose 5) half a dozen questions you fail to answer. Therefore, I again ask you to prove I have mental problems, provide all the data you used to make that psycho-analysis of AmPat, and answer all six questions listed under "speaking of unanswered questions". Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
