On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 04:26:15PM -0500, Reggie Bautista wrote: > I think the best resolution at this point is for Erik (or if he > refuses, someone else could volunteer?) to explain to Jeroen exactly > what Erik was doing and why, followed by Erik bringing his parody to > an end,
Actually, I was getting bored with it and I was probably about to let it drop when several other people entered the discussion, most of them saying that the right not to be upset outweights the right to post freely. That's about the surest way to get me into a debate. By the way, interesting idea that an explanation would help. I'm not sure it will, but it is interesting to try so I'll explain part of it, to see what happens. Then I'll see about explaining the rest, later. 1) Jeroen berated several of Mark's posts. For example: > "Thanks, but no, thanks, I would rather not "get to be like you"; I am > rather attached to my sanity." 2) Mark retorted with a joke about Yrrkoon: > "Yrrkoon: Stop posting shit !!!!" 3) Jeroen wrote: > "Mark, I strongly suggest that you either (a) shape up > or unsubscribe, and (b) get some professional psychiatric help. > ... > And if the "strong suggestion" is not enough for you, consider it not a > suggestion but a direct order..." 4) Erik wrote: > "Yrrkoon, I strongly suggest that you either (a) lighten up or > unsubscribe, and (b) get some professional psychiatric help." I can't credibly give a "direct order" like a listowner can, so I didn't reflect the last part of #3 back, but I reflected the first part back to Jeroen because it seemed to me that Mark was being unfairly insulted and ordered around, and I was hoping my post would distract Jeroen from beating on Mark (I didn't really expect to change his mind, just distract him a while. 5) Jeroen wrote: > "You tell me. You are the only one here who seems to believe my > behaviour indicates problems (mental or otherwise)." 6) Erik wrote: > "I don't want to analyze the problems of Yaloon vain Badaardvark. But > I could try my hand at describing the problems of AmericanPatriot, who > is of course well known to Mr. Boardwank. IANAPA, but what the hay, > just for laughs (AmPat hasn't posted for a while, so there is not much > chance of offense), here we go: > [Analysis deleted for brevity] > Well, you get what you pay for, and this analysis was free. Take it > for what it was worth! " 7) Erik wrote: > "Nope, you didn't see any private emails that AmericanPatriot sent to > me. " 8) Jeroen wrote: > "Of course, since you admit to not actually having those e-mails saved, > the value of that data is zero." 9) Jeroen wrote: > "Therefore, I again ask you to prove I have mental problems, provide all > the data you used to make that psycho-analysis of AmPat,..." 10) Erik wrote: > "Silly Jeroen. You said me quoting the emails from memory is > worthless, then demand that I do it. Inconsistent. Do you retract your > statement that it is worthless? If not, it would be worthless for me > to quote emails from memory." 11) Jeroen wrote: > "I am not going to retract anything. You claimed your analysis of > AmPat was based on off-list e-mails, so I still want to see those." 12) A bunch of posts followed. No more forward progress was made, since Jeroen demanded Erik post something that Jeroen said had zero value, and Erik refused to post something upon demand when the person who was demanding it refused to retract the statement that the information being demanded had zero value. > Erik and Jeroen, if either of you are offended by me speaking about > you in third-person, I apologize. No problem. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
