At 12:28 08-11-2002 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
I'd hate to make Dan a liar so yes, Dan is correct.Lately, when I
have felt exchanges start to become unpleasant, I have taken them off-
list. Either that, or I just ignore the personal attacks
So, what about all those questions that
At 03:43 PM 10/29/02, Dan Minette wrote:
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the
certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and
philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the
philosophy of science. grin
At 02:29 PM 10/29/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 15:36 28-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer.
Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$
Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN
At 08:12 AM 10/31/02, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:31 PM
Subject: RE: Question for everyone
Dan Minette wrote:
Of course, all this is strictly imho.
Well
At 18:41 30-10-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone
'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is.
Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on the list
as a whole -- and not exactly a
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 18:41 30-10-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone
'win' an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is.
Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on the list
- Original Message -
From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:31 PM
Subject: RE: Question for everyone
Dan Minette wrote:
Of course, all this is strictly imho.
Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho
In a message dated 10/31/02 7:07:57 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho.
Okay, I'll bite...
P - Personal?
In Many People's Humber Opinion.
Not for this one, but there's also:
IMHOTEPT
In my honest
At 07:34 PM 10/29/2002 -0800, you wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the
certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and
philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the
philosophy of
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Question for everyone
At 06:49 30-10-2002 +0530, Ritu Ko wrote:
As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let anyone 'win
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let
anyone 'win'
an argument/discussion. So I fail to see what the big deal is.
Those personal attacks tend to have quite a lot of effect on
the list as a
whole -- and not exactly a positive effect...
- Original Message -
From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 10:53 PM
Subject: RE: Question for everyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
As for what I said, well, personal attacks doesn't ever let
anyone 'win'
an argument
Dan Minette wrote:
Of course, all this is strictly imho.
Well, not to be argumentative, but I think it is impho.
Okay, I'll bite...
P - Personal?
Ritu
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
The only good Giorgis is a silent Giorgis
Wrong! We as a list extend the same curtesy to you as we do to John. We
tolerate everybodies opinion, even if we think it is far off. We are not into
shutting anybody up even if some people would like to do so very much. So even
At 21:00 28-10-2002 -0500, Jim Sharkey wrote:
I am not suggesting we do that to Giorgis's posts. I am trying to get
the message across that he should clean up his act and stop misbehaving
on this list.
Wouldn't a dinging system be a step in accomplishing that? If his (or
anyone's) behavior
At 15:36 28-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Moderation on a list means that when someone sends a message, that
message is first read by a moderator, who will then decide whether or
not that message will be sent on to the actual list.
So, dinging is not moderation according to your
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Question for everyone
At 15:36 28-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
So, dinging is not moderation according to your definition. Why did you
call
De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com]
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the
certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and
philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the
philosophy of
At 15:43 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer.
Yeah, well, that is what your computer says. But your computer is a M$
Windows machine; how much do you trust Bill's Evil Empire? GRIN
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the
From: Jean-Louis Couturier [mailto:jean-louis.couturier;ixiasoft.com]
De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com]
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability
of data and the
certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both
in science and
In a message dated 10/29/2002 2:44:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
L8 post on the minutia of the
philosophy of science. grin
Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the
certainty of observation!!
L8? How can one read a post
From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:j.vanbaardwijk;chello.nl]
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of
data and the
certainty of observation
with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy.
Hey, are you threatening me? :-)
Yes, but is it an American or a
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Question for everyone
At 15:43 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Posted by you on 10/27 at 2:12 AM CDT, according to my computer.
Yeah
At 17:02 29-10-2002 -0500, William Taylor wrote:
L8? How can one read a post that's late and hasn't arrived yet?
By travelling through time, of course.
Jeroen Simple question, simple answer van Baardwijk
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/29/2002 2:44:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
L8 post on the minutia of the
philosophy of science. grin
Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the reliability of data and the
certainty of observation!!
Jean-Louis Couturier wrote:
De : Dan Minette [mailto:dsummersminet;houston.rr.com]
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the
certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and
philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Question for everyone
At 15:43 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:14 PM
Subject: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/29/2002 2:44:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Question for everyone
Julia
who read *every* *single* L3+ post from Dan on the subject so far, and
who will force herself to read this one
At 16:15 29-10-2002 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
with someone who has degrees both in science and philosophy.
Hey, are you threatening me? :-)
Yea, and I'll insult you too. Yo mamma sews socks that smell.
Then either Heaven or Hell (or perhaps Purgatory) must be a rather smelly
place by
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Question for everyone
Then either Heaven or Hell (or perhaps Purgatory) must be a rather smelly
place by now. GRIN
Well, actually
--- Dan Minette wrote:
[Julia and Jean-Louis and William wrote:]
L8 post on the minutia of the
philosophy of science. grin
Ooh! I want to read this. I hereby bandy the
reliability of data and the
certainty of observation!!
L8? How can one read a post that's late and
- Original Message -
From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Sillier and sillier Re: Question for everyone
--- Dan Minette wrote:
[Julia and Jean-Louis and William wrote:]
L8 post on the minutia
In a message dated 10/29/2002 3:51:39 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if William is a
witch (well, I suppose he'd really be a warlock), and
he _has_ been chanting on-line.
Ohwa Tagoo Thialand.
Vilyehm
___
Dan wrote:
I'll warn you once. Never ever bandy the the reliability of data and the
certainty of observation with someone who has degrees both in science and
philosophy. You risk being subjected to a L8 post on the minutia of the
philosophy of science. grin
Sounds like fun. When can we
From: Ritu Ko [mailto:ritu;theculture.org]
Giorgis habitually uses personal attacks as a means to win
a discussion;
I am shocked to see that you think of that as something that
is not such a
big problem.
Are you usually so easily shocked?
As for what I said, well, personal
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l-bounces;mccmedia.com]On
Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk
...
With some people, yes -- but not with Giorgis. Over the years, he
has been
talked to by several people about his behaviour, but he has never
shown any
signs of
At 06:55 27-10-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
Jeroen, it's obvious that you're suffering from some kind of bizarre
fixation on John.
No, I am suffering from a highly developed sense of wrong and right -- a
mental condition that very few people seem to have.
I'd suggest you either (a)
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: Question for everyone
At 06:55 27-10-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
Jeroen, it's obvious that you're suffering from some kind of bizarre
fixation
Jeroen wrote:
At 06:55 27-10-2002 -0600, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
Jeroen, it's obvious that you're suffering from some
kind of bizarre
fixation on John.
No, I am suffering from a highly developed sense of
wrong and right -- a mental condition that very few
people seem to have.
*
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
If you do not want all this to happen again in the
future, then you
will have to convince the person causing it in the first place
(Giorgis) to start behaving in such a way that all this will not
happen again.
I don't understand. Why should anyone *have*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/28/2002 7:33:36 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
and we can all just relax and talk
of something else.
Of Sousa and slips and ceiling wax, and cribbages and Kling's.
And why dry ice is boiling hot, and whether
At 18:36 26-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Excuse me? Giorgis has, among other things, repeatedly refused to
answer questions, has repeatedly refused to back his claims, and has
repeatedly turned to personal attacks to try and silence people who
disagree with him. In my book, such
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
No one seems to care but you.
If that is true, then I might just as well restore the previous content of
the Main Page of Brin-L.com, as it appearently is quite accurate -- you
know, the version that says that things like flame wars and personal
attacks are
At 22:20 27-10-2002 +1100, Ray Ludenia wrote:
No one seems to care but you.
If that is true, then I might just as well restore the previous content
of the Main Page of Brin-L.com, as it appearently is quite accurate --
you know, the version that says that things like flame wars and
Jeroen whined:
At 22:20 27-10-2002 +1100, Ray Ludenia wrote:
PS: You can have the last word on this too, if you like. However,
you would
be far better thought of if you didn't bother replying to this
post.
Even that is questionable now, given that people seem to believe
that
Giorgis's
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
No one seems to care but you.
If that is true, then I might just as well restore the
previous content of
the Main Page of Brin-L.com, as it appearently is quite
accurate -- you
know, the version that says that things like flame wars and personal
attacks are
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
Excuse me? *I* am trying to improve this list by trying to get a
major disturbing factor (Giorgis) to clean up his act, and then you
call *me* irresponsible? I think that irresponsible better
describes those who think there is nothing wrong with Giorgis
wreaking havoc
William Taylor wrote:
PS: You can have the last word on this too
ZZZ
That would be the last word, if it was a word.
According to Mr. Webster, it is! :)
ZZZ or zzz (used to represent a person snoring)
If you don't like that one, there's Z-zero particle: the electrically neutral type
Jim Sharkey wrote:
William Taylor wrote:
PS: You can have the last word on this too
ZZZ
That would be the last word, if it was a word.
According to Mr. Webster, it is! :)
ZZZ or zzz (used to represent a person snoring)
If you don't like that one, there's Z-zero particle:
At 12:31 26-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
That would mean that I am one of very few people on this list who have
a *functioning* short-term memory...
No...It means that most people on this list forgive small human
errors, errors of judgement, and general silliness, while they
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Question for everyone
At 12:31 26-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
That would mean that I am one of very few people on this list who have
At 09:43 AM 10/25/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 21:21 24-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
The eventual accomplishment would be John Giorgis cleaning up his act
and starting to behave like a civilised adult.
Whatever it was that John did (long forgotten by almost everyone by now)
At 21:21 24-10-2002 -0500, Robert Seeberger wrote:
The eventual accomplishment would be John Giorgis cleaning up his act
and starting to behave like a civilised adult.
Whatever it was that John did (long forgotten by almost everyone by now)
That would mean that I am one of very few people
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
That would mean that I am one of very few people on this list who have a
*functioning* short-term memory...
after I had forgotten to remove the word Brin from the subject header of
one of my posts).
;-)
___
At 16:19 23-10-2002 -0700, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
The way it was phrased left that impression in my mind, and suggested a
series of thoughts which were, oh, let's say unflattering, that the rest
of the list should feel guilty for not doing exactly what you thought
they should, and so on, it gets
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Question for everyone
At 16:19 23-10-2002 -0700, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
The way it was phrased left that impression in my mind, and suggested
At 15:21 22-10-2002 -0700, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
Have you noticed that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for
his behaviour? Why do you think that is?
First off, that implies that nobody's said anything about this thread,
which is very untrue.
That is not what it is saying (or
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 15:21 22-10-2002 -0700, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
Have you noticed that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for
his behaviour? Why do you think that is?
First off, that implies that nobody's said anything about this thread,
which is very untrue.
At 04:12 PM 10/22/02, J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 19:46 21-10-2002 -0500, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
There's a colloquialism that comes to mind:
Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and expecting
different results.
Great -- that means that insanity is what pays the bills and
At 19:46 21-10-2002 -0500, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
There's a colloquialism that comes to mind:
Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and expecting
different results.
Great -- that means that insanity is what pays the bills and puts food on
my table.
Troubleshooting is part
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
Have you noticed that nobody (except me and DB) have
criticised JDG for his behaviour? Why do you think that is?
First off, that implies that nobody's said anything about
this thread, which is very untrue. As far as answering that
question, a good reason is: we
Jeroen wrote:
Even if the discussion is technically not taken off-list, but one poster
replies off-list because he apparently lacks the courage to reply on-list
to on-list messages -- almost certainly because an on-list reply is likely
to generate criticism of said poster's behaviour?
Yes.
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:04 PM
Subject: RE: Question for everyone
No, but given his behaviour it would not be a bad idea for him to start
looking for such advice.
Sigh, let me put
At 09:10 21-10-2002 +0530, Ritu Ko wrote:
So, why do I still believe we *can* move that mountain? Must be because
of my eternal optimism.
Optimism is well and good, but the mountain has to *want* to move before
it can be moved. I am an optimist myself, but I am beginning to realise
that yours
At 14:35 21-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
No, but given his behaviour it would not be a bad idea for him to start
looking for such advice.
Sigh, let me put this bluntly, since you tend to ignore things that are
subtle.
I realize that this is a YMMV issue, but personally, I will rejoice
Jeroen wrote:
Looks like you, just like Giorgis, are not really
reading my posts. As I
said earlier:
Worse yet, you have now turned the statement into a
factually incorrect
one. People like JDG can behave like huge assholes
while receiving little
or no criticism for it, but I get criticised
At 14:07 21-10-2002 -0700, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
What makes you think John will change his behavior?
There is absolutely NOTHING that makes me think he will change his
behaviour (at least, not change it in a *positive* way). As I have said
before, hell will freeze over before *that* will
Jeroen wrote:
At 14:07 21-10-2002 -0700, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
What makes you think John will change his behavior?
There is absolutely NOTHING that makes me think he
will change his behaviour (at least, not change it in
a *positive* way). As I have said before, hell will
freeze over before *that*
Jeroen wrote:
At 15:06 21-10-2002 -0700, Adam Lipscomb wrote:
So, to paraphrase and extrapolate, you're not actually engaging in
this
discussion with the intent of changing John's behavior? If that
is the
case, may I respectfully ask why you're doing it?
If it is not the case, could you
Adam wrote:
There's a colloquialism that comes to mind:
Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and
expecting different results.
Some would say this definition works for troubleshooting as well :-)
Reggie Bautista -- who troubleshoots for a living...
Reggie wrote:
Adam wrote:
There's a colloquialism that comes to mind:
Insanity: Doing the exact same thing over and over again, and
expecting different results.
Some would say this definition works for troubleshooting as well
:-)
Reggie Bautista -- who troubleshoots for a living...
Been
At 04:07 PM 10/21/02, Adam C. Lipscomb wrote:
He's not the only one guilty of that on this list, and
you might think upon the Bible verse Luke 4:23: And
he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this
proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have
heard done in Capernaum, do also here
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
How can I
ever reach a better understanding of his views, if he keeps refusing to
clarify his position? It makes having discussions with him a total waste of
time, effort and bandwidth.
Then why do you bother?
Julia
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
You mean, that same Brin who left Brin-L after a major on-list battle that
got started when JDG attacked our good doctor on the Startide Rising List?
Excuse me?
When did JDG attack our good doctor on the Startide list?
I've gone over all those posts, and anything JDG
At 00:22 21-10-2002 +1000, Ray Ludenia wrote:
Have you noticed that nobody (except me and DB) have criticised JDG for his
behaviour? Why do you think that is? Because people here see nothing wrong
with his behaviour, or because they know that criticising him is useless
since hell will freeze
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
It's not that we're pretending that the mountain (others's difficult
behavior) isn't there, as you suggest.
So, I am not suggesting that people are
pretending that the mountain does not exist; I am suggesting
that people
are not going to try to move the
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:01:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness.
From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to
publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the
explict permission of the sender.
I
At 10:01 19-10-2002 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Once again, taking things back on-line, where it belongs.
I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness. From what
I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to publically divulge
the contents of private emails only with
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:01:14AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness.
From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to
publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the
explict
At 10:42 19-10-2002 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
I think it's rather rude to drag an off-list exchange onto a list
without the permission of all parties involved.
It is my belief that discussions taken off-list should be kept off-list
until such time as all parties involved agree it should go
Dan Minette wrote:
I'd like to ask a question about general rules of politeness.
From what I've seen in a number of places, people are suppose to
publically divulge the contents of private emails only with the
explict permission of the sender.
Well, personally, I feel that anything
At 11:35 19-10-2002 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
It is my belief that discussions taken off-list should be kept off-list
until such time as all parties involved agree it should go back
on-list.
Even if the discussion is technically not taken off-list, but one poster
replies off-list
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 11:35 19-10-2002 -0500, Julia Thompson wrote:
It is my belief that discussions taken off-list should be kept off-list
until such time as all parties involved agree it should go back
on-list.
Even if the discussion is technically not taken off-list,
84 matches
Mail list logo
