Could we possibly take this to -chat? On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:57:05PM +0100, Newsbyte wrote: > "This is offtopic, " > > You fucking got that right. > > > "but your recent emails reminded me about it, I beg > the indulgence of the list." > > O, I see. > > Now, for someone who complains about me lecturing, I clearly remember *YOU* > lecturing me and everybody else about making off-topic posts on the lists. > Even to the point of talking about banning, and that it's not allowed, and > infantile, and it couldn't be allowed, etc. > > But, once again, we see your typical hypocrisy: while you have no problem > lecturing others about it, when it's *you*, then suddenly it's allo right, > and the list should 'indulge'. Aparently, the rules are for everyone, exept > High God Ian. You're the first one to complain and lecturing if others post > off-topic posts, but hey, you are way above those whining non-coders, so the > same rules don't apply for you, don't they. Speaking of hypocrisy.... > > "Before I add you to my /dev/null list again, one thing I wanted to > say. Please please stop spamming Wikipedia with links to your blog, it > is *really* uncool." > > If it was spamming, I would be inclined to agree with you. However, since it > was a reference to an explicit quote asked for by another poster, since a > link can't constitute spam anyway (maybe you should look up the word 'spam' > one day?), and since it was relevant to the topic at hand, your argument > fails to adres anything that exists anywhere but in your contorted > imagination. > > > "Before you embarrass yourself by denying it, lets look at the > headers...(blablabla)" > > Nice try for making a straw-man argument, but I won't bite. All your > obessive cyberstalking, comparing this IP and that IP, and then trying to > put me in a position as if I would be inclined to deny something which > wasn't my argument in the first place, will simply not work. I never denied > anything, nor am I ever going to be inclined to deny or confirm anything > which constitutes an ad-hominem attack. The reason is simple: contrary to > you, I value *the arguments* given, and I do not take the position of > refuting any arguments based upon the person who argues them. You, however, > as you have proven already on slashdot, on the mailist, and on wikipedia, > are a keen proponent of ad hominem, which is a rather dispicable and > childish way of trying to get your point through (which is because you have > no actual point). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem if you need > any references. > > > "But seriously, Wikipedia is a really useful site, but this kind of > self-serving behavior ruins it for everyone, and it *really* annoys me > when I discover it. I would like to say that I was surprised to see > that you were doing this, but frankly I wasn't." > > I agree totally with that statement, but then reversed towards you. > > It's a noble reminder of what Wikipedia is about: the assembling of > knowledge by all people ('experts' or not), not the extension of emotional > attacks of elitist ninkenpoops who can't get passed their own animosity and > who think they are better then anyone else. It's only a pity you don't > follow your own lectures...but then again, neither do you on the maillists; > or on your site, or anywhere else. You are simply wallowing in hypocrisy, > and I sometimes I wonder if you are aware of it yourself. > > > "Could you please stop abusing this valuable resource to attract > undeserved attention to your rants? Thanks." > > Could you please stop abusing this valuable resource to continue your biased > animosity and expand your irrational and childish behaviour? Thanks. > > And, for that matter: it's not only uncool to use the wikipedia for the > continuation of your personal dislikings, it's almost even un-cooler to use > this maillist to YET AGAIN continue your irrational animosity on this list, > even when you are fully aware that it has no place here. > I mean, what? You couldn't cope with limiting yourself to the discussionpage > of the wikipedia-article? You just *had* to appease your ego here as well? > > You are *such* an infantile egotripper. Grow up, will you? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
-- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051205/13f19cf2/attachment.pgp>
