, I notice - and have notified the "moderator" about - a further post by Joe Dees (cf infra), which to my mind seems entirely about the currently proscribed "war talk", even if most of the assertions made by Joe Dees appear to be based on a fantasy about a parallel but neocon friendly Universe where e.g. systematic Geneva convention violating POW abuse has not been documented - as it has in ours http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5092776/site/newsweek/.
Simplifying decision making, Joe Dees' message (unusually not a simple cut&paste job, but an only marginally "less-worse" slew of unfounded, unsupported (and largely specious) assertions), containing what appears to me to be a tacit acknowledgement of the ban, along with both its blatant violation and a direct threat, no matter how disguised by a false conditional, to violate it in the future as well, when Joe Dees says: Quote from: Joe Dees on 2004-06-03 20:20:41
I am posting this reply to Simul concerning the article the URL of which he posted, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3683067.stm but will otherwise keep my War on Terror comments to the BBS if others here do.
I wonder if David Lucifer agrees with this assessment, and if so, will Joe Dees be silenced, or does my cluelessness extend to "war talk" as well as to "personal attacks"?
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Simul began the post with, "Okay, so if war is allowed"... I answered that particular post, and indicated, at the very beginning, that I would post no further 'war talk' on the email list unless others did - gathering that such a case would mean that it was a generally accepted practice. Contra Hermit's unsupported assumptions, I can document evetything I said in that post. If anyone wishes me to do so, I will be more than happy to - on the BBS. Apparently Hermit is quite willing to sacrifice Simul in order to Silence me, and furthermore quite eager to attempt to twist my assurances into a threat. I trust that Lucifer can see through these sophomoric Hermitian games. And once again, Hermit posts a URL that violates the very ban he is hypocritically accusing me of transgressing, thus compounding his own hypocrisy in successive posts, and meaning that, under his bizarre interpretation of the "No War on the Mailing List" policy, he would have to be Silenced, as well. Will he ever learn? Well, umm...no, most likely not. He has answered his own question concerning cluelessness, if he would only read what he has written.
And to those of you who wanted Hermit to return, I have only this to say: Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. And it is seldom as you remember it to be.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #17 on: 2004-06-04 01:14:08 »
Joe Dees proudly pasted a few droppings of his for our inspection. While mildly unusual in that they are, again, not a cut and paste, they are not, in the final analysis, so very unusual in that they are, apparently, mainly delusional. Nevertheless, perhaps a few of his assertions deserve mild&bitter refutations. Let's see, shall we: Quote from: Joe Dees on 2004-06-03 22:39:07
[Joe Dees] Simul began the post with, "Okay, so if war is allowed"... <snip> [Joe Dees] Apparently Hermit is quite willing to sacrifice Simul in order to Silence me
[Hermit] Joe Dees should look before leaping. Note the posting times. IIRC, Simul's post took place at about 04h44Z, Lucifer's topic ban occurred at around 05h23Z and Joe Dees' response to Simul at about 12h20Z. In other words, Simul posted before the ban. Joe Dees, knowing about the ban, ignored the ban. That is a very fundamental difference which demolishes Joe Dees' attempts to make me appear to be attacking Simul (whose company, style and communications I find very congenial - and whose reputation and karma indicate that many others agree).[Joe Dees] Contra Hermit's unsupported assumptions, I can document evetything I said in that post. If anyone wishes me to do so, I will be more than happy to - on the BBS. [Hermit] I'd like to see Joe Dees try - and predict he will fail. Miserably, noisily, but hopefully not as expensively or publically as the abysmal failures of those to whom his intellect has seemingly been immolated. Will Joe Dees' mommy not become lonely and frustrated, sitting leaking damply, while he makes the attempt? Perhaps. After all, it will surely take more years than he (never mind his senile mother) is likely to have left to live for him to, yet again, attempt to prove that black is white to a sufficient degree to persuade anyone else that he is not merely insane, obsessive and incapable of learning from experience. (NB So far as I can fathom (although I admit to cluelessness in this regard), and despite what you and I may have felt until recently, if I understand Lucifer correctly, this last is not a personal attack, as it merely reports my observations and conclusions; is not specifically directed at anyone; and makes no offensive assertions, instead creating a scenario and leaving it to the 'nasty minds' of our readers to draw whatever inferences seem to fit.)[Joe Dees] And once again, Hermit posts a URL that violates the very ban he is hypocritically accusing me of transgressing, thus compounding his own hypocrisy in successive posts, and meaning that, under his bizarre interpretation of the "No War on the Mailing List" policy, he would have to be Silenced, as well. [Hermit] Rather than "hypocracy" and rather than posting a referenced and sourced point by point refutation (as I have done so many times before), in the absense of requested guidance from David Lucifer, I erred on the side of caution and avoided anything which I thought could be regarded as "war talk" as well as all invalid capitalization (again demonstrated to be an almost failproof sign that one is dealing with a fanatic). So I merely made a comment on Joe Dees' "alternative neocon friendly Universe" in his violating posting under discussion, and supported the hypothesis with a URL pointing to a sample difference (from a source Joe Dees has repeatedly used, and thus precluded his usual anguished claim of "source bias" - which Joe Dees was once, long ago, capable of recognizing as an error) between our Universe and Joe Dees' fantasy. As Joe Dees asserts differently (in the now usual absense of supporting evidence), perhaps that tells us more about Joe Dees' rationality - or lack of it - and his apparent tendency to only open his mouth to exchange feet, than it does about me. If David Lucifer disagrees with me, then I will anticipate a week's silencing for me (not, in effect, much different from lurking, only it makes the temptation to reply to knaves and fools even less compelling) as well as for Dees (whatever will he do with himself given that he is unlikely to take the hint?), as well, quite likely, a mailbox full of thank-you notes from sundry Virians for dispensing with Joe Dees' second hand propaganda yet again.
[Hermit] Borrowing from Dees, "Will he ever learn? Well, umm...no, most likely not. He has long lost the ability to discriminate between fantasy and reality - and will likely proudly point to this post at some future time and assert that it thorougly and completely rebutted my irrational assertions, presumably made only from my misplaced malice toward his mother and his ilk* - and my supposed "antiwar" bias**. Yes. No. Well. Fine. I'm sure. Not.[Joe Dees] Apparently Hermit is ...quite eager to attempt to twist my assurances into a threat. I trust that Lucifer can see through these sophomoric Hermitian games. [Hermit] No game. As I previously observed, in the absence of (unattainable) clarity, one person's comments on "fantasy Universii" is another person's "war talk". In this case, this means that, as I predicted, Joe Dees did perceive "war talk" where I and others perceived a "discussion of fantasy", so falsifying his cited negative conditional, "if others here do" then I "will ... keep my War on Terror comments to the BBS", and, simplifying Joe Dees' assertion to remove the now falsified conditional results in "I will not keep my War on Terror comments to the BBS." This in quicktime counterpoint to Joe Dees': Quote from: Joe Dees on 2004-06-03 20:00:15
Now, after a blessedly lengthy absence, he rear (sic) his slanderous head once again, and once again employing his signature rhetorical pretzeling of logic and rationality
. Thank-you Joe Dees for sustaining my previous claims, my logic and my rationality, while simultaneously refuting your gratuitious ass- persions. Your cooperation in thoroughly screwing your ass- ertions to the wall is duly appreciated. No, really.
Kind Regards to most
Hermit Windmills slain. Trolls petrified. Giants fellated (or should that be felled?). Neocons contrapunctuated. Reasonable rates. Apply here.
*And you might never have known about that "interest in elk" if it hadn't been for me :-) **I'm against all stupid, illegal and irrational actions. Not just wars. And the ambiguity in "Not just wars" is very intentional - even though "just wars" are extremely rare and IIRC have never been engaged in by the USA but maybe once or twice. Korea may have had some slight possible justification and I once thought that the US founder's insurgency, terrorism and resort to guerilla warfare was at least somewhat justifiable. But that was before the current Administration and their precious dittoheads in this forum (NB This is also apparently not an insult, according to David Lucifer) explained how utterly indefensible these actions always are - even when you have to rewrite the dictionary, law and history books to prove it. (NB Note the cautious lack of any reference to the current wars).
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
I will indeed post the info. on the BBS. I also must wonder, since hermit is so fixated on insulting both me and my mother and engaging in forbidden 'war talk', if he is exercising the Samson option, that is, pulling the temple down around himself, in the vain hope that some of the falling columns and friezes might strike me, as well. It ain't gonna happen; I'm stepping outta the way and allowing Hermit to do that which he does so well; self-immolate.
PS: Hermit makes the assumption that I read of the ban before I posted on the OK thread, but I had not, and it's all Hermit's fault; he was the one who engineered the Meridion email restrictions, so I was not sent the email of lucifer's ratification of the ban (or any other list emails) before I replied to Simul; I merely read that it had been proposed, and decided to announce my intentions of abiding by such a proposition within my post itself.
I also ask Lucifer to at least warn Hermit concerning statements such as:
Will Joe Dees' mommy not become lonely and frustrated, sitting leaking damply, while he makes the attempt? Perhaps. After all, it will surely take more years than he (never mind his senile mother)
Joe Dees' rationality - or lack of it - and his apparent tendency to only open his mouth to exchange feet,
He has long lost the ability to discriminate between fantasy and reality
all contained in his previous post, and there are plenty more in his other ones (ot seems that he simply cannot restrain himself).
Unless, that is, insults against my family and myself, but no one else, are allowed onlist. (double-standard alert).
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #19 on: 2004-06-04 02:06:43 »
We Virions are far more similar than dissimilar—but those relatively few dissimilarities tend to get unreasonably exaggerated. Joe Dees’s political philosophy, for example, may be a tad bit different from that of most Virions—mine included (I’m a moderate liberal, in case you didn’t know)—but if his entire weltanshauung were compared with that of even the most liberal Virion, I’d wager that there would be at least a 90% overlap. So what’s with all these ad hominem attacks? It doesn’t matter if a lot of Virions think Joe’s a schmuck—what matters is whether or not his arguments are sound. And if they disagree with his arguments, then they need to speak to those arguments. Some of these recent ad hominem attacks—especially those pertaining to Joe’s mother’s Alzheimer’s disease—are a bit over the top. If you’ve seen my web site (and if you haven’t, why the hell not?) you know I revel in truly tasteless humor, but I draw the line at personal attacks (usually). In the name of empathy and reciprocity, people shouldn’t subject others to personal attacks if they themselves don’t want to be subjected to personal attacks. Has Joe Dees himself been the attacker on occasion? I believe so—and, in all honesty, I’m not sure who started what, and when. Do I ever irrationally use ad hominem arguments? Sure. Am I ever guilty of hypocrisy? Of course. I may be a perfectionist about most things, but I’m far from perfect. And it should be noted that ad hominem attacks aren’t necessarily irrational, if your goal is simply to enjoy yourself. After all, I enjoy a good old-fashioned meme war as much as the next wanker. Some of Friedrich Nietzsche’s most interesting writings are the polemical screeds he penned in 1888—books like Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist. But I think the level of discourse could stand to be raised a bit here in the CoV (as long as that doesn’t mean I have to stop using adult language and adult humor—after all, we’re all adults here). We Virions are far more alike than unlike. We need to remember that.
Proof of the contentions contained in my missive to simul (yes, the one Hermit so vociferously and mistakenly disputed) has been posted in Serious Business, on the BBS.
[Hermit] Could this really be the same Joe Dees who, largely unopposed and certainly unencouraged (he'd call it incited) at least by me, has persisted since his bombastic return to the CoV in complaining unceasingly about the behaviour of others towards himself - while casting shit storms of epithets and comment as well as blame for all the troubles of the Universe - in the direction of others - not excluding me - seemingly on every opportunity he could engineer? Not to mention while flooding the BBS and list with thousands of posts whose net worth to the CoV is perhaps best measured by his ever declining reputation and karma.
[Joe Dees] I will indeed post the info. on the BBS.
[Hermit] Perhaps I'll respond sometime if I tire of root canal work. Although I suppose that I too could simply copy and paste a significant portion of the Internet to the BBS and assert, "my proof is in there somewhere - you find it - I've proved that Joe Dees is a lying jerk - just like his memetic sources." Funny thing is, I don't imagine that anybody else would accept assertions of that nature any more than they accept the assertions from Joe Dees. And I suspect that almost everyone but Joe Dees recognises this. Which says volumes about his obsessive delusional state - and, in my opinion, of those who encourage - or even tolerate - his antics. A pity that.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #23 on: 2004-06-04 19:08:32 »
My last post in regards to whether Joe Dees should be silenced was probably worded a bit ambiguously, and lacked certain details that I’ve included elsewhere (and will now include here). Regarding the apparent ambiguousness that led to it being misconstrued as something that wholeheartedly supported Joe Dees in every way: I meant it as a call to everyone—including Señor Dees—to raise the level of discourse. Insults that were made long ago should remain in the past, rather than being continually dredged up, ad nauseam. And regarding the details, which I had hoped—perhaps naïvely—that people had read in my earlier posts: I may have supported the Bush administration’s war in Afghanistan, but I was vehemently opposed to the rationalization of the war in Iraq as part of the “War on Terror.” And as to the issue of flooding, I’ve mentioned elsewhere that—although pathological posting may not be a serious mental illness—it is not only unnecessary, but also counterproductive. I’d even go so far as to say that people should be limited to ten posts a day (barring extenuating circumstances)—after all, when people are forced to limit the quantity of their correspondence, that usually improves the quality of their correspondence. And I also think that, in lieu of posting an entire news story, which you know damn well no one is going to read in its entirety, include an apropos excerpt from it (preferably 250 words or fewer), and just include a link to it so that if anyone wants to read the whole story they can do so. So, just to be clear: Señor Dees, himself, needs to refrain from (or at least curtail to some degree) personal attacks and pathological posting. I don’t dislike or disapprove of the man—merely the madness of his methods.
RE: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again?
« Reply #24 on: 2004-06-04 21:54:43 »
[LenKen] My last post in regards to whether Joe Dees should be silenced was probably worded a bit ambiguously, and lacked certain details that I’ve included elsewhere (and will now include here). <snip>
[rhinoceros] I think you were clear enough the first time, LenKen, but feel free to put ambiguity to good use any time.
... well, until you receive the details of your initiation mission to impale someone, that is.
(the rhinoceros, keeping the level of the discussion a few inches above the earth).
LenKen: It's kinda hard to put slanders and insults in the past when they keep being obsessively repeated - by the same person - in the present; wouldn't you agree?
One other thing; I do not complain about attacks unless I am attacked, and the attacks are in the archives, for all and sundry to see. It's kinda like this (no names given; people are free to insert their own (I just love double entendres!)):
A Geek Travesty
(X, for whatever warped reason, vomits a vile personal insult at J). J: That's an insult. Please stop. (X doesn't stop, and swears that he won't until he's made to by the moderator. The moderator stops him, after X takes a final sick Parthian swipe at J. The moderator all but apologizes for having to do so in the interests of fairness. J thanks the moderator for being evenhanded). (A long absent Y, either perceiving an opening by means of which to attack J, for whom he harbors a pathological ideological hatred, or in trying to curry (or re-curry) brownnose points with those who disagree politically with J, or in trying to impress the people onlist with his flaming facility so that they will fear to cross him, or for some other twisted reason, decides to return and dementedly pile on with a vile personal insult or eleventy-twelve of his own). J: Those are insults, too. I ask again that you stop, or that, since it IS against the rules, the moderator stop you. (Z: Can't I construe something you said to me a while ago as an insult? Huh? HUNHH??? And demand the same from the moderator concerning you? I'm SURE it's just as bad, if not quantums worse! Ohhh, I'm SOOOO OFFENDED!!!)
The Geek Chorus: Heeezz WHIIIII-NIIINNGGG! WHIIIII-NIIINNGGG! They must not be insults at ALLLL! Except anything said by J at ALL, So only he should take the Fall! Let Them GOOO! Let Them GOOO! Even if the Sick Slurs Persist, From the Selfsame Sickoes who Slimed Before The Very Next Second they're in the Past So you should just Bite your Whining Tongue, Accept the Perpetual Sliming and "Let Them GOOOO! In Silence, One Way or Another, From X, Y and Z, and all their Minion Brothers!
(Y: Z, you're my droogie!)
The fact is that some people here feel politically motivated to do this just sort of thing, as if, in their heads, I am cast as their surrogate Dubya punching doll, even though I have indicated that I disagree with his fiscal and domestic policies, and only agree with him about one other thing (and defend it all too well for their liking). This obsessive attacking behavior, and the bizarre mindset that spawns it, truly surpasseth understanding, much less justification.
Is it possible for you guys to resolve the geek fight somewhere else? It's cluttering up my Recent Posts link with petty squabbles between people I don't care to know. There must be things that are more appropriate for Virians to discuss in this medium than other Virians. I propose that the moderator, if one really exists, silence both sides on this issue and make a swift decision of whether to silence either or both of them permanently, rather than let the argument continue to fester in the public domain. This is an example of poor BBS management, in my opinion.
To: "Church of Virus" <virus@lucifer.com> Subject: Re: virus: Should Joe Dees be silenced once again? From: "Erik Aronesty" <erik@zoneedit.com> Date sent: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 01:26:57 -0400 Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> : (X, for whatever warped reason, > : vomits a vile personal insult at J). > : J: That's an insult. Please stop. > > J must chill. > But to who? I named no names. Hermit used the same tactic; why is it open to him, and not to me? HMMMM? > > To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to > <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Author
Logged
