"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
m...
And now, you get down and personal with me, and accuse me of soaking
this newsgroup. Hardly, judging from your style, are you in a position
to judge. Check out the following,

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...rovided%2540ho


Umm, Tom, I'm going to put on my 'guide' hat here, because you need one at
this point.

If you insist on pasting single snippets from other threads (which is
generally frowned upon in Usenet, (see below)), or if you want to paste long
URLs, use a shortcutting site. For example, go to www.tinyurl.com or
www.makeashorterlink.com and paste the monster link in, and it will give you
a shortcut to the same site. The entire above link was abbreviated to
http://tinyurl.com/55543, for example.

Everything you post on usenet is replicated on millions of servers
worldwide. The long URLs are considered a tremendous waste of bandwidth;
doesn't seem like much, but when you multiply it by all the times it happens
on all newsgroups, times all the computers it happens on, times all the days
and all the years it happens, you get the idea of why there are protocols.

That's also the reason people usually cut threads down instead of just
replicating the entire thread each time. Its not to be rude, and shouldn't
be to be deflective (although granted, it often gets used for that), but to
be efficient.


Lots of interesting reading, and you have some very creative friends,

http://www.geocities.com/herblovesje...magination.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/flamingpoul...kmanonlost.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/flamingpoul...manonlost2.jpg

It seems that many are confounded by your posting style, not just me!
and I am trying real hard to give you benefit of the doubt, since we
have just met.


Is cyberstalking part of your cultish personality?

Cyberstalking, again pompous on your part, thinking that I would even
care to stalk you. No, I was encouraged to research those who are
participating in a particular discussion. Prior to that I had been
willing to take, and respond to specific statements made in a
discussion thread, at face value, independet of who was making them.
Obvious to me now, is that those who encouraged me to know my
atagonist, had probably had experience with the atagonist before. They
were probably trying to save me from a fruitless discussion.


Umm, that would be me that encouraged you. Let me be more specific, because
I was definately not trying to warn you away from a fruitless experience
with an antagonist, be it Keenan, Wilko, me or anyone else. I was trying to
help YOU from becoming a clueless newbie, repeating rather common newbie
errors, and unwittingly (or otherwise) finding yourSELF as the antagonist.

(Now, I know you can split hairs and say "I said "MY antagonist", etc, but
my message is the same: you are misconstruing why I encouraged you to
research people.)

First of all, what you are doing to Keenan, as much as you might not intend
it to be, IS a form of Cyberstalking. What makes it so is that your intent
is to cause him harm: in specific, you are trying to discredit or compromise
him by researching his previous posts and using what he said against him. If
he goes a single step further and asks you to cease, you are legally (in the
US, at least) required to do so. Otherwise, you can be reported to net.abuse
sites, and your Usenet priviledges will be revoked. There are many faqs out
there with advice on how to use Usenet and avoid common pitfalls like how to
avoid cyberstalking, how to avoid plagarizing people, when you can and
cannot repost what people have written (for example, you should not post
content of private emails to you), and how to conduct reasonable
conversations. It may SEEM like a people are arguing a certain way here, but
the truth is that you are crossing all sorts of lines regularly, and
apparently (I hope) not even knowing it. There is a great difference between
'researching' and 'cyberstalking'.

What you are intending to do seems reasonable on the surface: to find out
about who he is from his previous posts. But, as you said, with 9000+ posts
under his belt, taking a few phrases out of context is at best bad form, and
at worse, really really bad form. Now, in your defense, I will acknowledge
that this is a common thing to do with some things like Biblical references:
people go nuts over things like "In 5th Thessalations, chapter 9, verse 6,
subparagraph b, clause 6, the Great Poohbah used the word "OUT" instead of
"OUTSIDE", which clearly means that he is referring to....." etc etc.
But in usenet (and in real life), this type of nitpicking detail is pretty
obtruse and inaccurate. Someone could come in, and just from your own dozen
or so posts (note the difference: I'm guessing you have a dozen or so posts
which clearly means I have not spent the evening pouring over statistic
sites, trying to find out as much about you as possible to be used against
you in some argument, but instead am just tossing out a polite
conversational approximation...very different imagery, no?) Anyway, in your
own dozen or so posts, before you reconsidered your rocky arrival here,
there is PLENTY of harvestable fruit for someone to throw at you, in detail,
to win some lame argument later on. And if someone DID do that, you'd pretty
quickly see how offensive and especially how inaccurate it is.



I may be the fool, to think that there ever was, or still is hope for
a converstion with real content. But then this is the first time that
I have met you on this or any board, so this discussion has been more
of a curiosity to me than anything else. Cyberstalking, not a chance,
just getting my ducks in a line.

What makes Keenan tick? To get to know you as a person, not just an
impersonal post, disassociated from your environment, and all that you
contribute to that environment. I had no previous knowledge or
experience with you, so I researched. Next time, will be different.
Probably I will have to check out someone else. You will not be the
Belle of the Ball!


See, there it is again. You just crossed the line again: you are making a
'threat' (although you don't see it that way, I'm sure) to 'Cyberstalk'
someone else. Yes, you *should* research people: not knowing Wilko was from
outside the US was a stupid error on your part, especially as you flamed him
for something, assuming he was American. By 'research', I mean to learn
about people so you know who you are discussing, not to gather picayune
'ammo' to later throw at them to try to win some argument points. And
especially not to go LOOKING for ammo that fits whatever specific argument
that you are currently having. When you were accused of being 'contrary',
Keenan was trying to point out to you that you are doing all sorts of things
(here in rbp, at least) that are way contrary to convention and protocol,
and worse yet, you don't even know it. Your response was to continue doing
it.

And even more, you are doing the exact thing that you claim to despise in
the 'elite intellectual liberal': you are taking a small amount of
knowledge, accurate or not, and twisting it to serve your purpose, and
defiantly digging in with your point of view (in this case, your use of
quotations and your posting style).

You need to read some Usenet faqs, and you really ought to consider what you
are really here for. Its looking like you are trying to learn about arguing
on Usenet, but (maybe in typical ENTP style?) by creating your own set of
rules, roughly shaped on twisting the advice of others and your own
observations to your own advantage. All your discussions so far have the
same imagery to me, like seeing someone who is obviously new at something
standing in a crowd, yelling their own 'expert' opinion at the top of their
lungs, while pretty much everyone around them is rolling their eyes at the
newbie with the big ego and poor skills.

Just trying to help out; whatever point you are trying to make with Keenan
is lost in the noise.

YMMV.
--riverman