A couple of newbie questions
 

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 06:07:05 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

[snip]

Joe, you a math minor in a business major?
Bill

Neither. I'm a writer. :)

Another Harry ;)

I didn't miss your smiley (however ironic it might be), but I do have to
make a
couple of observations about your comment:

First, that it is an example of a logical fallacy called "hasty
generalization."
It goes like this:

Harry is an often flagrantly rude participant who espouses a
predominately "liberal" political position;

Harry describes himself as a writer;

Joe describes himself as a writer;

THEREFORE

Joe and Harry are the same.

The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy
thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and
disruptive
participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone
behaving as
he does to be, frankly, insulting.

Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might
hold.

Joe Parsons


Should have put a more smily faces. No, Joe, you are not in the same
unclass as Harry. You are a civil, reasoning person. Actually was going to
email you about having a couple of brews when my wife's ladies group met
coupled of Thursdays ago. Unfortunately got a bad cold.
Bill

A couple of newbie questions
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:24:08 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy
thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and disruptive
participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone behaving as
he does to be, frankly, insulting.

Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might hold.

Joe Parsons

Besides, Joe's presence, just as Harry's absence, is most enjoyable!

*blush*

T'anks!

A couple of newbie questions
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:26:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

[snip]

THEREFORE

Joe and Harry are the same.

The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying sloppy
thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and
disruptive
participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone
behaving as
he does to be, frankly, insulting.

Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might
hold.

Joe Parsons


Should have put a more smily faces. No, Joe, you are not in the same
unclass as Harry. You are a civil, reasoning person.

(finding my Happy Place now...)

I know that, Bill.

Actually was going to
email you about having a couple of brews when my wife's ladies group met
coupled of Thursdays ago. Unfortunately got a bad cold.

I've heard that an excess of estrogen in the air can do that to you!

Give me a holler some time--joe (at) yankeemedia (dot) net--and let's get
together!

Joe Parsons

A couple of newbie questions
 

"Joe Parsons" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:26:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

[snip]

THEREFORE

Joe and Harry are the same.

The reason I mention this, apart from my fondness for identifying
sloppy
thinking, is that Mr. Krause is (IMO) one of the more unpleasant and
disruptive
participants in rec.boats. I find any attempt to tie me to anyone
behaving as
he does to be, frankly, insulting.

Besides: you have no idea what (if any) political persuasions I might
hold.

Joe Parsons


Should have put a more smily faces. No, Joe, you are not in the same
unclass as Harry. You are a civil, reasoning person.

(finding my Happy Place now...)

I know that, Bill.

Actually was going to
email you about having a couple of brews when my wife's ladies group met
coupled of Thursdays ago. Unfortunately got a bad cold.

I've heard that an excess of estrogen in the air can do that to you!

Give me a holler some time--joe (at) yankeemedia (dot) net--and let's get
together!

Joe Parsons


One of my reason for owning a couple of floating things. Has always been an
excess of estrogen in my household. 2 daughters, wife, 2 female cats.
Probably the goldfish is female also.
Bill

A couple of newbie questions
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:43:20 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

[snip]

So, Joe, are you "this" Joe Parsons:


Subject: 11) Who is Joe Parsons, anyway??
From: Chris LIEthiser nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Let me see if I have this straight: you search the Usenet archives on Google and
find something an individual who cowers behind myriad sockpuppets and 'nyms
wrote about me.

Aha...so he was writing about you...good guess on my part.

Not a particularly good guess at all. It's not as though I've ever been exactly
undercover on Usenet over the last twenty or so years.

Didn't take much of a search, and I didn't have to go to dejanews...I
just googled "Joe Parsons" and the third or fourth entry sounded just
like youj.




Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that
anonymous person as being somehow factual.

As opposed to your personal attacks on me?

You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once*
recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats?
If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well,
maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you.

Apart from the fact that my observation of your behavior here is accurate, if a
skosh gentle, I do find it interesting that you react to that observation in
that way. It's pretty much par for the course, though; I have never seen you
pursue a discussion with anyone here without injecting your own brand of vitriol
and personal attacks.

I do have to admit, though, that resorting to personal attacks as you habitually
do is one way to avoid participating in an actual discussion.

Anyone reading your mean-spirited response is likely to see it for what it is:
the impotent mumbling of a deeply unhappy and angry man who, lacking an
argument, lashes out at anyone within reach--but bloodies and soils himself in
the process.

Joe, for the most part I ignore you, because, frankly, you are as dull
as dust. But if you are going to toss an insult my way, chances are I
may see it and toss one back your way.

I'm sure you'll understand when I tell you your approval is unsought and is of
no value to me.

If you aren't man enough to catch, then you ought not to pitch.

Ah. I think I get it now. You seem to have a problem with anyone's expressing
an opinion that you happen not to like. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I think, for all your posturing here, you really are thin-skinned.

Joe Parsons

A couple of newbie questions
 

Joe Parsons wrote:


Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that
anonymous person as being somehow factual.

As opposed to your personal attacks on me?

You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once*
recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats?
If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well,
maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you.


I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of
yours, and there have been others.



Apart from the fact that my observation of your behavior here is accurate, if a
skosh gentle,

Oh, puh-lease. Stop assigning yourself powers of observation that are as
flatlined as your writing skills.


I do find it interesting that you react to that observation in
that way. It's pretty much par for the course, though; I have never seen you
pursue a discussion with anyone here without injecting your own brand of vitriol
and personal attacks.

You need an editor. You're far too wordy. And if that is the conclusion
you draw from my posting here, you simply are not widely read.


I think, for all your posturing here, you really are thin-skinned.

Joe Parsons

Me? Thin-skinned? With all the abuse I get here? Sheesh. And you were
the one who overreacted to a posting about you I reposted here. Talk
about thin-skinned...


--
Email sent to is never read.

A couple of newbie questions
 

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:


Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that
anonymous person as being somehow factual.

As opposed to your personal attacks on me?

You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once*
recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats?
If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well,
maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you.


I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of
yours, and there have been others.

Tell you what: why don't you quote them? Or, failing that, admit that you
are...wrong.

Apart from the fact that my observation of your behavior here is accurate, if a
skosh gentle,

Oh, puh-lease. Stop assigning yourself powers of observation that are as
flatlined as your writing skills.

You're saying that your behavior in rec.boats is *not* consistently rude? It
really doesn't take great "powers of observation" to make that determination,
given your posting volume.

I do find it interesting that you react to that observation in
that way. It's pretty much par for the course, though; I have never seen you
pursue a discussion with anyone here without injecting your own brand of vitriol
and personal attacks.

You need an editor. You're far too wordy. And if that is the conclusion
you draw from my posting here, you simply are not widely read.

Would you like to rebut my statement? I hate to break it to you, but I really
don't read most of your posts--they're repetitive and don't bring any content to
the table.

I think, for all your posturing here, you really are thin-skinned.

Joe Parsons

Me? Thin-skinned? With all the abuse I get here? Sheesh. And you were
the one who overreacted to a posting about you I reposted here. Talk
about thin-skinned...

Yes. I do think you're thin-skinned. And how does my observation of your
behavior here, along with my asking you to substantiate your claim that I've
made some number of attacks against you, constitute "overreacting?"

Joe Parsons

A couple of newbie questions
 

Do you really think posting the same nonsense twice is going to get you any more
credibility or legitimacy?

Oh--and if I didn't want my email published, I wouldn't have put it in taht
document in the first place. You are not doing me some sort of favor by
deleting it. Don't flatter yourself that you are some sort of humanitarian.

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:07:22 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:


Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that
anonymous person as being somehow factual.

As opposed to your personal attacks on me?

You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once*
recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats?
If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well,
maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you.


I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of
yours, and there have been others.



Apart from the fact that my observation of your behavior here is accurate, if a
skosh gentle,

Oh, puh-lease. Stop assigning yourself powers of observation that are as
flatlined as your writing skills.


I do find it interesting that you react to that observation in
that way. It's pretty much par for the course, though; I have never seen you
pursue a discussion with anyone here without injecting your own brand of vitriol
and personal attacks.

You need an editor. You're far too wordy. And if that is the conclusion
you draw from my posting here, you simply are not widely read.


I think, for all your posturing here, you really are thin-skinned.

Joe Parsons

Me? Thin-skinned? With all the abuse I get here? Sheesh. And you were
the one who overreacted to a posting about you I reposted here. Talk
about thin-skinned...

Are you *this* Joe Parsons, too?

"Who is Joe Parsons, anyway?

Joe Parsons is a writer living and working in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Since his fans at present are primarily people who don't send him
enough money to meet his overhead, he works in mortgage banking, too. He
spends as much time as he can manage sailing "Good Faith" out of
Berkeley, California. One of the great epiphanies of his life was
reading Ned Hallowell's "Driven to Distraction;" he still thinks it was
written about him.

He can be reached at

(deleted by hk; say thank you)

One other thing you should know about Joe Parsons: He HATES
excessive quoting in Usenet and in email. He thinks quoting an entire
article just to add three words is a clear indication of cluelessness."


Is that your self-serving prose?

Good grief, man; find an editor.

A couple of newbie questions
 

Joe Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:


Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that
anonymous person as being somehow factual.

As opposed to your personal attacks on me?

You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once*
recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats?
If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well,
maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you.


I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of
yours, and there have been others.

Tell you what: why don't you quote them? Or, failing that, admit that you
are...wrong.

That would require looking them up. You're not worth the bother.



Would you like to rebut my statement?

You're not worth the effort.

You are boring me, Joe. Move on. I am.


--
Email sent to is never read.

A couple of newbie questions
 

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 05:11:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:00:56 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

Joe Parsons wrote:


Evidently, you are content to accept that screed of personal attacks from that
anonymous person as being somehow factual.

As opposed to your personal attacks on me?

You mean, my scurrilous, unconscionable opinion that I expressed *once*
recently, where I observed that you are often "flagrantly rude" in rec.boats?
If you call that sort of observation a "personal attack," Mr. Krause, well,
maybe Usenet is just too harsh an environment for you.


I believe this is the second or third time we're reading this screed of
yours, and there have been others.

Tell you what: why don't you quote them? Or, failing that, admit that you
are...wrong.

That would require looking them up. You're not worth the bother.

No...you could simply admit that you are (listen carefully, now) "wrong."

I know that's not going to happen, though.

What a sad, sad little man you must be.

Joe Parsons



Would you like to rebut my statement?

You're not worth the effort.

You are boring me, Joe. Move on. I am.