Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
E. Allen Smith wrote:
filtered out) of blocking postings from Senate and House addresses, (If DLVulis was a participant in the discussion (I wouldn't notice, given that I generally delete his messages before reading), he So here's this Eastern-establishment George Bush wanna-be piece-of-shit whiny asshole Smith beating up on Toto and Vulis for the nth time. remember dale, you and dr. vulis are also beating on john gilmore & co.
True, but, Smith viciously attacked me before I said anything about him, and he did so not because I was some kind of authority inter- fering with his life (like a lying, cheating, censoring list mgr.), but simply because he didn't like my posts.
:) and you are attacking him because you did not like his posts.
Not the same thing at all. Any posts he may have made about any list topic (whether "on-topic" or not) I did not jump on him for.
Oh well, and he did not jump on Dr. Vulis for any posts concerning the list topic.
I have made specific comments disagreeing with people about factual or theoretical particulars, or I've made disparaging comments about list "leaders" using their "reputation capital" to shove other people out of their way like bullies, but I haven't taken to calling ordinary list subscribers names because I think they're paranoid (which I'm really not, though I'm a "professional" conspiratologist), or because I otherwise disagree with them.
Well, paranoid people may be more right than "normal" people, so I do not see the word paranoid as an insult.
I looked at one archive the other day, and it contained 850+ messages by me posted to cypherpunks between approximately 1 Sep 96 and late Jan 97. I think you'll find them very consistent, and although I could be accused of harboring my own arrogance in some areas, I can handle any criticism you put forth, since you (for example) don't slander me gratuitously or viciously.
Mmm, maybe, but I remember saying negative things about some of your ideas, which I still think were not wrong.
Several months ago, I made a post where I said that approx. 95% of people stay within the confines of their parents' religion for life, meaning that while they may change denominations, or split different hairs on various dogmas, they still remain Catholic if their parents were Catholic, etc. One of the list "leaders" chose to say I didn't know what I was talking about, even though I very well did know what I was talking about (and I told him so), so he replied that he didn't want me putting his email address in any of my posts (i.e., don't hit the reply-to-all button unless I manually delete his name), and has steadfastly ignored me ever since. I don't mind being ignored, in fact, it gives me time to do better things than argue with persons who don't really listen, but what pisses me off is this bully-like arrogance on the part of some of the clique who would really like to get rid of people like me, but can't recommend it since it would damage their already fragile reputation.
This is OK, Dale, if some readers follow the bullies with reputations instead of doing their own thinking, they are not worthy of your worries. - Igor.