Most people have the ability to read threads, which is why I ignore
you when you whine about how much gets quoted, but if posting things
twice makes you happy, then I am happy for you.
I can add an onus if that's your objection. Here goes:
A statement of fact by a person who is in a position to know that
fact needs no justification. If I say that you like to have have
sex with sheep and you tell me that I am incorrect, you don't have
to tell me why my assessment was incorrect - you just have to tell
me that you don't like to have sex with sheep.
What you are missing (on purpose?) is that you are making claims
about my internal mental state and then demanding that I explain
why you are wrong. How would I know why you are wrong? I just
know that you are, and that I am the only person who really knows
what my own internal mental state is.
---
You missed the point. Again. The onus on not liking orange juice is
nonexistent, because there's no guilt associated with not liking
orange juice.
In your case, your mental state (more particularly, your apparent
hunger for control) smacks of a deep-seated insecurity which you
won't/can't admit to and in order to convince yourself that such isn't
the case you actively try to manipulate situations where you can come
out on top, therefore proving to yourself that you're not a loser.
This thread is a good example in that as time goes by and your ploys
and chicanery are examined in detail and brought into the light, you
become ever more virulent in your denials that what we all see is
true.
---
You are wrong. I have no interest in being able to control others.
Why would I want to do a thing like that?
---
In order to remove any threat to your tenuous grasp on your feelings
of security. See above.
---
---
Because you're not really moderator material. You've got an agenda
and an ax to grind, neither of which will stand you, or the members of
any group you're "moderating" in good stead.
If you're interested in being a _good_ moderator you need to read Bill
Beaty.
---
Are you ignorant about how Usenet works?
---
No, and that's not really a question as much as it is a slur, is it?
Obviously just more of your bullshit.
---
In another (moderated) newsgroup. Why do you have your panties
in a wad over what happens in another newsgroup? Do you have some
sort of bizarre fantasy that this in some way has an affect on you
even if you don't read or post there?
---
My interest lies in your motivation, not on your shenanigans in this
or any other group unless they give insights into the reasons for your
peculiar behavior and demeanor.
---
That's your opinion, but I disagree. I think my snippage is appropriate
and that you are throwing in a red herring.
---
Well, yes, of course that's what you _have_ to think in order to not
have to confront the possibility that you snipped to feign control.
---
The fact that your snippage
is poorly done is evident; you usually don't snip at all and quote the
entire post.
---
Yes, in posts such as this, in order to preserve the flavor of the
exchange.
In on-topic technical posts, however, I snip as required to remove old
agreed-upon text which is no longer relevant to the direction of the
thread.
Try reading some of my technical stuff and, if you can understand it,
you might see what I mean.
---
Same logical fallacy as before. A statement of fact by a person
who is in a position to know told to a person who has no way of
knowing needs no justification.
---
Your presumption that you're in a position to know is false because,
through your actions, you've proven that you can't be objective about
yourself. Consequently, I'm in a much better position to determine
your mental state than you are because I can look at you and your
actions without the baggage which loads you down.
---
Liar. I have no desire to only allow on-topic posts in s.e.d,
and I lack the ability to cause such a change even if your fantasies
about my motives were true.
---
Just because you don't have the ability to limit posts to on-topic
material here doesn't mean that you wouldn't like to. I suspect that
your foray into "moderating" a group will result in many, if not all,
posts which you consider to be off-topic being rejected in spite of
your self-proclaimed tolerance.
---
I deny that that's what you've advocated time and time again.
---
More smoke and mirrors? I've never advocated total on-topicness, so
your denial is hollow.
---
Feel
free to post a message-ID of me saying that I want only on-topic posts
*to be allowed*. You can't, because I never wrote that. I know I never
wrote that because I have no such desire. Yes, I would like you to
stop yapping, but I have no desire (or ability) to force you to do so.
---
Well, I just read the "A modest Proposal" thread, and it appears that
you were advocating a system whereby a single thread could be isolated
from off-topic material, so I stand corrected on that one.
---
Nice shift there. You went from "only allow on-topic posts" to
"change sed." This is an ongoing pattern for you; you consistently
confuse someone asking for something to happen with someone forcing
something to happen.
---
Not a shift at all. It's merely "reducto ad absurdium".
---
---
You lack the ability here, but if I signed up for your bullshit
"moderated" newsgroup where you'd _have_ the ability then it would be
an entirely different story, wouldn't it? If it wouldn't, then what
would be the point of the moderation?
---
And you can't tell the difference between someone finding your
actions offensive and wishing to outlaw them?
---
Again, reducto ad absurdium.
If you find my actions offensive then I'm sure you'd rather I
conducted myself in a manner which you might find more acceptable,
whether you chose to do anything about it or not. The crux of the
matter is the not being able to do anything about it part and the
resignation to that fact, regardless of what your hidden wishes might
be.
