From: system@doc.bmd.trw.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Insults NECESSARY to insure well-defined questions
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:18:04 MST


I'm sorry. I just HAD to reply. This is TOO funny. If you are looking for
technical content, hit "skip" now.


Carl accuses me of,
>intellectual dishonesty.

I guess Carl is an expert at that also.

Carl says,
>Your self-serving lies are in indication that you're
>too incompetent to engage even in legitimate rhetoric.

Why is that? Because I can actually communicate without resorting to 
insults or name-calling? Or because we are ALL incompetent compared to 
one as great as you?

>a shit-for-brains jackass like you 
>it's simple incompetence.
>how incredibly stupid 

Carl gets right into the insults and name-calling. 

>people are actually starting
>to ask well-defined questions?  Nah, that couldn't be it.  Your ideology *MUST*
>be correct, despite all evidence to the contrary, right jackass?
                                                           ^
                                            (Carls favorite for this post) 

Your evidence must be *selective* evidence. And that's intellectual dishonesty.
(attr.Carl)

Of course, if you are right, then people *MUST* be asking well-defined 
questions because, YOU HAVE INSULTED THEM INTO IT. Right!  LIES! That's all
my post was full of, nothing but LIES!

>that would require that you
>actually *KNOW* something about VMS, now wouldn't it?

no. We all know, only YOU *KNOW* something about VMS.

Isn't this fun?

>Too bad, jackass.

More evidence Carl.

>dismissed you as yet another crank. 

I'm sure you would know about cranks.

Carl lists three good reasons HE should be moderator of this newsgroup,

>Well, shit-for-brains, 1 out of 3 amn't bad.
             ^                      
      (ok, he likes this one too)  

>	1)  Who should post?  I can't recall that ever having been brought up

I thought you had that limited down to only English-speaking-intellectuals,
who can post so much of the question that they already know the answer.

later, Carl says,
>Someone who's unwilling to even read the on-line help shouldn't
>be posting.  If he can't use the on-line help, he's unlikely to be able to
>understand any answers he might be given in the group.

I count 1 out of 3. And I didn't even have to reference previous posts'.

>	2)  What they should post?  Well, if it's got to do with VAXen or VMS,
>	    it's acceptable;
further,
>This group's supposed to be
>about VAXen and VMS.  It's supposed to be a forum in which questions are
>answered.  To give one bad example, "Here are my sysgen parameters" is not an
>answerable question.

That's at least 2 out of 3. And in my book that's a majority. Not bad for a
pucky-for-a-thinker.

>	3)  HOW they should post, well, there you've got me.  I would require
>	    that when someone post, he actually ask a well-specified question.
>	    Of course, you don't think that's reasonable.  It'd probably
>	    exclude you from the group.

I'm sure you would like to exclude all of those like me from the group. Too
bad. I count 3 out of 3. Bingo. But you probably need more evidence, than just
your own words.


>Gee.  Now I'm a terrorist.

If the shoe fits...

I said,
>>NO ONE should have to be subjected to the 
>>insults, name-calling, sexist, bigoted, filthy language provided by the
>>ALL-KNOWING-ONES.

and Carl said,
>Yes, shit-for-brains.  We're all supposed to be nice even to incompetent
         ^^^^^
(for the evidence-seeing-impaired, this is an example of name-calling,
see above)

>poseurs.  You belong in talk.religion.newage.bliss.ninnys.

This must be a new group Carl has been active in.

I said,
>>They are an embarassment to the profession.

>Someone using language you don't like
>is an embarassment to the profession.  

yes. Someone using language like you. Remember, it's not what you say,
it's how you say it.

>Someone who doesn't know jack shit about
                           ^     ^
           ( Same two words, only used in recursive fashion, tricky, Carl)

>computers, but who still takes money for managing same is a credit to the
>profession.  How do you justify that position?

How do you know how much ____ ____ I know about computers? This must be why
you are one of the GREAT ONES. You are telepathic. Sorry, I didn't realize...

I said,
>>I am 
>>embarassed for the Gentlemen and Ladies reading the articles on this newsgroup,
>>who have to continually endure the strings of filth. All in the name of 
>>Technical Genius. right! 

>You're a jackass.  How about you try contributing something technical to the
            ^
	(see above reference to name-calling, the last resort of argument)

>group?  You can't?  You're taking your employer's money under false pretenses?

This you also know, Carl. You are so wise, so all-knowing, so pathetic.


Carl, continues to clarify to us all, the conditions on which he bases his
justification for outrageous behaviour.

>HOLD IT RIGHT THERE, SHIT-FOR-BRAINS.  I've seldom flamed anybody for asking
                            ^
              (see above on name-calling, used this slang pronoun before)
              (first time in caps. I think he means REALLY!)

>simple questions.  For asking questions that could be answered by using the
>on-line HELP facility, yes.  For asking non-questions that demonstrate a
                         ^                   ^ (interesting twist of logic)
                         |                (would that be asking a statement?)
                   (this don't EVER do, or else Carl will come-a-calling)

>complete ignorance of what a computer is, yes.  For asking questions that
                                            ^
				(don't do this either, or else)

>they've just had answered for them, most definitely.  For asking simple
                                         ^
     (if you didn't understand Carl's clear-text answer, you are incompetent.)
     (don't EVER ask for clarification)

>questions, no.

Oh.
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Carl. 

I said,
>>why can't these people simply hit SKIP
>>and go on to the more difficult things they know so much about? Don't answer.

Carls says,
>Nice try.  Ask a rhetorical question impugning the motives of your adversary,
>then try to squelch a response.  Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

Thanks. Nice try. I know you didn't mean it as a compliment. But YOU are the
tricky one, by missing the point of the sentence and arguing semantics.


But wait! Maybe Carl DID understand the sentence.
>If we just hit "SKIP," then the moron who asked a non-question is simply going
                                                     ^
                     (I would hate to ask for further clarification on this)
                     (although "moron" is a new one to this post, he is using 
                      it in general terms as upposed to specific)

>to conclude that his post never made it to the group (never mind the fact that
                                                    ^
                                      (interesting rationalization)

>he saw it on his own news server [which is somewhat excusable, since default
>distribution settings could have restricted his post to his own organization]
>or in his mail, after he'd mailed to INFO-VAX@SRI.COM [which is inexcusable,
>since his receiving his own message confirms that it was sent to the whole
>group]), and repost.

So I guess what Carl is trying to say, is that, if HE doesn't answer, then we
all might think our question never made out to the world. hmmm. Maybe we are
getting somewhere here?

>As the jackass to whom I'm responding goes on for another 150 lines or so of
          ^
   (see above reference AGAIN...  cute, Carl. )

>the same bullshit, I'll end here.

No, Carl. If you had included the next lines, they weren't mine. They were 
the evidence you so willingly chose to ignore. But then those testiments 
were just bullshit to you. We get the picture. We're all jackasses with
nothing but bullshit to say. At least now we all know where you're coming 
from. And those testiments you so skillfully deleted tell me I am not alone
in where I am coming from.





Well, this HAS been fun, but I really don't have much time for fun. I have
an REAL job. I'm afraid this really must be my last word. CarryOn!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stan Smith, Vax System Manager		|ssmith@oz.bmd.trw.com (801) 625-8163 |
TRW, Ogden Engineering Operations	+-------------------------------------+
1104 Country Hills Drive		| Opinions expressed, do not belong.  |
Ogden,  Utah       84403		| Defense, so we can have our Space.  |
If we couldn't laugh, then we'd all go insane.                                |
				 Jimmy Bufffet (Changes in Latitudes)         |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++