From: radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams)
Subject: Re: Help for the taiphobe-obsessives
Reply-To: "Rodney Adams" <RADAMS@BNR.CA>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:58:33 GMT

In article <14975@claris.com>, mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug10.153808.2203@bnr.ca>, radams@crchh404.BNR.CA (Rodney Adams) writes:
|> > 
|> > In article <14959@claris.com>, mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
|> > |> In article <1992Aug6.171413.2063@brandonu.ca>, mcbeanb@brandonu.ca writes:
|> > |> > 
|> > |> > In article <14942@claris.com>, mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
|> > |> 
|> > |> > > Perhaps he didn't "force" his opinions upon anyone, but he has lied in every post
|> > |> > > that he has made here.  
|> > |> > 
|> > |> > I doubt you could prove this.  you are being paranoid.
|> > |> 
|> > |> Every one of his messages that had any degree of content contained at least
|> > |> one lie.  This is not paramoia; it is realism.
|> > |> 
|> > [...]
|> > |> 
|> > |> Bullshit yourself.  It is the same.  I'm not frightened by him; I'm merely
|> > |> disgusted by his juvenile and cowardly tactics.  I would expect that a
|> > |> person who is a student or staff of a universerity would be able to
|> > |> behave in a more mature manner.
|> > |> 
|> > Does this strike everyone else as being rather hypocritical coming from 
|> > someone over 40 years old who dispenses such childish verbal abuse?
|> 
|> Comer off it, Adams.  I haven't seen anything from you on this forum other
|> than childish abuse.
|> 
It is, of course, entirely understandable that you would feel this way, since
you were the target of several of my posts.

|> > |> > > It wouldn't be so bad if he had something worthwhile to say, but he 
|> > |> > > doesn't have even that redeeming feature.
|> > |> > 
|> > |> > Only in your opinion, of course.  I'm glad you feel comfortable saying
|> > |> > that certain people are worthless in front of a large audience.  I bet
|> > |> > it felt good, didn't it?
|> > |> 
|> > |> You should take a reading comprehension cours, McBean.  I didn't say that
|> > |> anyone is worthless--I said that he [Tai] has nothing worthless to say.  
|> >                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> > I definitely would not go that far!  Sorry for pointing this out, but, for
|> > a Monday morning, I thought it was rather humorous.  However, if I must
|> > read your mind, I still have to disagree.  Your remarks were aimed more
|> > at Tai than at what he had to say.
|> > 
|> > |>                                                                    Why is
|> > |> it so hard for you to understand that difference?  
|> > Could it be related to your apparently poor grasp of the English language?
|> > Is this why you hurl epithets rather than rational arguments?
|> 
|> For someone who criticizes other people for being abusive, you certainly
|> set a poor example of how to post.  Every message that I can recall from
|> you has been abusive of me and/or Dave Aronson.  Get real, Floyd.
|> 
Naturally, the posts directed at you would be the ones you remember.  If you
recall, however, I was in no way connected to your posts when I (and others)
began objecting to them.

Perhaps the post you responded to was uncalled for, but I did find humor in
your statement that Tai "has nothing worthless to say," particularly in light
of the Steiner=Tai theory currently in vogue.

|> > |>                                                    Or is it that you do
|> > |> understand the difference, and intentionally misstated what I said so that
|> > |> you could write that feeble attack at sarcasm?  I bet that made you feel
|> > |> good, didn't it?
|> > 
|> > I had really intended to drop this subject, but when I read the remarks above 
|> > I just had to make sure that everyone saw them.  With statements like the
|> > above, who would need to "intentionally misstate" Mike?
|> 
|> I sincerely dobut that you had intended any such thing.  You apparently have
|> the same reading comprehension problem that McBean has.
|> 
|> There is apparently one major difference between you and me.  When I am
|> abusive on a forum, it is intentional and is in response to other people's
|> abuse.  You're just plain abusive as a matter of nature.
|> 
Absolutely untrue.  While I do not consider myself a pacifist, I am far from
abusive in person.  If I seem so in my posts, I apologize.  I just got very
frustrated about seeing your taunts (like the one below).

|> Why don't you just go away to play with the other little kiddies, and not
|> bother to return until you grow up?

As this subject has been "Basingstoke'd" a while back, I believe a truce
would be in order.  Just keep in mind that the person to whom you address 
your comments is not the only one who can be affected by them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rodney G. Adams
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer.
As if you didn't already know that....

"Man is the only animal who laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal
that is struck with the difference of what things are, and what they
ought to be."                                         - William Hazlitt