From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Help for the taiphobe-obsessives
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:49:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.145833.2477@bnr.ca>, radams@BNR.CA (Rodney Adams) writes:
> 
> 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.

Yes, I remember that.  I also remember that you were completely one-sided, had
misstated my position, and were intentionally abusive--and didn't bother writing
anything substantive to support your position.

> 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.

I'm glad that you find humor in obvious typos.  I'm also not surprised that you
miscaterorize a joke (an old worn one at that--that has been used for many
years with only the names changed) as a "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).

I don't taunt; I respond to taunts.

> |> 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.

How about taking your own advice?