"La Maline" <la_maline@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Xns942B5EFC42C0Fbaudelaire@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "palmer.william" <palmer.william@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> news:kmkqb.5019$Z84.2447@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "La Maline" <la_maline@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > news:Xns942AD783C2ED3baudelaire@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> "Darkside" <Mr flibblesaysgameoverboys@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
> >> news:bobnko$6da$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> > As a few people have pointed out my behaviour may have seemd a
> >> > little erratic lately
> >> > good reason for this mind
> >> > A lot of my work revolves around human behaviour and i study it
> >> > quite a lot to gain a better understading of this somewhat complex
> >> > subhect
> >> >
> >> > So i set up a little test
> >> > With the current flood of unintresting posts from unfamiliar names
> >> > in here i thought id get rather over aggresive and see who bit back
> >> > first
> >
> > Let me enlighten you.
>
> Rather a challenge when he reads the follow-ups from the group you
removed.
Listen, you, and you listen up good. I don't like
chatrooms, okay? And most of my readers and
fans know I don't like chatrooms. So if I send that
post over to something that says "chat," somebody
is going to see it accuse me of acting contrary to
my stated posting principles. And I don't like that,
see? Right now, I am respected by all as a very
solid-type internet individual, someone who
shoots from the hip, yes, someone who may be
mistaken in his views on occasion, perhaps, but
also someone who does not engage in forging,
libeling, or any of the other stuff the net bad guys
do. Now, there is nothing inherently bad about a
chatroom, but I don't happen to like them, because
users are far too careless with their words, and few,
if any of them have the spontaneous wit required to
write fast and have something interesting to say at the
same time. Yes, it is true I am big on the value
of letting one's thoughts roll from one's mind right
into the net, but that presupposes enough writing
talent to do that in a reasonably coherent fa****on.
In the chatrooms I have visited, you don't get
original thoughts rolling from people's minds into
the net, you get a tedious snippets of banality
echoed back and forth. Sort of like, "What are
you doing later tonight? I dunno, might watch
Ozzie. Might have some yogurt" Now that's
profound, isn't it? Now, La Maline, you plainly
are nothing but a lilppy little wimp with nothing to
recommend you to newsgroup readers as far
as any sort of creditable Usenet history. You are
what you post, ya' pesky little poppinjay. You have
been trolling the wrong person, and by Jiminey Cricket,
if you keep doing that, I'll keep grinding you up for grist...
That's not a threat, it's a promise, at least until I grind you
down to a husk so you aren't even good grist anymore....
Then you will weep and wail but it will be too late for you.
[...]
> >> You have an overwhelmingly unjustified sense of self-im****tance.
> >> Listen up. This is Usenet and you are words on a screen, nothing
> >> more.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> > Gee, where did you pick that one up? Actually, I can't claim I was
> > the first person in Usenet to use that particular expression.
> > According to Google, I was the FOURTH person to use it. When I first
> > used the expression in Fall, 1997, two other posters had used it
> > already in 1997, and a third, apparently the first one to use it in
> > Usenet, used it in 1996. Before that, there is no record of anyone
> > posting, "you are words on a screen," Even so, I will point that
> > that all three uses prior to mine were in groups I don't read, so it
> > was clearly a case of simutaneous invention, which "La Maline"
> > can't claim since I have used the expression quite a few times
> > in writing groups since 1997, as Google makes plain.
> >
> > Actually, it is a perfectly logical expression to use. While of
> > course we are all MORE than words on a screen in many
> > im****tant ways, most of us will never be more than words
> > on a screen to one another. Yes, I have noticed some
> > writing group types like to hobnob with one another, fine.
> > That has nothing to do with what is most im****tant in
> > Usenet, which is what I call swimming in the thoughtstream
> > (a phrase first used on this planet in my posting of March 3, 1999,
> > BIG HANDS SHAPE HARLAN) which means minds interacting
> > with, and being influenced by, one another.
> >
> > So, you may be trolling me, but you are simply another bag
> > of grist for the colossal mill (and if you don't know who used
> > "grist for the colossal mill" first, see Google)..
> >
> >
> > accept no cheap imitations
> > alt.genius.bill-palmer
> > --firing posts at random from a window in an office upstairs
> > from rec.arts.prose
> >>
> >
> >
>
|
