On Feb 4, 9:21�am, Leo wrote:
On 3 Feb 2007 14:51:23 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, wrote:
On 1 Feb 2007 15:40:19 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 1, wrote:
Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?
I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure. *Works
on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without fail!
That's demonstrably untrue, "Leo".
But you will not admit it.
Please demonstrate!
It's already been demonstrated many times, "Leo".
K8MN wrote:
"Did you see the pattern when Len followed up my post with his
misinformation?"
Which is exactly what Len does: posts misinformation (factual errors).
And you ("Leo") replied:
"I certainly did - just the right bait to draw you to the lure."
Which is saying that Len *intentionally* posts misinformation. Some
would call that "lying", btw.
Some might call that "the lure".... *
Some might do that.
But, by definition, if a person intentionally makes an untrue
statement, intending to deceive, that person is telling a lie.
So what you are saying is that Len tells lies in order to "lure"
others.
Myself, I have never referred to anyone here as a liar, nor their
statements as lies. Mistakes or errors, yes, but not lies.
Then you wrote:
"Works on Jim, too, because he cannot resist. *Every time - without
fail!"
Note that last sentence:
"Every time - without fail!"
All you have to do is to look up Len's postings here for the past six
months or so. Note how many factual errors he has made in those
postings.
Factual errors according to whom?
According to objective reality.
*With reference to what source?
Objective sources.
In other words, who judges what is fact and what is fiction?
Reality does that.
For example, suppose someone stated that the distance from Tokyo,
Japan, to Vladivostok, Russia, was 500 miles.
That statement could be checked against paper maps, atlases, online
mapping resources, etc.
It turns out that the actual distance between those cities is more
than 660 miles. Objective reality shows that the person who stated
"500 miles" made a factual error. A mistake.
See how easy that is? It's not a matter of belief or opinion, but of
objective reality.
You wouldn't happen to have a total handy, would you?
Not handy ;-)
*It would save a
lot of time looking them all up again!
Then note how few of his factual errors I have actually challenged/
corrected here.
...if you would be so kind as to provide a total of these too, it
would be appreciated! * *Specifics would be nice, too.
"There's a flaw in your cunning plan, Baldrick!"
Although the number of Len's factual errors here is considerable, it
is by no means beyond my capabilities to provide a total, and
specifics.
However, that would be counterproductive.
Because as soon as I did so, you would say that I had taken the lure
and verified your claim of "Every time - without fail!"
IOW, you would say that once I provide details of a factual error made
by Len, it is no longer a factual error that I let pass, and instead
became one more "lure" that I went after.
Of course some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you.
So the only way for me to prove that your claim of "Every time -
without fail!" is false, is for me to leave at least some of Len's
factual errors alone. Which I have already done.
Now of course someone else could come along and point out
one or more of Len's factual errors here, and then show that I had
left those error(s) alone.
But then you could claim that the reason I left those error(s) alone
was that I had not identified it/them as factual error(s) in the first
place.
And again, some might say that such reasoning is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but I doubt that would convince you.
Therefore, your claim of
"Every time - without fail!"
has already been demonstrated to be false.
Which it has.
Not yet - unless you have a specific example in mind - your statement
is simply conjecture.
If I were to fall for your cunning plan, you would immediately
disqualify any specific example I would give, by employing the
discussion listed above.
Len gets so upset over those few corrections...imagine if I did
challenge/correct each and every one of his factual errors here.
I'll bet he'd be crushed! *
He certainly gets upset enough over them. A mature person would simply
accept the corrections and say thank you to the person who pointed out
the factual error.
There's your demonstration.
Where's my demonstration? Other than vague references to posts over
the past six months, you have presented nothing here to substantiate
your claim.
Yes, I have. To say more would be to fall victim to your cunning
plan.
Len won't be part of a moderated newsgroup, because they won't put up
with his behavior. His predictions of how the moderators will behave
are clearly nothing more than projections of *his* behavior as a BBS
moderator. IOW, if Len couldn't be impartial, nobody else can.
Moderated newsgroups are no fun, Jim.
Maybe not for you. Others have a very different experience.
Just a form of censorship
imposed on others by those who like censorship.
Not according to the definition of "censorship".
*A moderated group
would not suit your purpose either! *
Actually, it would.
I participate in several moderated email reflectors. They work and are
lots of fun.
Where else could you go but here
to fulfil that pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all
wrongs'? *
"pathological need of yours to publicly 'right all wrongs'?"?
That's not me at all.
I'm simply correcting some of Len's errors and expressing an opinion.
That really bothers him.
Didn't one of the 'regulars' on this group announce with great fanfare
that they were leaving RRAP to join a private BBS where they would not
have to be subjected to the indignities of daily life here? *And
encourage everyone to join them?
I don't recall - who was that?
Guess it wasn't much fun all alone over there - they came back!
Or maybe it didn't work.
You never left to join them in that digital Nirvana, though - ever
wonder why?
Actually, I have left rrap for months at a time, except to post the
ARS license numbers. Check out google for my posting history.
And Len won't be part of rrap much longer either.
Didn't you just finish regaling us all how all Len does is
intentionally post misinformation?
Nope.
Len doesn't always post misinformation. Some of what he writes is
actually true!
And it is you, not I, that says his factual errors are intentional.
Did the statement that Len will shortly be leaving the newsgroup not
come from Len himself?
Look it up.
How did you come to the conclusion that this was fact and not
misinformation?
I presumed that Len told the truth.
Is that wrong?
*That's magical! *
You're saying it's magic if Len tells the truth here? That it is more
logical to think that Len is telling untruths than to think that he is
telling the truth?
Interesting.
Are you trying to lure Len into one of his rants against you?
So it's really a moot point, "Leo".
Perhaps....
We will see.
73 de Jim, N2EY