Skip to main content
news

Re: Clobberin' Time...

Wes Hutchings
Google Google
SubjectRe: Clobberin' Time...
FromWes Hutchings
Date09/21/2001 06:47 (09/20/2001 21:47)
Message-ID<B7D01484.5FC3%yyrkoon@cwnet.com>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
FollowsPaul \"Duggy\" Duggan
Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
From: "Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan" <jc122739@jcu.edu.au> Organization: University of Queensland Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:58:57 +1000 Subject: Re: Clobberin' Time...

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Wes Hutchings wrote:

From: "Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan" <jc122739@jcu.edu.au> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, Wes Hutchings wrote:

Your phrasing is screwed.

Wes Hutchings
Your perception is lacking.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
No, it's your mistake.

Wes Hutchings
I clarified my position, you still want to pretend I said something else.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
The point is your original statement was incorrectly phrases, that's why it needed clarification.

Only for you, no one else has voiced a concern nor made a comment even remotely similar to yours.

I'm not pretending, you did say something other than what you meant.

I said precisely what I meant. I've stood behind it. I've told you what I meant. You deny that I said that.

Wes Hutchings
That makes it a perception problem on your part as I know what I said and I have substantiated it.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
No, it was a communication problem on your part.

No.

What you say grammatically meant something else.

No.

That isn't a problem on my side.

Apparently it is as you're the only person taking THREE FUCKING DAYS to continue discussing it.

Wes Hutchings
Excuse you, I know what I said and what I meant.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
We both do know. What you said, however was wrong.

Bullshit, you're not inside my head.

Wes Hutchings
Your ignorance on the matter is clearly established, no need to reenforce that point.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
Bzzzt. Wrong answer.

Yes, from you. Do you realize how long you've devoted to this? It was my statement, I'm obligated to defend it. You've WASTED 3 days proving you will not let go of the fact you and only you missed my intent as initially stated.

The last object was the skill at swordfighting.

Wes Hutchings
No, it was not, that was second to last.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
Sorry, the last *mentioned* object was the swordfight. Since no new object was introduced, it has to be assumed to be the last object as well.

Assumption is where you fall short here. Please tell me you can grasp a change in context within a statement. Please tell me you've not just spent 3 days because you have some obsessive compulsive urge to be right.

If your had added a new object, such as "person", it would have worked.

Wes Hutchings
I discussed skill in the first instance and myself in the second.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
But you only referred directly to skill.

Bullshit.

By not mentioning yourself, mangled the writing.

How is 'I' not referring to myself?

Wes Hutchings
Are you with me yet?

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
I was with you as soon as you explained.

So now you're just hanging on out of some misguided idea that I'll back down from you being an idiot concerning what I said?

"I'm [a] better [person] because of it."

Wes Hutchings
I'll use my own words.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
Use better words.

I did, they were apparently too complex for you. Note no one else seemed to have a problem with them.

Look, if I'd put that in an essay the lecturer would have made a comment.

Wes Hutchings
And then he would have understood when I clarified my position.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
No, I lecturer would have noted the error on the paper and (possibly) dropped you a percentage. He would also have suggested clarifying what you had written, perhaps by adding "person."

He'd have a ball with your posts. He would grasp what I said the first time as every other person in this group did, barring yourself.

Wes Hutchings
You have failed in that regard.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
I haven't. You've failled to accept you screwed up your phrasing.

Because I did not. I KNOW what I said as the words came out of my brain. There was no lacking in the description. It was succinct and to the point and it has confused you for 3 days thus far. How much longer?

You miss phrased.

Wes Hutchings
No, you misunderstood and still do, deal with that.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
No. I understand.

Not yet you don't otherwise you'd have shut up by now or admitted your original error. You've done neither.

I see where you made the error.

You've failed to show that. You have insinuated a great many things and I have answered to each of them. You don't have leg to stand on. Accept it.

You refuse to accept that you made a mistake, and refuse to accept advise on how to make yourself clear.

I did not make a mistake. I knew what I said and I know what it meant and that is how I meant to phrase it and you are the only person who appears to have a problem with it. Such a problem in fact that you have taken several different tact's over 3 days trying to salvage your fragile ego from the fact you got it wrong from the beginning.

Wes Hutchings
When we had the spamming problem you advocated a an approach that everyone would agree counts as violence

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
I recall no deaths or physical injures from troll abuse.

You have stated that violence is violence. There is no differentiation in types. Are you retracting your own words now?

It is not violence, it is *very* *very* different.

Show the difference from your perspective. Do so in a manner that does not paint you as a hypocrite for your last few days posts on violence as you keep painting the US's position.

I don't agree it counts as violence, so your assumption that everyone would agree is wrong.

I was paraphrasing your position. Irony.

Wes Hutchings
and you considered that the first best approach to the problem.

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
No. I considered it the final best approach after the others had failled.

You refused to try the others.

If you'd read any of my comments at the time, you'd know that.

I did dumb shit, you and I had this debate then as well. It went on longer than this one has thus far. Are you suffering from a short term memory disorder?

Wes Hutchings
Have you changed that position or are you an hypocrite in yet another way?

Paul \"Duggy\" Duggan
Firstly, we've yet to agree that I am proven a hypocrit in the first instance, but that's another matter.

Because you refuse to accept it. That doesn't change the facts.

On the topic at hand. Firstly, I am against the violent possibilities in dealing with terrorism because of the death and injury involved. Secondly, I think that such decissions should be made properly and not based on anger and polls. Thirdly, I am in favour of thrying to stop terrorist through other means if possible.

1. You have chosen to criticize me and the US for actions they have yet to take. 2. Show that the US in the last 9 days has made ANY actions based upon anger or polls. 3. Then you should try paying attention to what the US is actually doing, rather than jumping down anyone's throat who doesn't kiss your ass.

The Spam-abuse situation is different in that no one is injured or killed (very important), that while there is anger behind it, other options were tried and failled. Repeatedly.

You've used anger an violence synonymously when describing your argument against the US taking any action, because you are convinced that is our position, see above. Can you follow that point? Do you see how your position is hypocritical? Let me paint a picture for you. Anger leads to suffering.... That you are not going through the phone lines and actually doing the things to spammers you and others post, should to you be immaterial as you do not support violence of any kind. Now you'll claim "but that's different." So racist talk is fine? Maybe saying "Your mom sucks off donkeys." is fine since you didn't do physical violence? As to other options, bullshit. You chose an option which allows you to vent, period. It's not for the betterment of the group, it's not to prevent future attacks.

The difference between you and others in this group on this subject is that they at least are honest about what they're doing. I can respect honesty, even when it's stupid. You are a hypocrite, on so many levels.

However, I will admit, that your fear of ascelation in Spamming (which, in my experience was unfounded) matches my fears of ascelation of American deaths.

Your fear is based in you. My position was not only not based on fear, it was based in fact.

There is some hypocracy there. A mild form, but hypocracy is hypocracy.

However, I'd much rather RASSM be 100% SPAM see move terrorist attacks on US targets.

Yes, what then would your point be? You've adjusted your position several times on these points, while still claiming some moral high ground as if you meant that all along.

I know what I've meant all along because I'm still saying it. That's another difference between you and I.

wes

--- - Dug. --- "May you live in interesting times." ---