Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 7 Jun 2010 12:28 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > James Jolley <jrjolley(a)me.com> wrote: > > >That says more about how this group feels more than anything. I thought > >the discussion might actually lead to something. Ah well - no problem, > >yet again it's my fault. > > In arguments between you and Rowland, yes it's your fault. He's > mentally ill and you aren't. You should not apply the same standards > to Rowland that you apply to other people, and you should not expect > people to give you the same latitude they give him. I think that's a bit of an unfair assessment. It seems to me that James is making posts of the sort that are generally considered acceptable here - for *SOME* people to make, at least. Look around you - it's become socially acceptable on this newsgroup to dismiss any comment I make by insulting me and totally ignoring the actual content of what I posted. That's not normally socially acceptable behaviour here, but it has become so *for some posters*. Doesn't seem to matter what method I try to use to get my actual points considered, all it takes is the allegation of `he's a nutter' and the wolf pack closes in... James is doing nothing worse with his personal abuse directed against me than many others are doing here. It's just that he's a bit more persistent about it than most. So: why pick on him so harshly, eh? Moreover, who says he's not got mental health problems? All the others who enjoy insulting me for the hell of it are clearly potty - maybe James is too. And maybe I mean you an' all. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 7 Jun 2010 12:28 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > > > > > real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > > [snip] > > > > So, Rowland suffers from some serious mental health issues, > > > > <sigh> Only just noticed this. I'm quite disappointed in you: > > > > They are *minor* mental health problems, as I keep on pointing out... > > OK, I'm not in the business of quantifying degrees of mental wellness. But you just did - in a rather insulting way, too. > It doesn't make any difference to my question. If I had serious mental health problems, then a lot of my opinions could be assumed to be very very shaky and my behaviour could be assumed to be just as bad. Since I'm not in that category, it's insulting and would harm my reputation here if I had one. That makes a difference, quite a big one actually. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 7 Jun 2010 12:28 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > > > Backed up by the law. Repeated attacks on someone known to be suffering > > from a mental disability are very much illegal and could lead to > > criminal prosecution and possible jail sentences. Bear in mind that > > usenet posts are archived and could be cited as evidence. > > I'd have said that the chances of anything like that happening in this > case would be vanishingly small. Courts are not totally unreasonable and > an archive of Rowland's posts here would show a great deal. None of the > bile directed at him is gratuitous in the slightest. But Peter, that judgement on your part is very insulting indeed. It's part of the diseased culture here which you have played such a major role in setting up and maintaining. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 7 Jun 2010 12:30 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > Bernard Peek <bap(a)shrdlu.com> wrote: > > > > > Backed up by the law. Repeated attacks on someone known to be suffering > > > from a mental disability are very much illegal and could lead to > > > criminal prosecution and possible jail sentences. Bear in mind that > > > usenet posts are archived and could be cited as evidence. > > > > I'd have said that the chances of anything like that happening in this > > case would be vanishingly small. Courts are not totally unreasonable and > > an archive of Rowland's posts here would show a great deal. None of the > > bile directed at him is gratuitous in the slightest. > > But Peter, that judgement on your part is very insulting indeed. It's > part of the diseased culture here which you have played such a major > role in setting up and maintaining. By which I mean: Peter, your allegation is nonsense. There is nothing which justifies the torrent of insults that I receive here on a routine basis, and I for one deny that I've done anything to provoke any of it. You insult me hugely with your false allegation to the contrary. Why do you do it? Come out with all these insulting judgements, acting as if you were somehow a reliable judge when in fact you're nothing more than a malicious bitchy old fart who likes being nastily bitchy to people? I've met your sort in reality and I've never liked 'em. Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 7 Jun 2010 12:46
Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > the provocation that James is > > given by other people here. > > What provication? Outside of the reactions to his attacks on Rowland, > ther are none. > > I think you are simply demonstrating your own delusions. James Jolley has unquestionably been subjected to winding up here[1]. I think you are simply demonstrating your routine method of attacking the person expressing an opinion you wish to decry. It's an unfair debating tactic, but it seems to be your favourite one and I do wish you'd leave it out. Rowland. [1] *I* wound him up without understanding how - he got upset because I suggesting that it'd be good for blind people to have better computer technology. No, really, he did. I cannot work out why or how or anything. <shrug> So he's got a funny view of the world. Doesn't mean he's mad, just means he's got a funny view of the world. A lot of people have - you for one, Peter. But for some reason, you, Peter, think that your world view is oh so much more reliable than anyone else's that all you have to do is state your opinion - regardless of the evidence - and the argument is over and anyone *still* objecting to your opinion must be a lunatic. That's dishonest of you, Peter. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |