{Ron May} OT-An appropriate Monty Python skit
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: Parted Magic 5.2
Next: When installing freeware - should we CHANGE the shortcut - see this Windows vulnerability
From: deconstructing Ron Mays bollix on 3 Aug 2010 11:47 The purpose of this post is to debunk the bare faced lies that Ron May has continually spewed out about other people who disagree with him. His post (below) is complete rubbish but I will limit myself to one specific issue that he often raises to falsely and dishonestly place himself on the moral high ground. He writes: > "Their intended goal is not a debate on the merits but rather > creating disruption for the sake of disruption itself. Facts > aren't relevant. Being "right" or "wrong" doesn't matter. > They're not even slightly deterred when their comments are proven > to be demonstrably false. By their set of rules, they ignore any > rebuttal on substance...blah blah" Well perhaps Ron May can explain how anybody who disagrees with him - and is therefore killfiled - can possibly hold a debate with him about the merits or rights/wrongs of anything whilst being killfiled? Are we to believe that he can read their posts even though he has them killfiled? Perhaps he practices mindreading? Who knows. The irony is that he will not be reading this because he has anybody who has ever disagreed with him, killfiled, but this has never stopped him from running hate and innuendo campaigns against them from the cowardly hiding place of his killfile, as we see in his post below. Ron May wrote some more bollix: >It seems that Bear Bottoms and the various hummingsocks are playing >this group like a violin again. As in the above skit, any attempted >exchange with them is pointless. Their intended goal is not a debate >on the merits but rather creating disruption for the sake of >disruption itself. Facts aren't relevant. Being "right" or "wrong" >doesn't matter. They're not even slightly deterred when their >comments are proven to be demonstrably false. By their set of rules, >they ignore any rebuttal on substance and simply engage in >misdirection by shifting the focus to a new (or previously refuted) >point. When you take the troll bait, they win by default and >everyone else loses. It's a form of amusement for those otherwise >failures whose real life sucks. Because they're ill equipped to make >a contribution of their own to the community at large, they gain >satisfaction by trying to tear down the efforts of others. In a way, >they're not much different from the pathetic losers who prowl the >streets in the middle of the night with cans of spray paint and >vandalize neighborhoods. Don't play their game. > >I understand the desire to "protect" casual and new readers from >misinformation, but there are better strategies than assisting the >trolls in their mission to create noise. I can think of a few >examples: > >* Use good filters. Software capabilities vary widely in this area, >but a few hints that work for me are to filter posts where the "From" >or "Subject" fields contain "bottoms" or "hummin*" or "stubb*" or >"frankli*" (add your own from here). Filtering anonymous servers also >helps. > >* If an uninformed reader responds to bad advice or misinformation >from a filtered author (rather than filtered subject) you'll see the >response and have a chance to set the record straight. For the sake >of others, however, when replying, please consider a healthy snipping >of the drivel. In your response, say up front the reader should take >it FWIW and you consider it EOT for you. If someone else beats you to >the punch, a simple "+1" to "+n" should be adequate. If you must, a >short canned paragraph as to why the source should be ignored is >better than exchanging a dozen or more pointless messages with the >trolls/socks. > >* If you don't filter and can't resist the urge to reply, consider a >"full snip" rather than a "full quote" and a one-liner like "bearpoop" >or "hummingcrap", maybe followed by "EOD" or "EOT". That alone >considerably reduces the noise level. > >Anyway, I'm just throwing this out there as food for thought. People >will do what they will do and that's as it should be. > >(For anyone mildly curious, I haven't posted to this group in many >months but I have been lurking as regularly as time permits. I've had >a lot of irons in the fire over the past year or so, but still >appreciate the collective expertise of this group.) rgds, -deconstructing Ron May's bollix
From: za kAT on 4 Aug 2010 07:37 On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 06:34:04 +0200, -ART- wrote: > "za kAT" scribbled: > >>On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:20:54 +0200, -ART- wrote: >>> za kAT wrote: >>> >>>>I look forward to challenging your absurdly anally retentive views >>>>on freeware, and control freakery wrt the Pricelessware list, which >>>>incidentally belongs to everyone, and anyone in acf. >>> >>> No it doesn't. It belongs to the Pricelessware website owners. >> >>No it doesn't. Don't be stupid. > > I'm not. You are. Add naive to that. What you don't like to admit is that control of the PL is entirely down to having the power to command the loyalty of the +1's. You can start one if you like, and all your socks could vote. I doubt you'd get many others. [binned repetitive drivel] > Why do you think May parachuted Craig into PWH by sleight of > hand? Was it to stop BB or you making a grab? God knows, BB had no chance, and I made it clear I didn't want the job. May is a classic dictator. I thought you would have spotted that. Anyway, that very act showed the chasm between what PWH claims regarding it's democratic structure, and the reality, that there is none. Anyway, not my problem. They had their chance to make it more open, and inclusive, and it didn't work out. However, not all members of PWH were happy with the process... especially their spirit guides... -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: -ART- on 4 Aug 2010 13:56 "za kAT" offered this up: >What you don't like to admit is that control of the PL is entirely down >to having the power to command the loyalty of the +1's. It sounds like you want to create a new cult! Anyway, a "+1" = a "me too". It's not a question of me admitting anything, I haven't even bothered thinking about it because I have zero interest in "control of the PL" or of PWH, only in getting PWH business off ACF and that unavoidably requires sorting out the mess PWH has become under its cult leadership. >...and I made it clear I didn't want the job. I don't believe you. How does that grab you! >May is a classic dictator. Naturally, he's a socialist (liberal). All dictators come up thru the ranks of socialism. They always know better. Perhaps Bedford,Texas is home to many wannabe dictators? >I thought you would have spotted that. Don't be a silly boy. HB spotted that a very long time ago. He can spot socialist despot wannabes a mile off. You're behind the curve. >Anyway, that very act showed the chasm between what PWH claims >regarding it's democratic structure, and the reality, that there is >none. Democracy is something the PWH cult use when they can rig the results by (eg) private e-mail co-ordination and calling out the faithful. Have you missed how "me toos" miraculously appear whenever May called a vote?? My guess is that e-mail is in overload, planning a counter attack and relaunch, interspersed with spitting venom at the likes of BB/HB etc for exposing their cult. lol. >Anyway, not my problem. They had their chance to make it more open, >and inclusive, and it didn't work out. However, not all members of >PWH were happy with the process... especially their spirit guides... IIUC only one cultist voiced annoyance at May's sleight of hand and that was the Kiwi. He was ignored. The others stayed quiet as expected of them. And the pantomime goes on..... -ART-
From: za kAT on 4 Aug 2010 14:16 On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:56:11 +0200, -ART- wrote: > "za kAT" offered this up: >>...and I made it clear I didn't want the job. > > I don't believe you. How does that grab you! Your insecurity lies at the very heart of your insanity, and it makes you weak. > IIUC only one cultist voiced annoyance at May's sleight of hand and > that was the Kiwi. He was ignored. The others stayed quiet as expected > of them. And the pantomime goes on..... I know something you don't know... -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - Sergeant Tech-Com, DN38416. Assigned to protect you. You've been targeted for denigration!
From: -ART- on 4 Aug 2010 20:10
za kAT wrote: -ART- wrote: >> IIUC only one cultist voiced annoyance at May's sleight of hand and >> that was the Kiwi. He was ignored. The others stayed quiet as expected >> of them. And the pantomime goes on..... > >I know something... Well, it's good you know something...everyone should know something. -ART- |