Then we should assert your posts originate from one of the two ng trolls. What you claim is merely an excuse to hide behind the curtain, since my offer to you was without an expiration date.

Have a nice day.


"anonymous" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message news:frjoim$10t2$1@digitalmars.com...
>I do not want you to leave.I wish civility in this group.I am sure you are able to keep a discussion technical.Nothing awful happens if I say who I am,just that you will remember and start personal attacks even after months.To deal with that, is only not practical.
>
> Kris Wrote:
>> "anonymous" <anon@anon.com> wrote
>> >I am a regular on this news group from Europe.Not Janice.
>> >
>> > The reason my message is anonymous is the same.kris would make
>> > impractical
>> > for me to participate in this group.
>>
>>
>> Fair enough, anonymous.
>>
>> You say you are a regular here, but that you're afraid to identify
>> yourself
>> solely
>> because of something awful that might happen. Hrm.
>>
>> You appear to wish I were gone, so I'll make you a deal, ok? I give you
>> my
>> word that I will refrain from further participation on this ng if what
>> you
>> fear transpires, and you are whom you claim to be. That seems to be quite
>> reasonable?
>>
>> If you are indeed a "regular" "from Europe", then nothing to worry about.
>>
>>
> 

I do not know the trolls.I have not posted anonymously or in the name of somebody before.Walter can see my IP on his website and confirm that I am a usual participant.Your poisonous offer was good for nothing,anyway.

Kris Wrote:

> Then we should assert your posts originate from one of the two ng trolls. What you claim is merely an excuse to hide behind the curtain, since my offer to you was without an expiration date.
> 
> Have a nice day.
> 
> 
> "anonymous" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message news:frjoim$10t2$1@digitalmars.com...
> >I do not want you to leave.I wish civility in this group.I am sure you are able to keep a discussion technical.Nothing awful happens if I say who I am,just that you will remember and start personal attacks even after months.To deal with that, is only not practical.
> >
> > Kris Wrote:
> >> "anonymous" <anon@anon.com> wrote
> >> >I am a regular on this news group from Europe.Not Janice.
> >> >
> >> > The reason my message is anonymous is the same.kris would make
> >> > impractical
> >> > for me to participate in this group.
> >>
> >>
> >> Fair enough, anonymous.
> >>
> >> You say you are a regular here, but that you're afraid to identify
> >> yourself
> >> solely
> >> because of something awful that might happen. Hrm.
> >>
> >> You appear to wish I were gone, so I'll make you a deal, ok? I give you
> >> my
> >> word that I will refrain from further participation on this ng if what
> >> you
> >> fear transpires, and you are whom you claim to be. That seems to be quite
> >> reasonable?
> >>
> >> If you are indeed a "regular" "from Europe", then nothing to worry about.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
> 

I am glad you achieved balance,but here I do not think you are balanced.You offer legality to kris's personal attacks.

One thing from you I disagree:"I believe his hypocracy-crushing crusade is spewing shrapnel at many innocent bystanders and thus is creating a net-loss in the community atmosphere."You make this sounds like his so called crusade is in essence good,but only has a few side-effects.But it is not.It is not apropriate on this news group to acuse people of hypocrisy.And it is not apropriate to do personal attacks.You cause more harm because you offer kris the encouragment that he needs to continue his comportament.Evil actions are hard to justify so they thrive on others encouragment.

John Reimer Wrote:

> anon wrote:
> > John Reimer Wrote: another rehash of his kris apology . funniest thing about kretinis is his minions . posing as objective reasonable fellas ... a bit criticizing him ... patting him on the back ... always giving justification for his antics . john real friends dont let friends miss therapy.
> 
> Heh, so apparently I have a problem not being ruthless enough with people in public, even when they deserve it...hmmm, that's good! :). "Moderation" isn't the key after all, then, I suppose?
> 
> I most certainly will be careful what I say about anybody in this newsgroup, friend or no friend.  Thus, my critical assessment of kris (though, honestly, I'm surprised you thought it to be justifying him -- I thought I was kinda harsh on the guy; I must have succeeded in achieving some balance! yay! :) ).
> 
> -JJR

anonymous wrote:
> I am glad you achieved balance,but here I do not think you are balanced.You offer legality to kris's personal attacks.
> 
> One thing from you I disagree:"I believe his hypocracy-crushing crusade is spewing shrapnel at many innocent bystanders and thus is creating a net-loss in the community atmosphere."You make this sounds like his so called crusade is in essence good,but only has a few side-effects.But it is not.It is not apropriate on this news group to acuse people of hypocrisy.And it is not apropriate to do personal attacks.You cause more harm because you offer kris the encouragment that he needs to continue his comportament.Evil actions are hard to justify so they thrive on others encouragment.
> 


Okay, I'm going to discontinue this conversation after this post. It's hard enough (and unfair) to have to converse with a faceless entity.

I offered no legality to his attacks.  I plainly disapproved of them in my post, and I certainly offered complete /discouragement/ of such activity throughout my post.  "Crusade" was never meant to imply approval -- it was meant to emphasize the severity and focus (in a very disapproving sense) of the activity.

You are doing one of three things here: (1) you are intentionally misunderstanding what I explained clearly in my post or (2) you are trying to instigate more discord here (as an anonymous poster), or (3) you honestly misunderstood my use of English.  For your own sake, I'll assume number 3 even though evidence doesn't appear to be pointing in that direction.

But, I think your contributions are becoming part of the problem, anonymous, and my responses to you are carrying it further.  So with that, I will shut up lest I end up becoming the hypocrite too. :)

-JJR

I've been watching this argument in the hopes that it might get solved somehow. Unfortunately there seems to be no indication that it will.

I'd like to request those of you who are arguing(and everyone else) to NOT post your message on the newsgroup if it contains anything negative about a fellow poster. If you feel the need to discuss the personal qualities of someone in this group, feel free to mail him privately unless he requests that you don't.

I believe everyone here is capable of determining whether his post is offensive to someone or not. And if we all try to refrain from posting those kind of messages, this newsgroup will be a more pleasant place.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers,
Boyd.

"anonymous" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote
>I do not know the trolls.I have not posted anonymously or in the name of somebody before.Walter can see my IP on his website and confirm that I am a usual participant.Your poisonous offer was good for nothing,anyway.


How can you expect anyone to buy that? You are posting anonymously now, apparently without reason. You also know that Walter has no history of confirming or denying the validity of anyone's identity (it would likely be highly questionable of him to do so. In Europe that would be illegal, as you ought to know, if you live there). So this hand-waving sure seems like just another convenient curtain to hide behind.

Trying to give your posts some credibility by claiming to be a "regular" yet refusing to back that up, when your claimed reason for not doing so is removed, does not lend credence to your cause. There's not a whole lot more to say here, other than the tactics you've shown thus far are those of one intent on generating collateral damage rather than your subject title. In other words, it seems like your intent is to generate one of those "evil" and "personal" attacks yourself, and little else. Please, be my guest.

IMO, you ought to drop the charade, if you want to be taken seriously. In this context, crying "evil" and "poison" from the rooftops are the type of things miserable trolls do. Not rational Europeans ;-)

Bonne Chance;



>
> Kris Wrote:
>
>> Then we should assert your posts originate from one of the two ng trolls. What you claim is merely an excuse to hide behind the curtain, since my offer to you was without an expiration date.
>>
>> Have a nice day.
>>
>>
>> "anonymous" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote in message news:frjoim$10t2$1@digitalmars.com...
>> >I do not want you to leave.I wish civility in this group.I am sure you
>> >are
>> >able to keep a discussion technical.Nothing awful happens if I say who I
>> >am,just that you will remember and start personal attacks even after
>> >months.To deal with that, is only not practical.
>> >
>> > Kris Wrote:
>> >> "anonymous" <anon@anon.com> wrote
>> >> >I am a regular on this news group from Europe.Not Janice.
>> >> >
>> >> > The reason my message is anonymous is the same.kris would make
>> >> > impractical
>> >> > for me to participate in this group.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Fair enough, anonymous.
>> >>
>> >> You say you are a regular here, but that you're afraid to identify
>> >> yourself
>> >> solely
>> >> because of something awful that might happen. Hrm.
>> >>
>> >> You appear to wish I were gone, so I'll make you a deal, ok? I give
>> >> you
>> >> my
>> >> word that I will refrain from further participation on this ng if what
>> >> you
>> >> fear transpires, and you are whom you claim to be. That seems to be
>> >> quite
>> >> reasonable?
>> >>
>> >> If you are indeed a "regular" "from Europe", then nothing to worry about.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
> 

I honestly misunderstood your English.(My English is not very good.)I guessed what you mean by reading some bizarre good things you had to say about kris's personality.Everything he writes is contrary to that.I am sure you are right,because you know him personally.But what we see is what he writes.Defending such deeply disturbed writing,is very hard.To repeat myself,I am not against kris,only against non civil comportament.

John Reimer Wrote:

> anonymous wrote:
> > I am glad you achieved balance,but here I do not think you are balanced.You offer legality to kris's personal attacks.
> > 
> > One thing from you I disagree:"I believe his hypocracy-crushing crusade is spewing shrapnel at many innocent bystanders and thus is creating a net-loss in the community atmosphere."You make this sounds like his so called crusade is in essence good,but only has a few side-effects.But it is not.It is not apropriate on this news group to acuse people of hypocrisy.And it is not apropriate to do personal attacks.You cause more harm because you offer kris the encouragment that he needs to continue his comportament.Evil actions are hard to justify so they thrive on others encouragment.
> > 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm going to discontinue this conversation after this post. It's hard enough (and unfair) to have to converse with a faceless entity.
> 
> I offered no legality to his attacks.  I plainly disapproved of them in my post, and I certainly offered complete /discouragement/ of such activity throughout my post.  "Crusade" was never meant to imply approval -- it was meant to emphasize the severity and focus (in a very disapproving sense) of the activity.
> 
> You are doing one of three things here: (1) you are intentionally misunderstanding what I explained clearly in my post or (2) you are trying to instigate more discord here (as an anonymous poster), or (3) you honestly misunderstood my use of English.  For your own sake, I'll assume number 3 even though evidence doesn't appear to be pointing in that direction.
> 
> But, I think your contributions are becoming part of the problem, anonymous, and my responses to you are carrying it further.  So with that, I will shut up lest I end up becoming the hypocrite too. :)
> 
> -JJR
> 

"anonymous" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote
>Defending such deeply disturbed writing,is very hard.

Nice :)

You've been (anonymously) gabbing on about Janice and "personal attacks", so this is likely to be the "such deeply disturbed writing" referred to:

=============================================

"Janice Caron" <caron800@googlemail.com> wrote
> if there is anything specific you want me /not/
> to say, please tell me that too, and I'll not say it.


I'd intended to forego further posts on this topic, but you are asking for a response. Pardon the delay, and I'll try to be appropriately objective:

It's a question of double-standards, Janice. Not specifically what you, I, or anyone else says per se. While you sometimes appear to be adept at dishing out innuendo and/or the occasional scathing remark, you invariably cry wolf when some of that comes back to you. For the sake of illustration, I will stick purely to the content related to this exchange. Please do not read any more into it than merely an illustration. In that vein, I'm going to use the same 'opinion' of yours as before and attempt to paint an alternate viewpoint for you. Here it is:

------
Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish; if the latter, it was petty.
------


You can argue the following observations all you like. However, you've effectively asked me what you might do, or not do, in order to avoid opening yourself up to criticism - here's how things look from one perspective:

1) Your message is making strong assertions about the intent and capabilities of the targeted individuals. Think, for a moment, about how you'd react if the tables were turned? Going by past behaviour, you'd call out "Ad Hominum!" or otherwise convey some righteous indignation. Yet you seem quite comfortable with the delivery yourself. Let us save the semantic-splitting for the lingusitic gymnasts ... in your post, you are directly discussing several people who can correctly identify intent. Double-standard #1

2) Those assertions are based entirely upon your personal opinion of what a 'style-guide' represents. See that gaping chasm between the reality of what you claim to be a problem, and how you shape it (replete with exclamation and accompanying rhetoric) ... it is tricky to define this gap in any kind of glowing terms.

This current exchange began via a simple BS callout. Along the way, you've characterized that act as "malicious", as a "vendetta", a "strawman", and an "attack". Just what do you call your above "amatuerish" message? It was apparently unprovoked, so therefore is an attack? Is it perhaps a strawman also? Does seems that way. Are you really so terribly precocious as to think any decision made therein, without your consent, warranted quite such disdain and drama from you? If not, then your post was also perhaps malicious? Maybe even with shades of a vendetta? The specific point here is not that you made these unwarranted and uninformed claims, but that you subsequently wave the terms "attack", "vendetta", "malicious" and so on like theAd Hominum club when you have opened yourself up to some criticism. Double-standard #2

3) There was an occasion related to the above post where, if I recall correctly, you took offence and demanded an apology. I don't remember seeing you offering an apology to the various people you likely offended (potentially in a malicious manner) via the intended implications of your message? Of course, nobody asked for a subsequent apology (and nobody is asking for one now), but hopefully you can see double-standard #3?

4) I recall that you once claimed to be a writer of fiction? Then you must clearly comprehend the distinction between "quoting" and abstract paraphrasing. That hasn't stopped you from using the spit-on-me-but-dont-you-dare-misquote-me responses echoed in this exchange. That is, you fully understand that is not applicable, but use it for effect anyway. Double-standard #4

5) I've witnessed you make two calls for forum moderation. Most recently, I believe the call was with regard to Ty Tower? You do realize, I hope, that moderation takes many forms, and that perhaps some of your posts warrant moderation also? Certainly, the death-threats and Nazi-style propoganda eminating from Mr Tower is of a rather different nature, yet moderation is still moderation. Pot calling the kettle black seems like double-standard #5

The take-away message is that, whether you like it or not, the level of hypocrisy can sometimes become overbearing from a different perspective. And that's related to just a single post, Janice. Even if you claim some of it to be a stretch, it does leave a lot of question-marks hanging. This is why I called you out on the somewhat grandiose and (IMO) badly misleading claim you made earlier.

Nobody else does this kind of thing on the NG ... you are really out there by yourself, and thus make yourself a target for subsequent criticism.



> If you want me
> to leave this newsgroup forever, I'll even do that.


Sadly, this is a martyr card. The one that usually screams "It's all your fault, and I'm entirely innocent!".  I have no personal desire for you to do anything, Janice, other than to perhaps drop the double-standards.

Perhaps some folk will view this post as a personal attack, or some such. It is not, or rather, it certainly not intended to be. Instead, it is merely complying with your request. Take it for what it is and no more.

Lastly - a general mea-culpa from me to everyone, since I've obviously played my part in reducing the signal-to-noise-ratio via this exchange. I offer you my apologies for doing so.

=============================================

Kris wrote:
> You also know that Walter has no history of confirming or denying the validity of anyone's identity (it would likely be highly questionable of him to do so. In Europe that would be illegal, as you ought to know, if you live there).

From time to time, people have requested me to "out" others. I refuse to, on the following grounds:

1) If people post anonymously, they have a reason to. I respect that.

2) Sometimes people wish to "out" someone else in order to score some points. I don't respect that.

3) It's none of my business.

4) I didn't know it was illegal in Europe, but that's just another reason not to do it.


Sometimes, people will ask for XXX's email address so they can contact them privately. I won't do that, but what I will do is offer to forward to XXX their request for contact, and leave it up to XXX to choose to reciprocate or not. This seems to work out well.

Kris Wrote:

> "anonymous" <anonymous@anon.com> wrote
> >Defending such deeply disturbed writing,is very hard.
> 
> Nice :)
> 
> You've been (anonymously) gabbing on about Janice and "personal attacks", so this is likely to be the "such deeply disturbed writing" referred to:

& how exactly is repeating ur drivel making it any less deranged. u must be proud of it really. first issue of mental patients : they don't admit to have a problem. go get ur medication & nap kretinis u git.