What's really wrong with Fanboys

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam Albright
  • Start date Start date
A

Adam Albright

Ever noticed how defensive a little but noisy clique is of Microsoft?
There's a name for this odd behavior even. It's called the Stockholm
Syndrome. OK, that might be a stretch, but then again maybe not.

This syndrome develops when you are in a controlling and abusive
relationship. In time you not only accept being abused, but actually
defend the abuser. In psychology, which I happen to know a little bit
about since it was a college course I took many years ago and
naturally I got all A's.

Anyhow, emotional “bonding” with captors is a familiar story in
psychology. It is more common than you might think. Its seen in abused
children, battered women, cults, abusive relationships, hostage
situations and in POW's.

Is it too big a leap to hint it could happen to long time Windows
users?

We'll begin with the assumption people just want to use their
computers for enjoyment or work and have a reasonable expectation that
their computers will work without undo crashing. What should be a
reasonable goal. Does Vista deliver? Only for some. Probably a
minority of users.

Do we really have a choice or is Windows forced on us? Excluding the
handful of users like me and some here that "build their own" if you
buy a pre build name brand box and don't pick a Apple, something like
93% of everyone getting a PC gets it with Windows preinstalled.
Without asking they're given a Microsoft browser. Also preinstalled.
Things for messaging, email, playing music, videos, preinstalled...no
choices, here, use this. Is this a "feature" or a sinister plot to
train end users that Windows by DESIGN will sputter, break down,
crash, be sluggish and so on.

If you buy a new stove it doesn't come with a turkey already in the
oven. Heck, you even have to put your own light bulbs in a new lamp. I
fully acknowledge buying a new computer minus a operating system would
be a bit much, but if you buy a new refrigerator or washer/dryer you
at least get to pick the color. How come you can't pick which
operating system is installed in your PC?

In most cases you can't. Microsoft has seen to that. Feeling like a
captive yet? The point is over time you come to accept the status quo.
How many times have you seen somebody here say "all software has
bugs"? Then there is the ever present it isn't Microsoft's fault theme
that runs through this newsgroup like a river as wide as the
Mississippi. That's conditioning. If people keep getting told hey,
it's always been that way, then maybe you just accept that line of
bull and start to accept it as true.

Is it maybe possible long suffering Windows users have come to accept
that a OS is suppose to crash, that it will have bugs, it will get
released before it's ready. Well? Hasn't that been the history of
Windows?

In Stockholm Syndrome wives that have been repeatedly beaten to a pulp
refuse to leave their husbands. Children abused by some close relative
for years won't testify against them. Prisoners in concentration camps
when liberated have been known to refuse to leave their prison.

I think I understand guys like Frank and Bill now. They blindly
support Microsoft because they're afraid. They don't want to breath
fresh air, come out into the daylight, they can't pull themselves away
from Blue Screens of Death. They've developed an attachment to UAC nag
screens. Sure, its all just symptoms of abuse, YES, they like other
fanboys are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome! That must be it.
Otherwise why do they defend Microsoft for doing things everybody else
sees as intrusions, sloppy programming or just pain old arrogance?

OK, if you read this far I should tell you I was just pulling your
leg. The truth is Frank and Bill are both nuts. Pure and simple. No
deep mystery here. They don't know why they blindly defend Microsoft
no matter what or their need to attack alternatives. They just do
because they're nuts. Pure and simple case of neither having all their
marbles. Wack jobs. They're crackers! Other fanboy aren't as far gone
as these two losers. Not yet, but they may turn into future Franks and
Bills. We can only hope they don't.
 
Was there a question in all of that? I didn't read all of it.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:4s8h441hb2rcnqud46iuae1610ln72nh61@4ax.com...
> Ever noticed how defensive a little but noisy clique is of Microsoft?
> There's a name for this odd behavior even. It's called the Stockholm
> Syndrome. OK, that might be a stretch, but then again maybe not.
>
> This syndrome develops when you are in a controlling and abusive
> relationship. In time you not only accept being abused, but actually
> defend the abuser. In psychology, which I happen to know a little bit
> about since it was a college course I took many years ago and
> naturally I got all A's.
>
> Anyhow, emotional "bonding" with captors is a familiar story in
> psychology. It is more common than you might think. Its seen in abused
> children, battered women, cults, abusive relationships, hostage
> situations and in POW's.
>
> Is it too big a leap to hint it could happen to long time Windows
> users?
>
> We'll begin with the assumption people just want to use their
> computers for enjoyment or work and have a reasonable expectation that
> their computers will work without undo crashing. What should be a
> reasonable goal. Does Vista deliver? Only for some. Probably a
> minority of users.
>
> Do we really have a choice or is Windows forced on us? Excluding the
> handful of users like me and some here that "build their own" if you
> buy a pre build name brand box and don't pick a Apple, something like
> 93% of everyone getting a PC gets it with Windows preinstalled.
> Without asking they're given a Microsoft browser. Also preinstalled.
> Things for messaging, email, playing music, videos, preinstalled...no
> choices, here, use this. Is this a "feature" or a sinister plot to
> train end users that Windows by DESIGN will sputter, break down,
> crash, be sluggish and so on.
>
> If you buy a new stove it doesn't come with a turkey already in the
> oven. Heck, you even have to put your own light bulbs in a new lamp. I
> fully acknowledge buying a new computer minus a operating system would
> be a bit much, but if you buy a new refrigerator or washer/dryer you
> at least get to pick the color. How come you can't pick which
> operating system is installed in your PC?
>
> In most cases you can't. Microsoft has seen to that. Feeling like a
> captive yet? The point is over time you come to accept the status quo.
> How many times have you seen somebody here say "all software has
> bugs"? Then there is the ever present it isn't Microsoft's fault theme
> that runs through this newsgroup like a river as wide as the
> Mississippi. That's conditioning. If people keep getting told hey,
> it's always been that way, then maybe you just accept that line of
> bull and start to accept it as true.
>
> Is it maybe possible long suffering Windows users have come to accept
> that a OS is suppose to crash, that it will have bugs, it will get
> released before it's ready. Well? Hasn't that been the history of
> Windows?
>
> In Stockholm Syndrome wives that have been repeatedly beaten to a pulp
> refuse to leave their husbands. Children abused by some close relative
> for years won't testify against them. Prisoners in concentration camps
> when liberated have been known to refuse to leave their prison.
>
> I think I understand guys like Frank and Bill now. They blindly
> support Microsoft because they're afraid. They don't want to breath
> fresh air, come out into the daylight, they can't pull themselves away
> from Blue Screens of Death. They've developed an attachment to UAC nag
> screens. Sure, its all just symptoms of abuse, YES, they like other
> fanboys are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome! That must be it.
> Otherwise why do they defend Microsoft for doing things everybody else
> sees as intrusions, sloppy programming or just pain old arrogance?
>
> OK, if you read this far I should tell you I was just pulling your
> leg. The truth is Frank and Bill are both nuts. Pure and simple. No
> deep mystery here. They don't know why they blindly defend Microsoft
> no matter what or their need to attack alternatives. They just do
> because they're nuts. Pure and simple case of neither having all their
> marbles. Wack jobs. They're crackers! Other fanboy aren't as far gone
> as these two losers. Not yet, but they may turn into future Franks and
> Bills. We can only hope they don't.
>
 
Using a newsgroup for blogging is poor netiquette.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:4s8h441hb2rcnqud46iuae1610ln72nh61@4ax.com...
> Ever noticed how defensive a little but noisy clique is of Microsoft?
> There's a name for this odd behavior even. It's called the Stockholm
> Syndrome. OK, that might be a stretch, but then again maybe not.
>
> This syndrome develops when you are in a controlling and abusive
> relationship. In time you not only accept being abused, but actually
> defend the abuser. In psychology, which I happen to know a little bit
> about since it was a college course I took many years ago and
> naturally I got all A's.
>
> Anyhow, emotional "bonding" with captors is a familiar story in
> psychology. It is more common than you might think. Its seen in abused
> children, battered women, cults, abusive relationships, hostage
> situations and in POW's.
>
> Is it too big a leap to hint it could happen to long time Windows
> users?
>
> We'll begin with the assumption people just want to use their
> computers for enjoyment or work and have a reasonable expectation that
> their computers will work without undo crashing. What should be a
> reasonable goal. Does Vista deliver? Only for some. Probably a
> minority of users.
>
> Do we really have a choice or is Windows forced on us? Excluding the
> handful of users like me and some here that "build their own" if you
> buy a pre build name brand box and don't pick a Apple, something like
> 93% of everyone getting a PC gets it with Windows preinstalled.
> Without asking they're given a Microsoft browser. Also preinstalled.
> Things for messaging, email, playing music, videos, preinstalled...no
> choices, here, use this. Is this a "feature" or a sinister plot to
> train end users that Windows by DESIGN will sputter, break down,
> crash, be sluggish and so on.
>
> If you buy a new stove it doesn't come with a turkey already in the
> oven. Heck, you even have to put your own light bulbs in a new lamp. I
> fully acknowledge buying a new computer minus a operating system would
> be a bit much, but if you buy a new refrigerator or washer/dryer you
> at least get to pick the color. How come you can't pick which
> operating system is installed in your PC?
>
> In most cases you can't. Microsoft has seen to that. Feeling like a
> captive yet? The point is over time you come to accept the status quo.
> How many times have you seen somebody here say "all software has
> bugs"? Then there is the ever present it isn't Microsoft's fault theme
> that runs through this newsgroup like a river as wide as the
> Mississippi. That's conditioning. If people keep getting told hey,
> it's always been that way, then maybe you just accept that line of
> bull and start to accept it as true.
>
> Is it maybe possible long suffering Windows users have come to accept
> that a OS is suppose to crash, that it will have bugs, it will get
> released before it's ready. Well? Hasn't that been the history of
> Windows?
>
> In Stockholm Syndrome wives that have been repeatedly beaten to a pulp
> refuse to leave their husbands. Children abused by some close relative
> for years won't testify against them. Prisoners in concentration camps
> when liberated have been known to refuse to leave their prison.
>
> I think I understand guys like Frank and Bill now. They blindly
> support Microsoft because they're afraid. They don't want to breath
> fresh air, come out into the daylight, they can't pull themselves away
> from Blue Screens of Death. They've developed an attachment to UAC nag
> screens. Sure, its all just symptoms of abuse, YES, they like other
> fanboys are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome! That must be it.
> Otherwise why do they defend Microsoft for doing things everybody else
> sees as intrusions, sloppy programming or just pain old arrogance?
>
> OK, if you read this far I should tell you I was just pulling your
> leg. The truth is Frank and Bill are both nuts. Pure and simple. No
> deep mystery here. They don't know why they blindly defend Microsoft
> no matter what or their need to attack alternatives. They just do
> because they're nuts. Pure and simple case of neither having all their
> marbles. Wack jobs. They're crackers! Other fanboy aren't as far gone
> as these two losers. Not yet, but they may turn into future Franks and
> Bills. We can only hope they don't.
>
 
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:34:30 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
<c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:

>Using a newsgroup for blogging is poor netiquette.


Top posting one line on top of a 83 line post and not responding to
anything said is a sign of a idiot and wastes bandwidth.
 
"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:r2dh44164mft1rcskhb1s1sqajjsk9rqdb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:34:30 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
> <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Using a newsgroup for blogging is poor netiquette.

>
> Top posting one line on top of a 83 line post and not responding to
> anything said is a sign of a idiot and wastes bandwidth.
>



Funny... talk about not responding to what was said... and throwing, as
usual, insults on top of it... well, your SOP.

Lang
 
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:53:09 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:34:30 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
><c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Using a newsgroup for blogging is poor netiquette.

>
>Top posting one line on top of a 83 line post and not responding to
>anything said is a sign of a idiot and wastes bandwidth.


Adam, you can't be serious: In these days of 20Mbps downloads, Top
posting is a "waste of bandwidth"? You must be one of the few left
who still uses a Dial-up connection.

Now, nothing is wrong with that, if that is what you wish to do. But
expecting the majority to do it the way YOU want it done is a bit
much, don't you think? And very selfish?

Anyway, if you don't like the way we do it here (some use top-posting,
some don't)... well, find another place to insult everyone you don't
agree with.

Oh, and by the way, when we pay for our own bandwidth, we have the
right to use it the way we want.

When YOU start paying for OUR bandwidth, then YOU will have the right
to decide how WE use it. But not until then.


Donald L McDaniel
 
In article <8g1j44l6cuqoqelu41hmqee8m0c6iu5t2e@4ax.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>Adam, you can't be serious: In these days of 20Mbps downloads, Top
>posting is a "waste of bandwidth"? You must be one of the few left
>who still uses a Dial-up connection.
>


Remember that each post is copied to and stored on tens of thousands
of servers. That 20k "extra" you don't bother to delete is really 200MB in
collective resources.

Now multiply that by hundreds of thousands of posts and you'll
understand why no one wants to run a Usenet server anymore.
 
On Jun 5, 11:31 pm, "Lang Murphy" <lang_mur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Adam Albright" <A...@ABC.net> wrote in message
>
> news:r2dh44164mft1rcskhb1s1sqajjsk9rqdb@4ax.com...
>
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 21:34:30 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
> > <c.barnho...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> >>Using a newsgroup for blogging is poor netiquette.

>
> > Top posting one line on top of a 83 line post and not responding to
> > anything said is a sign of a idiot and wastes bandwidth.

>
> Funny... talk about not responding to what was said... and throwing, as
> usual, insults on top of it... well, your SOP.
>
> Lang


I don't think Adam has the reasoning capabilities to comprehend most
posts. He just throws insults. 90,000+ insults over the last few
years. He is really deranged.
 
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 19:41:39 +0000 (UTC), wrat@panix.com (the wharf
rat) wrote:

>In article <8g1j44l6cuqoqelu41hmqee8m0c6iu5t2e@4ax.com>,
>Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>Adam, you can't be serious: In these days of 20Mbps downloads, Top
>>posting is a "waste of bandwidth"? You must be one of the few left
>>who still uses a Dial-up connection.
>>

>
> Remember that each post is copied to and stored on tens of thousands
>of servers. That 20k "extra" you don't bother to delete is really 200MB in
>collective resources.


That may be so, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether one
posts to the top, the middle, or the end, which are all INDIVIDUAL
CHOICES of the user, not the collective whole.
>
> Now multiply that by hundreds of thousands of posts and you'll
>understand why no one wants to run a Usenet server anymore.


As the old saying goes, warfrat, "if you can't stand the heat, get out
of the kitchen."

Having worked in more than my share of kitchens in the past, I can
testify to the saying's veracity.


Donald L McDaniel
 
In article <eggj44lf07maircdkhu51lkmh9777tpoq2@4ax.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>That may be so, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether one
>posts to the top, the middle, or the end, which are all INDIVIDUAL
>CHOICES of the user, not the collective whole.



Google 'Tragedy of the Commons' and see if you learn anything.
 
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 17:44:28 -0700 (PDT), spankydemonkey@gmail.com
wrote:

>On Jun 6, 5:38 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> In future, when using the word "bandwidth," please abbreviate it as
>> "bndwth," thereby saving precious bndwth.
>>
>> Thnks.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
>That is an excellent idea. We need to save bndwth. Now if we could
>only get rid of Adam Albright! That would save billions and billions
>of bits.


You being some idiot that spends a lot of time spanking the monkey
(that's engaging is excessive masturbation for those that don't know),
if I was the idiot you are I'd be more worried about all the billions
and billions of brain cells you obviously already lost.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

For threaded messages, bottom posting is inconvenient and the extra
scrolling is wasting time and unergonomic, though, top-posting may not apply
to all situations which is the reason for we also have inline posting.

If you (or anyone else) ever criticized Vista's UI design for the unneeded
scrolling, clicks, and so on, one should also hold the same standard for
posting styles. The standard should not change because of one's preferences
and that - arguments based on preferences, is pretty much the root cause of
debates as seen here, and the major reason for today's defective software
design.


"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g2cu1f$k7h$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <eggj44lf07maircdkhu51lkmh9777tpoq2@4ax.com>,
> Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>That may be so, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether one
>>posts to the top, the middle, or the end, which are all INDIVIDUAL
>>CHOICES of the user, not the collective whole.

>
>
> Google 'Tragedy of the Commons' and see if you learn anything.
>
 
In article <elk#15FyIHA.2340@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
xfile <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>For threaded messages, bottom posting is inconvenient and the extra


Bullshit.

You set the context first, then add new content.

Do you write code this way?

{
return(x)
else
{
return(y**2)
y=3*x
}
if (x >= y)

double x=argv[0]
double y=2
}


Do you write letters that start

John Smith

Yours truly,

Please give me a job.

Dear Sir,

????????????

You only insist that top posting is correct because it's another
thing that Microsoft deliberately did completely wrong just because they
wanted THEIR products to be different and hopefully incompatible. I
absolutely HATE those assinine 200 page Outlook emails with everyone adding
their one or two lines and never even NOTICING that they're including
every single goddam header, signature, and repeated stupid question because
THEY NEVER EVEN SCROLL DOWN AND READ ALL THAT INCLUDED CRAP they just look
at the Subject: and add something they think is apropos.

Grrrr. Top posters suck.

Top posters.

What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 22:22:15 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
>
>For threaded messages, bottom posting is inconvenient and the extra
>scrolling is wasting time and unergonomic, though, top-posting may not apply
>to all situations which is the reason for we also have inline posting.
>
>If you (or anyone else) ever criticized Vista's UI design for the unneeded
>scrolling, clicks, and so on, one should also hold the same standard for
>posting styles. The standard should not change because of one's preferences
>and that - arguments based on preferences, is pretty much the root cause of
>debates as seen here, and the major reason for today's defective software
>design.
>
>
>"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:g2cu1f$k7h$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <eggj44lf07maircdkhu51lkmh9777tpoq2@4ax.com>,
>> Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>That may be so, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether one
>>>posts to the top, the middle, or the end, which are all INDIVIDUAL
>>>CHOICES of the user, not the collective whole.

>>
>>
>> Google 'Tragedy of the Commons' and see if you learn anything.
>>

>


Actually, the whole brou-ha-ha can be summed up iin the differences
between generations of users.

Those who use stand-alone clients tend toward bottom or inline
posting, since their clients may usually be set to start after the
quoted text, and their clients almost always format posts as
Text-only, while those who use Windows Mail or Outlook Express
[generally] format posts as HTML [and that mostly from ignorance of
their clients, since both Windows Mail and Outlook Express can format
posts in either way automatically.]

For years, those who used Outlook Express always started their replies
at the top, since that is where the editor placed the insertion point
in a reply.

Over the years, some have slowly gravitated to third-party clients,
and Microsoft has actually made a few changes toward standardizing
their client, and have added such abilities as the ability to start a
reply with the insertion point below the quoted text. Not that it
wasn't already there -- previously, one could strike <Ctrl>+<End> to
place the insertion point below the quoted text.

Additionally, most old-time Usenet posters come from a Unix
background, and they cannot seem to wake up to the newer realities of
widespread use of broadband and formatted text.

On top of that, wide use of broadband has only been a reality for
about 7 years in the US. Previous to that, most posts were
transmitted via slow dial-up, if they were home users, or WLAN, since
only the government, large universities, and large corporations could
afford broadband at that time, making formatted text very impolite,
since it takes much more bandwidth.

Crashing headlong into the old-timers on the Usenet, these users
either adapted to the old-time ways, or they dug in their heels. When
the old guard also dug in their heels, a war began, which rages even
today.

And so we see the idiocy which reigns over these groups when arguments
about bottom or top posting rise up.

Probably we who prefer bottom or inline posting could do our part
toward controlling excessive use of scarce bandwidth more often by
snipping irrelevant passages.

But then, we would be accused of editing out passages we don't agree
with.

So we're "damned if we do, and damned if we don't".
Which is why I believe it is better to do as I always have, and leave
it all there, including the "warts"l, so no one can question my
motives.

Hopefully, those who habitually top-post will eventually see the
errors of their ways, and join the rest of us, who will have
recognized the errors of our ways.

And then we can get on with the Grand Adventure which is Universal
access to broadband and powerful desktop computers in the hands of the
mobs of screaming barbarians everywhere.

I do advise those of you in your Ivory Towers or hiding in your
forests of servers and fields of transistors to keep your eyes on that
Mob, cause they're coming to take you down off your high horses.

Your world will never be the same again. Count your dollars, and make
your lives as comfortable as they can be now. Soon, those dollars
will slip away, and your proud necks will all be bound with the
collars of slaves.

Anyway, I have gone off course.
Or have I?


Donald L McDaniel
 
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:25:02 -0700, Frank <fb@tpi.olm> wrote:

>Hobbes wrote:
>> I'm number three, you slack witted duffous, bearer of 9 welfare checks.
>> What a fat, goofy mf'er you must really be.
>> I bet you used to be a teacher, communist as you appear to be.

>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
>The truth about adam albright (not his real name) aka, mr drunken pig.
>
>By PowerUser:
>"Licentious. Obnoxious. Anti-democratic. In case you can't tell, I'm
>making a direct reference to Mr. Adam Albright. Before I launch into my
>main topic, I want to make a few matters crystal-clear: (1) Failure to
>recognize this salient point will result in Adam's getting free reign to
>enshrine irrational fears and fancies as truth, and (2) as a result of
>that, my observations are perhaps unique. Now that you know where I
>stand on those issues, I can safely say that wily cutthroats like Adam
>are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may
>be, Adam acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is
>astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. He truly believes that he
>defends the real needs of the working class. It is just such
>counter-productive megalomania, muddleheaded egoism, and intellectual
>aberrancy that stirs Adam to carve out space in the mainstream for
>ungrateful politics.
>
>I want to draw two important conclusions from this. The first is that
>Adam and his gofers are wolves in sheep's clothing who will create
>profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue
>eventually, and the second is that the justification he gave for seeking
>to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of
>their character was one of the most addlepated justifications I've ever
>heard. It was so addlepated, in fact, that I will not repeat it here.
>Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite
>clearly: Adam keeps telling everyone within earshot that honesty and
>responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. I'm
>guessing that Adam read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More
>reliable sources generally indicate that he isn't as smart as he thinks
>he is. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to
>Adam. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll
>find that if he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit
>that he has no evidence or examples to back up his point. Still, I
>recommend you check out some of his commentaries and draw your own
>conclusions on the matter. Adam teaches workshops on clericalism.
>Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist
>re-education camp. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to
>repeat it. Of course, if Adam had learned anything from history, he'd
>know that I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that
>proposes that we ought to worship feckless mountebanks as folk heroes.
>It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.
>
>
>We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic
>principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled the
>most self-satisfied spouters I've ever seen to compose paeans to
>irrationalism. Didn't Adam tell his comrades that he wants to make
>people suspicious of those who speak the truth? Did he first give any
>thought to what would happen if he did? Of course, that question is
>ridiculous -- as ridiculous as his gormless platitudes. None but the
>grotesque can deny that he says that the sun rises just for him. What he
>means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to threaten the
>existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. I understand
>that I become truly impatient with people who refuse to recognize the
>key role that he is playing in the destruction of our civilization, but
>from the fog and mist of his disquisitions rises the leering grimace of
>nihilism. An equal but opposite observation is that I and Adam part
>company when it comes to the issue of quislingism. He feels that
>those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness,
>should be shunned, should starve, while I suspect that he needs to stop
>living in a fool's paradise. But there's the rub his idea of mutinous
>autism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of
>hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of
>an irascible blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a doctrinaire and pagan
>religion that incites its worshipers to an infernal frenzy and then
>prompts them to precipitate riots.
>
>
>Adam does not merely undermine the current world order. He does so
>consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. His undertakings
>were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing
>for the "innocents". Rather, someone has been giving Adam's brain a very
>thorough washing, and now Adam is trying to do the same to us. Several
>things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement
>of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something
>to the effect of how he is a refined gentleman with the soundest
>education and morals you can imagine. Forgive me for boring you with all
>the gory details, but Adam's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least
>discerning among us can see right through it.
>
>
>It's easy to tell if Adam's lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying.


Hmmm.. HOW do we tell if his lips are moving?

>Although Adam demonstrates a great deal of ignorance and presumption
>when he says that he commands an army of robots that live in the hollow
>center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like
>shaking things up a bit on the surface, the fact remains that in order
>to convince us that he has the authority to issue licenses for
>practicing heathenism, Adam often turns to the old propagandist trick of
>comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.


<There should be a new paragraph here.>

>Now that you've read the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a complete
>surprise that there can be no argument that when I first realized that
>Mr. Adam Albright is a proponent of "paternalism" -- a term Adam uses
>catachrestically in place of "Pyrrhonism" --


Here's what some online web page [thefreedictionary.com] says about
"catachrestically", for those who've never heard the word:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catachrestically

Here is what Wikipedia says about "Paternalism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

And here is what Wikipedia says about "Pyrrhonism":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism

>a cold shudder ran down my back.


Why should a thought like "paternalism" cause a cold shudder to run
down your back, unless you are afraid of paternalism. Why you would
fear your father totally escapes me at this point. Could you explain
why you've come to this state?

Also, being a traditional Christian, I too am a proponent of
"paternalism". Do traditioinal Christians also cause a cold shudder to
run down your back? Why would you fear Christians anyway? We have no
evil intent toward the world or those who inhabit it. But many have
such intent toward us.

Anyway, since you deny that Adam is truly a proponent of
"paternalism", but is really a proponent of "Pyrrhonism", what is
causing you to fear is "Pyrrhonism", rather than "paternalism".

So, now we see that "a healthy skepticism" also causes you fear.
Are you a believer? If not, why should skepticism cause you fear?
Doesn't make sense to me. Most non-believers are also skeptics. Why
you should be any different is a mystery to me.

<There should also be a new paragraph here.>
>However, this fact bears repeating again and again, until the
>words crack through the hardened exteriors of those who would violate
>the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. I am referring, of
>course, to the likes of Adam Albright."


So "the fact which bears repeating" is "the likes of Adam Albright"?
Strange simile, there, bud.

>
>Want to read more about this failed drunken accountant and big mouth
>lying pig?
>For your reading pleasure!
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tYag3woAAABrYFiZuwWGCKzw8oMmJKS7
>
>Enjoy!
>I know I did!...LOL!
>Frank


Frank, could you PLEASE use more concise paragraphs?
Old as I am, and confused as you are, it's a little hard to follow
your long-winded-and-wandering dissertations.


P.S. If you wanna be a heathen, go right ahead.


Donald L McDaniel
 
Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:25:02 -0700, Frank <fb@tpi.olm> wrote:
>
>
>>Hobbes wrote:
>>
>>>I'm number three, you slack witted duffous, bearer of 9 welfare checks.
>>>What a fat, goofy mf'er you must really be.
>>>I bet you used to be a teacher, communist as you appear to be.

>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>
>>
>>The truth about adam albright (not his real name) aka, mr drunken pig.
>>
>>By PowerUser:
>>"Licentious. Obnoxious. Anti-democratic. In case you can't tell, I'm
>>making a direct reference to Mr. Adam Albright. Before I launch into my
>>main topic, I want to make a few matters crystal-clear: (1) Failure to
>>recognize this salient point will result in Adam's getting free reign to
>>enshrine irrational fears and fancies as truth, and (2) as a result of
>>that, my observations are perhaps unique. Now that you know where I
>>stand on those issues, I can safely say that wily cutthroats like Adam
>>are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may
>>be, Adam acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is
>>astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. He truly believes that he
>>defends the real needs of the working class. It is just such
>>counter-productive megalomania, muddleheaded egoism, and intellectual
>>aberrancy that stirs Adam to carve out space in the mainstream for
>>ungrateful politics.
>>
>>I want to draw two important conclusions from this. The first is that
>>Adam and his gofers are wolves in sheep's clothing who will create
>>profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue
>>eventually, and the second is that the justification he gave for seeking
>>to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of
>>their character was one of the most addlepated justifications I've ever
>>heard. It was so addlepated, in fact, that I will not repeat it here.
>>Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite
>>clearly: Adam keeps telling everyone within earshot that honesty and
>>responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. I'm
>>guessing that Adam read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More
>>reliable sources generally indicate that he isn't as smart as he thinks
>>he is. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to
>>Adam. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll
>>find that if he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit
>>that he has no evidence or examples to back up his point. Still, I
>>recommend you check out some of his commentaries and draw your own
>>conclusions on the matter. Adam teaches workshops on clericalism.
>>Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist
>>re-education camp. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to
>>repeat it. Of course, if Adam had learned anything from history, he'd
>>know that I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that
>>proposes that we ought to worship feckless mountebanks as folk heroes.
>>It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.
>>
>>
>>We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic
>>principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled the
>>most self-satisfied spouters I've ever seen to compose paeans to
>>irrationalism. Didn't Adam tell his comrades that he wants to make
>>people suspicious of those who speak the truth? Did he first give any
>>thought to what would happen if he did? Of course, that question is
>>ridiculous -- as ridiculous as his gormless platitudes. None but the
>>grotesque can deny that he says that the sun rises just for him. What he
>>means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to threaten the
>>existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. I understand
>>that I become truly impatient with people who refuse to recognize the
>>key role that he is playing in the destruction of our civilization, but

>
>>from the fog and mist of his disquisitions rises the leering grimace of

>
>>nihilism. An equal but opposite observation is that I and Adam part
>>company when it comes to the issue of quislingism. He feels that
>>those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness,
>>should be shunned, should starve, while I suspect that he needs to stop
>>living in a fool's paradise. But there's the rub his idea of mutinous
>>autism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of
>>hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of
>>an irascible blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a doctrinaire and pagan
>>religion that incites its worshipers to an infernal frenzy and then
>>prompts them to precipitate riots.
>>
>>
>>Adam does not merely undermine the current world order. He does so
>>consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. His undertakings
>>were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing
>>for the "innocents". Rather, someone has been giving Adam's brain a very
>>thorough washing, and now Adam is trying to do the same to us. Several
>>things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement
>>of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something
>>to the effect of how he is a refined gentleman with the soundest
>>education and morals you can imagine. Forgive me for boring you with all
>>the gory details, but Adam's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least
>>discerning among us can see right through it.
>>
>>
>>It's easy to tell if Adam's lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying.

>
>
> Hmmm.. HOW do we tell if his lips are moving?
>
>
>>Although Adam demonstrates a great deal of ignorance and presumption
>>when he says that he commands an army of robots that live in the hollow
>>center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like
>>shaking things up a bit on the surface, the fact remains that in order
>>to convince us that he has the authority to issue licenses for
>>practicing heathenism, Adam often turns to the old propagandist trick of
>>comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

>
>
> <There should be a new paragraph here.>
>
>>Now that you've read the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a complete
>>surprise that there can be no argument that when I first realized that
>>Mr. Adam Albright is a proponent of "paternalism" -- a term Adam uses
>>catachrestically in place of "Pyrrhonism" --

>
>
> Here's what some online web page [thefreedictionary.com] says about
> "catachrestically", for those who've never heard the word:
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catachrestically
>
> Here is what Wikipedia says about "Paternalism":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism
>
> And here is what Wikipedia says about "Pyrrhonism":
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
>
>
>>a cold shudder ran down my back.

>
>
> Why should a thought like "paternalism" cause a cold shudder to run
> down your back, unless you are afraid of paternalism. Why you would
> fear your father totally escapes me at this point. Could you explain
> why you've come to this state?
>
> Also, being a traditional Christian, I too am a proponent of
> "paternalism". Do traditioinal Christians also cause a cold shudder to
> run down your back? Why would you fear Christians anyway? We have no
> evil intent toward the world or those who inhabit it. But many have
> such intent toward us.
>
> Anyway, since you deny that Adam is truly a proponent of
> "paternalism", but is really a proponent of "Pyrrhonism", what is
> causing you to fear is "Pyrrhonism", rather than "paternalism".
>
> So, now we see that "a healthy skepticism" also causes you fear.
> Are you a believer? If not, why should skepticism cause you fear?
> Doesn't make sense to me. Most non-believers are also skeptics. Why
> you should be any different is a mystery to me.
>
> <There should also be a new paragraph here.>
>
>>However, this fact bears repeating again and again, until the
>>words crack through the hardened exteriors of those who would violate
>>the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. I am referring, of
>>course, to the likes of Adam Albright."

>
>
> So "the fact which bears repeating" is "the likes of Adam Albright"?
> Strange simile, there, bud.
>
>
>>Want to read more about this failed drunken accountant and big mouth
>>lying pig?
>>For your reading pleasure!
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tYag3woAAABrYFiZuwWGCKzw8oMmJKS7
>>
>>Enjoy!
>>I know I did!...LOL!
>>Frank

>
>
> Frank, could you PLEASE use more concise paragraphs?


I didn't write it.

> Old as I am,...


....you're not that old...

and confused as you are,...

....I'm not at all confused, it's you who are confused...

it's a little hard to follow
> your long-winded-and-wandering dissertations.


It's not my indictment of adam albright (not his real name).
>
>
> P.S. If you wanna be a heathen,...


Sorry, but I'm not a heathen.

go right ahead.

And you have my permission to re-read all you want till you comprehend.
Frank
 
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:27:55 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.clm> wrote:


>And you have my permission to re-read all you want till you comprehend.
>Frank


It is a FAKE like everything else Frank does. The most obvious clue is
the reference to the supposed poster, PowerUser, doesn't include any
email reference real or spoofed and there is no message ID number
included making it impossible to trace. We are just suppose to trust
this newsgroup biggest liar that it is genuine.

So as usual Frank just being the fool we all know him to be is lying
through his ass, just like he does in every other post.

The irony Frank is such a fake, he can't even fake something without
it being obvious the fake is Frank.
 
Frank wrote:
> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:25:02 -0700, Frank <fb@tpi.olm> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hobbes wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm number three, you slack witted duffous, bearer of 9 welfare checks.
>>>> What a fat, goofy mf'er you must really be.
>>>> I bet you used to be a teacher, communist as you appear to be.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>>
>>>
>>> The truth about adam albright (not his real name) aka, mr drunken pig.
>>>
>>> By PowerUser:
>>> "Licentious. Obnoxious. Anti-democratic. In case you can't tell, I'm
>>> making a direct reference to Mr. Adam Albright. Before I launch into my
>>> main topic, I want to make a few matters crystal-clear: (1) Failure to
>>> recognize this salient point will result in Adam's getting free reign to
>>> enshrine irrational fears and fancies as truth, and (2) as a result of
>>> that, my observations are perhaps unique. Now that you know where I
>>> stand on those issues, I can safely say that wily cutthroats like Adam
>>> are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may
>>> be, Adam acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is
>>> astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. He truly believes that he
>>> defends the real needs of the working class. It is just such
>>> counter-productive megalomania, muddleheaded egoism, and intellectual
>>> aberrancy that stirs Adam to carve out space in the mainstream for
>>> ungrateful politics.
>>>
>>> I want to draw two important conclusions from this. The first is that
>>> Adam and his gofers are wolves in sheep's clothing who will create
>>> profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue
>>> eventually, and the second is that the justification he gave for seeking
>>> to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of
>>> their character was one of the most addlepated justifications I've ever
>>> heard. It was so addlepated, in fact, that I will not repeat it here.
>>> Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite
>>> clearly: Adam keeps telling everyone within earshot that honesty and
>>> responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. I'm
>>> guessing that Adam read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More
>>> reliable sources generally indicate that he isn't as smart as he thinks
>>> he is. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to
>>> Adam. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll
>>> find that if he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit
>>> that he has no evidence or examples to back up his point. Still, I
>>> recommend you check out some of his commentaries and draw your own
>>> conclusions on the matter. Adam teaches workshops on clericalism.
>>> Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist
>>> re-education camp. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to
>>> repeat it. Of course, if Adam had learned anything from history, he'd
>>> know that I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that
>>> proposes that we ought to worship feckless mountebanks as folk heroes.
>>> It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.
>>>
>>>
>>> We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic
>>> principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled the
>>> most self-satisfied spouters I've ever seen to compose paeans to
>>> irrationalism. Didn't Adam tell his comrades that he wants to make
>>> people suspicious of those who speak the truth? Did he first give any
>>> thought to what would happen if he did? Of course, that question is
>>> ridiculous -- as ridiculous as his gormless platitudes. None but the
>>> grotesque can deny that he says that the sun rises just for him. What he
>>> means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to threaten the
>>> existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. I understand
>>> that I become truly impatient with people who refuse to recognize the
>>> key role that he is playing in the destruction of our civilization, but

>>
>>
>>> from the fog and mist of his disquisitions rises the leering grimace of

>>
>>
>>> nihilism. An equal but opposite observation is that I and Adam part
>>> company when it comes to the issue of quislingism. He feels that
>>> those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness,
>>> should be shunned, should starve, while I suspect that he needs to stop
>>> living in a fool's paradise. But there's the rub his idea of mutinous
>>> autism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of
>>> hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of
>>> an irascible blood-lust. It is, in every sense, a doctrinaire and pagan
>>> religion that incites its worshipers to an infernal frenzy and then
>>> prompts them to precipitate riots.
>>>
>>>
>>> Adam does not merely undermine the current world order. He does so
>>> consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. His undertakings
>>> were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing
>>> for the "innocents". Rather, someone has been giving Adam's brain a very
>>> thorough washing, and now Adam is trying to do the same to us. Several
>>> things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement
>>> of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something
>>> to the effect of how he is a refined gentleman with the soundest
>>> education and morals you can imagine. Forgive me for boring you with all
>>> the gory details, but Adam's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least
>>> discerning among us can see right through it.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's easy to tell if Adam's lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying.

>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm.. HOW do we tell if his lips are moving?
>>
>>
>>> Although Adam demonstrates a great deal of ignorance and presumption
>>> when he says that he commands an army of robots that live in the hollow
>>> center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like
>>> shaking things up a bit on the surface, the fact remains that in order
>>> to convince us that he has the authority to issue licenses for
>>> practicing heathenism, Adam often turns to the old propagandist trick of
>>> comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

>>
>>
>>
>> <There should be a new paragraph here.>
>>
>>> Now that you've read the bulk of this letter, it should not come as a
>>> complete
>>> surprise that there can be no argument that when I first realized that
>>> Mr. Adam Albright is a proponent of "paternalism" -- a term Adam uses
>>> catachrestically in place of "Pyrrhonism" --

>>
>>
>>
>> Here's what some online web page [thefreedictionary.com] says about
>> "catachrestically", for those who've never heard the word:
>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catachrestically
>>
>> Here is what Wikipedia says about "Paternalism":
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism
>>
>> And here is what Wikipedia says about "Pyrrhonism":
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhonism
>>
>>
>>> a cold shudder ran down my back.

>>
>>
>>
>> Why should a thought like "paternalism" cause a cold shudder to run
>> down your back, unless you are afraid of paternalism. Why you would
>> fear your father totally escapes me at this point. Could you explain
>> why you've come to this state?
>>
>> Also, being a traditional Christian, I too am a proponent of
>> "paternalism". Do traditioinal Christians also cause a cold shudder to
>> run down your back? Why would you fear Christians anyway? We have no
>> evil intent toward the world or those who inhabit it. But many have
>> such intent toward us.
>>
>> Anyway, since you deny that Adam is truly a proponent of
>> "paternalism", but is really a proponent of "Pyrrhonism", what is
>> causing you to fear is "Pyrrhonism", rather than "paternalism".
>>
>> So, now we see that "a healthy skepticism" also causes you fear.
>> Are you a believer? If not, why should skepticism cause you fear?
>> Doesn't make sense to me. Most non-believers are also skeptics. Why
>> you should be any different is a mystery to me.
>>
>> <There should also be a new paragraph here.>
>>
>>> However, this fact bears repeating again and again, until the
>>> words crack through the hardened exteriors of those who would violate
>>> the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. I am referring, of
>>> course, to the likes of Adam Albright."

>>
>>
>>
>> So "the fact which bears repeating" is "the likes of Adam Albright"?
>> Strange simile, there, bud.
>>
>>
>>> Want to read more about this failed drunken accountant and big mouth
>>> lying pig?
>>> For your reading pleasure!
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tYag3woAAABrYFiZuwWGCKzw8oMmJKS7
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy!
>>> I know I did!...LOL!
>>> Frank

>>
>>
>>
>> Frank, could you PLEASE use more concise paragraphs?

>
>
> I didn't write it.
>
>> Old as I am,...

>
>
> ...you're not that old...
>
> and confused as you are,...
>
> ...I'm not at all confused, it's you who are confused...
>
> it's a little hard to follow
>
>> your long-winded-and-wandering dissertations.

>
>
> It's not my indictment of adam albright (not his real name).
>
>>
>>
>> P.S. If you wanna be a heathen,...

>
>
> Sorry, but I'm not a heathen.
>
> go right ahead.
>
> And you have my permission to re-read all you want till you comprehend.
> Frank


As you've proly noted, mr drunken pig denies the email is real. But, as
we all remember, poweruser posted it to this very ng not too long ago.
mr drunken pig is once again dancing and squealing for us.
We know that as simply LYING!!!
Frank
 
Back
Top