On Aug 24, 8:56 pm, Amy Guskin  wrote:
> No.  You really don't understand the difference between differing opinions
> and fl^ming.  I owe you nothing.

        This is just more in the way of the usual condescending nonsense
that I've been treated to here during my recent brief stay. However, if
you'll allow me for a moment nonetheless, to contradict you with the
following quotes:

====================================
Don't let the door hit you
in the ass on your way out, kthxbye.

Matt Ion  s Aug 17, 10:57 am
====================================

And, why can I not think of any good insults to add to Amy when I want
to... 8-)

Like, maybe, You talk funny!  and your momma dresses you funny...

Naw, too generic.  I mean, we can REALLY insult Amy much beter than this
toaster... ;-)

Charlie Edmondson
Aug 17, 11:54 am
====================================
My two favorite (although they obviously do not apply to Amy) are"
Were you toilet trained at gunpoint?
Which weekend do you have custody of your family's brain cell.

Kurt Ullman   Aug 17, 12:11 pm
====================================
You've obviously exchanged "having a life" for this memory.

Or maybe it's just selective memory, to go
with your selective censorship.

Matt Ion   Aug 17, 9:33 pm
====================================

        That's where I stopped going through the thread --are you going to
sit there, with a straight face, and tell me that does not constitute
"fl^ming," even though they're all clearly insults made at my expense?

        You were saying, or should I dig a deeper?

        I'm also fond of the one where I was called "a boor" by another of
your friendly members here.

> And incidentally, please stop with the "Miss Guskin" and the
"my dear" and
> the like.  It really grates on my nerves.  We're all quite friendly here,
> dude -- just call me "Amy" or nothing at all.

        Oh, so you're commenting on what you perceive to be an apparent air
of _condescension_, are you, even though technically, I've broken no rules
or guidelines for you to speak of in relation to the group FAQ and/or
charter?

Gee, how interesting, _Amy_.

> >>> because whether you
> >> believe it or not, your understanding of this is _incorrect_.
>
> >         Then show me with irrefutable, incontrovertible evidence --
> > cite a source, provide a link, do _something_ rather than expecting me
> > to just take your words for it necessarily. <<
>
> Sorry, people pay me for that kind of training.

        Not here they don't, and if you're going to take part in a
discussion, then there are no half measures; either hold up your end or
don't, but then don't be surprised when you get called on it.

> There's piles of information
> -- free information, just use Google to find it -- all over the place that
> backs up what we've all been saying here.

        I did do some research, a lot of it not informing me of things I
didn't already know.

> Really.  And at this point, if you
> persist in this, I'm going to suggest to the other moderators that we
> bounce
> your subsequent messages -- the ones reiterating your rightness -- as
> tr0lling.

        Of course you would --can't say that would surprise me one bit.
However, I provided documentary data that supported what I was saying, even
though you people refused to acknowledge any of it as substantiating or
legitimate in even the slightest regard. In fact, everything I had said was
supposedly wrong because that was the game you people decided you were going
to play in hopes of getting me so disgusted that I would simply leave.

        Well, it didn't work out that way, did it.

>  And so there's no misunderstanding that I'm simply name-calling,
> let me back it up with some evidence based on my observation of this
> thread:
> at this point, after this much discussion and assertion from this many
> people
> who have _no_ reason to make a fool out of you or lie to you, you really
> do
> seem to be being willfully ignorant, so I'm forced to assume that perhaps
> this whole "I'm a fan of Babylon 5" persona was just a set-up for your
> tr0lling this newsgroup.

        Right, now I'm a liar too, again--only this time according to one of
the moderator's of this group. Gee, why am I not at all surprised?
        Uh huh --sure; that's why I posted a review of the new TLT movie
here _well before_ I even got involved in this thread. In fact, I made it a
point to run out and buy the TLT DVD _on the day it was released_, but of
course, what "fan" would do such a thing, right?
        I also recently Scanned a copy of the Limited Edition comic that
came with some of the DVDs for a person who bought the movie from Amazon
without the comic, and she happened to be a moderator in another Forum by
the way, on another Service as a matter of fact. Just thought I'd mention
it, as I don't appreciate your characterization of me.
        But I guess I did that because I'm *not a fan* too, eh.

> >>  That is why you are now (finally, the
> >> gods/esses bless you, Cheryl!) on hand moderation.
>
> >         Translation: Because we don't like you and the way you express
> > yourself, we'll decide whether or not to let your posts through while
> > everyone else piles on you and has free reign in that regard. <<
>
> We've bounced exactly _how_ many messages of yours in this thread?  Oh,
> that's right: none.

        And I found that rather interesting, believe me -until you people
reverted back to being true-to-form two weeks ago, not liking the fact that
I challenged every claim you made in your last post to me that I'm
responding to right here now, with evidence to show where you were wrong on
virtually every claim you made, and you just couldn't stand it, could you.

> I'm really sorry for you that you see correction of misinformation as
> "piling
> on," but no one's behavior has been untoward, except maybe yours.

        Right, like the quotes I provided at the start of this reply that
showed an obvious trend developing in this thread from much earlier on. All
my imagination, mind you, obviously, even though the quotes are right there
in black and white, and the posts still here in the thread, with lots more
that I could cite if only you people would allow me without shutting me out
the way you did a couple of weeks ago simply because you couldn't take the
heat of what I was saying.

> >>      That's what you're really saying, otherwise, just let me have
> > my say like everyone else who's been lobbing grenades at me; and they
> > know who they are --and so do you.  <<
>
> You've had it.  How much more rope would you like?

        Suspending this so-called "hand moderation" would have been a good
start, but you were more content to just lock me out entirely.

> I throw up my hands in despair.  You will not find a legitimate source of
> information that backs up your assertions in this case.

Okay . . . please read the following:
=====================================
The American Heritage Science Dictionary
Internet (in't?r-net')  Pronunciation Key
A system connecting computers around the world using TCP/IP, which stands
for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, a set of standards for
transmitting and receiving digital data. The Internet consists primarily of
the collection of billions of interconnected webpages that are transferred
using HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), and are collectively known as the
World Wide Web. The Internet also uses FTP (File Transfer Protocol) to
transfer files, and SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) to transfer e-mail.

The American Heritage Science Dictionary
Copyright  2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

American Psychological Association (APA):
Internet. (n.d.). The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural
Literacy, Third Edition.

Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
Internet. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural
Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Internet (accessed: August 24, 2007).

Modern Language Association (MLA):
"Internet." The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy,
Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 24 Aug. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Internet>.
=====================================

        Now, just so we're absolutely clear on the matter, since evidently
it's necessary, what I was specifically interested in getting from you here,
was having you point out to me just where the distinction is with respect to
the terms "Internet" and "Web" not being synonymous in
the above definition
of the term "Internet." Because that is what the disagreement had boiled
down to in essence, did it not? Or is that really just too loaded a question
for you? Because I think it's pretty simple and really straightforward, and
I would have really liked an answer. If I'm so *Wrong* in the way you claim,
in _every_ regard, as you have all insisted, then how come the above
definition doesn't really attest to it?

       Your buddy Jay sent me a snooty, sarcastic, typically smarmy-ass
email when you both shut me out a couple of weeks ago, and regardless of
what he claimed then, the above definition really does not make the
distinction of the Internet and the Web being two wholly separate entities.
In fact it makes them sound more tied together than not, and it was in fact
what I referenced when I pursued the ongoing disagreement that ensued here.

> Again, you have not been censored even _once_ in this thread.  The more
> you
> shout about something that hasn't happened, the more bizarre this
> conversation gets.

        I was put on "hand moderation," and then shut out, or does that not
amount to a form of censoring, that interestingly enough, no one else
participating in this particular thread had been subjected to?

> As I said the other day, this thread has beaten the horse into death, back
> into another reincarnation, and back into death once again.  Let's just
> all
> move along, please.  We are done, here.

        In your opinion we were, in mine we were not. I had been subjected
to all sorts of crap throughout this thread, and from where I'm sitting,
weren't quite through yet.

> You have had your say, and we all
> know that you think that you are right, and that we are all terrible
> people
> here who don't let any voices of dissent post.

        In my opinion your own collective conduct attests to what kind of
people you are.

> We'll have to agree to
> disagree.  Now _move along_, and post about TLT or something else.
>
> Amy

        Now why would I want to do that? After all, I'm a Tr0ll, you said so
yourself - your buddy Jay said so in an e-mail to me after starting it off
like a real schmvck by advising me that if I didn't calm down that I would
not be allowed to participate, and then ending that very e-mail by calling
me a Tr0ll and telling me pointedly to "get lost," as though that was
supposed to calm me down, so why would a Tr0ll care to discuss anything
remotely related to what this forum is supposed to be devoted to? What
incentive have you people given me to even want to bother?




=======================
from the "Newsgroup back"/ (and so-called) "Common
Courtesy" thread
=======================
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32