Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> False enough. Dawn wastes a great deal of time ranting and
> insulting implicitly and explicitly entire communities.

No, I haven't found that to be the case. You can call her ignorant if you like, but insulting? You'd have to be terminally thin-skinned to believe that.

> One
> need only read virtually any of her postings to see this
> demonstrated.

I've read many of her posts, not least because the conversation that surrounds them is always compelling. And I don't see what you see. I've read things similar to this before, concerning Dawn, and I find her civil and restrained - especially in view of what's typically slung at her.

> For example the one you are replying to:
>
> dawn wrote:
> > > ... the RM-advocates have trashed ... even though they
> > > seemed to have ZERO emperical data to prove their point
> > > ... some on this list who seem to think they are
> > > all-knowing ... I want them to adapt to me because I
> > > want progress ... They need to be more flexible ...
> > > Lists can be defined in set theory too, by the
> > > way. There is nothing evil about them ... so don't snow
> > > me with that ... Whatever the hang-up is, get over
> > > it. It is time to ditch The Information Principle."

I don't see a single insult in here - again, unless your flesh is phyllo. You can say she's wrong (I don't agree with her much), ignorant, blah blah blah, but not insulting. Sorry. That's just false, however much I disagree with her.

> Other choice insults hurled by Dawn include "rape[ists]",
> "terrorists", "blind", etc. So please Erk, do not support
> Dawn's lies.

Were we talking about truth or insults? Different scopes. Dawn can be and has been wrong about various things, and some arguments I find compelling simply don't convince her at all. I don't think she lies, although I think she misinterprets things about the RM, things I've already spelled out elsewhere. All of the above is standard in debate, right?

Sorry I lack the encyclopedic knowledge of Dawn's word choices that you seem to have; I missed the "rapeist" line, although any rational person would interpret her use of the words "terrorist" and "rape" as metaphors for written attacks. Perhaps they're overblown, but she's certainly not actually accusing anyone of rape or terrorist acts.

> I didn't drag her here! We all know she was lurking, losing
> the battle to hold back her rants and PICK-ax grinding.

hahahahahahahaha

I'm sorry, that's just funny. She said she was leaving, and you didn't believe her; you invoked her name, she replied, and now you're accusing her of having manipulated your mind to force you to do so?

> > > P.S. I figured I respond so that you didn't look like a
> > > coward attacking someone who wasn't around to defend
> > > herself. smiles.
> >
> > Ouch. Nicely done.
>
> Her sentiment is not genuine and is merely a thinly veiled
> insult meant to conceal the pathetic fact that she found an
> excuse to rant.

OK, yes, here she does insult you. I found it clever, and padded for minimum discomfort, redness, swelling, and chafing.

> I've learned my lesson. Using Dawn's name
> simply fed a cranky troll. But, it was inevitable she would
> break her word and return to cdt merely two months after
> loudly proclaiming her departure.

A hideous lie; we're all reeling from the deception.  

> -- Keith -- Fraud 6

heh

• erk Fraud Without Number