Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events

Lemming <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:07:32 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_ocis.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Lemming <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>There are two rules of usenet which I have never yet seen broken.
>>>
>>>1) Nobody ever leaves a group because of what someone else says; they
>>>only ever leave because of what *they* say. (Or because the group has
>>>no value to them, but that's another story.)
>>
>> How would you know?
>
>Observation, and personal experience. But yes, it's a generalisation,
>and the problem with generalisations is that there are (almost[1])
>always exceptions.
>
>> I have left a forum due to bullying by another. I did not make a
>>production of it. I simply left, and it most certainly was due to my
>>treatment by another. His remarks were way past simple rudeness.
>
>So have I; although when I look back my own responses to my
>attacker(s) were more likely the real reason I left.

     With me, it started that some people picked on me, get this, for signing my posts

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

One particular jerk carried it way past that, and for a while, a search with Google on "Wirchenko" had a top link with a title calling me a fascist.

>>>2) People who claim that although they are a "lone voice crying in the
>>>wilderness" but have lots of people emailing them in support are
>>>liars.
>>
>> Again, how would you know?
>
>Oh, come on; you know I'm right (exceptions notwithstanding, as
>above). But I'm absolutely certain no exceptions apply in dawn's case.

     I do not challenge that it is possible or even likely, but that is not proof.

>>>OTOH: keep fighting your corner. You've got an opinion, share it.
>>>You might even be right. But *please* don't resort to troll tactics
>>>like claiming fictitious, off-group "supporters". It's transparent
>>>and crass.
>>
>> Trolling is about all she does. (We are talking years here.) I
>>finally killfiled her and have enjoyed the improvement. My killfile
>>is set to mark her messages read, so if I decide to check out a post,
>>I can. So far, what I have seen in quoted material leads me to
>>believe that my killfiling decision came later than it should have.
>
>I dunno. What's the real problem? Is it that she promotes a
>non-relational database model in a general database theory group which
>happens to be over-populated with RM practitioners?

     No. It is that she does so dishonestly. Some tactics she has used are I-may-be-dumb-but, unsubstatiated claims (even after being repeatedly asked to back up her statements), nitpicking and vagueness to the point of derailing threads. Then, there is her infamous rape post after which she then left for a while, but unfortunately, came back.

     Vagueness is not so bad if the person refines his statement, but Dawn just keeps at the vagueness.

     Honest disagreement is one thing. Dishonesty in debate is very disruptive of a discussion group.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.