adios muchachos

Reply to
Mark L.
Loading thread data ...

Trust me Bob, I knew what the crowd reaction would be if I called him on this. A popular individual - even though his actions were flat ass wrong - would be put on a pedestal to be revered and I would become the target. That's okay - the goal was accomplished.

I considered those that signed the list to be just blind followers who would pay any price to read a story - and to be part of Tom's gang. That conduct was reprehensible and I wouldn't want to be associated with anyone that condones that kind of moral conduct. And Keith... I'm really surprised that you did his bidding for him since in the past, you had always shown you were above that - or at least I thought you were.

Perhaps some of you loyal followers should read his posts again - all the words this time and apply the same standard to him that you do to everyone else - but fairly this time. I'm sure Tom will become very active over in alt.stories and create quite a following shortly. Please join him there and you can have your mutual admiration society meetings and gloat over your successes.

No guy's, I'm not going away either. The small segment that you represent doesn't amount to squat in the overall picture. I can still contribute and learn here, as well as clean house when needed - just like you but without the gangland tactics.

We're one for one.......next.

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

Sorry, BAD has already filled the position of newsgroup martyr. You'll have to apply somewhere else.

todd

Reply to
Todd Fatheree

Reply to
Mark L.

OK... Take your football and go home...

mindlessly...

Reply to
Mark Hopkins

On Sat 03 Jul 2004 12:38:04p, "Bob" wrote in news:0aCFc.2558$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

I sure am glad you're out there protectin' me from all that bad stuff. Lord knows I'm incapable of doing it myself. Fearless protector of the newsgroup, I salute you! Please don't hurt me.

Reply to
Dan

Bob:

Some misguided soul forwarded these comments of yours to me via email. As I have just begun what I intend to be an extended vacation from the Wreck, I thought to simply let it go but I find too much in your remarks that is disturbing, and simply wrong.

Let me preface my reply by saying that I have always found you to be a reasonable and thoughtful man, not given to bombast or rants, and always willing to lend a helpful and knowledgeable hand to those who asked for it. Although you and I have not had much direct interaction, I have always read your posts with pleasure and respect.

As I disagree so strongly with some of your assertions, I hope that you will allow me to address them in an interlinear fashion and hope that you will understand that I mean no disrespect by using this method.

"Sorry to see ya go but....

You denigrated others and the crowd roars..."

Aside from the mixed tense, there are factual errors in this fragment. One who denigrates seeks to belittle and falsely accuse. My guess is that when you speak of, "others", you are mostly talking about Bay Area Dave. If you would look back at the posting history you would find that I stayed out of the early pounding of BAD and only involved myself when he unfairly and relentlessly went after some of those whom I consider to be personal friends, such as Keith Bohn and Charlie Self.

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, BAD has been an incredibly destructive force in the newsgroup. Did I seek to belittle him? Yes, and with the intent of making him realize that his accusations were unacceptable and that his contemptible language and behavior would be met with proper disrespect and approbation. Did I falsely accuse? The record is there, Bob - You might want to look it over before drawing a firm conclusion.

"You get others to do your dirty deeds and the crowd reacts mindlessly..."

By, "your dirty deeds", I suppose you to mean my saying that BAD should be shunned. That was a personal opinion, Bob, and had no more force than any other personal opinion expressed on the Wreck. If others thought this to be an appropriate remedy to the situation regarding BAD, what have I to do with that?

"You taunt and purposely exaberate situations so they turned nasty and the crowd thinks that's okay..."

Once again we have this tense problem. You must either be in the present or the past. Then too, I would assume that you mean, "exacerbate", which is a fine word, usually meaning, "aggravate". Did I aggravate the situation, Bob, or was the situation already so aggravated that my response was merely in kind? And, as I judge you to be a fair-minded man, was not your response to me an attempt to exacerbate, or, did you feel that things had come to such a point that it was merely a response in kind?

As to the, "crowd" - what power or control do you think that I, or any single person has over those on the Wreck? I would no more try to get others on the Wreck to do something as a group than I would try to involve myself in the herding of cats.

"You convinced others to do your dirty work rather than working out a solution yourself..."

Show me where I did other than present a personal opinion, Bob. Show me where I attempted to convince. My personal opinion on how to deal with BAD stands. If others feel this to be a wise course, that is their lookout. I won't say that I am unhappy with what has been a successful muzzling of BAD, but your apparent concept of me as a mastermind and manipulator in this regard is without merit - not to mention, silly.

"You didn't have the common decency to admit you made a mistake in judgement... You weren't man enough to apologize... so you kept slinging mud..."

I see no mistake in judgement, Bob. I see no mistake. Did I overmatch BAD in terms of vilification and disrespect? - of course - in the same way that we must deal with all bullies by taking their game right to them. I make no apologies for this. Make them take their own medicine, since that is what they fear the most.

"You're now looking for sympathy... You were called out - and you run..."

Did you misunderstand my goodbye as a plea for sympathy? Did you misunderstand my silence for running? What kind of schoolyard talk is this, Bob? From my cohabitation of the Wreck with you for a number of years, I would not have thought you capable of this - it is beneath you and you should be ashamed.

Again, you must focus on this in the future; surely you meant "ran".

"You have wreaked more havoc here than most of the trolls but since you write cute stories - that's overlooked by most."

You seem to be fixated on the little blurbs that I put onto the Wreck from time to time. I mean no harm by them. I thought that some found them to be entertaining and, at certain times, a diversion from the negative tone induced by trolls, homegrown and otherwise. I find your characterization of me as having wreaked havoc, to be beyond my understanding - and really, really funny.

"I'm certainly not winning any popularity contests by critizing your actions - but you were dead wrong."

Wrong in what, my brother? Is it so wrong to, "take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them"? I think not. As to popularity contests, this is not a concern of mine - I am saddened to see that it is a consideration of yours.

"If I can make one person pause and make them realize it is not okay to do things that way... I'll consider it worth the effort."

Rocinante awaits your command. I hope only that your future windmills are more substantial than myself.

Bob S.

(Part The Second.)

"Trust me Bob, I knew what the crowd reaction would be if I called him on this. A popular individual - even though his actions were flat ass wrong - would be put on a pedestal to be revered and I would become the target. That's okay - the goal was accomplished."

I'm popular? I must inform them of this at my next High School Reunion. Those that have not already died, will surely do so upon hearing this.

"I considered those that signed the list to be just blind followers who would pay any price to read a story - and to be part of Tom's gang."

Dearest Bob, I started no list. And, if you think that the people who hang out on the Wreck can be influenced by my foolish stories, then you must wear a tinfoil hat and scan the skies for black helicopters. I have found no group of people so independent in their thinking, so disrespectful of common action, so enamored of their own opinions, than this group that we call the Wreck - it's why I like it here.

"That conduct was reprehensible and I wouldn't want to be associated with anyone thatcondones that kind of moral conduct."

Now we have taken it from a social to a moral failing? I think this is deeper than what I want to address, just now.

" And Keith... I'm really surprised that you did his bidding for him since in the past, you had always shown you were above that - or at least I thought you were."

Keith Bohn? You suggest that Keith Bohn does the "bidding" of anyone? That is both insulting to Keith and a complete indication that this has veered off into uncharted and imponderable waters.

"Perhaps some of you loyal followers should read his posts again - all the words this time and apply the same standard to him that you do to everyone else - but fairly this time."

If it so suits you, Bob, I would be happy for anyone to do as you suggest, and read everything in context. So far as I know, I have nothing to regret, save a certain stridency in defense of what I thought was right. This could be construed as a stylistic flaw but not an error in intent.

"I'm sure Tom will become very active over in alt.stories and create quite a following shortly. Please join him there and you can have your mutual admiration society meetings and gloat over your successes."

I've never been a frequenter of any other newsgroup than the Wreck. I began lurking here in late 1994 and didn't work up the spit to say anything until much later. I have enjoyed the group through its ups and downs but have grown tired of the bickering, of late. Things will settle out, as they always have.

"No guy's, I'm not going away either. The small segment that you represent doesn't amount to squat in the overall picture. I can still contribute and learn here, as well as clean house when needed - just like you but without the gangland tactics."

No need to put on the hair shirt, Bob. I think that if you took a survey, nobody around here would give any more of a damn about what I say than about what anyone else says. It's Usenet, Bob. There are no segments, excepting those that go all the way down to the level of the individual. There is no great conspiracy to drive things in any preconceived direction. I spoke against what I perceived to be a destructive force - as you have (now, you see, I'm allowed to get away with that little tense change - it's a fussy sorta thing). I respect your perception that I am a negative force, although I strongly disagree. I am saddened that you would not show me the same courtesy.

"We're one for one.......next."

Now, this is the statement that motivated me to reply. This is the statement of a small man. I do not speak of physical stature - I speak of a smallness of heart, insight and intent. It further seems vainglorious, full of personal puffery, and exactly the sort of thing that I need a vacation from.

You have diminished yourself, Bob.

I would have put this in the form of an email but found that you no longer use your real name or real email address in your posting. I still do and you may reply as you see fit.

You have my mea culpa for reacting with excess to the excesses of BAD. You can see the damage that he has caused, and continues to cause.

The rest of you have my mea culpa for mentioning his name - it is a further indication of my need for relief.

I wish that this had not been brought to my attention.

I would appreciate it if none of you would forward other posts regarding this or other unpleasantness.

I am going fishing tomorrow.

Regards, Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

snipe of a long thread........

We've now both had our say and it serves no purpose to continue. Enjoy your fishing trip....

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

Todd,

You haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.

In kind....Stuff it...

Reply to
Bob

Mark,

No, I am not the Wrecks traffic cop, nor do I want to be. About 20 others self-appointed themselves as the wrecks cleanup crew though and that was okay huh. I went after one person for one specific reason.

Killfile him if necessary.

Exactly... and that is the whole point here. Aggrevating the individual and egging him on, then publicly shunning him were the tactics used by the gang.

Hmmmmm... and what about the others? You can justify their actions...?

Same here...

I'm not patting myself on the shoulder. I don't need your help and nothing personal but I didn't ask for your input.

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

I extend my hand to you, Bob.

You have been a too honest, good, and serious contributor to this newsgroup for me to wish to be at issue with you.

We may have to agree to disagree on what has been discussed but, for my part, if either, or both of us has wandered from the path of gentlemanly behavior during the discussion, I would beg your forgiveness, at least on my behalf - and if I have so provoked you as to cause your wandering - my doubled regrets and apologies.

Good wishes and Godspeed.

Regards, Tom.

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

formatting link

Reply to
Tom Watson

Done deal... you have my respect and my hand on that.

It's alright to disagree Tom, that's why God invented lawyers and undertakers....and oh yeah, we both wandered a bit. Next time, please find a different way - no shunning and I'll promise not to over react.

Enjoy your fishing trip and I will look forward to your posts when you return.

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

Tom and Bob,

it is not pleasant to read the recent disagreements between you, not because of the tone, but because you are *both* valued contributors and no-one likes to see their (virtual) friends disagree.

I would like to make short comment, if I may.

Recent events came about because of an unprecedented and long running attack on the wreck by a few individuals, but one in the main. I'd like to clearly separate this currrent dispute from the previous ones by one simple factor - "mens rea". The term means "guilty mind". Applied here, the previous unpleasantness was deliberate and planned to disrupt or destroy the wreck. The current issue has arisen in a different manner.

At some point, the treatment that was eventually received by the individual was going to happen - wreckers had simply had enough of the behaviour; all that was needed was an ignition point, which could have come from anywhere.

Looking at this particular discussion, I (we) know that at some point an understanding will be reached. In the other matter, whenever an understanding was reached, we knew that one particular individual would simply move on to his next victim. There is no correllation between the two and I think any attempt to liken the two situations demeans you both.

What is similar between the two of you, and quite apparent, is the 'ownership' you have of the wreck, and your willingness to protect it. What is perhaps at issue is how you choose to try and defend it, and from whom.

I hope you can come to an accomodation, as I see this as collateral damage from the previous problem.

best regards to you both,

Groggy

Reply to
Groggy

Bob,

unfortunately, being part of the underworld (so to speak) I didn't get to see those posts until I refreshed when sending mine. Glad to see things settle down.

cheers,

Greg (who's finally out to the shop for a change)

Reply to
Groggy

Greg,

Your opinion, advice and understanding of both sides of the issue is certainly a welcomed response.

Your help is appreciated and accepted and Tom and I have shaken hands.

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

For one that stands on his head all day, you certainly do have a way with words....

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

Hey Bob, any chance you could ping me on the back channel with a valid e-mail address?

UA100

Reply to
Unisaw A100

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Reply to
Groggy

You have mail....

Bob S.

Reply to
Bob

dave

Reply to
Bay Area Dave

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.