www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
The latest tally:
antagonist # today total
-------------- ------- -----
kohl 29 940
nightingale 18 624 including four other newsgroups
fields 368 including three other newsgroups
haslam|halsam 5 356
dizzy 1 288 including eight other newsgroups
kolle 200
zwar 200 including one other newsgroup
beck 142
wehrung 139 including one other newsgroup
porter 137
grantco 136
cypherpunk 4 135 including eighteen other newsgroups
daniels 99 including one other newsgroup
penso 5 97
bloggs 88
creevey 69
catroo 1 66
jaakko 1 61
lockhart 46
carrie 43
mazzolata 24
evil 18
harrington 18 including three other newsgroups
briggs 17
bergengruen 15
adam 12
charles 12 including one other newsgroup
bornfeld 11
curtis 11 including one other newsgroup
porky 1 11
byrd 9
verger 7
highwood 6
ratelkous 6
brock 5
hall 5
nighingale 5
oisk17 5
pistoff 5
*********** 4
eusebius7 4
ploni 4
seriff 4 including three other newsgroups
vriezen 4
wag 4 including three other newsgroups
wood 4
antagonismo 1 3
drpostman 3 including one other newsgroup
goldwater 3
jei 3
kennedy 3 including three other newsgroups
new kid 3
ananoeslachica 2
dalle 2
david 2
donator 2
edward 2
fformby-smythe 2
foray 2
gamble 2
jostein 2
karttunen 2
ladasky 2 including one other newsgroup
mike 2
vulis 2 including four other newsgroups
abelard2 1
archer 1
booker 1
branch 1
burnore 1
callous 1
carrion 1
cox 1
eijkhout 1
gorgone 1
h 1
homie 1
idyll 1
jasons 1
joe 1
koenig 1
malloy 1
maelstroms 1
muething 1
n'vok 1 including one other newsgroup
neff 1
nothel 1
o'boulez 1
onerum 1
paramucho 1
podguszer 1
pokejabba 1
pumpkin 1
richmond 1
root 1
ross 1
schlyter 1 including one other newsgroup
schultz 1
steve 1
steven 1
stratford 1
sullivan 1
thonel 1
yes 1
-------------- ------- -----
104 66 4547
Note: Based on the signature, pokejabba is just another persona of
Jaakko Mäntyjärvi.
===============================================================================
nightingale writes:
607> I think he was confused by the fact that pokejabba quoted your sig in
607> his post.
607> That was clear to everyone except Tholen.
607> An admission of he error is probably too much to expect as well. (This
607> is one time I would not mind being proven wrong.)
608> LOL! He wasn't paying attention, and rather than admit it, he bulls his
608> way through and looks even sillier.
608> I noticed that you never reply to his digest directly, although you
608> reply to some of your fellow 'antagonists'. Sometimes I don't even
608> bother to read it.
609> You're just trying to make sure you keep that huge lead.
610> As if any further demostration was required.
611> But the alternative would be for him to admit his mistake. The note
611> will probably stay until replaced by something equally stupid.
612> Did you really think he would?
613> LOL!
614> No. I'd actually been wondering what had happened that you were so
614> quiet for the last little while. Nice to have you back :-)
615> It's pretty amazing.
616> Could there really ever be an adequate replacement for him? He will
616> live forever in the google archives.
617> Hey! I was the one who predicted that he would not get it - Tholen even
617> quoted it.
618> He's unbeatable.
619> That's great - thanks for sharing!
620> The ISP thing can be frustrating - I've been having my own issues with
620> that. Hope you had a good holiday :-)
621> LOL!
622> A day without a thololaugh is like a day without sunshine.
623> suggestion for a better word?
624> Did you? That post hasn't made it you my server yet.
What does your ongoing antagonism have to do with classical music,
nightingale?
===============================================================================
Jerry Kohl writes:
912> Hurrah! At last, specific responses to specific messages! Aroused from your
torpor at last, the least I
912> can do is answer you, one by one.
912> Note: evades responding to the question.
912> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
913> No it isn't. You've been asking me what some unspecified thing or things has/have
to do with classical
913> music, Tholen; you have *not* been asking "What does *what* have to do with
classical music?" More
913> demonstration of your reading comprehension problems, Tholen.
913> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
914> Well spotted, Tholen. You're so sharp you'd better be careful not to cut
yourself. So, what's your point?
914> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
915> Unsubstantiated and erroneous? What do you want, certification from seven
distinguished logicions? Your
915> pronoun "that", coming as it does after a long list of separate items, is vague
as to its reference. The
915> item to which a pronoun refers is called its "antecedent". Do you understand at
last?
915> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
916> Useless it probably is, since I did not really expect you would take me up on it,
but it was meant
916> sincerely. Self-evidently, it has nothing to do with classical music, so why do
you bother asking, unless
916> you are not yourself sure of the answer?
916> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
917> More of your reading comprehension problems, Tholen? I answered your question the
first time, and then you
917> perseverated by re-posting it ten additional times. Since my first, perfectly
clear answer was not
917> acknowledged, I saw no need to attempt an improvement on it. It is therefore the
furthest possible thing
917> from an evasion. Whether it has anything to do with classical music is entirely
dependent on your
917> question, to which it was an answer.
917> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
918> How is the clear record of perseverating repetition of the identical sentence an
"erroneous
918> presupposition", Tholen? The *fact* of your perseverating repetition does not, in
itself, have anything at
918> all to do with classical music, though the question contained within it may or
may not have anything to do
918> with classical music, depending on its reference. Now, your point is ...?
918> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
919> I've told you before, and I'll tell you again: go look it up and you'll find out
the answer.
919> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
920> Another classic example of a vague antecedent. Supposing you mean the first line,
in and of itself, it
920> self-evidently has no relation to classical music but, as it is a link in a long
chain of discourse (do
920> you know what "discourse" means, Tholen?), it may, if that chain of discourse is
pursued far enough, yea,
920> even unto its fons et origo, brothers and sisters (amen!), and there are no
reading comprehension
920> problems, non sequiturs or the like, a logical connection may be established
which will demonstrate,
920> perhaps irrefutably or at least conclusively, but more probably under the
circumstances merely
920> satisfactorily, that, taken in its proper context, the statement of mine which
you have quoted (and it
920> *is* mine--all mine, I tell you!! *Mine*!!! <diabolical laughter>) has
something--or indeed, on the
920> metaphysical and patatheoretical level or levels on which such discourse may be
deemed to have operated,
920> or still does and may in the future operate or have operated, have a great deal
or even everything--to do
920> with classical music, depending in some degree of course on the a priori
assumptions we have made (or
920> tacitly accepted), including but not limited to the definition of "music" in
general and of "classical
920> music" in particular, without which quite naturally the question is utterly
devoid of meaning and,
920> consequently, ultimately unanswerable. Your turn.
920> If, on the other hand, you refer to the second line above, You are redundantly
asking the same question as
920> before, and I refer you to my earlier replies to it.
920> If, thirdly, you are referring to the two lines in combination, then I am
compelled to point out that
920> signature blocs and the content of messages do not customarily relate one to
another, and your question
920> is, therefore, silly.
920> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
921> As with your immediately preceding question, Tholen, you have blundered once
again into the pitfall of
921> unclear antecedents. Supposing you mean the first line, in and of itself, it
self-evidently has no
921> relation to classical music but, as it is a link in a long chain of
921> discourse (do you know what "discourse" means, Tholen?), it may, if that chain of
discourse is pursued far
921> enough, yea, even unto its fons et origo, brothers and sisters (amen!), and there
are no reading
921> comprehension problems, non sequiturs or the like, a logical connection may be
established which will
921> demonstrate, perhaps irrefutably or at least conclusively, but more probably
under the circumstances
921> merely
921> satisfactorily, that, taken in its proper context, the statement of mine which
you have quoted
921> (and it *is* mine--all mine, I tell you!! *Mine*!!! <diabolical laughter>) has
something--or indeed, on
921> the metaphysical and patatheoretical level or levels on which such discourse may
be deemed to have
921> operated, or still does and may in the future operate or have operated, have a
great deal or even
921> everything--to do with classical music, depending in some degree of course on the
a priori assumptions we
921> have
921> made (or tacitly accepted), including but not limited to the definition of
"music" in general and of
921> "classical music" in particular, without which quite naturally the question is
utterly devoid of meaning
921> and, consequently, ultimately unanswerable. Your turn.
921> If, on the other hand, you refer to the second line above, You are redundantly
asking the same
921> question as before, and I refer you to my earlier replies to it.
921> If, thirdly, you are referring to the two lines in combination, then I am
compelled to point
921> out that signature blocs and the content of messages do not customarily relate
one to another, and your
921> question is, therefore, silly.
921> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
922> Note: he didn't get it.
922> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
923> Yet once again, unclear antecedent, this time with seven possibilities.
923> (1) if you mean the first line, snipping unnecessary verbiage does not, of
course, have anything directly
923> to do with classical music, but it is a courtesy (not always observed, especially
by you) on usenet
923> newsgroups to do so but, when so doing, to indicate that it has been done by
insering an appropriate,
923> brief note to that effect.
923> (2) Supposing you mean the second (pair of) line(s), in and of itself, it
self-evidently has no relation
923> to classical music but, as it is a link in a long chain of discourse (do you know
what "discourse" means,
923> Tholen?), it may, if that chain of discourse is pursued far
923> enough, yea, even unto its fons et origo, brothers and sisters (amen!), and there
are no reading
923> comprehension problems, non sequiturs or the like, a logical connection may be
established which will
923> demonstrate, perhaps irrefutably or at least conclusively, but more probably
under the circumstances
923> merely satisfactorily, that, taken in its proper context, the statement of mine
which you have quoted
923> (and it *is* mine--all mine, I tell you!! *Mine*!!! <diabolical laughter>) has
something--or indeed, on
923> the metaphysical and patatheoretical level or levels on which such discourse may
be deemed to have
923> operated, or still does and may in the future operate or have operated, have a
great deal or even
923> everything--to do with classical music, depending in some degree of course on the
a priori assumptions we
923> have made (or tacitly accepted), including but not limited to the definition of
"music" in general and of
923> "classical music" in particular, without which quite naturally the question is
utterly devoid of meaning
923> and, consequently, ultimately unanswerable.
923> (3) If, on the other hand, you refer to the third line above, You are redundantly
asking the same
923> question as before, and I refer you to my earlier replies to it.
923> (4) If, fourthly, you are referring to the pair of lines 1 and 2, the answer will
depend first on the
923> answers to those items separately (as given above), and second on the logical
operators invoked to relate
923> them.
923> (5-7) If, fifthly, sixthly and/or seventhly, you are referring to 1 and 3, 2 and
3, or all three lines in
923> combination, then I am compelled to
923> point out that signature blocs and the content of messages do not customarily
relate one to another, and
923> your question is, therefore, silly.
923> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
924> As with your previous several responses, you have an unclear antecedent for your
pronoun, and I refer you
924> to my previous replies.
924> Continuing reading comprehension problems on your part, I see, Tholen. I
924> can do no more than reiterate that the above is now an eleventh-generation
924> cut-and-paste, to which I respond with the following tenth-generation
924> cut-and-paste (please insert "> > > > > > > 885> 870> 803>" in front of
924> each line):
924> Why do you quote yourself quoting yourself quoting yourself, without
924> putting in the customary quotation markings? Every time you cut
924> and paste this particular bloc, you just make an even bigger
924> laughingstock out of yourself than you already are.
924> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
925> But antagonistic. You can't deny that it's antagonistic! ;-)
925> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
926> It's a fair cop. I'll go quietly. (But, seriously, did you really think I could
let you make such a huge
926> advance and yet just stand still myself? ;-)
926> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
927> He just goes right on doing it, though. He is simultaneously shameless and
shameful. I don't know how he
927> manages it.
927> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
928> And, sadly, the same is probably true of Tholen himself :-(
928> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
929> Saves a lot of trouble. Thanks, Marcello. Unfortunately, I think you've
programmed an endless loop there, and
929> there's already one in the queue ahead of you!
929> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
930> If you go back to the original context (which Tholen snipped), you will
930> see that I predicted in advance that he would not. I was merely noting
930> that my prognostication was accurate.
930> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
931> XSG!
931> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
932> Well, first we had some problems with my ISP. That kept me intermittently
"off-air" for a while (and that
932> trouble has just started up again tonight). Then there was a national holiday,
and we had house guests. This
932> can play merry havoc with reading newsgroups :-)
932> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
933> Amazing, yes, but pretty? I don't think so.
933> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
934> I'm not sure that "adequate" is a word I would ever use to describe him.
934> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
935> Don't mention it. ;-)
935> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
936> Yes, but I agreed with you. (There are no original ideas in this universe.)
936> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
937> Why, thank you!
937> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
938> Yes, thanks. Nice conversations and Chinese Crispy Duck with all the trimmings!
938> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
939> Marcello has already cooked up a few hundred examples, and he is far more
939> adept at this than I am!
939> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
940> Has it not? I'm sure I agreed, but maybe I didn't post my agreement ;-)
940> "Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Having trouble organizing your thoughts, Kohl? Why else would you need
to post over a dozen separate responses to a single digest? And what do
those responses, plus all the others you've made to fellow antagonists
have to do with classical music, Kohl? I see that you still haven't
admitted that your imagining about multiple octocontrabass clarinets
being built is wrong, thereby leading to a misuse of the plural.
===============================================================================
[Michael|Micheal] [Haslam|Halsam] writes:
352> Looks like your plan is working, Dr. T.
What does your contradiction, having stated just recently that my
strategy isn't working, have to do with classical music, Haslam?
353> It has been explained that you are in error here. Don't keep repeating
353> the same inaccuracies.
What does your reference to an erroneous explanation have to do
with classical music, Haslam?
354> And slew half the seed of Europe one by one.
354> Q. What does that have to do with classical music?
354> A. It's set by Britten in the War Requiem.
354> Sequitur, because one by one was in the previous, quoted, post.
355> And there we all were thinking you were referencing the Simpsons. Doh!
356> Tholen's digests, by any other name, would smell as sweet!
What does that have to do wit classical music, Haslam?
===============================================================================
Jaakko writes:
61> As you probably saw from his latest "Digest", he refuses to acknowledge
61> his own misattribution. And such a strange mistake from him, too -- even
61> if I were to post under an alias (which I have not done and do not
61> intend to do), why would I sign my own name? But then again, he has
61> simply confirmed my suspicion that he will never admit to shooting
61> himself thus in the foot.
61> It is also comical that he has a need to imagine some "emotional need to
61> respond" on my part when it is a matter of record that I have not
61> responded to him at all for over a year, whereas he continues to hound
61> me in his so-called "Digest".
61> "Nil significat nisi oscillat. Du vap. Du vap. Du vap."
What does your unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
classical music, Jaakko? What does your inability to understand
that one can antagonize without responding directly have to do with
classical music, Jaakko? What does your lie about not repsonding to
me at all for over a year have to do with classical music, Jaakko?
Tell me, exactly who do you think you were responding to on 2003 May 20
in Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jaakko?
How ironically comical that your matter of record is a rather blatant
lie, Jaakko. Just goes to show how dishonest you are.
===============================================================================
Marcello Penso writes:
116> It's in his nature to do so (keep repeating). Think 'Note: No response"
116> x 2,500.
117> A lot of inane puerile garabaggio.
117> I take my lessons from you Thloops. Aren't you proud to have a
117> fantagonistic club?
118> DEFINE program: tholen1
118> SET str var: inputKohllist
118> LOOP
118> FOR EACH '>'=20
118> READ >inputKohllist=20
118> IF '>' =3D <>
118> EXIT
118> ENDLOOP
118> SCAN inputKohllist
118> PRINT: 'Cannot perform adequate reading comprehension'
118> END
119> DEFINE program: tholen2
119> PRINT: "Number of allowable 'If statement' processing branches exceeded"
119> END
120> To thloopsy's credit, a lot hilarious stuff has been generated on his
120> behalf, like:
Figures that Penso would once again hypocritically disrupt the newsgroup
with off-topic antagonism. How puerile.
===============================================================================
dizzy writes:
632> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 20:42:55 GMT, tholen tholed:
How does one allegedly "thole" when posting, dizzy?
632> Note: No response.
632> You know, tholen.
632> Note: No response.
632> Note: No response.
632> Note: No response.
632> Note: No response.
632> Note: No response.
632> Note: No response.
632> Note: No response.
632> About as much your's does, tholen.
What does your unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
classical music, dizzy?
===============================================================================
Cypherpunk writes:
188> DANG! I still got aways ta go before I beat kohl!
189> OOOooooh, dis sounds like fun. I think I'll fantasize bout
189> Ward Hardman tonight. Certainly sounds more interestin dan
189> Tholen.
190> Like hell he is! Tholen the fag can keep countin cos I'm still postin!
191> But is there hope for Tholen? Who would marry da stoopid fag anyways?
What do your ongoing antagonism and unsubstantiated and erroneous claim
have to do with classical music, Cypherpunk?
"Grow up."
--Cypherpunk
"So, how about it: try not to post off-topic."
--Cypherpunk
"Leave us the hell alone."
--Cypherpunk
I see that you still haven't practiced what you preached, Cypherpunk.
===============================================================================
Antagonismo writes:
3> The latest tally:
3> protagonist # today total
3> -------------- ------- -------
3> tholen 521 748,306 including 165 other newsgroups
3> -------------- ------- -------
3> 1 521 748,306
What does your unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with
classical music, Antagonismo?
===============================================================================
Porky Pig Jr writes:
11> ROTFL
What does your amusement have to do with classical music, Porky?
===============================================================================
Baron Catroo writes:
66> Dubious; Sturm und Drang is Verdi's preference:
Non sequitur.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
