Re: Kook of the Month Nomination -- Painius: Re: FD Nomination acceptance speech #3: Re: Bright "Star-Physics" in the Sky Again

"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
news:270620072047356135%erfc@caballista.org...
> Painius <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote:
>
>>"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message...
>>news:230620070746398050%erfc@caballista.org...
>>> Painius <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote:
>>>>"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message...
>>>>news:070620072150085710%erfc@caballista.org. ..
>>>>> Painius <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just can't get over the fact that
>>>>>> the beloved genius, Albert Einstein, actually did
>>>>>> turn his back on the VSP and promoted "space-
>>>>>> as-FIELD", "space-as-SOMETHING".
>>>>>
>>>>> Not true.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unlike yourself, BS, and A-A, Einstein was a real scientist who
>>>>> continually questioned not only the ideas of others, but especially
>>>>> his
>>>>> own. Thus you have fallen into thinking this non-technical essay is
>>>>> the last word on the subject.
>>>>
>>>>You appear to be saying that just because Einstein
>>>>wrote about "space-as-field" in a non-technical,
>>>>written-for-the-layperson type of work, that his
>>>>words are "not true"?
>>>>
>>>>That's just more hand-waving and nonsense, quite
>>>>ko0ky on your part, Goose.
>>>>
>>>>As Carroll's Alice would say,...
>>>>
>>>> "Curiouser and curiouser!"
>>>>
>>>>>> I realize it's incumbent upon me to find evidence
>>>>>> acceptable to science. And i shall try to do so, as
>>>>>> i said.
>>>>>
>>>>> You haven't yet, and BS stammers over and over that the hypothesis is
>>>>> the evidence of the hypothesis.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But you seem to be so obsessed with the
>>>>>> idea that it's not true. So back it up! Let's see
>>>>>> that list again, BUT...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This* time, how about providing more detail.
>>>>>> Your list of objections thus far is mostly too vague
>>>>>> and incoherent to answer. In the past when i
>>>>>> made this comment, you told me to study more
>>>>>> physics. This tells me you don't know how to be
>>>>>> more specific. So don't waste your time or mine
>>>>>> if you don't plan to be very specific and clear on
>>>>>> your list of objections.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first time you made a lame attempt to answer them, you rejected a
>>>>> number of them merely on the basis of your "personal satisfaction".
>>>>> If
>>>>> you consider them vague, then you don't understand their implications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I took one of them and expounded on the implications in great
>>>>> detail in a long post. Your "reply" was just a couple lines, and
>>>>> showed that either you didn't bother to even read it, or that it was
>>>>> completely over your level of understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, to ask that I do the same for all 20+ of them is a waste of my
>>>>> time -- previous history has shown that you have no intention of
>>>>> seriously considering them.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you really are serious, then go back and dredge that post up and
>>>>> try
>>>>> to respond it rationally. Until then, you're on your own.
>>>>
>>>>Translation: I haven't a clue as to how to do
>>>>what you ask, so i'll throw an ad hominem
>>>>attack at Painius along with the tried and true
>>>>rosy herrings.
>>>>
>>>>>>> About all you've managed to demonstrate is your complete lack of any
>>>>>>> critical thinking skills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe it would help if you would hone your
>>>>>>technical writing skills. It's hard to think too
>>>>>>critically when those posing objections are too
>>>>>>vague.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>>>>>
>>>>> You have provided any yet, other than to state that the claim
>>>>> demonstrates itself.
>>>>
>>>>It's logical evidence, Goose. The claim does not
>>>>demonstrate itself. The claim is demonstrated by
>>>>the logic. I forgive you for having a mind that
>>>>does not differentiate between logic and nonsense.
>>>
>>> The saucerheads, as a rule, are not abusive kooks, yet their kookyness
>>> still runs deep and strong. An excellent example are the rather
>>> unconventional ideas about gravitation they love to pontificate about.
>>> I realize that the eyes of a lot of people probably start to glaze over
>>> at seeing yet another rambling discourse about "flowing space",
>>> Einstein, and gravity, but the behavior used to propagate these ideas
>>> are quite kooky.
>>
>>And the glazed over eyes may find it interesting
>>that you, Art Deco, have done more than most
>>people to propagate these ideas. I find it truly
>>fascinating that you can't let go of this. You
>>keep after it like it was a tiger by the tale. It
>>must be that you find something attractive in the
>>idea of flowing space.
>>
>>The only other explanation is that you're a super-
>>kook. And we all know *that's* not true. <g>
>>
>>> Painius is a true-blue believer that gravity and space are made of a
>>> mysterious, undetectable, high-energy "fluid" that flows throughout the
>>> universe.
>>
>>True.
>>
>>> The problems with this idea are myriad and I won't repeat
>>> them here, yet his desire for it to be true is so strong that he
>>> rejects out-of-hand any and all attempts to demonstrate the errors.
>>> The exchange above is a good example.
>>
>>The problems with flowing space are no more
>>"myriad" than the problems with the mainstream
>>paradigm of space-as-void. You are fibbing when
>>you say that i reject your attempts to demonstrate
>>any errors. You yourself said that i have not run
>>away from you and have no qualms about talking
>>with you on this subject.
>>
>>Of course, then five minutes later, you're spewing
>>the above crap about how i reject your ideas "out-
>>of-hand".
>>
>>Who are you and what have you done with Art Deco?
>>
>>> While admitting that his formal education in university-level physics
>>> is nil, he nevertheless has declared that most of the physics of the
>>> last 150 years is wrong.
>>
>>Another fib.
>>
>>> Many people over the years, not just myself,
>>> have tried to show him how he is wrong, but his grip on his ideas is so
>>> strong that he refuses to consider alternatives. While declaring
>>> physics is wrong, he also loves to claim that Einstein himself held
>>> these ideas.
>>
>>Another fib.
>>
>>> I have personally tried to show him how the flowing space model is
>>> wrong (as have others before me, including professionals like John
>>> Zinni, Phineas P., etc.) using quite lengthy posts on a number of
>>> occasions, and the result is always replies such as the one above.
>>>
>>> He has a long history of slinging goofy lames at people who dare
>>> question these ideas, and is not adverse to using Pee Wee Herman
>>> tactics. His laming abilities earned him the nickname "painsnuh".
>>>
>>> Some examples:
>>>
>>> Message-ID: <310120072038140844%erfc-1024@usa.net>
>>>
>>> (Which reminds me...)
>>>
>>> After tossing his lames around, he then likes to demand that other
>>> people be "civil" in discourses. Logic and critical thinking are not
>>> his strong suits.
>>>
>>> He is a perfect example of the old adage:
>>>
>>> "Arguing with kooks is pointless." -- a wise person posting to usenet
>>>
>>> For these reasons, I nominate Painius for Kook of the Month, June 2007.
>>>
>>> Any seconds?
>>
>>
>>Give it to yourself, Goose, you deserve it *so*
>>much more than i.
>
> Bravo! A fine speech, painsnuh! Since you are too chicken to share
> with the good folks of AUK and AFA-B, I've taken the liberty to restore
> the newsgroups you ran away from. Double-A's sneck strategy is really
> working well, you've managed to avoid getting a Kook of the Month
> nomination.
>
> Hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>
> --
> Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy
> Trainer and leash holder of:


--
As can be seen from their posts,
"Art Deco", "Bob Officer", "Cujo DeSockpuppet", "Puddleduck", "Meat Plow",
and a small group of low self-esteem, bigoted sociopaths are turning the
Internet into a vast sewer.

Rather than mud wrestling with them, I simply call attention to their posts
without comment.

The question is, what can be done to keep anonymous perverts and sociopaths
from destroying the Internet?

As rats, roaches, criminals, sociopaths, and other vermin
fear exposure and tend to fade away when exposed to light,
here's what could be done to prevent a few perverts and sociopaths
from turning your newsgroup into a sewer.

1. Post their real names, addresses and employers on the Internet.
2. Post their pictures and other personal data on the Internet.
3. Report them to their ISP and Google
4. Sue them in local Small Claims courts
5. Report them to law enforcement when they commit crimes such as forging
users names,
identity theft, soliciting children, etc.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Jul 5, 7:33 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message
>
> news:270620072047356135%erfc@caballista.org...
>
>
>
> > Painius <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message...
> >>news:230620070746398050%erfc@caballista.org...
> >>> Painius <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> >>>>"Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message...
> >>>>news:070620072150085710%erfc@caballista.org. ..
> >>>>> Painius <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> You just can't get over the fact that
> >>>>>> the beloved genius, Albert Einstein, actually did
> >>>>>> turn his back on the VSP and promoted "space-
> >>>>>> as-FIELD", "space-as-SOMETHING".
>
> >>>>> Not true.
>
> >>>>> <http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm>
>
> >>>>> Unlike yourself, BS, and A-A, Einstein was a real scientist who
> >>>>> continually questioned not only the ideas of others, but especially
> >>>>> his
> >>>>> own. Thus you have fallen into thinking this non-technical essay is
> >>>>> the last word on the subject.
>
> >>>>You appear to be saying that just because Einstein
> >>>>wrote about "space-as-field" in a non-technical,
> >>>>written-for-the-layperson type of work, that his
> >>>>words are "not true"?
>
> >>>>That's just more hand-waving and nonsense, quite
> >>>>ko0ky on your part, Goose.
>
> >>>>As Carroll's Alice would say,...
>
> >>>> "Curiouser and curiouser!"
>
> >>>>>> I realize it's incumbent upon me to find evidence
> >>>>>> acceptable to science. And i shall try to do so, as
> >>>>>> i said.
>
> >>>>> You haven't yet, and BS stammers over and over that the hypothesis is
> >>>>> the evidence of the hypothesis.
>
> >>>>>> But you seem to be so obsessed with the
> >>>>>> idea that it's not true. So back it up! Let's see
> >>>>>> that list again, BUT...
>
> >>>>>> *This* time, how about providing more detail.
> >>>>>> Your list of objections thus far is mostly too vague
> >>>>>> and incoherent to answer. In the past when i
> >>>>>> made this comment, you told me to study more
> >>>>>> physics. This tells me you don't know how to be
> >>>>>> more specific. So don't waste your time or mine
> >>>>>> if you don't plan to be very specific and clear on
> >>>>>> your list of objections.
>
> >>>>> The first time you made a lame attempt to answer them, you rejected a
> >>>>> number of them merely on the basis of your "personal satisfaction".
> >>>>> If
> >>>>> you consider them vague, then you don't understand their implications.
>
> >>>>> Also, I took one of them and expounded on the implications in great
> >>>>> detail in a long post. Your "reply" was just a couple lines, and
> >>>>> showed that either you didn't bother to even read it, or that it was
> >>>>> completely over your level of understanding.
>
> >>>>> Thus, to ask that I do the same for all 20+ of them is a waste of my
> >>>>> time -- previous history has shown that you have no intention of
> >>>>> seriously considering them.
>
> >>>>> If you really are serious, then go back and dredge that post up and
> >>>>> try
> >>>>> to respond it rationally. Until then, you're on your own.
>
> >>>>Translation: I haven't a clue as to how to do
> >>>>what you ask, so i'll throw an ad hominem
> >>>>attack at Painius along with the tried and true
> >>>>rosy herrings.
>
> >>>>>>> About all you've managed to demonstrate is your complete lack of any
> >>>>>>> critical thinking skills.
>
> >>>>>>Maybe it would help if you would hone your
> >>>>>>technical writing skills. It's hard to think too
> >>>>>>critically when those posing objections are too
> >>>>>>vague.
>
> >>>>> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>
> >>>>> You have provided any yet, other than to state that the claim
> >>>>> demonstrates itself.
>
> >>>>It's logical evidence, Goose. The claim does not
> >>>>demonstrate itself. The claim is demonstrated by
> >>>>the logic. I forgive you for having a mind that
> >>>>does not differentiate between logic and nonsense.
>
> >>> The saucerheads, as a rule, are not abusive kooks, yet their kookyness
> >>> still runs deep and strong. An excellent example are the rather
> >>> unconventional ideas about gravitation they love to pontificate about.
> >>> I realize that the eyes of a lot of people probably start to glaze over
> >>> at seeing yet another rambling discourse about "flowing space",
> >>> Einstein, and gravity, but the behavior used to propagate these ideas
> >>> are quite kooky.
>
> >>And the glazed over eyes may find it interesting
> >>that you, Art Deco, have done more than most
> >>people to propagate these ideas. I find it truly
> >>fascinating that you can't let go of this. You
> >>keep after it like it was a tiger by the tale. It
> >>must be that you find something attractive in the
> >>idea of flowing space.
>
> >>The only other explanation is that you're a super-
> >>kook. And we all know *that's* not true. <g>
>
> >>> Painius is a true-blue believer that gravity and space are made of a
> >>> mysterious, undetectable, high-energy "fluid" that flows throughout the
> >>> universe.
>
> >>True.
>
> >>> The problems with this idea are myriad and I won't repeat
> >>> them here, yet his desire for it to be true is so strong that he
> >>> rejects out-of-hand any and all attempts to demonstrate the errors.
> >>> The exchange above is a good example.
>
> >>The problems with flowing space are no more
> >>"myriad" than the problems with the mainstream
> >>paradigm of space-as-void. You are fibbing when
> >>you say that i reject your attempts to demonstrate
> >>any errors. You yourself said that i have not run
> >>away from you and have no qualms about talking
> >>with you on this subject.
>
> >>Of course, then five minutes later, you're spewing
> >>the above crap about how i reject your ideas "out-
> >>of-hand".
>
> >>Who are you and what have you done with Art Deco?
>
> >>> While admitting that his formal education in university-level physics
> >>> is nil, he nevertheless has declared that most of the physics of the
> >>> last 150 years is wrong.
>
> >>Another fib.
>
> >>> Many people over the years, not just myself,
> >>> have tried to show him how he is wrong, but his grip on his ideas is so
> >>> strong that he refuses to consider alternatives. While declaring
> >>> physics is wrong, he also loves to claim that Einstein himself held
> >>> these ideas.
>
> >>Another fib.
>
> >>> I have personally tried to show him how the flowing space model is
> >>> wrong (as have others before me, including professionals like John
> >>> Zinni, Phineas P., etc.) using quite lengthy posts on a number of
> >>> occasions, and the result is always replies such as the one above.
>
> >>> He has a long history of slinging goofy lames at people who dare
> >>> question these ideas, and is not adverse to using Pee Wee Herman
> >>> tactics. His laming abilities earned him the nickname "painsnuh".
>
> >>> Some examples:
>
> >>> Message-ID: <310120072038140844%erfc-1...@usa.net>
>
> >>> (Which reminds me...)
>
> >>> After tossing his lames around, he then likes to demand that other
> >>> people be "civil" in discourses. Logic and critical thinking are not
> >>> his strong suits.
>
> >>> He is a perfect example of the old adage:
>
> >>> "Arguing with kooks is pointless." -- a wise person posting to usenet
>
> >>> For these reasons, I nominate Painius for Kook of the Month, June 2007.
>
> >>> Any seconds?
>
> >>Give it to yourself, Goose, you deserve it *so*
> >>much more than i.
>
> > Bravo! A fine speech, painsnuh! Since you are too chicken to share
> > with the good folks of AUK and AFA-B, I've taken the liberty to restore
> > the newsgroups you ran away from. Double-A's sneck strategy is really
> > working well, you've managed to avoid getting a Kook of the Month
> > nomination.
>
> > Hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>
> > --
> > Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy
> > Trainer and leash holder of:
>
> --
> As can be seen from their posts,
> "Art Deco", "Bob Officer", "Cujo DeSockpuppet", "Puddleduck", "Meat Plow",
> and a small group of low self-esteem, bigoted sociopaths are turning the
> Internet into a vast sewer.
>
> Rather than mud wrestling with them, I simply call attention to their posts
> without comment.
>
> The question is, what can be done to keep anonymous perverts and sociopaths
> from destroying the Internet?
>
> As rats, roaches, criminals, sociopaths, and other vermin
> fear exposure and tend to fade away when exposed to light,
> here's what could be done to prevent a few perverts and sociopaths
> from turning your newsgroup into a sewer.
>
> 1. Post their real names, addresses and employers on the Internet.
> 2. Post their pictures and other personal data on the Internet.
> 3. Report them to their ISP and Google
> 4. Sue them in local Small Claims courts
> 5. Report them to law enforcement when they commit crimes such as forging
> users names,
> identity theft, soliciting children, etc.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

You have Tourette's, Tom?

On Jul 5, 11:58 pm, Raving <raving.loo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 7:33 am, "Tom Potter" <tdp1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:270620072047356135%erfc@caballista.org...
>
> > > Painius <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>"Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message...
> > >>news:230620070746398050%erfc@caballista.org...
> > >>> Painius <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
> > >>>>"Art Deco" <e...@caballista.org> wrote in message...
> > >>>>news:070620072150085710%erfc@caballista.org. ..
> > >>>>> Painius <starswirlern...@maol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> You just can't get over the fact that
> > >>>>>> the beloved genius, Albert Einstein, actually did
> > >>>>>> turn his back on the VSP and promoted "space-
> > >>>>>> as-FIELD", "space-as-SOMETHING".
>
> > >>>>> Not true.
>
> > >>>>> <http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm>
>
> > >>>>> Unlike yourself, BS, and A-A, Einstein was a real scientist who
> > >>>>> continually questioned not only the ideas of others, but especially
> > >>>>> his
> > >>>>> own. Thus you have fallen into thinking this non-technical essay is
> > >>>>> the last word on the subject.
>
> > >>>>You appear to be saying that just because Einstein
> > >>>>wrote about "space-as-field" in a non-technical,
> > >>>>written-for-the-layperson type of work, that his
> > >>>>words are "not true"?
>
> > >>>>That's just more hand-waving and nonsense, quite
> > >>>>ko0ky on your part, Goose.
>
> > >>>>As Carroll's Alice would say,...
>
> > >>>> "Curiouser and curiouser!"
>
> > >>>>>> I realize it's incumbent upon me to find evidence
> > >>>>>> acceptable to science. And i shall try to do so, as
> > >>>>>> i said.
>
> > >>>>> You haven't yet, and BS stammers over and over that the hypothesis is
> > >>>>> the evidence of the hypothesis.
>
> > >>>>>> But you seem to be so obsessed with the
> > >>>>>> idea that it's not true. So back it up! Let's see
> > >>>>>> that list again, BUT...
>
> > >>>>>> *This* time, how about providing more detail.
> > >>>>>> Your list of objections thus far is mostly too vague
> > >>>>>> and incoherent to answer. In the past when i
> > >>>>>> made this comment, you told me to study more
> > >>>>>> physics. This tells me you don't know how to be
> > >>>>>> more specific. So don't waste your time or mine
> > >>>>>> if you don't plan to be very specific and clear on
> > >>>>>> your list of objections.
>
> > >>>>> The first time you made a lame attempt to answer them, you rejected a
> > >>>>> number of them merely on the basis of your "personal satisfaction".
> > >>>>> If
> > >>>>> you consider them vague, then you don't understand their implications.
>
> > >>>>> Also, I took one of them and expounded on the implications in great
> > >>>>> detail in a long post. Your "reply" was just a couple lines, and
> > >>>>> showed that either you didn't bother to even read it, or that it was
> > >>>>> completely over your level of understanding.
>
> > >>>>> Thus, to ask that I do the same for all 20+ of them is a waste of my
> > >>>>> time -- previous history has shown that you have no intention of
> > >>>>> seriously considering them.
>
> > >>>>> If you really are serious, then go back and dredge that post up and
> > >>>>> try
> > >>>>> to respond it rationally. Until then, you're on your own.
>
> > >>>>Translation: I haven't a clue as to how to do
> > >>>>what you ask, so i'll throw an ad hominem
> > >>>>attack at Painius along with the tried and true
> > >>>>rosy herrings.
>
> > >>>>>>> About all you've managed to demonstrate is your complete lack of any
> > >>>>>>> critical thinking skills.
>
> > >>>>>>Maybe it would help if you would hone your
> > >>>>>>technical writing skills. It's hard to think too
> > >>>>>>critically when those posing objections are too
> > >>>>>>vague.
>
> > >>>>> "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
>
> > >>>>> You have provided any yet, other than to state that the claim
> > >>>>> demonstrates itself.
>
> > >>>>It's logical evidence, Goose. The claim does not
> > >>>>demonstrate itself. The claim is demonstrated by
> > >>>>the logic. I forgive you for having a mind that
> > >>>>does not differentiate between logic and nonsense.
>
> > >>> The saucerheads, as a rule, are not abusive kooks, yet their kookyness
> > >>> still runs deep and strong. An excellent example are the rather
> > >>> unconventional ideas about gravitation they love to pontificate about.
> > >>> I realize that the eyes of a lot of people probably start to glaze over
> > >>> at seeing yet another rambling discourse about "flowing space",
> > >>> Einstein, and gravity, but the behavior used to propagate these ideas
> > >>> are quite kooky.
>
> > >>And the glazed over eyes may find it interesting
> > >>that you, Art Deco, have done more than most
> > >>people to propagate these ideas. I find it truly
> > >>fascinating that you can't let go of this. You
> > >>keep after it like it was a tiger by the tale. It
> > >>must be that you find something attractive in the
> > >>idea of flowing space.
>
> > >>The only other explanation is that you're a super-
> > >>kook. And we all know *that's* not true. <g>
>
> > >>> Painius is a true-blue believer that gravity and space are made of a
> > >>> mysterious, undetectable, high-energy "fluid" that flows throughout the
> > >>> universe.
>
> > >>True.
>
> > >>> The problems with this idea are myriad and I won't repeat
> > >>> them here, yet his desire for it to be true is so strong that he
> > >>> rejects out-of-hand any and all attempts to demonstrate the errors.
> > >>> The exchange above is a good example.
>
> > >>The problems with flowing space are no more
> > >>"myriad" than the problems with the mainstream
> > >>paradigm of space-as-void. You are fibbing when
> > >>you say that i reject your attempts to demonstrate
> > >>any errors. You yourself said that i have not run
> > >>away from you and have no qualms about talking
> > >>with you on this subject.
>
> > >>Of course, then five minutes later, you're spewing
> > >>the above crap about how i reject your ideas "out-
> > >>of-hand".
>
> > >>Who are you and what have you done with Art Deco?
>
> > >>> While admitting that his formal education in university-level physics
> > >>> is nil, he nevertheless has declared that most of the physics of the
> > >>> last 150 years is wrong.
>
> > >>Another fib.
>
> > >>> Many people over the years, not just myself,
> > >>> have tried to show him how he is wrong, but his grip on his ideas is so
> > >>> strong that he refuses to consider alternatives. While declaring
> > >>> physics is wrong, he also loves to claim that Einstein himself held
> > >>> these ideas.
>
> > >>Another fib.
>
> > >>> I have personally tried to show him how the flowing space model is
> > >>> wrong (as have others before me, including professionals like John
> > >>> Zinni, Phineas P., etc.) using quite lengthy posts on a number of
> > >>> occasions, and the result is always replies such as the one above.
>
> > >>> He has a long history of slinging goofy lames at people who dare
> > >>> question these ideas, and is not adverse to using Pee Wee Herman
> > >>> tactics. His laming abilities earned him the nickname "painsnuh".
>
> > >>> Some examples:
>
> > >>> Message-ID: <310120072038140844%erfc-1...@usa.net>
>
> > >>> (Which reminds me...)
>
> > >>> After tossing his lames around, he then likes to demand that other
> > >>> people be "civil" in discourses. Logic and critical thinking are not
> > >>> his strong suits.
>
> > >>> He is a perfect example of the old adage:
>
> > >>> "Arguing with kooks is pointless." -- a wise person posting to usenet
>
> > >>> For these reasons, I nominate Painius for Kook of the Month, June 2007.
>
> > >>> Any seconds?
>
> > >>Give it to yourself, Goose, you deserve it *so*
> > >>much more than i.
>
> > > Bravo! A fine speech, painsnuh! Since you are too chicken to share
> > > with the good folks of AUK and AFA-B, I've taken the liberty to restore
> > > the newsgroups you ran away from. Double-A's sneck strategy is really
> > > working well, you've managed to avoid getting a Kook of the Month
> > > nomination.
>
> > > Hahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>
> > > --
> > > Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy
> > > Trainer and leash holder of:
>
> > --
> > As can be seen from their posts,
> > "Art Deco", "Bob Officer", "Cujo DeSockpuppet", "Puddleduck", "Meat Plow",
> > and a small group of low self-esteem, bigoted sociopaths are turning the
> > Internet into a vast sewer.
>
> > Rather than mud wrestling with them, I simply call attention to their posts
> > without comment.
>
> > The question is, what can be done to keep anonymous perverts and sociopaths
> > from destroying the Internet?
>
> > As rats, roaches, criminals, sociopaths, and other vermin
> > fear exposure and tend to fade away when exposed to light,
> > here's what could be done to prevent a few perverts and sociopaths
> > from turning your newsgroup into a sewer.
>
> > 1. Post their real names, addresses and employers on the Internet.
> > 2. Post their pictures and other personal data on the Internet.
> > 3. Report them to their ISP and Google
> > 4. Sue them in local Small Claims courts
> > 5. Report them to law enforcement when they commit crimes such as forging
> > users names,
> > identity theft, soliciting children, etc.
>
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
>
> You have Tourette's, Tom?- Hide quoted text -

A gal with Tourette's Syndrome worked for me
and she was a good employee,
but it annoyed the folks around her,
as she sometimes blurted out words,
and sometimes ate cigarette butts.

Back in the 1980's,
I had a computer program that monitored
the SMDR output from my telephone system,
and I had programs to analyze the data
in real time, and present graphs
of what was happening.
I even used the system to input data from phones,
and as a time clock.

I also saved the data is a Dbase file,
and analyzed it later.

What was really strange,
is this gal would call the same number
several times every day, and hang up when
the phone rang.

I set the phone system to lock out that number
and the gal went ballistic.

Apparently she had a compulsion to call that number,
and it was very important to her.

I had to allow her to call the number
a couple of times per day to get her
productive again.

To answer your question Raving,
I am very familiar with Tourette's,
and as far as I tell,
I have none of the symptoms.

I do have a tendency to say "oops"
when I seen someone drop something,

and I do have a tendency to "bluster"
when I respond to silly posts.

Do you think that could be connect Raving?

Your pal,

--
Tom Potter

*** Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006 ***
*** May 2007 Anti-Bigot Award ***
http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
http://tdp1001.googlepages.com/home
http://no-turtles.com
http://www.frappr.com/tompotter
http://photos.yahoo.com/tdp1001
http://spaces.msn.com/tdp1001
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter
http://tom-potter.blogspot.com