Another Fogel Lie from the Archives

On Feb 7, 8:32*am, "Tom Nakashima" wrote:
"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 8:16 am, "Tom Nakashima" wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
wrote:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
-tom
IOW, it happened to me, and Carl Fogel was the perp.

So was it a personal attack against you or your family, or an attack
on your business?
It sounds quite serious, but this is the first time I heard of a newsgroup
member going outside of the RBT boundaries for personal attacks.
-tom

Apparently, some folks can't tell where Usenet ends and the real world
begins. Carl Fogel would be a prime example. The attacks were personal
in nature.

"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 8:32 am, "Tom Nakashima" wrote:
"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 8:16 am, "Tom Nakashima" wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:13:02 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
wrote:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

This is interesting, what do you mean by 1st hand experience?
-tom
IOW, it happened to me, and Carl Fogel was the perp.

So was it a personal attack against you or your family, or an attack
on your business?
It sounds quite serious, but this is the first time I heard of a newsgroup
member going outside of the RBT boundaries for personal attacks.
-tom

Apparently, some folks can't tell where Usenet ends and the real world
begins. Carl Fogel would be a prime example. The attacks were personal
in nature.

Sorry to hear that,
I would have to say that's crossing the line and going a bit too far.
-tom

On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him. Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.

Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable. I have no admiration
from those who agree.

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 7, 3:16*pm, wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:



aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him. *Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.

Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.


Apparently, you have no problem with guys whos forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh? Nor with
those who send nasty snail mails to posters family members, either.


*I have no admiration
from those who agree.


Imagine the horror of not having the "admiration" of Frank Krygowski!
The horror! The horror!!

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
On Feb 7, 3:16 pm, wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:



aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).
I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him. Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.
Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.


Apparently, you have no problem with guys whos forward, unsolicited,
private emails...

I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 7, 9:16*pm, wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:11 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:



aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Feb 6, 10:13 am, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:

Peter Cole may have thought the other guy "rigid", but I'll wager that
that guy did not forward private emails, unsolicited, to a third party
nor send out nasty snail mails to other posters family members. Fogel
has committed both those foul deeds (I know this from first hand
experience).

I'll wager the other guy also did not put the name of his opponent in
the heading of a thread, using it specifically to defame him. *Only a
few here have ever stooped to that level.

Such as the "Goatheads for Jobst" thread?

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *

Explain to us, Krygo, how it is not willful defamation for Carl Fogel
to call someone a liar on absolutely zero evidence. Explain to us how
it is not defamation for Carl Fogel, when offered the opportunity to
deny he called someone a liar, to confirm that he did call him a liar
by saying explicitly and emphatically that he won't apologize: "I
won't," said Carl Fogel. (Anyone hear a whining teenager cutting off
his nose to spite his face?)

Contrast the careful way I have marshaled the proof of Fogel's crimes
before I called him a false accuser and a liar. Notice that I
evaluated Fogel's crimes and made a further case that they were
against the common weal of RBT before I decided someone as sneakily an
unrepentantly antisocial as Fogel is scum and deserves to be called
scum.

We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable. *I have no admiration
from those who agree.

This whine from Krygowski translates into, "If you don't keep quiet
about our extortions, you can't belong to our gang." That's the
authentic voice of the Krygo-Fogel Axis telling us what we can say and
how we can say it, raising the question: Who elected these control
freaks to lordship over us?

This sort of dumb social pressure you, Frank Krygowski, are trying to
apply in justification of sweeping Fogel's crimes under the carpet is
the hallmark of street corner bullies, gangbangers, drive-by shooters,
net-curtain twitchers, and witch hunters from Salem to McCarthy to
modern-day Detroit. Quite contrary to your hypocrisy, it is our *duty*
to expose cowardly bullies like Fogel before they damage free speech
on the unmoderated internet conferences even further than they have
already; it is our *duty* to call Creepy Carl exactly what he is,
which is anti-social scum.

I warned you, Krygowski, you don't have what it takes to enter
polemics with intelligent people. We see right through your spaniel-
like devotion to Creepy Carl. I couldn't wish a worse fate on even
Creepy Carl than a friend as clumsy as you, Krygo. You're a worse
burden than a hernia.

- Frank Krygowski

Andre Jute
Out of the mouths of babes

Frank Krygowski opined:

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

I then asked Krygowski:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?

Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...


and then replied to his version of my question:

I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.


Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

I then asked Krygowski:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?

Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...


and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.


Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
the question was directed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Feb 9, 12:35*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:

Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. *We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.

I then asked Krygowski:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?

Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:

Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...

*and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.

Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?

I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
the question was directed.

In this instance I agree with Oz.. Just "forwarding private e-mails"
is merely foul manners; par for the course for Carl Fogel, and below
the radar of people like Frank Krygowski.

But Oz is accusing Carl Fogel of "forwarding private emails (as a
form of character assassination)", a crime several magnitudes above
mere bad manners.

I think, on balance, given the context, it might have been better not
to trim Oz's short post or, alternatively, to have given it in full
below your signature, which allows you above your signature to do with
it whatever you like.

Just my two cents.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:
On Feb 9, 12:35 am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Frank Krygowski opined:
Defamation is different from disagreement, Tom. We've got a small,
juvenile crew on r.b.* that thinks that thread titles something like
"_______ is a scumbag" are socially acceptable.
I then asked Krygowski:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails (as a form of character assassination), eh?
Tom Sherman snipped/edited my question:
Apparently, you have no problem with guys who forward, unsolicited,
private emails...
and then replied to his version of my question:
I will not purchase products from a certain bicycle company since one of
the people who they chose to represent them posted one of my emails on a
public forum.
Your snipping changed the essence of my question. Why did you do that?
I removed what was irrelevant to my response. I do not see why this
would be an issue, unless Frank Krygowski did in, since that is to whom
the question was directed.

In this instance I agree with Oz.. Just "forwarding private e-mails"
is merely foul manners; par for the course for Carl Fogel, and below
the radar of people like Frank Krygowski.

But Oz is accusing Carl Fogel of "forwarding private emails (as a
form of character assassination)", a crime several magnitudes above
mere bad manners.

I think, on balance, given the context, it might have been better not
to trim Oz's short post or, alternatively, to have given it in full
below your signature, which allows you above your signature to do with
it whatever you like.

With a threaded newsreader, anyone interested can read Ozark Bicycle's
post in its entirety.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful