Who wants the fascist Krygowski to speak for cyclists?

On Aug 31, 6:34*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Thanks. I remember now. You blew that up as smoke over some other
misdeed of yours, in relation to a global warming debate you were
losing badly. After considerable nastiness it was decided that you
lied, again, about what I had said, and you were forced to agree I
didn't misquote you. Do we really need to go into that again? Isn't
there enough nastiness on RBT for you right now, Weiner? -- AJ


Isn't the Google archive grand? Anyone can
read the thread associated with the post I
provided earlier

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d7a758c55e8d9d

and make up their own mind about whether I am
lying about what you said. I'm comfortable with that.

RBT isn't nasty right now. It's petty. I saw worse nastiness
in grade school. RBT's behavior is perhaps less
understandable though. After all, in grade school, the
stakes were higher.

Ben

On Sep 1, 4:44*am, Kevan Smith wrote:
On 8/31/10 8:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:

Sure there's something amiss. Sherman put the square and other
brackets after the net's angle quotation brackets, implying that I
wrote the ellipsis and word inside the brackets. He's a lying little
piece of **** who's been wriggling in the wind trying to claim he
didn't mean to lie. If true, why weasel, why not just apologize and
move on? -- AJ

OK, I'm going to do something here. Pay close attention.

Note that I quoted your paragraph verbatim above.

Now, below here, let's pretend that I am responding to that in a new
message, and I write the following:

On 8/31/10 8:48 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
[....]

crickets

----

Now, let's analyze.

Forget it, sonny, you've gone wrong already. What that slimeball
Sherman did is not your cleaned-up version but this, verbatim, copied
and pasted from his original post, which is what you too should have
done:

*****
On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
[...]

crickets

******

Notice the righthand angle bracket () before the [...] hmm? By using
it Sherman clearly states that I wrote the [...]. I didn't write any
[...], I wrote something entirely different. Tom Sherman is not only a
fraud and a liar, he then libellously accused a professional writer of
not knowing how to quote. Sherman is illiterate, that's all.

What's your motivation for trying to cover up for Sherman by leaving
off the initial angle bracket, Kevan Smith?

The [....] doesn't mean I am falsely quoting you as writing "....." It
means I snipped everything you wrote.

But that is not what Sherman did. Sherman used an initial angle
bracket (rendered in a different colour on my newsreader!), as used
for quotation on the net, to imply I wrote something that I didn't
write. Once more, Smith, what is your motive for cleaning up Sherman's
act?

The crickets doesn't mean I am quoting you as writing the word
crickets.

Crap.

It indicates a sound effect

Really? Man, illiterates like you and Sherman realy should leave
literature to those who know what they're doing. Sound effects are
nowhere in any radio or television or film script indicated by .
The capitalized abbreviation SFX is standard throughout the world and
in all languages.

Furthermore, not only doesn't indicate a sound effect, it is used
for direct quotes in several languages, including the second, possibly
soon to be the first, language in the States, Spanish. That's not the
worst. In some editing systems those angles are used for
transposed text by the original author. As I said, you little ******s
should leave literature to those who know what they're talking about.

I didn't write "crickets" either, whatever the fraud Tom Sherman may
try to imply with his
crickets

as in you played your heart out to
a packed audience and when you were done they were all gone and all that
was left was the noise of crickets. Haven't you watched any Bugs Bunny
cartoons?

Next you'll be quoting Wikipedia as an authoritative source.

HTH

If might have if you had managed to get anything right.

Why am I not surprised that your errors favour Sherman?

Andre Jute
Feed a tree today, produce more CO2!

On Sep 1, 5:46*am, bjw wrote:
On Aug 31, 6:34*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Thanks. I remember now. You blew that up as smoke over some other
misdeed of yours, in relation to a global warming debate you were
losing badly. After considerable nastiness it was decided that you
lied, again, about what I had said, and you were forced to agree I
didn't misquote you. Do we really need to go into that again? Isn't
there enough nastiness on RBT for you right now, Weiner? -- AJ

Isn't the Google archive grand? *Anyone can
read the thread associated with the post I
provided earlier

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d7a758c55e8d9d

and make up their own mind about whether I am
lying about what you said. *I'm comfortable with that.

RBT isn't nasty right now. *It's petty. *I saw worse nastiness
in grade school. *RBT's behavior is perhaps less
understandable though. *After all, in grade school, the
stakes were higher.

Ben

I'll go with that. Someone has to be adult about this and draw a line.
But no fondling! -- AJ

In article ,
Tom Sherman °_° wrote:

On 8/31/2010 10:19 PM, Michael Press of Possum Lodge wrote:
In ,
Tim wrote:

In ,
Michael wrote:

In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
[...]

crickets

A word to the wise. Do not put text i[n] quotation marks that
the quoted person did not write.

Michael Press is surprisingly unaware of the standard convention
of brackets indicating and editorial insertion or deletion.
Therefore, there is nothing dishonest or misleading in what I
did.

You cite a paper and ink rule. This is not paper and ink.

Thanks for letting me know.

We can leave quoted text intact. Exercise this option.

What if the text is both boring and annoying?

As Michael Press is well aware, snipping ALL of Mr. Jute's text in
my reply was the point.

Do not put text in quotation marks that the attributed writer did not
write. To do so is unnecessary, misleading, and not good manners.
That is my point. I only mentioned it after you had done it more than
once.

Usingbrackets around text is not an indication of quotation. Proper
newsreaders and repaired versions of Outlook Express use a quote string,
typically an end-bracket (); the open bracket () should not be used as
a quote string.

I am not talking about the "crickets".
[...] [1]

It is surprising such a stickler for pedantic detail as Michael Press
uses "talking" where he means "writing", as Usenet is a written medium
with no sound [2].

Tim, do you see what I am talking about?

--
Michael Press

On 8/31/10 11:54 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Notice the righthand angle bracket () before the [...] hmm?

Nope, it doesn't display like that in my client.

Kevan

On 8/31/10 11:54 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
Why am I not surprised that your errors favour Sherman?

OTOH, I'm not surprised I got it and you didn't.

On Sep 1, 5:40*am, Dan O wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:34 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Sep 1, 3:06 am, Dan O wrote:

On Aug 31, 6:42 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I am so going to have see if that Firefox thing to killfile on Google
Groups will work on Iceweasel.

Yet you've written several posts to a thread called "The Time Wasting
of Jute" without noticing that it is offensively named. Is your
sensitivity a bit lopsided, Danno, perhaps even hypocritical? Looks
like you think it is okay to do to Andre, but not for Andre to do back
to the bullyboys.

Look, before you came along I could just reply in a thread, add my
remarks, and that was that. *Now I have to not only check for your
completely inappropriate subject line du jour, but also check to see
how many innocent bystanders you're cross-posting to in this perverse
quest for attention.

Then what are you doing in my threads, Danno? You could start your
own, safe threads, you know. Who'll want to read them is another
matter, but nobody's stopping you expressing yourself. What causes all
the problems here is that a bunch of freeloaders are trying to tell me
what I can and cannot do and say.

They're not *your* threads. *By definition, it' snot a "thread" until
others participate in the "discussion". *Your posts are yours -
absolutely. *Make the most of them. *But you don't run the newsgroup,
and you don't run any thread.

You're missing the point. I don't want to run anything. I don't tell
people what they can or cannot do. I don't want to gather a clique.
I'm very comfortable with the chaos of Adam Smith's hidden hand. If
I'm right, people will eventually see it; I have a lifetime experience
of being in a minority of one or a few until suddenly the majority is
of my viewpoint.

The difficulty arises when a bunch of ******s want to control what I
can say and how I can say it. You're not even the worst example, just
the example to hand. But you've repeatedly cheered on scum whose only
function on RBT was to hound me, who sent not a single post in several
years that wasn't an assault on me.

Considering that you started that particular thread with someones
else's full name in an unambiguously disparaging light, I don't think
someone else's revision of it to read, "The time wasting of Jute" is
particularly disparaging,

Holy sheet: "The Time Wasting of Jute" is not "particularly
disparaging"?

No. *First, as I told you, I want to just reply without worrying about
what someone may have changed the subject line to. *

So you changed it to disparage me and a serious subject, 225 dead
cyclists, more than 3000 seriously injured cyclists? Yup, that
figures.

,"The time wasting").

How is discussing a major study of cycling accidents "a waste of
time"? Why is it only when I talk about cycling safety that it is a
waste of time? Why is it not a troll when the anti-helmet zealots send
ten times as many posts as I do?

C'mon - you were trolling and you know it.

I see. You want to decide I was "trolling" and that justifies any
amount of abuse of me? Doesn't it cross that acreage of solid bone
between your ears that it may be necessary to put honest numbers on
the table to stop people like Krygowski lying about a useful
compilation? Doesn't it occur to your blustering certainties about
someone you don't know that that I may be sincere in wishing to
discuss cyclist safety? Doesn't it occur to your bone-deep insularity
that I may sincerely believe in the dissemmination of information as a
social service?

You're a control freak just like all the other control freaks, Danno.
Most of them are just dumber and therefore more obvious than you.

I will now resume ignoring your spew.

You've just spent weeks posting to threads I started, but they're a
"waste of time" and "spew".

That's the point. You aren't. You squat in my threads and complain
that they aren't conducted the way you want. Start your own threads,
sonny, and conduct them any way you want. You won't find me
complaining, though if they're dull I might simply not read them.

Not *your* threads.

No, you and your kind have grabbed them with excuses like "Jute's a
troll" and "a waste of time" and other thuggeries; only one person has
thanked me for doing the work to compile honest numbers on cycling
safety for everyone to use. That's trolling, eh? Have you for instance
noted that your hero, Krygowski, dare not argue the points with me,
because I have the numbers and he doesn't, so he just cuts my serious
text and accuses me of being a teenager, and people like you cheer him
on and publicly off him your "respect", like he's a mafia don? Have
you for instance noticed that your pal McNamara dare not argue cases
with me, that he pretends he doesn't read my posts, until he sees an
opportunity for a nasty jab, then he runs away again? Don't you think
there is something suspicious in their behaviour?

I'm getting very tired of the freeloaders telling me what I can and
cannot do. By now even the dumbest of them -- and that is apparently
very dumb indeed -- should have discovered that I can and will do
whatever I consider right, and that sooner rather than later everyone
always discovers that what I propose is the moral thing to do.

That's crazy, man. *

Experience is a great teacher.

What are you even doing up at this hour?

There you go, Danno. Now you want to tell me to keep dull bourgeois
bedtimes just like yours. Why should you care when I sleep? What
business is it of yours?

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/...20CYCLING.html

On 9/1/10 12:43 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
The difficulty arises when a bunch of ******s want to control what I
can say and how I can say it.

But no one can do that on usenet. (Well, some people could do half that,
but it would take an enormous effort, and it's not anyone here.) So I
scratch my head wondering why you think that.

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 18:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Sep 1, 2:06*am, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 10:16:30 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute





wrote:
On Aug 31, 11:53*am, J. D. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 22:41:10 -0500, Tim McNamara

wrote:
In article
,
Dan O wrote:

On Aug 30, 6:45 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 8/30/2010 5:43 PM, Dan O wrote: [...
Mother ****ing cross-posting ****head asswipe divulging personal
information about others on the ****ing internet!

???

Andre revised the subject line to feature my full name (personal
information that I had chosen not to publish here) and he
cross-posted it to several groups that I do not even read.

Welcome to the steaming pile of ****-ola that is "Andre Jute." *
Unfortunately there are enough people who think he's somehow vaguely
entertaining that they don't ignore or killfile him so that he'd go
away. *He has a history of killing newsgroups and is trying to do so
here.

Stop feeding the troll!

I read a couple of groups where they simply ignoring Trolls. Usually
after the first two posts it is obvious whether it is a Troll or
someone trying to learn. It is surprising how quickly the trolls fade
from sight when absolutely no one replies to their posts.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

Yo, Slowie, that's two posts you've sent *about* me, and none on any
of the substantive matters, like the New York compilation of cycling
traffic accidents, that I'm discussing. I'd be delighted if the scum,
including you, who talk about me all the time, turning RBT into a
sewer of their mindless hatred, would stop reading me. They make zero
contribution anyway.

Furthermore, declaring someone a "troll" is just another way of
saying, "We were here first and we know everything and nobody else is
permitted to have any other ideas." Funny how you don't call the anti-
helmet zealots Krygowski and McNamara and the jerkup Berlin (who was
dumb enough to threaten me!) trolls, yet the first two sent dozens
more posts on the subject of cycling helmets than I ever did, and that
was just in last fortnight.

I might also mention that, like Krygowski, you're too thick to
understand that I wasn't even taking sides in the helmet debate,
merely putting some honest numbers on the table for those involved to
do with as they will. On a previous instance, when Krygowski for weeks
screeched that my investigation would make cycling look dangerous, he
was in the end forced to accept that my numbers in fact make cycling
look safer than the numbers he'd been using; he had since used my
numbers, with zero thanks of course.

I'll tell you something though, the anti-helmet zealots, including
you, are such an unattractive bunch of schoolyard bullies and anti-
social elements, it is tempting to join the pro-helmet crowd just to
kick such loudmouthed trash in the face. Take one guess who is likely
to be more persuasive.

Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela

Beautifully done Sir!

You take a completely neutral statement about some other Usenet groups
treatment of Trolls and apply it to yourself. You then further your
paranoia by a sliding off into a totally unprovoked discussion of the
helmet question and finally you add a rebuttal to the title "Troll"
which, again with no provocation. you seem to be applying to yourself.

You really are a nasty piece of work, aren't you.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

Well, here stands John D. Slocomb revealed as just another run of the
mill flame warrior. We had such high hopes of his superior moral tone
when he arrived, but it was a hypocritical veneer.

You are a good case for instant killfiling, Slowie. Wasn't that what
you recommended only three posts ago?

Unsigned out of contempt


You certainly display a penchant for misstating what others write. I
did not recommend kill filling anyone I used the word "ignore" and now
you have twisted that to say "kill file" even though the original post
is included above.

Further you accuse me of being a flame warrior while in fact it is you
that did the flaming. I simply stated two facts. (1) that other groups
ignored Trolls, and (2) that having set my filters to delete posts to
three or more groups and you posts disappeared. You morphed that into
a tirade about helmets.

I just finished a book, written by James Lee Burke, in which the
author has the protagonist say:

Question: What can dumb and fearful people always be counted on to do?

Answer: To try to control and manipulate everyone in their
environment.

Question: What is the tactic used by these same dumb people as they
try to control others?

Answer: They lie.

Apt I thought.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Aug 31, 11:34 pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 8/31/2010 1:13 PM, Michael Press wrote:



In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/30/2010 11:45 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/30/2010 5:58 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

On 8/29/2010 8:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman
wrote:

On 8/29/2010 2:42 PM, Michael Press wrote:
In ,
Tom Sherman
wrote:

On 8/29/2010 1:29 PM, André Jute wrote:
[...]

crickets

A word to the wise. Do not put text i[n] quotation marks
that the quoted person did not write.

Michael Press is surprisingly unaware of the standard convention
of
brackets indicating and editorial insertion or deletion.
Therefore,
there is nothing dishonest or misleading in what I did.

You cite a paper and ink rule.
This is not paper and ink.

Thanks for letting me know.

We can leave quoted text intact.
Exercise this option.

What if the text is both boring and annoying?

As Michael Press is well aware, snipping ALL of Mr. Jute's text in
my
reply was the point.

Do not put text in quotation marks that the attributed
writer did not write. To do so is unnecessary,
misleading, and not good manners. That is my point.
I only mentioned it after you had done it more than once.

Sheesh, angle brackets are not quotation marks.

They mark a quotation in usenet and email.
Everybody takes them that way.

But please yourself. What remains is that
you put text in a place that everybody takes
to be the place for the text somebody else wrote.

Oh nonsense. Nobody thought that "crickets" was a quote. Mr. Press
is
just being unreasonably pedantic and Mr. Jute is just being an ass.

I am not talking about the "crickets" am I?

Then what are you writing about? The "[...]" obviously indicated
snippage of quoted text, which only Bill Sornson seems to object to.

And me. My text that was snipped by the scumball Tom Sherman and then
replaced in square brackets by an ellipsis *which I didn't write*. The
ellipsis is an offensive lie about me because it implies that I don't
know what I want to say, whereas everyone knows I say what I mean most
pointedly. Moreover, that ellipsis which the lying scumball Tom
Sherman inserted in square brackets *as if I wrote it*, implies that I
am no better than Creepy Mike LaFevre, a commercial crook, an enemy of
free speech and society, and lying scum besides, whom I put down on
RAT as "The Walking Ellipsis" for his tendency to lose the trend of
his though in an incontinence of ellipses. You owe me an apology,
Sherman, you lying piece of something unmentionable. It doesn't matter
whether you know it is wrong and did it out of malice, or you did it
out of the ignorance of an inadequate upbringing, in either case you
owe me an apology.

Unsigned out of contempt for a non-kulturny liar.

JFTR, there's a world of difference between /trimming/ a post (deleting old
material not relevant to the reply OR ITS CONTEXT) and deliberate misleading
or evasive DELETION of text to either change meaning or hide inconvenient,
damning points.

Of course the scumballs who regularly practice this know exactly what
they're doing; it's why they feign such righteous indignation when called on
it.

BS