Ancient acquisition

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

OK, ya got me, Reid, I'll come clean.

The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do not
know
his real name.*

At no time did I say that I know his real name.

You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.

I ask who is "Scurvy Dog," what his real name is. Jud says he won't reveal
but indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell me to check
a particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through all of the posts
there but there's nothing in the posts surrounding those of Scurvy Dog
that definitively indicates who he is. You chastise me for not taking the
time to find the information I "need." I ask why you're afraid to name
him. You say that your refusal to name him occurred two posts before the
one I responded to, not in the one I responded to. And now you say you
don't know who is he after all and that I conjured up that you knew who he
was.

Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are
truly afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured up
nothing but was taking you for your word.

Bwha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha!

Afraid? Of what?

You're starting to sound a wee bit desperate here, Reid. Resorting to a
silly schoolyard taunt of 'Fraidy Cat! to try to trick someone into giving
up something that almost everyone except you knows the answer to? That's a
pathetic, transparent ploy even for you.

The only one afraid here is you... afraid of demonstrating that a crack is
showing in your imagined status of alpha poster.
g

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/16/2010 11:51 AM, Cato wrote:

Your post is filled with the "chit chat" which you have railed against.

Discussion of the weather and what you ate for breakfast is chitchat.
Discussing the internal dynamics of the online group you're participating
in isn't chitchat. Isn't that obvious? It's not talking coins but it is
talking about how to promote a well-functioning group. Such discussions
take place in every online discussion group, moderated as well as
unmoderated.

Look, you have one poster here who more than any other, by far, flames
other participants in this newsgroup. The flames are purely disruptive,
with no content behind them, just anonymous and fairly mindless venom
spewed out all over the place. This kind of behavior is one of the chief
reasons that people leave groups like this, along with excessive chitchat.

This is an unmoderated group, but moderated groups avoid these problems by
requiring that people post using their real names. Apparently some people
here know who "Scurvy Dog" is. All I'm suggesting is that when he does
leave one of his transparent attempts at disruption, people just refer to
him by his real name. I'm not saying that's guaranteed to work, but it
couldn't hurt.

Sure it would hurt. Not only would it not work, but then we would no longer
have the entertainment value of watching you obsess over a poster's identity
where everyone except you is in on the joke.

Nice try. At least it was more subtle than the 'Fraidy Cat ploy. g

On 4/16/2010 1:17 PM, mazorj wrote:

Sure it would hurt. Not only would it not work, but then we would no
longer have the entertainment value of watching you obsess over a
poster's identity where everyone except you is in on the joke.

Everyone here but me knows this? That makes as much sense as what you
said previously that "UseNet" hasn't changed appreciably in the more
than 25 years that you've been participating. You obviously are very
discerning when it comes to Usenet.

About the "joke," it's obviously a very funny one. Yep, I can see how
Scurvy Dog spitting out his content-free venom all over the place and my
asking who he is would make you laugh.

I'm not "obsessed" with this, not the slightest. That's also very
discerning on your part. I am curious why people like you do what you
do, the reason for the spineless acquiescence. I have a pretty good idea
about why Scurvy Dog acts how he does, seeing as I said many others do
virtually exactly the same thing over the years.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On 4/16/2010 1:10 PM, mazorj wrote:

The only one afraid here is you... afraid of demonstrating that a crack
is showing in your imagined status of alpha poster.
g

"Alpha poster"? That's even dumber than what you said about Usenet not
changing over the years. I'm not even a regular here anymore. How in the
world can I be trying to be an alpha poster? I know. You just type out
whatever it is that flits into your little head. Groups like this do
develop informal leaders based on the quantity and quality of their
posts. It cracked me up a few days ago when one person who seldom posts
adopted the posture of such a leader, posing as the spokesperson for
this group. I make no such claims, obviously, just posting about an
interesting dynamic I've noticed here.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/16/2010 1:10 PM, mazorj wrote:

The only one afraid here is you... afraid of demonstrating that a crack
is showing in your imagined status of alpha poster.
g

"Alpha poster"? That's even dumber than what you said about Usenet not
changing over the years. I'm not even a regular here anymore. How in the world
can I be trying to be an alpha poster? I know. You just type out whatever it
is that flits into your little head. Groups like this do develop informal
leaders based on the quantity and quality of their posts. It cracked me up a
few days ago when one person who seldom posts adopted the posture of such a
leader, posing as the spokesperson for this group. I make no such claims,
obviously, just posting about an interesting dynamic I've noticed here.

I am the informal Führer of you.
Tsk, tsk, Goldie, you made another non-numismatic post...

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/16/2010 11:51 AM, Cato wrote:

Your post is filled with the "chit chat" which you have railed against.

Discussion of the weather and what you ate for breakfast is chitchat.
Discussing the internal dynamics of the online group you're participating in
isn't chitchat. Isn't that obvious? It's not talking coins but it is talking
about how to promote a well-functioning group. Such discussions take place in
every online discussion group, moderated as well as unmoderated.

So, there we have it, chit chat as defined by Reid.
A bit self-serving, don't you think?

Look, you have one poster here who more than any other, by far, flames other
participants in this newsgroup. The flames are purely disruptive, with no
content behind them, just anonymous and fairly mindless venom spewed out all
over the place. This kind of behavior is one of the chief reasons that people
leave groups like this, along with excessive chitchat.

You flame more than any poster here, Reid.
Every thread in which you participate always winds up with you attacking anyone
and everyone who does not agree with you.
Have you any proof that excessive chitchat is a "chief" reason why people leave
groups or are you just bloviating once more?

This is an unmoderated group, but moderated groups avoid these problems by
requiring that people post using their real names. Apparently some people here
know who "Scurvy Dog" is. All I'm suggesting is that when he does leave one of
his transparent attempts at disruption, people just refer to him by his real
name. I'm not saying that's guaranteed to work, but it couldn't hurt.

What's in a name?
You presumably post under your true name yet you are one of the most disruptive
posters in the group.

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/16/2010 5:47 AM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

OK, ya got me, Reid, I'll come clean.

The reason I don't call Scurvy Dog by his real name is that *I do
not know his real name.*

At no time did I say that I know his real name.

You conjured up that notion entirely on your own.

I ask who is "Scurvy Dog," what his real name is. Jud says he won't
reveal but indicates he knows. You also *indicate you know* and tell
me to check a particular thread. I say I'm not going to read through
all of the posts there but there's nothing in the posts surrounding
those of Scurvy Dog that definitively indicates who he is. You
chastise me for not taking the time to find the information I "need."
I ask why you're afraid to name him. You say that your refusal to
name him occurred two posts before the one I responded to, not in the
one I responded to. And now you say you don't know who is he after
all and that I conjured up that you knew who he was.

Very weird behavior. I'm led to believe you do know who is is but are
truly afraid here. Why else would you tell lies like this? I conjured
up nothing but was taking you for your word.

Multiple and pathological ego-preserving contradictions, dodges, and
fabrications noted.

James

On 4/16/2010 3:55 PM, Cato wrote:

Discussion of the weather and what you ate for breakfast is chitchat.
Discussing the internal dynamics of the online group you're participating in
isn't chitchat. Isn't that obvious? It's not talking coins but it is talking
about how to promote a well-functioning group. Such discussions take place in
every online discussion group, moderated as well as unmoderated.

So, there we have it, chit chat as defined by Reid.
A bit self-serving, don't you think?

No, I don't think this at all, and I don't think any reasonable person
would either. If I'm in any group, discussing the group's dynamics
wouldn't typically be considered chitchat in the same way discussing the
weather or what you had for breakfast would ... provided those groups
weren't about meteorology or nutrition!

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

On 4/16/2010 5:33 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Multiple and pathological ego-preserving contradictions, dodges, and
fabrications noted.

Not one fabrication, not one contradiction, not one dodge. Look, it's
fine to try a little practical joke on me, if that's what you did. It
didn't work. No biggie. You pretended you knew something you didn't in
order to get me to read through dozens of old posts. I didn't fall for
it. You admitted "ya got me." But then don't go and say it was me who's
fabricating things! That's what Scurvy Dog does, taking something he
does and accusing the person he's talking to of the very same thing.

You either tried a little practical joke, pretending to know something
you didn't. Or you do know this but are afraid to disclose it. One or
the other. Let's see you dodge this.

--

Consumer: http://rg.ancients.info/guide
Connoisseur: http://rg.ancients.info/glom
Counterfeit: http://rg.ancients.info/bogos

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/16/2010 5:33 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Multiple and pathological ego-preserving contradictions, dodges, and
fabrications noted.

Not one fabrication, not one contradiction, not one dodge. Look, it's
fine to try a little practical joke on me, if that's what you did. It
didn't work. No biggie. You pretended you knew something you didn't in
order to get me to read through dozens of old posts. I didn't fall for
it. You admitted "ya got me." But then don't go and say it was me
who's fabricating things! That's what Scurvy Dog does, taking
something he does and accusing the person he's talking to of the very
same thing.
You either tried a little practical joke, pretending to know something
you didn't. Or you do know this but are afraid to disclose it. One or
the other. Let's see you dodge this.

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here. You take the time to find the post
wherein I stated that I know the real name of the person posting as Scurvy
Dog, cut/paste your proof below, and I will then reveal, if you haven't
already discovered same in your search for said evidence, what I was really
suggesting you would find by opening and reading all the posts in the "long
time" thread. Since you will be looking for something that I said, that
will significantly reduce your effort (I made approximately 16 posts to that
thread, no need for you too look at anyone else's posts there). Prediction:
you will search in vain for wording that contains "I know" or "real name" or
"Scurvy Dog."

Your move.

James