Ancient acquisition

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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.

My comment about Usenet makes perfect sense *in the context of* it being a
reply to your claim that Usenet traffic has fallen off in recent years.
Which, BTW, you found wasn't true when you got Wikipedia data showing that
it has grown enormously, so my characterization was a lot closer to the
truth than yours. To the extent that it has "changed appreciably," it has
*grown,* not shrunk. So to the extent that I was in error, you were even
more so.

Given all the posters who have indicated over time that they know Scurvy
Dog's identity under this and/or other nyms, you're in the distinct minority
if you don't already know his identity.

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.

And you whine because I "put words in your mouth"?

It's the latter, not the former, that makes me laugh.

I'm not "obsessed" with this, not the slightest.

The volume and content of your recent posting history, trying to wheedle and
trick several posters into revealing SD's identity, strongly suggests
otherwise. Keep this up for another week or two and we'll be able to add
"compulsive" to the "obsessive" characterization.

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.

There's a fundamental difference between refraining from an action because
of "spineless acquiescence," and realizing that insanity is repeatedly doing
the same thing and expecting a different outcome. SD has been pilloried
here for years under this and all his previous nyms. His reaction to
scolding and demands that he reveal his identity has always been the same,
i.e., zilch. Only you have the hubris to think that suddenly he will
crumple under the pressure of your inquiries and scolding, or that he will
suddenly play nice just because someone reveals his identity to satisfy your
curiosity.

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.

Pray enlighten us, oh wise one, on why Scurvy Dog "acts how he does".

This ought to be good.

"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?

Simple. By the ego and arrogance you inject into your rcc postings. See
below.

I know. You just type out whatever it is that flits into your little head.

If the shoe fits, I just like to see you wear it, at least while you're in
the rcc showroom.

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,

That didn't stop you from acting as the "spokesperson" for departed members
who are not here to verify that status, and claiming that their opinions
agreed with yours.

obviously, just posting about an interesting dynamic I've noticed here.

Horse manure. Anyone with the hubris to drop a 5,000-word ego bomb on a
newsgroup surely fancies himself an alpha poster, even if he doesn't want to
admit it even to himself. Anyone whose sig is three links to his own web
pages clearly fancies himself as some sort of an alpha poster. Anyone who
repeatedly decrees to a newsgroup his definitions of what is on- and
off-topic, what kinds of coins are interesting or not interesting, whose
contributions are "trash," even down to declaring what other posters are
"afraid of" while he is not - and all this done while dismissing others'
notions thereof - is walking and quacking like a would-be alpha poster.

The fact that in all his blind hubris, Richard Nixon denied and even didn't
believe that he was a crook didn't make him innocent. Reid doth protest too
much in his false modesty.

On 4/16/2010 8:00 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here.

This isn't getting down to nitty-gritty. It's dodging. You're saying
that in order for somebody to say they know something, they have to use
the words "I know." You challenged me to find you saying those words.
But you know as well as I know as well as anyone knows that this isn't
the only way to indicate you know something. There are lots of other
words you can use, as you know, because this is what you did.

Why not just own up to your attempted practical joke? Or own up that you
know who he is?

Or you can dodge some more by taking the tactic of "Cato" by totally
downplaying what Scurvy Dog does here, saying, disingenuously, "What's
in a name?" LOL. It's not about his name, primarily, it's about his
behavior.

Or you can dodge some more by again not answering my question but
instead going on the offensive, taking the tactic of "mazorj" and
accusing me of being obsessed.

All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If history
repeats it will go nowhere positive, but the process can still be,
somewhat, interesting. And I'll repeat that what I genuinely find
interesting is observing and trying to understand the group dynamics
here, why things happen as they do.

--

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 8:00 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here.

This isn't getting down to nitty-gritty. It's dodging. You're saying
that in order for somebody to say they know something, they have to use
the words "I know." You challenged me to find you saying those words.
But you know as well as I know as well as anyone knows that this isn't
the only way to indicate you know something. There are lots of other
words you can use, as you know, because this is what you did.

Why not just own up to your attempted practical joke? Or own up that you
know who he is?

Or you can dodge some more by taking the tactic of "Cato" by totally
downplaying what Scurvy Dog does here, saying, disingenuously, "What's
in a name?" LOL. It's not about his name, primarily, it's about his
behavior.

Or you can dodge some more by again not answering my question but
instead going on the offensive, taking the tactic of "mazorj" and
accusing me of being obsessed.

All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If history
repeats it will go nowhere positive, but the process can still be,
somewhat, interesting. And I'll repeat that what I genuinely find
interesting is observing and trying to understand the group dynamics
here, why things happen as they do.


Now this is getting REALLY scary.

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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!

As usual, you refuse to admit both the error of your ways and your blatant
hypocrisy.
You, sir, are a meathead.

Reid Goldsborough wrote:
On 4/16/2010 8:00 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here.

This isn't getting down to nitty-gritty. It's dodging. You're saying
that in order for somebody to say they know something, they have to
use the words "I know." You challenged me to find you saying those
words. But you know as well as I know as well as anyone knows that
this isn't the only way to indicate you know something. There are
lots of other words you can use, as you know, because this is what
you did.

What were those words? Quote me, that's all I've been asking. Then I'll
have something to go on.

Why not just own up to your attempted practical joke? Or own up that
you know who he is?

I fail to see what I said that could possibly be construed as a practical
joke. Quote me, then I'll have something to go on.

I do not know who Scurvy Dog is.

I never said that I did.

If you inferred it from something I said, tell me what it was. Quote me,
then I'll have something to go on.

I can't read your mind.

Or you can dodge some more by taking the tactic of "Cato" by totally
downplaying what Scurvy Dog does here, saying, disingenuously, "What's
in a name?" LOL. It's not about his name, primarily, it's about his
behavior.

What relevancy do Cato's posts have to the issue between you and me?

Or you can dodge some more by again not answering my question but
instead going on the offensive, taking the tactic of "mazorj" and
accusing me of being obsessed.

What relevancy do mazorj's posts have to the issue between you and me?

All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If
history repeats it will go nowhere positive, but the process can
still be, somewhat, interesting. And I'll repeat that what I
genuinely find interesting is observing and trying to understand the
group dynamics here, why things happen as they do.

I do not understand what you want from me.

James

"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
On 4/16/2010 8:00 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty here.

This isn't getting down to nitty-gritty. It's dodging.

Whoo-hah! Insert pot-kettle, let ye without sin, people living in glass
houses, and any other appropriate Usenet cliches. You're good enough at
this game to be Captain of a world-class dodge ball team.

You're saying that in order for somebody to say they know something, they
have to use the words "I know." You challenged me to find you saying those
words. But you know as well as I know as well as anyone knows that this
isn't the only way to indicate you know something. There are lots of other
words you can use, as you know, because this is what you did.

Kind of like your declaration that you "know" that certain posters' agenda
here is to be disruptive and worthless even though you never used the words
"I know". Pot-kettle, let ye without sin, people living in glass houses,
etc.

Why not just own up to your attempted practical joke? Or own up that you
know who he is?

Because it's more fun to watch you dance herky-jerky whenever somebody
punches your hot buttons or yanks on your strings.

Or you can dodge some more by taking the tactic of "Cato" by totally
downplaying what Scurvy Dog does here, saying, disingenuously, "What's in
a name?" LOL. It's not about his name, primarily, it's about his behavior.

The fact that Cato's comment went "Whoosh!" right over your head speaks
volumes about your monomania.

Or you can dodge some more by again not answering my question but instead
going on the offensive, taking the tactic of "mazorj" and accusing me of
being obsessed.

Whoosh! Pot-kettle, let ye without sin, people living in glass houses, etc.
You've already dodged enough of just my critiques and opinions to qualify
you as a candidate for Usenet Dodger of the Year. Add your dismissive
dodging of other rcc partiipants and you're on the short list to be a
shoo-in winner.

All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If history
repeats it will go nowhere positive,

Whoosh! You and Scurvy Dog have much in common there.

but the process can still be, somewhat, interesting.

Whoosh! You, along with SD, being a primary case in point.

And I'll repeat that what I genuinely find interesting is observing and
trying to understand the group dynamics here, why things happen as they
do.

So what is your personal explantion of why you have eagerly assumed the
mantle of rcc's sado-masochistic chew toy, vying for and arguably displacing
Scurvy Dog for that honor? Inquiring minds are trying to understand the
dynamics of your intriguing behavior.

- mazorj
By your own declarations, not chit-chatting here.

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...
Reid Goldsborough wrote:

....
All I'm doing here is following this to wherever it might go. If
history repeats it will go nowhere positive, but the process can
still be, somewhat, interesting. And I'll repeat that what I
genuinely find interesting is observing and trying to understand the
group dynamics here, why things happen as they do.

I do not understand what you want from me.

I think you're supposed to start with an abject blanket confession that
everything you have ever posted in rcc is wrong, typed with your knees and
forehead touching the ground he walks on. This must be followed by an
explicit admission that "you know" that everything that Reid has written on-
or off-topic is the gospel truth. All of which must be declared in a solemn
oath sworn by you on a copy of Breen's "Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and
Colonial Coins".

That's just for openers, to get his attention so he can mull over your
remaining penances in the slim hope of getting in his good graces. If you
do these thoroughly enough, his clique of claques might even un-plonk you.
Good luck.

Cato wrote:
"Reid Goldsborough" wrote in message
...
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!

As usual, you refuse to admit both the error of your ways and your blatant
hypocrisy.
You, sir, are a meathead.



Nice to see that old Bob-o-rino has nymshifted again!

On 4/16/2010 10:33 PM, Mr. Jaggers wrote:

I do not know who Scurvy Dog is.

Other people indicate they do, as you did (as you know), but no matter.
Too many tangents here, too many wildly stupid accusations, and too much
time on this. My last post about this:

As mostly an outsider here these days, I observe that "Scurvy Dog" is by
far the most frequent and flagrant flamer here, attempting to disrupt
thread after thread with content-free flames. More than one person here
reveals that Scurvy Dog continuously changes handles to avoid people's
killfiles. Several people intimate or say explicitly that it's known who
Scurvy Dog is. I suggest that if people know who he is, then simply call
him by his real name, each time he flames, and he just might and
probably would flame less.

Other people using handles are objecting the most vociferously to this,
so apparently this is what's behind the hostility to my suggestion. It's
maybe too easy to say that "mazorj," "Cato," and the others deserve
"Scurvy Dog," but they do. Well, carry on with all of your handles, and
enjoy the anonymous flames, the excessive chitchat, and the ever
shrinking number of people who put up with it. This group, sadly, is a
dim shadow to what it once was -- this will be argued too, but I'm very
far from the only person who has observed this. Usenet weirdness never
ceases to amuse me, and this strange acquiescence to anonymous flaming
for me anyway is a new angle to it.

--

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