On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:07:56 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:14:17 +0100, Ian Molton used
to say...

better than ass burger and a lot less stigmatised than autistic.

It's just a label. I really don't care what it's called. AFAIAC coining
a term like 'aspie' is just trying to make it cutsie and grouplike. The
last thing I'd want is to be in regular contact with a group of
individuals calling themselves "aspies". Mind you for that matter, I
don't have that much interest in being in regular contact with any sort
of group!

Yeah, the guy sounds like a real spazz........ :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Tat Chan wrote:

Sorry to butt in on this section of the thread, but did you just say

'Praise your leet hacker skills'?

fear and elite, but yeah, basically...

Ian Molton wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:

Sorry to butt in on this section of the thread, but did you just say

'Praise your leet hacker skills'?


fear and elite, but yeah, basically...


Ah. I got the 'elite' bit, but not 'fear'. Must be getting old!

Kurt Hamster wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:15:12 +0100, Ian Molton used
to say...


Kurt Hamster wrote:

Oh gawd, not again. TBH I was glad you appeared to disappear on this
thread because I find it difficult to disengage this kind of crap. (dont
bother saying you disappeared on purpose to allow me to disengage or
some such crap, btw - that would be just a tad transparent...)


You do have a problem extrapolating possible events from information
you've been given don't you?

No, I just wanted to be sure you didnt get to use the delay to take
advantage.

I'll just comment on the below...

Probably because you struggled to cope with the points I raised in the
previous message?

Nice try, but you wont draw me on those points.

I chose the one closest to ten years. Why wouldn't you, after all it was
you making the statement?

I said 'about' in my statement as I didnt recall how long ago exactly
and couldnt be arsed to find out. your later comment prompted me to have
a quick google.

2 years isn't an "about" as far as I'm concerned.

s/about/approximately/

sheesh. whos being over literal now?

Why wouldnt I choose the number most in my favour?

...ah yes, thought so, you only want to answer the question you thought
I asked.

What, when you wrote:

"I chose the one closest to ten years. Why wouldn't you, after all
it was you making the statement?"

???

What *did you mean by that then?

If you recall, I said I *stopped* using it about 10 years ago. Given I
found myself in error (which you failed to and are now trying to pretend
you didnt), I decided to put the record straight.

1) Honesty

Irrelevant. You commented on my findings. Your honesty is irrelevant in
this context.

Huh? Your finding is that the *earliest* incidence you could find was 8
years back. Given I was talking about when I *STOPPED* using the
tagline, you SHOULD have been looking for the most recent occurence,
which is (from google) 13 Oct 1999

2) Im not going to say 'hmm, yeah - 8 for sure' when the oldest post I
can find is 6 years back (on, admittedly, a quick search).

Given that you chose to berate me for my Googling skills makes you a
hypocrite as your skill are obviously less than mine.

Your claim of finding the line 8 years ago is impressive, however you
were looking for *completely the wrong thing*.

OOI, whats the message ID of the 8 year back post? I'd like to see it if
possible... I've just noticed google hid a load of results under its
'show similar stuff' link, but that still only gets back to Nov 1998

3) I said I (thought I) *STOPPED* using it at that point, which is
clearly incorrect, so see 1)

So I corrected you. As is apparent from your tone whenever you are
corrected, you hate to be shown to be incorrect.

Huh? In my reply to what you *claim* is your correction (which is in
fact wrong), I clearly state, to the detriment of my own argument, the
correct value, which is 5 years. Thats hardly trying to worm out of
anything is it? I *could* have just left you believing it was 8 years.

In any case, the earliest message from you is 27th May 1996.

Who cares?

You care that you've been shown to be wrong.

About what exactly? I never claimed I was on the net before you, nor
that I posted to (public) usenet before you.

Its certainly a fairly early message. However prior to 'full' usenet I
spent a good deal of time in zetnets 'local' newsgroups, which were not
propagated net-wide. I also used to communicate much more in
muds/talkers around that time. Prior to all that I used to use bbses.

Zetnet's local groups were available outside Zetnet (I used to be with
Zetnet many years ago).

You must have joined zetnet *after* I did, because certainly not all
their local groups used to be public (to my annoyance, since I wanted to
track down an old friend from zetnet.local.teens, whos last message
there predated the public-goingness of the group).

I *do* know a little about zetnets service as I *wrote* the acorn
software to access it.

FYI in case you feel the need to lecture me yet again on ma\tters
relating to net experience, I was active on FidoNet long before I
'joined' the Internet. I also ran one of the few free BBSs that supplied
a Fido-Internet gateway (via UUCP and PCBoard) (certainly in the
North-West anyway).

I care about that because?

I dont see why not. not to groups google archives, perhaps (dejanews
back then) but still...

The 'tone' of that message was a good indicator too.

Indeed. scary how much younger I was then.

Which was approx 3 years after me...

Again, who cares? You're older than I am, and I dare say had more cash
for net stuff than I had 10 years ago.

The point being that once again you chose to lecture someone who has
more experience than you.

Are you suggesting you should never challenge the opinions / beliefs of
those more senior to yourself?

Perhaps you should join the military?

*You* couldn't find a post older than 6 years. I managed it in less than
10 secs.

I'd like to see it - more because I cant find it than anything else and
I'd like to know what you searched for in order to extract it from google...

Kurt Hamster wrote:

So you like to allow yourself latitude when using an expression, but
won't allow others to eh? IMV that adds hypocrite to your faults too.

Nope. Im happy for others to use approximations etc. I consider 8 to be
almost 10. 'about' 10, or approximately 10. I can see how your literal
minded viewpoint may cause you trouble with that, but please, keep your
problem to yourself, ok?

What *did you mean by that then?


My comment related to accuracy, given your propensity for wanting
accuracy in numbers/quotes.

Shame you were well over 40% inaccurate then, even if I allow you the
lattitude to define your own completely imaginary interprettation of the
problem...

I gave no thought whatsover to whether it was the last
time or first time.

Clearly. That showed.

Your claim of finding the line 8 years ago is impressive, however you
were looking for *completely the wrong thing*.

I found what *I* was looking for, based on what was my criteria. There
you go again with the arrogance that peppers your messages. You do like
to tell people when you think they're wrong don't you.

Unlike you, no, not really, and I make pretty damn sure of it when I do.

OOI, whats the message ID of the 8 year back post? I'd like to see it if
possible... I've just noticed google hid a load of results under its
'show similar stuff' link, but that still only gets back to Nov 1998

This is where I get to admit my error. The earliest "aspie and proud of
it" was indeed Nov 98 thereby making it 6 years.

Whoops... but yeah, how magnanimous of you, admitting your error AFTER
arguing the toss and being proven wrong...

The reason for the error was I had 3 windows open, one doing the search
for your earliest post (96) and one looking for the "aspie and proud of
it" post (98). I mixed the two figures up.

I already knew you were a muppet, you didnt need to remind me.

In spite of my error, it still makes it 6 years. Still nowhere close to
the "about 10 years" you claimed.

*guessed*, repeat *GUESSED*, which I made plain enough in the first
place, and have discovered (before you did) to be wrong, and posted as
such *before* you even noticed your error.

What are you trying to prove?

About what exactly? I never claimed I was on the net before you, nor
that I posted to (public) usenet before you.

Wrong as in my abilities to Google. Sheesh.

*I* got proved wrong aout your googling ability? you just wrote above
that you were too incompetant to even note the correct result...

You must have joined zetnet *after* I did, because certainly not all
their local groups used to be public (to my annoyance, since I wanted to
track down an old friend from zetnet.local.teens, whos last message
there predated the public-goingness of the group).

I can't remember when it was. I seem to recall it was after getting
embroiled in the Laurence Godfrey affair.

Name rings a bell. I may even have met him (You can find a particularly
sad picture of me at a 'zetmeet' if you use google images, although I
dont recall if he attended that one...)

Anyhow, I joined zetnet at a time when the local groups were still
private, which seems to predate you (or at least your recollection of
the time)

I *do* know a little about zetnets service as I *wrote* the acorn
software to access it.

And...? Though again it's another clue as to you desire to be different.
Remember my earlier comment?

Huh? I didnt post that to demonstrate any desire to be different, it was
to demonstrate intimate knowledge of zetnet at about the era in question.

And yes, I choose non-windows platforms. I dont like windows. No
especial desire to be different - in fact my choice in hardware at the
time was my fathers anyway - so I still dont see your point.

I care about that because?

FYI is not an acronym for Just In Case You Care.

Correct. But just bvecause you prefix a TLA on a paragraph doesnt mean I
have to give a **** - and look whos boasting now - "blah blah blah, I
was on the net before you could click a mouse, arent I great, whinge
moan blither"

Indeed. scary how much younger I was then.

Then?...

Than I am now - Im not living in a time machine...

Perhaps you should join the military?

Been there, done that.

Why am I not surprised...

I'd like to see it - more because I cant find it than anything else and
I'd like to know what you searched for in order to extract it from google...


Message-ID:

Ah right - the one that bore no relation to what we were searching at
the time - explains why I didnt find it, given I was searching for
something relevant...

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:20:00 +1000, Tat Chan
wrote:

Ian Molton wrote:

Tat Chan wrote:

Sorry to butt in on this section of the thread, but did you just say

'Praise your leet hacker skills'?


fear and elite, but yeah, basically...


Ah. I got the 'elite' bit, but not 'fear'. Must be getting old!

Fear and praise are all the same to the megalomanic! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Kurt Hamster wrote:

Whoops... but yeah, how magnanimous of you, admitting your error AFTER
arguing the toss and being proven wrong...

No, I admitted my error after *I* realised I was wrong.

Yes, thats completely true - after you realised you were wrong. but
nontheless, ALSO after you argued the toss.

As it was an insignificant subject I didn't give it my full attention.

'It didnt matter much, so it didnt have to actually be true'

Now as we're speaking about errors, what about all those errors you made
and then glossed over because I didn't reply immediately?

Nice try. failed again, though.

I don't have to prove anything, you've already admitted you are an
"aspie and proud of it".

Actually, you'll find that I havent signed my posts with that for 5
years, *WHICH WAS THE POINT* I was making before, even if I got the date
wrong (not that you noticed).

Unfortunately in the words of my SO "that
****wit isn't doing any favours for the cause of AS".

Well I'd hardly expect her to be in posession of a balanced set of
facts, with you as her source of information.

I suggest that you investigate my earlier postings to
alt.support.autism, where you will frequently find comments along the
lines of 'you give us hope that our sone/daughter will be able to be
functional in society when they are older' etc.

(and yes, you will probably find flames and other things from time to
time - a.s.a can be a turbulent group, given its readership has a very
high proportion od aspies. I am fully expecting you to pick a post froma
flamewar as an example, rather than something more productive, so please
dont bother, ok?)

Name rings a bell. I may even have met him (You can find a particularly
sad picture of me at a 'zetmeet' if you use google images, although I
dont recall if he attended that one...)

Try using your superlative Googling skills. He had **** all to do with
Zetnet and everything to do with suing Demon for libel.

Fair enough. I said the name rings a bell. I didnt say why it rang a
bell as I couldnt remember.

I can't argue the point as I can't remember. But the earliest post I can
find from a Zetnet group was Dec 1995 (which predates the 1996 earliest
posting I can find from you).

Message-ID:

nice - zetnet.test - which was available before most of the others, and
I never posted to in my life...

zetnet.locals earliest is in 96
zetnet.local.teens (ugh!) is later still.

cut reference to you using Linux (which I've been using
off and on since using Slackware v1.x something, but now prefer Suse of
all the distros. The reason I don't use it is because it's easier to use
Windows for what I do).

Now whos boasting... "look at me, I used linux!"

Forget it, I refer you to my earlier comments about having difficulties
with written subtleties too.

No, I didnt miss your attempted insult. It just failed to have any impact.

Perhaps you should join the military?

Been there, done that.

Why am I not surprised...

I don't know, why are you not surprised?

What were you, whipping boy?

Dont drop the soap...

Ah right - the one that bore no relation to what we were searching at
the time - explains why I didnt find it, given I was searching for
something relevant...

In other words your criteria was different to mine. Point proven M'lud.

OMFG. priceless.

Kurt Hamster wrote:

Yes, thats completely true - after you realised you were wrong. but
nontheless, ALSO after you argued the toss.

The first was deliberate, the latter coincidental.

nice try.

Now as we're speaking about errors, what about all those errors you made
and then glossed over because I didn't reply immediately?

Nice try. failed again, though.

Like your accusation that I brought up the politician comment?

Which you did...

Like you continually mixing up facts that were given to you clearly?

If you want to believe that.

Actually, you'll find that I havent signed my posts with that for 5
years, *WHICH WAS THE POINT* I was making before, even if I got the date
wrong (not that you noticed).


Which made you a thick and pretentious 21 year old.

Be proud of who you are, not what you are. Be proud of what you've done
and not what nature's done.

Funily enough, It occured to me that the wording of the tagline didnt
really fit with what I was trying to say. Thats why I stopped using it.

And I am proud of what I've done - among other things, holding down a
job in london, rasing a family and contributing to open computing which
benefits a lot of people, directly and otherwise, and helping out people
whos lives have been influenced by autism. Im also quite pleased with
some of my more vocational stuff, like my art and recently some
woodwork. I consider my AS to have led me to aproach some of these tasks
in different ways, but Im proud of what *I* did.

Well I'd hardly expect her to be in posession of a balanced set of
facts, with you as her source of information.

She read your posts 80 miles away from me...

I cant help that. Perhaps you should try some deoderant?

Why would I want to?

You wouldnt - they are counterevidence to one of your points above and
you dont like being proven wrong...

nice - zetnet.test - which was available before most of the others, and
I never posted to in my life...

*My* comments were about Zetnet in general. Don't confuse what you
stated with what I stated.

You are of course right, but why bring that up, when if had no relation
to what I said?

You were *hoping* that either I wouldnt check or that others would have
forgotten what the issue was. You were *hoping* that by placing the date
of a zetnet local groups debut on google a year before my first post on
google that you could demonstrate that I wasnt on the net at that time,
where in fact the two groups were unrelated and you proved nothing.

Once again, nice try.

Now whos boasting... "look at me, I used linux!"

Where was the boast? I said I tried it and didn't find it useful. You're
the one who waxes lyrical on about it.

Waxes lyrical about it? huh?

Let's agree to differ.

Ok.

I think you're an arrogant ****wit and you can go on thinking that
you're never wrong.

I think you're an arrogant ****wit and you can go on thinking that
you're never wrong.

Oh BTW, interpretation doesn't have a double t in it.

Bloody hell you learnt to use a dictionary...