Re: Dr. Turley-PLEASE READ

[nathan@parka.winternet.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960703121540.21533C-100000@skule.ecf>,
HSUEH WALTER C  <hsuehw@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>On 3 Jul 1996, Nathan Mates wrote:
>>    You didn't mention the important criteria which I and others have
>> attempted to point out all the time: whether what he's posting is the
>> truth or not. You can be an enthusiastic and courteous liar, as pretty
>> much any politican will prove.

>I kind of wondered about that myself.  However, I've visited his web
>site, read the postings concerning him and Seven Hills, and have read
>your postings.  I find it hard to believe that Mr. Turley is the 
>person you claim he is.  How has he been able to work together with
>Karl Bunker, Seven Hills, and others to obtain source code, etc.?
>Surely if he is as bad as you claim he is, who'd cooperate with him?

   As I said, he's nice until you point out that he's wrong. Some
people don't look a gift horse too closely in the mouth or are
desperate for any attention.
>>    It's not just Dr. Tom. It's anyone who continues to tell lies even
>> after being notified of their being very inaccurate. [Witness

>Mr. Mates, I take exception to that.  You flamed someone who said
>something inaccurate about the P8 loader in GS/OS.  You flamed someone
>who said that AppleWorks was "primitive".  Are these "lies" worth
>the flames?  Are they lies?

   You want to see why the AW 5.0 guy got categorized as someone who 
may not have his head on right? Here's all he said in his original
post (go check out www.dejanews.com if you don't believe me)

---
	Bought a copy of AW 5.0 from Scantron, very disappointed.

        Primitive word processor, steep learning curve, you view only
        1/3 of your document at time; that's no good for professional
        word processing.

        What about Word Perfect? Who does it stack up, and where can I
        buy it?
---

   Granted, in later posts, he posted reasonable and rational reasons.
However, based on this first impression, the reason makes almost zero
sense. Size of screen display is directly related to professionalism?
Exactly how the "my latest PC is better than your obsolete XYZ" trolls
come across-- a comparison based on size and newness rather than any
facts. I pointed out many reasons why size had nothing to do with
professionalism, and his later replies had some grounding in reality.

   And a Mr. Tigh Buckles who I've given spelling and grammar lessons
to, what the heck is wrong with that? You turn in a resume like that,
you'll just have to keep looking. He claimed to be of the age where he
was _SUPPOSED_ to be learning that in school. He eventually learned
about newsgroups and relevancy after several more and more flamelike
attempts to point that out; a few more and he might fix his punctuation.

   Also, in all these "observations," everyone seems to point out the
nasty end of my flames of a person. Problem is, there's usually a
buildup-- I start off with a polite correction and then use stronger
language as they refuse to get the message. A Dejanews search of my
dealings with Mr Buckles will show that I was polite for several
messages _before_ taking off the kid gloves. With Dr. Tom, the nice
stage was years ago, but it was there also.


>> Mr. Aadlebert Goertz and his confusion about what an unenhanced //e
>> will print on boot, as well as excessively large .sigs] Problem is,

>Who made you patroller of c.s.a2?  Shall we also say that your .sig
>is out of place on c.s.a2?  Not that I mind, but I won't be the 
>judge of that.

   Excuse me, will you please look at and comprehend what I said and
you quoted above? I said absolutely NOTHING about content in .sigs,
just those that were _excessively_large_. It's just not I but
thousands more on usenet that'll tell you 4 lines, 80 cols is not just
a nice idea. That's a _factual_ and content-independent way of
judging .sigs-- you could have random characters, racist slogans,
or addresses in there and it wouldn't matter.


>>    If people don't lie, we don't flame. Very simple. The solution is
>> not to try and push around the flamers, but correct the liars. There's
>> a very specific one who's the cause of most to all of the problems
>> here, and his name is Charles Turley. Ask him to clean up his act.

>I think there are more problems to c.s.a2 than just him.  Where is this
>hatred coming from?  Mr. Turley vs. Joe Kohn, Mr. Turley vs. you and
>the people at winternet, Jawaid vs. ???, Endless Mike vs. Mr. Turley vs.
>you, etc?

   You're making a erroneous grouping here. Cold Fusion/Endless Mike
is NOT one of those attacking Dr. Tom on factual bases. [By the way, a
good chunk of what was said _was_ correct-- Joe Kohn apparently has
proof of Dr. Tom selling pirated Appleworks for $10 and advertising
that in SF newspapers. Dr. Tom has admitted online to being
non-hetero.] I think they just found a target that was trivial to
flame, and got their jollies from it.

   What I, Derek, Joe Kohn, Ian Schmidt, and many others do is attack
Dr. Tom on the facts. Just because there are others out there who have
less tact and are in the same questionable sanity state as Dr. Tom
does _not_ mean that we are. Since most of us have further been
dealing with his obstinate lunacy online for many years, we tend to
skip the polite "excuse me, you're wrong" stage as we've done that
several hundred times already. We skip directly to the stronger
language due to exhaustion in dealing with someone who will not
listen, and that's the only form of language that's had an effect on
him.

   By the way, almost nobody's _EVER_ posted facts saying that Dr.
Tom was right in these flamewars. Since the reputable flamers start
with facts and only get "No" back, that should say something about
both sides to anyone who's taken debate or formal logic. If the
other side cannot conclusively dispute the facts, that should tell
you something about who's right and who's in it just to be obstinate.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~nathan/      <*>
# And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the
# Kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in
# parables" Mark 4:11, NRSV