|
| |
When you reply to a previous posting, you really need to provide
enough of it to give your reply some context. Tried what?
(You should be able to configure your software so that it
automatically includes the message you're responding to.
A tip: keep only enough to provide the necessary context,
and put your reply below that.)
--
Rob
Steve Gartin wrote:
> Good day all,
> Would someone bring me up to speed with the Richman Scale . . .
> Is there a FAQ on things like that and Goodwin's Law and etiquette
and all
> those cool abbreviations like BTW?
http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html
==========
Goodwin's Law of Usenet
Professor Goodwin, U of I, in 1981 made the observation that Usenet
discussions gravitate downhill.
He postulated that as the length of a discussion thread grows, the
probability approaches one (1) that one participant will introduce the
terms "Hitler" or "Nazi".
The custom has evolved that the first party to utter "Hitler" or "Nazi"
has lost the discussion, and the thread terminates.
==========
You'll notice that hal loses a lot of discussions that way, though he
tries to loophole usually by using the term "Fascist" or by implying
without actually *stating*.
Peace favor your sword (IH)
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:59:16 -0700, Steve Gartin wrote:
> Would someone bring me up to speed with the Richman Scale . . .
The definition of the Richman scale is... nebulous, and open to
interpretation.
> FAQ on things like that and Goodwin's Law and etiquette and all those cool
> abbreviations like BTW?
The common ones you'll see here are:-
BTW - By the way
IIRC - If I recall correctly
ISTM - It seems to me
HTH - Hope that helps
FOAD - Fuck off and die
STFU - Shut the fuck up
WTF - What the fuck?
ROTFL - Rolling on the floor laughing
LOL - Laughs out loud
IMHO - In my humble opinion
<S> there to indicate sarcasm
--
> The best we've seen lately was that person who posted asking for a
> translation for the Japanese symbol on their kid's Ninja uniform.
> Excelent troll.
Yeah, that was a classic. Good technique, just the right amount
of prodding by the originator to keep it rolling.
That one was a 7.5 or maybe even an 8.
Steve Gartin wrote:
> Why was the score so low on such a high scale?
Because as a troll, it sucked :-)
> Was the Founder so much
> superior or adept or whatever?
Richman was pretty good, but Ketho and later Victor (who may well be the
same person, it's hard to determine these things) were much better.
A really good troll gets the responders to either a) try to hold a
serious conversation with the troller, unaware that they're doomed, or
b) argue amongst themselves, creating a self-perpuating flame-war.
Hal, for instance, is probably a 5 (overall- many of his posts are much
worse); about as good as you can get when everyone knows you're full of
shit and nobody agrees with you.
--
Matthew Weigel
Badger North wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:16:26 -0700, "Steve Gartin"
> <stevegartin@spamlessyahoo.com>
wrote:
>>So which troll ranks the highest on the Richman Scale?
> We all have our favourites - mine was Victor.
Ah, your head was turned by his 'slim but toned body,
attractive to members of both sexes'.
That said, I appreciated Victor's work, too.
--
Rob
Badger North <young_forest@REEEMOVEhotmail.com>
wrote:
>We all have our favourites - mine was Victor.
Alan Connor gets my vote.
--Don--
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
"Rich" <rlancashire@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1106209904.951803.322280@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Steve Gartin wrote:
>
>> Sorry Rich, you are wrong:
>
> Thanks for the extensive articles, Steve. Two points, however: firstly,
> they seem to refer only to American constitutional history - and the
> constitution is a set of axioms, not of facts. So, you could use this
> to argue that the founding fathers would have been Libertarians, or
> that income tax is unconstitutional, but it has no bearing on my
> points. There is a world of 5 billion people outside the borders of the
> US, as little as the people inside may hear of it. ;)
>
Woops! The power to tax gives governments the power to kill the middle
class in any society. Our Founding Fathers vehemently resisted taxation.
The other 5 billion folks have a larger problem and no contract with their
governments to prevent the fiscal demise of the working People. Sorry.
> Secondly, the only argument presented outside of constitutionality was
> from the 18th Century, that direct taxation led to the fall of the
> Roman empire. Not really a very solid argument; the Roman empire
> achieved its power through military conquest and extensive slavery and
> fell apart due to all sorts of factors. In fact, appealing to the Roman
> empire only strengthens the case for it being a fascistic system.
> Best Regards
> Rich
>
Those of us who still believe in America in spite of the *government* need
no other argument except the Constitution that we served in uniform to
Protect and Defend. Sorry if we seem sort of uni-issue.
Steve
www.stevegartin.com
"Rich" <rlancashire@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1106297460.077560.285000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Steve Gartin wrote:
>> "Rich" <rlancashire@hotmail.com>
wrote
>
>> Woops! The power to tax gives governments the power to kill the
> middle
>> class in any society. Our Founding Fathers vehemently resisted
> taxation.
>> The other 5 billion folks have a larger problem and no contract with
> their
>> governments to prevent the fiscal demise of the working People.
> Sorry.
>
> And yet somehow, from under the yoke of communist slavery, other
> countries manage to have thriving middle classes, democratic elections
> and even higher literacy rates and life expectancy. Who'd credit it?
>
>> Those of us who still believe in America in spite of the *government*
> need
>> no other argument except the Constitution that we served in uniform
> to
>> Protect and Defend. Sorry if we seem sort of uni-issue.
>
> It's a noble attitude, Steve, and I commend you for it. Just pointing
> out that it's an attitude, not an argument.
>
> Best regards
> Rich
>
No Rich, it is a *written* contract that establishes the boundries that
government cannot *lawfully* exceed. Contract law supersedes all other law.
It is not commonly known that the Constitution was suspended in 1933 and has
not been re-instated. I did not know that when my legal oddessy commenced,
so a good deal of my original efforts were misplaced . . . live and learn.
http://druglibrary.net/olsen/COMMON/factfict.html
One of the reasons that the *government* refuses to answer any questions
concerning their authority to tax People's income is that there is no
authority, either legally or lawfully, by statute or by code. Their only
authority is what is referred to as a 'unilateral' contract that is
*assumed* by your acceptance of a Social Security number and volunteering to
pay by *not* refusing to file. Since the *government* operates by fiat in
*legal fiction* there are no restraints . . . there is no contract.
Although the Constitution guarantees a Republican Form of government, what
we have is actually a Legislative Democracy under Martial Rule, a more
benign form of dictatorship than Martial Law. See the Lieber Code.
Since no one will tell you the truth, asking questions serves no purpose
except to piss *them* off. We, the once proud American People, have been
slaves since 1933 and we have not had Republican government since 1861.
America has been conquered by the International Bankers and the people are
collateral for the growing 'paper' debt.
Broke my heart when I finally learned the truth. Until KingBush declares
Martial Law there is still probably something that can be done, but it would
require a widespread educational effort that I can't imagine happening.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/
The *government* is quietly preparing for the time that the People find out
what the truth is. Bush's Inauguration Party was a classic example.
http://www.jointterrorismtaskforce.com/GardenPlot.htm Why would a
government of the People, by the People and for the People have to live life
behind bullet proof glass surrounded by standing armies?
Have a nice day,
Steve
www.docslaw.com/conspiracy.htm
|
