🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29/11/2024 10:14, Spike wrote:
>
> I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I take the view that the use, so many
> times, of the term ‘fuckwit’ and its derivative ‘fuckwittery’ in the course
> of replies to you, bears the sign that you are paying a heavy price for
> being correct in and maintaining the stance of your analysis of the legal
> position regarding the case of Auriol Grey, in the teeth of the combined
> might of the legal experts et al from ulm being in swift confederacy
> against you, with you finally being vindicated by the verdict of the Court
> of Appeal.

Thank you.  As is usual, playground jibes and name-calling do indicate a
certain inadequacy in those who use them.

> The case of Auriol Grey was not ulm’s finest hour.

Agreed.

On 29/11/2024 10:14, Spike wrote:
>
> I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I take the view that the use, so many
> times, of the term ‘fuckwit’ and its derivative ‘fuckwittery’ in the course
> of replies to you, bears the sign that you are paying a heavy price for
> being correct in and maintaining the stance of your analysis of the legal
> position regarding the case of Auriol Grey, in the teeth of the combined
> might of the legal experts et al from ulm being in swift confederacy
> against you, with you finally being vindicated by the verdict of the Court
> of Appeal.
>
> The case of Auriol Grey was not ulm’s finest hour.
>

ULM doesn't have finest hours. It's a discussion forum. When there is a
discussion about a possible miscarriage of justice, it is unimportant
whether or not the Court of Appeal eventually declares that there has
been a miscarriage of justice. The quality of the argument in ULM is
what is important. And being proved right by the Court of Appeal might
sometimes give certain contributors the belief that they now have a
solid reputation for always being right about everything.

Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM. Some people disagreed with him
just as forcefully as he disagreed with them.

Some of us could very easily jump on the Justice for Lucy Letby
bandwagon and assert very angrily that the case against her was never
proved. There's plenty of ammunition in the pages of Private Eye to
support that opinion. But merely asserting the opinion, whilst
acceptable to the moderators, does not meet a high quality standard.

The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
> On 29/11/2024 10:14, Spike wrote:

>> I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I take the view that the use, so many
>> times, of the term ‘fuckwit’ and its derivative ‘fuckwittery’ in the course
>> of replies to you, bears the sign that you are paying a heavy price for
>> being correct in and maintaining the stance of your analysis of the legal
>> position regarding the case of Auriol Grey, in the teeth of the combined
>> might of the legal experts et al from ulm being in swift confederacy
>> against you, with you finally being vindicated by the verdict of the Court
>> of Appeal.

>> The case of Auriol Grey was not ulm’s finest hour.

> ULM doesn't have finest hours.

Oh, I’d have to agree with you on that one!

> It's a discussion forum. When there is a
> discussion about a possible miscarriage of justice, it is unimportant
> whether or not the Court of Appeal eventually declares that there has
> been a miscarriage of justice. The quality of the argument in ULM is
> what is important.

The arguments advanced in ulm concerning the Auriol Grey case may or may
not have possessed quality, but they were heavily weighed against one
person’s view, who in the end turned out to be correct, as proved by the
CoA. One might have thought that being correct in one’s view of the law was
more important than advancing arguments of quality that were nonetheless
persistently wrong. Style over substance doesn’t carry weight in legal
matters.

> And being proved right by the Court of Appeal might
> sometimes give certain contributors the belief that they now have a
> solid reputation for always being right about everything.

I’m not aware that anyone is claiming such.

> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.

Nobody said that was the case.

> Some people disagreed with him
> just as forcefully as he disagreed with them.

It isn’t forcefulness that was the issue. My view is that Normal Wells
stood by his view of the law against that of what seemed like the rest of
ulm, and was proved right and the others wrong.

If it had ended there, that would be it, but the vituperation against him
has since increased, as if to finally score some point or other against him
and somehow restore the status quo ante. I find this distasteful, to say
the least, if that is the reason.

> Some of us could very easily jump on the Justice for Lucy Letby
> bandwagon and assert very angrily that the case against her was never
> proved. There's plenty of ammunition in the pages of Private Eye to
> support that opinion. But merely asserting the opinion, whilst
> acceptable to the moderators, does not meet a high quality standard.

--
Spike

On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...

The Todal:
> > Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>
> Nobody said that was the case.

Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
fuckwit outside ULM either.

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

On 1 Dec 2024 at 15:58:30 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>
> The Todal:
>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>
>> Nobody said that was the case.
>
> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
> fuckwit outside ULM either.

I think it is more that he believes that becoming a ulm moderator should
entail becoming part of an austere priesthood who live their lives in ascetic
purity. And give not unto temptation.

--

Roger Hayter

On 2024-12-01, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
> The Todal:
>> > Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>
>> Nobody said that was the case.
>
> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
> fuckwit outside ULM either.

... but ironically, he only thinks that because he's a fuckwit.

On 01/12/2024 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2024-12-01, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>> The Todal:
>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>
>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>
>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>
> ... but ironically, he only thinks that because he's a fuckwit.

Interesting that you have now joined master Parker's sniggering,
potty-mouthed playground gang.

I had thought better of you.

On 1 Dec 2024 at 16:26:59 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 01/12/2024 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2024-12-01, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>> The Todal:
>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>
>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>
>> ... but ironically, he only thinks that because he's a fuckwit.
>
> Interesting that you have now joined master Parker's sniggering,
> potty-mouthed playground gang.
>
> I had thought better of you.

Everyone's been invited - except you.

--

Roger Hayter

On 01/12/2024 16:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2024 at 15:58:30 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>
>> The Todal:
>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>
>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>
>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>
> I think it is more that he believes that becoming a ulm moderator should
> entail becoming part of an austere priesthood who live their lives in ascetic
> purity. And give not unto temptation.

With Mr Ribbens now joining in, I'm rather thinking that it is a
requirement to be a potty-mouthed juvenile in order to become a moderator.

The evidence is there.  What do you think, if anything at all?

On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...

> The Todal:
>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>
>> Nobody said that was the case.
>
> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
> fuckwit outside ULM either.

Is that the way you normally behave then?

On 1 Dec 2024 at 16:29:56 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 01/12/2024 16:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2024 at 15:58:30 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>
>>> The Todal:
>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>
>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>
>> I think it is more that he believes that becoming a ulm moderator should
>> entail becoming part of an austere priesthood who live their lives in ascetic
>> purity. And give not unto temptation.
>
> With Mr Ribbens now joining in, I'm rather thinking that it is a
> requirement to be a potty-mouthed juvenile in order to become a moderator.
>
> The evidence is there.  What do you think, if anything at all?

It is not really a subject to which I have applied any great thought - you're
right.

--

Roger Hayter

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>
> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
> > On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>
> > The Todal:
> >>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
> >>
> >> Nobody said that was the case.
> >
> > Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
> > fuckwit outside ULM either.
>
> Is that the way you normally behave then?

Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

On 01/12/2024 16:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2024 at 16:26:59 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/2024 16:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-01, Tim Jackson <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>> The Todal:
>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>>
>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>>
>>> ... but ironically, he only thinks that because he's a fuckwit.
>>
>> Interesting that you have now joined master Parker's sniggering,
>> potty-mouthed playground gang.
>>
>> I had thought better of you.
>
> Everyone's been invited - except you.

It's not exactly something I would accept actually.

It's called having standards.

On 01/12/2024 16:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2024 at 16:29:56 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/2024 16:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 1 Dec 2024 at 15:58:30 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>>
>>>> The Todal:
>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>>
>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>>
>>> I think it is more that he believes that becoming a ulm moderator should
>>> entail becoming part of an austere priesthood who live their lives in ascetic
>>> purity. And give not unto temptation.
>>
>> With Mr Ribbens now joining in, I'm rather thinking that it is a
>> requirement to be a potty-mouthed juvenile in order to become a moderator.
>>
>> The evidence is there.  What do you think, if anything at all?
>
> It is not really a subject to which I have applied any great thought

Indeed.  It's yet another one to add to a vast and growing list.

On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>
>> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>
>>> The Todal:
>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>
>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>
>> Is that the way you normally behave then?
>
> Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
> by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.

You seem to be condoning it.  Why do you therefore evade saying whether
it's the way *you* normally behave?

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:00:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>
> On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
> >>
> >> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
> >>
> >>> The Todal:
> >>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody said that was the case.
> >>>
> >>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
> >>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
> >>
> >> Is that the way you normally behave then?
> >
> > Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
> > by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.
>
> You seem to be condoning it.

It's permissible outside ULM.

>  Why do you therefore evade saying whether
> it's the way *you* normally behave?

Why do you assume it is?

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

On 01/12/2024 11:42, Spike wrote:
> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
>> On 29/11/2024 10:14, Spike wrote:
>
>>> I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I take the view that the use, so many
>>> times, of the term ‘fuckwit’ and its derivative ‘fuckwittery’ in the course
>>> of replies to you, bears the sign that you are paying a heavy price for
>>> being correct in and maintaining the stance of your analysis of the legal
>>> position regarding the case of Auriol Grey, in the teeth of the combined
>>> might of the legal experts et al from ulm being in swift confederacy
>>> against you, with you finally being vindicated by the verdict of the Court
>>> of Appeal.
>
>>> The case of Auriol Grey was not ulm’s finest hour.
>
>> ULM doesn't have finest hours.
>
> Oh, I’d have to agree with you on that one!
>
>> It's a discussion forum. When there is a
>> discussion about a possible miscarriage of justice, it is unimportant
>> whether or not the Court of Appeal eventually declares that there has
>> been a miscarriage of justice. The quality of the argument in ULM is
>> what is important.
>
> The arguments advanced in ulm concerning the Auriol Grey case may or may
> not have possessed quality, but they were heavily weighed against one
> person’s view, who in the end turned out to be correct, as proved by the
> CoA. One might have thought that being correct in one’s view of the law was
> more important than advancing arguments of quality that were nonetheless
> persistently wrong. Style over substance doesn’t carry weight in legal
> matters.

Being correct in one's view of the law is often little more than tossing
a coin. For instance, if someone describes a legal problem and a Norman
advises them "sue, and you'll win" it really is very unhelpful advice
unless bolstered by a quantity of legal analysis.

I'm sure you understand this really. And to be fair, Norman generally
does provide some legal analysis but often on the basis of scanty
information and relies on guesswork about what isn't yet in the public
domain.

>
>> And being proved right by the Court of Appeal might
>> sometimes give certain contributors the belief that they now have a
>> solid reputation for always being right about everything.
>
> I’m not aware that anyone is claiming such.

Norman has frequently asserted that he's always right.

>
>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>
> Nobody said that was the case.
>
>> Some people disagreed with him
>> just as forcefully as he disagreed with them.
>
> It isn’t forcefulness that was the issue. My view is that Normal Wells
> stood by his view of the law against that of what seemed like the rest of
> ulm, and was proved right and the others wrong.

It certainly wasn't the rest of ULM.


>
> If it had ended there, that would be it, but the vituperation against him
> has since increased, as if to finally score some point or other against him
> and somehow restore the status quo ante. I find this distasteful, to say
> the least, if that is the reason.

That's based on his regular complaints about moderation. This is a forum
to discuss whether a post was wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted but
he harps on about how the whitelist is giving unfair priority to certain
people and if anyone complains about a moderator decision you'll see
Norman jumping on the bandwagon and adding his own, often irrelevant,
complaint.

On 01/12/2024 18:20, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:00:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>
>> On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>
>>>> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> The Todal:
>>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>>>
>>>> Is that the way you normally behave then?
>>>
>>> Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
>>> by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.
>>
>> You seem to be condoning it.
>
> It's permissible outside ULM.
>
>>   Why do you therefore evade saying whether
>> it's the way *you* normally behave?
>
> Why do you assume it is?

You seem to be condoning it with no word  of criticism at all.

Is it then the way *you* normally behave?

That's a question by the way, not an assumption.

On 01/12/2024 19:19, The Todal wrote:
> On 01/12/2024 11:42, Spike wrote:
>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/11/2024 10:14, Spike wrote:
>>
>>>> I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I take the view that the use,
>>>> so many
>>>> times, of the term ‘fuckwit’ and its derivative ‘fuckwittery’ in the
>>>> course
>>>> of replies to you, bears the sign that you are paying a heavy price for
>>>> being correct in and maintaining the stance of your analysis of the
>>>> legal
>>>> position regarding the case of Auriol Grey, in the teeth of the
>>>> combined
>>>> might of the legal experts et al from ulm being in swift confederacy
>>>> against you, with you finally being vindicated by the verdict of the
>>>> Court
>>>> of Appeal.
>>
>>>> The case of Auriol Grey was not ulm’s finest hour.
>>
>>> ULM doesn't have finest hours.
>>
>> Oh, I’d have to agree with you on that one!
>>
>>> It's a discussion forum. When there is a
>>> discussion about a possible miscarriage of justice, it is unimportant
>>> whether or not the Court of Appeal eventually declares that there has
>>> been a miscarriage of justice. The quality of the argument in ULM is
>>> what is important.
>>
>> The arguments advanced in ulm concerning the Auriol Grey case may or may
>> not have possessed quality, but they were heavily weighed against one
>> person’s view, who in the end turned out to be correct, as proved by the
>> CoA. One might have thought that being correct in one’s view of the
>> law was
>> more important than advancing arguments of quality that were nonetheless
>> persistently wrong. Style over substance doesn’t carry weight in legal
>> matters.
>
> Being correct in one's view of the law is often little more than tossing
> a coin. For instance, if someone describes a legal problem and a Norman
> advises them "sue, and you'll win" it really is very unhelpful advice
> unless bolstered by a quantity of legal analysis.

Which I gave, in spades.

> I'm sure you understand this really. And to be fair, Norman generally
> does provide some legal analysis but often on the basis of scanty
> information and relies on guesswork about what isn't yet in the public
> domain.

Do please provide your evidence of that because it seems to me to be a lie.

>>> And being proved right by the Court of Appeal might
>>> sometimes give certain contributors the belief that they now have a
>>> solid reputation for always being right about everything.
>>
>> I’m not aware that anyone is claiming such.
>
> Norman has frequently asserted that he's always right.

Oh dear.  No I haven't.  Ever.  So, it's a lie.

If you disagree, quote me.

>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>
>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>
>>> Some people disagreed with him
>>> just as forcefully as he disagreed with them.
>>
>> It isn’t forcefulness that was the issue. My view is that Normal Wells
>> stood by his view of the law against that of what seemed like the rest of
>> ulm, and was proved right and the others wrong.
>
> It certainly wasn't the rest of ULM.

Who agreed with me?  Do list them and please quote what they said when
they did.

>> If it had ended there, that would be it, but the vituperation against him
>> has since increased, as if to finally score some point or other
>> against him
>> and somehow restore the status quo ante. I find this distasteful, to say
>> the least, if that is the reason.
>
> That's based on his regular complaints about moderation. This is a forum
> to discuss whether a post was wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted but
> he harps on about how the whitelist is giving unfair priority to certain
> people and if anyone complains about a moderator decision you'll see
> Norman jumping on the bandwagon and adding his own, often irrelevant,
> complaint.

Nonsense.  You really should read the Charter of this group sometime
before you pontificate.  Then you will find that it says:

"The group may discuss *any and all* aspects of moderation, *including*
cancellation of posts ....

Topics may *include, but are not limited to*: Moderation software,
moderation rules, selection and election of moderators, moderators
responsibilities, moderators regular postings, complaints from aggrieved
posters ... etc"

What I post here is bang on topic and never irrelevant.

What you don't like and seemingly can't take is any criticism of how
moderation is effected in ulm, even when it is thoroughly deserved.

Perhaps you will now give it rather more attention.

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:25:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>
> On 01/12/2024 18:20, Tim Jackson wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:00:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
> >>
> >> On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
> >>>>
> >>>>> The Todal:
> >>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
> >>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is that the way you normally behave then?
> >>>
> >>> Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
> >>> by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.
> >>
> >> You seem to be condoning it.
> >
> > It's permissible outside ULM.
> >
> >>   Why do you therefore evade saying whether
> >> it's the way *you* normally behave?
> >
> > Why do you assume it is?
>
> You seem to be condoning it with no word  of criticism at all.
>
> Is it then the way *you* normally behave?
>
> That's a question by the way, not an assumption.

If you have found examples, I'm sure you would give them.  If you
haven't, why do you need to ask?  Why do you assume I'm condoning it?

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

On 01/12/2024 20:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:25:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>
>> On 01/12/2024 18:20, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:00:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>
>>>> On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Todal:
>>>>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>>>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that the way you normally behave then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
>>>>> by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be condoning it.
>>>
>>> It's permissible outside ULM.
>>>
>>>>    Why do you therefore evade saying whether
>>>> it's the way *you* normally behave?
>>>
>>> Why do you assume it is?
>>
>> You seem to be condoning it with no word  of criticism at all.
>>
>> Is it then the way *you* normally behave?
>>
>> That's a question by the way, not an assumption.
>
> If you have found examples, I'm sure you would give them.  If you
> haven't, why do you need to ask?  Why do you assume I'm condoning it?

I note yet more revealing and shabby evasion of a direct question.

On 1 Dec 2024 at 21:55:55 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 01/12/2024 20:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:25:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>
>>> On 01/12/2024 18:20, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:00:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Todal:
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>>>>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that the way you normally behave then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
>>>>>> by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be condoning it.
>>>>
>>>> It's permissible outside ULM.
>>>>
>>>>>    Why do you therefore evade saying whether
>>>>> it's the way *you* normally behave?
>>>>
>>>> Why do you assume it is?
>>>
>>> You seem to be condoning it with no word  of criticism at all.
>>>
>>> Is it then the way *you* normally behave?
>>>
>>> That's a question by the way, not an assumption.
>>
>> If you have found examples, I'm sure you would give them.  If you
>> haven't, why do you need to ask?  Why do you assume I'm condoning it?
>
> I note yet more revealing and shabby evasion of a direct question.

I find it really mysterious that you assume that when you ask a question in a
news group any one else has an obligation to answer it if they don't think it
is relevant, of even if they simply don't wish to answer.

What status gives you the right to demand answers to your questions? (You
don't have to answer if you don't want to.)


--

Roger Hayter

On 1 Dec 2024 22:18:57 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...
>
> On 1 Dec 2024 at 21:55:55 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
> > On 01/12/2024 20:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:25:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
> >>>
> >>> On 01/12/2024 18:20, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:00:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
> >>>>>> by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You seem to be condoning it.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's permissible outside ULM.
> >>>>
> >>>>>    Why do you therefore evade saying whether
> >>>>> it's the way *you* normally behave?
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do you assume it is?
> >>>
> >>> You seem to be condoning it with no word  of criticism at all.
> >>>
> >>> Is it then the way *you* normally behave?
> >>>
> >>> That's a question by the way, not an assumption.
> >>
> >> If you have found examples, I'm sure you would give them.  If you
> >> haven't, why do you need to ask?  Why do you assume I'm condoning it?
> >
> > I note yet more revealing and shabby evasion of a direct question.
>
> I find it really mysterious that you assume that when you ask a question in a
> news group any one else has an obligation to answer it if they don't think it
> is relevant, of even if they simply don't wish to answer.
>
> What status gives you the right to demand answers to your questions? (You
> don't have to answer if you don't want to.)

Aw, you've spoilt it now.  I was having fun baiting him by not answering
his question.

--
Tim Jackson
news@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)

On 01/12/2024 22:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2024 at 21:55:55 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/2024 20:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:25:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>
>>>> On 01/12/2024 18:20, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:00:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Todal:
>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>>>>>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that the way you normally behave then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
>>>>>>> by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to be condoning it.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's permissible outside ULM.
>>>>>
>>>>>>     Why do you therefore evade saying whether
>>>>>> it's the way *you* normally behave?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you assume it is?
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be condoning it with no word  of criticism at all.
>>>>
>>>> Is it then the way *you* normally behave?
>>>>
>>>> That's a question by the way, not an assumption.
>>>
>>> If you have found examples, I'm sure you would give them.  If you
>>> haven't, why do you need to ask?  Why do you assume I'm condoning it?
>>
>> I note yet more revealing and shabby evasion of a direct question.
>
> I find it really mysterious that you assume that when you ask a question in a
> news group any one else has an obligation to answer it if they don't think it
> is relevant, of even if they simply don't wish to answer.

I find it really mysterious that you spend the time purporting to reply
when you know you're not actually replying, but not giving any reason
such as you're now postulating may be the case without even saying that
it actually is.

That's just weird, especially in a discussion forum where you might be
expected to want to discuss.

It's clear you don't wish to answer.  That's because, whatever answer
you give will either put you in the same gutter as the potty-mouths we
were talking about, or will make you a hypocrite.

> What status gives you the right to demand answers to your questions? (You
> don't have to answer if you don't want to.)

No, this is a discussion forum, where it's expected and indeed necessary
for discussion.  So, of course I have no right or ability to 'demand'
anything.  But it is normal in a discussion to ask and either receive an
answer or a reason why you can't or won't give one.

Have you ever had a proper discussion before?

On 01/12/2024 23:40, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2024 22:18:57 GMT, Roger Hayter wrote...

>> I find it really mysterious that you assume that when you ask a question in a
>> news group any one else has an obligation to answer it if they don't think it
>> is relevant, of even if they simply don't wish to answer.
>>
>> What status gives you the right to demand answers to your questions? (You
>> don't have to answer if you don't want to.)
>
> Aw, you've spoilt it now.  I was having fun baiting him by not answering
> his question.

Actually, you were just wasting your time.

I've actually in error just replied to Mr Hayter (he who has never
applied any great thought to anything) who seems to have teamed up with you.

Please replace 'you' in my reply to him with 'Mr Jackson'.

Sorry for the confusion but from your echoes you could be twins.

On 2 Dec 2024 at 08:22:20 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> On 01/12/2024 22:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2024 at 21:55:55 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/12/2024 20:33, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 19:25:26 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/12/2024 18:20, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 17:00:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/12/2024 16:49, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 16:31:03 +0000, Norman Wells wrote...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Todal:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>>>>>>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is that the way you normally behave then?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note the disconnect in Norman's mind, between what is permissibly done
>>>>>>>> by a few outside ULM, and what is normal behaviour for everyone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to be condoning it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's permissible outside ULM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Why do you therefore evade saying whether
>>>>>>> it's the way *you* normally behave?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you assume it is?
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be condoning it with no word  of criticism at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it then the way *you* normally behave?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a question by the way, not an assumption.
>>>>
>>>> If you have found examples, I'm sure you would give them.  If you
>>>> haven't, why do you need to ask?  Why do you assume I'm condoning it?
>>>
>>> I note yet more revealing and shabby evasion of a direct question.
>>
>> I find it really mysterious that you assume that when you ask a question in a
>> news group any one else has an obligation to answer it if they don't think it
>> is relevant, of even if they simply don't wish to answer.
>
> I find it really mysterious that you spend the time purporting to reply
> when you know you're not actually replying, but not giving any reason
> such as you're now postulating may be the case without even saying that
> it actually is.
>
> That's just weird, especially in a discussion forum where you might be
> expected to want to discuss.
>
> It's clear you don't wish to answer.  That's because, whatever answer
> you give will either put you in the same gutter as the potty-mouths we
> were talking about, or will make you a hypocrite.
>
>> What status gives you the right to demand answers to your questions? (You
>> don't have to answer if you don't want to.)
>
> No, this is a discussion forum, where it's expected and indeed necessary
> for discussion.  So, of course I have no right or ability to 'demand'
> anything.  But it is normal in a discussion to ask and either receive an
> answer or a reason why you can't or won't give one.
>
> Have you ever had a proper discussion before?

Thank you for agreeing that you have no right to demand the answers to
arbitrary questions. I suspect you may yet need reminding of that.

--

Roger Hayter

On 29/11/2024 10:14, Spike wrote:
>
> I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I take the view that the use, so many
> times, of the term ‘fuckwit’ and its derivative ‘fuckwittery’ in the course
> of replies to you, bears the sign that you are paying a heavy price for
> being correct in and maintaining the stance of your analysis of the legal
> position regarding the case of Auriol Grey, in the teeth of the combined
> might of the legal experts et al from ulm being in swift confederacy
> against you, with you finally being vindicated by the verdict of the Court
> of Appeal.

Your argument would have merit were there a shred of accuracy in it.

I believe I first called Norman a fuckwit in September of 2022 in
response to a post in which he puffed up his feathers and stomped around
like a peacock stating, "I'm not some imbecilic newbie to be patronised
by the likes of you, but have been around here for years." [^1]

As he frequently does, and has done again recently to confirm this,
Norman often gets confused between "here" (UMMN) and "there" (ULM).

He maintained that the above statement posted to UNNM could not be taken
to reference his posts to UNNM, or his time on Usenet in general but
that "here" clearly refers to "there" even claiming that this is what
he'd said all along and finishing with the admonition: "Do try to read."
[^1]

In response to that, I reminded him, as is the case more often that it
should be, that what he was claiming to have said isn't what he actually
said and that rather than urging me to "try to read" he would be better
served by trying harder not to be such a fuckwit.

As I say, that was September 2022 a good six months before the Auriol
Grey case would see the light of day and a good 18 months before Ms Grey
would be released from gaol pending the appeal hearing.

Around a week after what I think was the first instance in which I
called Norman a fuckwit, Norman was determined to display his
fuckwittery in all its glory for all to see when he made a post in which
he claimed he hadn't switched words ("No, we're not switching words at
all." [^1]) despite having not only done that but also acknowledged he'd
done it ("I used the word 'general' in place of 'normal'." [^1]).

He then tried to claim that such plainly contradictory and mutually
exclusive statements should have no effect whatsoever on his
trustworthiness, credibility, integrity and reputation, ("Do please tell
me what earthly difference it makes.") so I pointed him in the direction
of Eggleston's "Evidence Proof and Probability", more specifically page
155 thereof which covers making judgements about whether a witness can
generally be considered to be a truthful or untruthful person and
whether, although generally truthful, he may be telling less than the
truth on this occasion.

I can run you through each instance where I have referred to Norman as a
fuckwit or his behaviour as fuckwittery and they all have one thing in
common:

(1) Norman is behaving like a fuckwit; and / or
(2) Norman's behaviour can be described as that of a fuckwit.

That you think this is in any way connected to the Auriol Grey appeal,
is very much mistaken.

If you have time, (unfortunately for you, I don't), you could count the
number of posts in which I've referred to Norman either as a fuckwit or
to his fuckwittery in general and categorise them according to their
date.  There will be posts from before any of us knew the name "Auriol
Grey", posts in the period between conviction and appeal and posts made
following the successful appeal.

If the posts in the latter category are more numerous than the others,
then your point could have merit.

But without needing to undertake such a count, my gut feeling is that
the first two will outnumber the third considerably, even taking into
account the lengthy thread on defamation which occurred here post appeal
and in which Norman was determined to demonstrate both his ignorance of
defamation law and his general fuckwittery at each and every opportunity.


> The case of Auriol Grey was not ulm’s finest hour.

Was it anyone's finest hour?  As I've said previously, if we are to take
Norman at his word that he was 100% convinced he was correct, his
inaction allowed a disabled, mentally fragile woman to spend a year in
gaol needlessly.

If you consider that a victory for Norman, then I draw my lines
differently to you.

Regards

S.P.

[^1] A direct quote of Norman's words so he cannot claim he didn't say
this.  Well, he can claim it, but such claims, like many he makes, would
be without foundation.

On 01/12/2024 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 01/12/2024 15:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>
>> The Todal:
>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>
>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>
>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>
> Is that the way you normally behave then?

I can say that, in my case, it is a matter of recorded fact.

A significant number of years ago, a work colleague bought me a mug that
had "I do not suffer fools gladly..." printed on the outside.

Only a handful of colleagues realised the point of the ellipsis as
printed on the inside of the mug (and therefore only visible to the
person using the mug regularly or those to whom he showed it) was the
additional phrase "...but I do gladly make fools suffer".

He gave me the mug following a formal review at which it was stated that
in my case, the phrase "I do not suffer fools gladly" was true without
the addition of the final word, or with the addition of the words "or at
all".

As I've said numerous times, if you do not want to be referred to as a
fuckwit, stop behaving like a fuckwit.

Regards

S.P.

On 01/12/2024 11:42, Spike wrote:
> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:

>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>
> Nobody said that was the case.
<SFX: Buzzer>
Wrong!

In Message-ID: <lqqusqFqp2aU2@mid.individual.net>, Norman said: "And it
was a discussion about messages 'there' of course, where you have used
that potty-mouthed insult many times.", having clarified earlier in the
post that 'there' refers to ULM.

In short, Norman's claim is that "in messages 'there' [in ULM]... [I]
have used that potty-mouthed insult [fuckwit] many times".

Not just that I've called him a fuckwit in ULM, but that I've done so
"many times".

So you are mistaken to claim that "Nobody said that was the case." (that
"Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM").

Norman has, of course, been asked to provide examples and, as expected,
has resolutely refused to do so.

Sadly, this is just the latest example in a long line of instances where
Norman over reaches in his desire to seek opportunities to crowbar his
hobby-horse topics into threads here in which they do not belong and
frequently ends up shooting himself in the foot, as he has done on this
occasion.

And I will remind you, and indeed Norman and anyone else reading this
thread, that prior to him posting the above quoted clearly and
demonstrably untrue statement, in the final two sentences of the post to
which he was replying, I entreated him with the following words: "I
recommend taking the rest of the day off, but feel you will be unable to
resist the urge to provide further examples of your fuckwittery.  Please
take this opportunity to prove me wrong."

True to form, Norman decided that the best course of action was to
provide further examples of his fuckwittery.

Even when I try to save him from himself, he is determined to prove he's
a fuckwit!


> If it had ended there, that would be it, but the vituperation against him
> has since increased, as if to finally score some point or other against him
> and somehow restore the status quo ante. I find this distasteful, to say
> the least, if that is the reason.

It isn't the reason, certainly not in my case.

In another post to this thread, I've invited you to count the instances
where I've called Norman a fuckwit against the timeline of the Auriol
Grey case.

You believe there is an increase since the Auriol Grey appeal, I do not
believe that to be the case so I invite you to produce the stats that
prove your point.

However, even if the stats do prove an increase post appeal, I believe
that a single thread will account for the majority of those instances -
a thread in which Norman was determined to prove that he does not
understand the laws on either defamation or joint liability and, as a
consequence of which, I referred to him as a fuckwit a number of times.

TLDR: I call Norman a fuckwit when he demonstrates that he's a fuckwit.
It is a direct result of his fuckwittery and nothing else.

Regards

S.P.

On 03/12/2024 13:17, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 01/12/2024 11:42, Spike wrote:
>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
>
>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>
>> Nobody said that was the case.
> <SFX: Buzzer>
> Wrong!
>
> In Message-ID: <lqqusqFqp2aU2@mid.individual.net>, Norman said: "And it
> was a discussion about messages 'there' of course, where you have used
> that potty-mouthed insult many times.", having clarified earlier in the
> post that 'there' refers to ULM.
>
> In short, Norman's claim is that "in messages 'there' [in ULM]... [I]
> have used that potty-mouthed insult [fuckwit] many times".
>
> Not just that I've called him a fuckwit in ULM, but that I've done so
> "many times".
>
> So you are mistaken to claim that "Nobody said that was the case." (that
> "Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM").
>
> Norman has, of course, been asked to provide examples and, as expected,
> has resolutely refused to do so.
>
> Sadly, this is just the latest example in a long line of instances where
> Norman over reaches in his desire to seek opportunities to crowbar his
> hobby-horse topics into threads here in which they do not belong and
> frequently ends up shooting himself in the foot, as he has done on this
> occasion.
>
> And I will remind you, and indeed Norman and anyone else reading this
> thread, that prior to him posting the above quoted clearly and
> demonstrably untrue statement, in the final two sentences of the post to
> which he was replying, I entreated him with the following words: "I
> recommend taking the rest of the day off, but feel you will be unable to
> resist the urge to provide further examples of your fuckwittery.  Please
> take this opportunity to prove me wrong."
>
> True to form, Norman decided that the best course of action was to
> provide further examples of his fuckwittery.
>
> Even when I try to save him from himself, he is determined to prove he's
> a fuckwit!
>
>
>> If it had ended there, that would be it, but the vituperation against him
>> has since increased, as if to finally score some point or other
>> against him
>> and somehow restore the status quo ante. I find this distasteful, to say
>> the least, if that is the reason.
>
> It isn't the reason, certainly not in my case.
>
> In another post to this thread, I've invited you to count the instances
> where I've called Norman a fuckwit against the timeline of the Auriol
> Grey case.
>
> You believe there is an increase since the Auriol Grey appeal, I do not
> believe that to be the case so I invite you to produce the stats that
> prove your point.
>
> However, even if the stats do prove an increase post appeal, I believe
> that a single thread will account for the majority of those instances -
> a thread in which Norman was determined to prove that he does not
> understand the laws on either defamation or joint liability and, as a
> consequence of which, I referred to him as a fuckwit a number of times.
>
> TLDR: I call Norman a fuckwit when he demonstrates that he's a fuckwit.
> It is a direct result of his fuckwittery and nothing else.

Is Tourette's a strength do you think?

On 03/12/2024 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 03/12/2024 13:17, Simon Parker wrote:

[...]

>> TLDR: I call Norman a fuckwit when he demonstrates that he's a
>> fuckwit. It is a direct result of his fuckwittery and nothing else.
>
> Is Tourette's a strength do you think?

Your reply presents me with a conundrum, Norman.

Do you believe:

(1) I actually suffer from Tourette's Syndrome, a recognised disability
under UK law, which means you are using someone's disability to mock
them thereby making you a disgusting and thoroughly reprehensible
individual; or

(2) I do not have Tourette's Syndrome and you are using a recognised
disability to make an ad hom attack on me which makes you a disgusting
and reprehensible individual and a hypocrite, given your frequent
posturing on the subject of ad hom attacks.

So which is it, Norman?

Are you disgusting and reprehensible, or a disgusting, reprehensible
hypocrite?

In either case, it is likely your post, which when viewed in context
with other posts you have made referencing autism and other conditions,
would be viewed by the CPS as constituting a Disability Hate Crime
(DHC).  It is to be hoped that nobody makes a report about these posts,
for your sake.

Matters of DHC notwithstanding, I await your clarification of the matter
with interest

Regards

S.P.

On 04/12/2024 12:02, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 03/12/2024 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 03/12/2024 13:17, Simon Parker wrote:

>>> TLDR: I call Norman a fuckwit when he demonstrates that he's a
>>> fuckwit. It is a direct result of his fuckwittery and nothing else.
>>
>> Is Tourette's a strength do you think?
>
> Your reply presents me with a conundrum, Norman.
>
> Do you believe:
>
> (1) I actually suffer from Tourette's Syndrome, a recognised disability
> under UK law, which means you are using someone's disability to mock
> them thereby making you a disgusting and thoroughly reprehensible
> individual; or

Hardly.  Where's the mockery?

It may just be a fact for which there is actually significant evidence.

> (2) I do not have Tourette's Syndrome and you are using a recognised
> disability to make an ad hom attack on me which makes you a disgusting
> and reprehensible individual and a hypocrite, given your frequent
> posturing on the subject of ad hom attacks.

In view of your long-standing history of ad hom attacks, do you accept
they make you a disgusting and reprehensible individual then?

But there's actually no ad hom attack at all in what I've said.

Maybe your hypersensitivity on the matter reveals rather more than you
realise though.

> So which is it, Norman?
>
> Are you disgusting and reprehensible, or a disgusting, reprehensible
> hypocrite?
>
> In either case, it is likely your post, which when viewed in context
> with other posts you have made referencing autism and other conditions,
> would be viewed by the CPS as constituting a Disability Hate Crime
> (DHC).

Of course it wouldn't.  There's no hate and no crime for starters.

> It is to be hoped that nobody makes a report about these posts,
> for your sake.

Is that a threat?

> Matters of DHC notwithstanding, I await your clarification of the matter
> with interest

And now you have it.

"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lr07vdFma3tU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Some of us could very easily jump on the Justice for Lucy Letby bandwagon and assert
> very angrily that the case against her was never proved.

It wasn't. But it nevertheless made a cohesive "story" for the jury,
which apparently explained everything

If only based on totally flawed expert evidence.

A story which is being reinforced daily with the Inquiry from which Letby's
brief has been banned as a potentially disruptive influence

The defence on the other hand couldn't present any sort of cohesive
explanation at all, for jury to latch on to, as to how these events
could have occurred.


bb

A principle described on P.244 of "The Confidence Game" Maria Konnikova (2016)
based on experiments by Deanna Khun.
Highly recommended. A whole succession of true stories of people who've fallen
for the most outrageous cons. No footnotes but all verifiable on Google
interspersed with the various psychological principles which con artists rely
on. Its a bit all over the place but towards the end, with the start of each
true story you can almost guess how its going to turn out

I would also recommend a film

"The Wrong Man" Alfred Hitchcock. Based on a true story starring Henry Fonda.

Fonda goes to an Insurance Office to change his wife's policy. A clerk at the
office thinks she recognises him as the man who held up the office last month.
She phone the police, They have his address so pick him up on suspicion.
He is then taken to a succession of shops which had been robbed and guess
what "they recognise him too. So he's arrested but manages to put up
substantial bail while trying to get an alibi together.

Fortunately for him, the real robber is caught in the meantime.

But doubtless the fact that he was picked out by four different witnesses
would have  persuaded the jury to convict.

When in fact if he could be mistaken for the real robber by one person, there
was every likelihood he'd be mistaken for the real robber by the others.

Except of course as far as the jury was concerned there was no"real robber"
only him.


bb

On 5 Dec 2024 at 00:44:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

>
> "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
> news:lr07vdFma3tU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Some of us could very easily jump on the Justice for Lucy Letby bandwagon and
>> assert
>> very angrily that the case against her was never proved.
>
> It wasn't. But it nevertheless made a cohesive "story" for the jury,
> which apparently explained everything
>
> If only based on totally flawed expert evidence.
>
> A story which is being reinforced daily with the Inquiry from which Letby's
> brief has been banned as a potentially disruptive influence
>
> The defence on the other hand couldn't present any sort of cohesive
> explanation at all, for jury to latch on to, as to how these events
> could have occurred.
>
>
> bb
>
> A principle described on P.244 of "The Confidence Game" Maria Konnikova (2016)
> based on experiments by Deanna Khun.
> Highly recommended. A whole succession of true stories of people who've fallen
> for the most outrageous cons. No footnotes but all verifiable on Google
> interspersed with the various psychological principles which con artists rely
> on. Its a bit all over the place but towards the end, with the start of each
> true story you can almost guess how its going to turn out
>
> I would also recommend a film
>
> "The Wrong Man" Alfred Hitchcock. Based on a true story starring Henry Fonda.
>
> Fonda goes to an Insurance Office to change his wife's policy. A clerk at the
> office thinks she recognises him as the man who held up the office last month.
> She phone the police, They have his address so pick him up on suspicion.
> He is then taken to a succession of shops which had been robbed and guess
> what "they recognise him too. So he's arrested but manages to put up
> substantial bail while trying to get an alibi together.
>
> Fortunately for him, the real robber is caught in the meantime.
>
> But doubtless the fact that he was picked out by four different witnesses
> would have  persuaded the jury to convict.
>
> When in fact if he could be mistaken for the real robber by one person, there
> was every likelihood he'd be mistaken for the real robber by the others.
>
> Except of course as far as the jury was concerned there was no"real robber"
> only him.
>
>
> bb

I'm by no means convinced of Letby's innocence. But it is an unusual case in
that not only is the evidence against Letby purely circumstantial, but the
evidence that there were any murders at all is purely circumstantial. The
original post mortems were consistent either with random deaths or a
relatively poor quality unit, which has actually since been downgraded. The
so-called expert evidence of foul play after the post mortems, skin
discolouration and insulin levels, is largely discredited. So we have the
rather circular argument that Letby was there for about two thirds of the
deaths, and that about two thirds of the deaths were possibly murders, because
Letby was there. And the other deaths, presumably, were natural deaths,
because Letby wasn't there.

--

Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:6145200520.93c1eb8c@uninhabited.net...
> On 5 Dec 2024 at 00:44:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
>> news:lr07vdFma3tU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Some of us could very easily jump on the Justice for Lucy Letby bandwagon and
>>> assert
>>> very angrily that the case against her was never proved.
>>
>> It wasn't. But it nevertheless made a cohesive "story" for the jury,
>> which apparently explained everything
>>
>> If only based on totally flawed expert evidence.
>>
>> A story which is being reinforced daily with the Inquiry from which Letby's
>> brief has been banned as a potentially disruptive influence
>>
>> The defence on the other hand couldn't present any sort of cohesive
>> explanation at all, for jury to latch on to, as to how these events
>> could have occurred.
>>
>>
>> bb
>>
>> A principle described on P.244 of "The Confidence Game" Maria Konnikova (2016)
>> based on experiments by Deanna Khun.
>> Highly recommended. A whole succession of true stories of people who've fallen
>> for the most outrageous cons. No footnotes but all verifiable on Google
>> interspersed with the various psychological principles which con artists rely
>> on. Its a bit all over the place but towards the end, with the start of each
>> true story you can almost guess how its going to turn out
>>
>> I would also recommend a film
>>
>> "The Wrong Man" Alfred Hitchcock. Based on a true story starring Henry Fonda.
>>
>> Fonda goes to an Insurance Office to change his wife's policy. A clerk at the
>> office thinks she recognises him as the man who held up the office last month.
>> She phone the police, They have his address so pick him up on suspicion.
>> He is then taken to a succession of shops which had been robbed and guess
>> what "they recognise him too. So he's arrested but manages to put up
>> substantial bail while trying to get an alibi together.
>>
>> Fortunately for him, the real robber is caught in the meantime.
>>
>> But doubtless the fact that he was picked out by four different witnesses
>> would have  persuaded the jury to convict.
>>
>> When in fact if he could be mistaken for the real robber by one person, there
>> was every likelihood he'd be mistaken for the real robber by the others.
>>
>> Except of course as far as the jury was concerned there was no"real robber"
>> only him.
>>
>>
>> bb
>
> I'm by no means convinced of Letby's innocence. But it is an unusual case in
> that not only is the evidence against Letby purely circumstantial, but the
> evidence that there were any murders at all is purely circumstantial. The
> original post mortems were consistent either with random deaths or a
> relatively poor quality unit, which has actually since been downgraded. The
> so-called expert evidence of foul play after the post mortems, skin
> discolouration and insulin levels, is largely discredited. So we have the
> rather circular argument that Letby was there for about two thirds of the
> deaths, and that about two thirds of the deaths were possibly murders, because
> Letby was there. And the other deaths, presumably, were natural deaths,
> because Letby wasn't there.

If only Henry Fonda (again) had been on the jury.

"Twelve Angry Men" would have been another film I would have mentioned only
the plot was so implausible.  Eleven of the twelve jurors were convinced of the boy's
guilt - he stabbed his father - convinced as a result of the "story" woven by the
prosecution  based on flawed witness accounts confirmed in the witness box
.
Only Henry Fonda in his white suit wasn't convinced. (A pale suit anyway it was
a B/W film)

And one by one he broke down the witnesses accounts - "he couldn;t have heard that
over the noise of the train" "she couldn't have seen that as she wasn't wearing her
glasses" "he couldn;t have reached that door in time etc. etc.   and eventually
succeeded in persuading the other eleven to vote to acquit. And it only took a
few hours.




The Beeb are still running with the insulin having found another instance. Despite
no account ever having been given as to how Letby was somehow managing to spike
the feeds which were then being fed to babies but only on her own shifts

On one source I read the readings would have been sufficient to kill a 20 stone man
within minutes.

And that feeding tubes were more easily dislodged from tiny premature babies;
whereas the BBC were happy to persist  with "a rare occurrence" in their latest
smear job


bb

On 05/12/2024 01:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2024 at 00:44:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
>> news:lr07vdFma3tU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Some of us could very easily jump on the Justice for Lucy Letby bandwagon and
>>> assert
>>> very angrily that the case against her was never proved.
>>
>> It wasn't. But it nevertheless made a cohesive "story" for the jury,
>> which apparently explained everything
>>
>> If only based on totally flawed expert evidence.
>>
>> A story which is being reinforced daily with the Inquiry from which Letby's
>> brief has been banned as a potentially disruptive influence
>>
>> The defence on the other hand couldn't present any sort of cohesive
>> explanation at all, for jury to latch on to, as to how these events
>> could have occurred.
>>
>>
>> bb
>>
>> A principle described on P.244 of "The Confidence Game" Maria Konnikova (2016)
>> based on experiments by Deanna Khun.
>> Highly recommended. A whole succession of true stories of people who've fallen
>> for the most outrageous cons. No footnotes but all verifiable on Google
>> interspersed with the various psychological principles which con artists rely
>> on. Its a bit all over the place but towards the end, with the start of each
>> true story you can almost guess how its going to turn out
>>
>> I would also recommend a film
>>
>> "The Wrong Man" Alfred Hitchcock. Based on a true story starring Henry Fonda.
>>
>> Fonda goes to an Insurance Office to change his wife's policy. A clerk at the
>> office thinks she recognises him as the man who held up the office last month.
>> She phone the police, They have his address so pick him up on suspicion.
>> He is then taken to a succession of shops which had been robbed and guess
>> what "they recognise him too. So he's arrested but manages to put up
>> substantial bail while trying to get an alibi together.
>>
>> Fortunately for him, the real robber is caught in the meantime.
>>
>> But doubtless the fact that he was picked out by four different witnesses
>> would have  persuaded the jury to convict.
>>
>> When in fact if he could be mistaken for the real robber by one person, there
>> was every likelihood he'd be mistaken for the real robber by the others.
>>
>> Except of course as far as the jury was concerned there was no"real robber"
>> only him.
>>
>>
>> bb
>
> I'm by no means convinced of Letby's innocence. But it is an unusual case in
> that not only is the evidence against Letby purely circumstantial, but the
> evidence that there were any murders at all is purely circumstantial. The
> original post mortems were consistent either with random deaths or a
> relatively poor quality unit, which has actually since been downgraded. The
> so-called expert evidence of foul play after the post mortems, skin
> discolouration and insulin levels, is largely discredited. So we have the
> rather circular argument that Letby was there for about two thirds of the
> deaths, and that about two thirds of the deaths were possibly murders, because
> Letby was there. And the other deaths, presumably, were natural deaths,
> because Letby wasn't there.
>

I'm not convinced that the case against her was proved beyond reasonable
doubt, but the Court of Appeal could not find fault with the way the
evidence was presented to the jury who were of course the only arbiters
of guilt or innocence.

One is reminded of the Sally Clark case. She was found guilty of killing
her child and the Court of Appeal decided that the conviction was safe,
but when evidence was later produced that suggested death by natural
causes, the Court of Appeal looked at it again and exonerated her. Of
course, she might still have been guilty but that's not important.

What puzzles many of us is that no expert evidence was called at Letby's
trial to argue for death from natural causes - infections etc - or death
from the negligence of the staff or the system. I don't suppose there is
now a way of putting forward those theories and getting the Court of
Appeal to look at them, so the only arguments seem to be about flaws in
the prosecution's expert evidence. A flaw does not necessarily mean that
the evidence should be excluded.

"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:lrektcF1n0tU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> What puzzles many of us is that no expert evidence was called at Letby's trial to argue
> for death from natural causes - infections etc - or death from the negligence of the
> staff or the system.

The reason quite simply, as judged by the reported reaction of her parents
was that they thought quite simply, that there was no case to answer.

For some naive reason they appeared to think that it was necessary for
the prosecution to actually "prove" her guilt ; rather than that she should
prove her innocence

Thus far no satisfactory indisputable account has actually been given as
to how she was supposed to have killed the babies.

Only that she was there at the time for many of them, supported by
dubious theories and retrospective reminiscences of otherwise commonplace
events, as could apply to anyone.


> I don't suppose there is now a way of putting forward those theories and getting the
> Court of Appeal to look at them, so the only arguments seem to be about flaws in the
> prosecution's expert evidence. A flaw does not necessarily mean that the evidence
> should be excluded.


That remains a matter of speculation. Thus far there seems to be a concerted
effort to allay any doubts as to the safety of the conviction by all means
possible.

Basically nobody wants to admit to being made look a chump simply by virtue
of statistical ignorance. At least as compared with acknowledged experts. That's
Judges juries ministers media. All put in their place by a thoroughly researched
"New Yorker" article, which appeared while the UK Press was gagged as a result
of the scheduled re-trial.


bb

"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote in message news:viurtg$2be52$1@dont-email.me...
>
> Basically nobody wants to admit to being made look a chump simply by virtue
> of statistical ignorance.

Apparently Letby worked a lot of overtime - osensibly to help pay
off her mortgage.

A "Statistician" writes - the more overtime Letby worked, the greater
the possibility she'd be on shift, when any "event" occured

The "Red Top" writes "Killer Nurse deliberately worked overtime so
as to Kill More Babies"

As expert on  psychopaths Ron Nards explains.

"As an expert on psychopaths I can confirm that a psychopathic killer
nurse such as Lucy letby would have worked as much overtime as possible
so as to be able to kill the maximum number of babies.

What more proof could any one need ?


bb

On 04/12/2024 15:18, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 04/12/2024 12:02, Simon Parker wrote:
>> On 03/12/2024 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:

>>> Is Tourette's a strength do you think?
>>
>> Your reply presents me with a conundrum, Norman.
>>
>> Do you believe:
>>
>> (1) I actually suffer from Tourette's Syndrome, a recognised
>> disability under UK law, which means you are using someone's
>> disability to mock them thereby making you a disgusting and thoroughly
>> reprehensible individual; or
>
> Hardly.  Where's the mockery?

Please proffer a credible explanation for asking the question: "Is
Tourette's a strength do you think?" that isn't related to you using the
question as a form of mockery.

Your answer will need to account for the following sentence in your
post, (namely, "It may just be a fact for which there is actually
significant evidence.").


> It may just be a fact for which there is actually significant evidence.

I note that your medical skills are on a par with your legal skills.

I presume asking for details of your neurological qualifications will be
as fruitless as asking for your legal bona fides?

Diagnosing Tourette's Syndrome from posts in a NG would be something of
a medical breakthrough so I look forward to seeing your article on how
you claim to have achieved this feat in an upcoming issue of The Lancet
or similar.


>> (2) I do not have Tourette's Syndrome and you are using a recognised
>> disability to make an ad hom attack on me which makes you a disgusting
>> and reprehensible individual and a hypocrite, given your frequent
>> posturing on the subject of ad hom attacks.
>
> In view of your long-standing history of ad hom attacks, do you accept
> they make you a disgusting and reprehensible individual then?

I consider it disgusting and reprehensible to use a recognised
disability, whether real or imagined, to attempt to score points in a
discussion.

For the avoidance of doubt, telling a fuckwit that they're a fuckwit is
not mocking a disability so I do not consider it in the same Universe,
never mind the same ball park.

However, yelling "Timmy!" at a person in a wheelchair, despite there
being 'significant evidence' of their disability, is considered poor
form by most decent, sensible human beings but I imagine you have no
idea how decent, sensible human beings think, feel and act.

That you conflate telling someone that they're being a fuckwit, (thereby
affording them an opportunity to modify their behaviour, as behaving
like a fuckwit is something over which they have control), with using
disability as a foil with which to mock someone is most illuminating as
to the kind of individual you are.


> But there's actually no ad hom attack at all in what I've said.

You consider that asking a completely unrelated question about a
completely unrelated disability in the middle of a thread isn't in any
way an attack on the poster of whom the question is being asked?  It
isn't an implicit suggestion that the poster asking the question
believes the person to whom the question is directed suffers from the
condition?  No, of course not(!).  Not even when they add, "It may just
be a fact for which there is actually significant evidence." as the very
next sentence in their post?  Tell me, what colour is the sky in
NormanWorld?


> Maybe your hypersensitivity on the matter reveals rather more than you
> realise though.

I have explained previously that I do work for a charity that helps
children with autism and see no need to go into further detail again.

Most people consider using disability as a means to mock someone to be
disgusting and reprehensible.  You clearly do not.  As I say, this
reveals much about you - none of it good, unfortunately for you.


>> So which is it, Norman?
>>
>> Are you disgusting and reprehensible, or a disgusting, reprehensible
>> hypocrite?

You seem to have missed this question?

Are you "just" disgusting and reprehensible, or are you a hypocrite too?


>> In either case, it is likely your post, which when viewed in context
>> with other posts you have made referencing autism and other
>> conditions, would be viewed by the CPS as constituting a Disability
>> Hate Crime (DHC).
>
> Of course it wouldn't.  There's no hate and no crime for starters.

I respectfully draw to your attention the capital letters whilst noting
that your knowledge of this area is seemingly on a par with much of your
other legal knowledge.


>> It is to be hoped that nobody makes a report about these posts, for
>> your sake.
>
> Is that a threat?

Should I ever choose to threaten you, please be assured that you will be
in no doubt that you have been threatened.  If, as here, you are not
sure, then I have not threatened you.


>> Matters of DHC notwithstanding, I await your clarification of the
>> matter with interest
>
> And now you have it.

Only in NormanWorld.  I see evasions and diversions and other attempts
at deflection but no direct answers to the questions asked.

Regards

S.P.

On 10/12/2024 10:49, Simon Parker wrote:
> On 04/12/2024 15:18, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 04/12/2024 12:02, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2024 14:22, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>>> Is Tourette's a strength do you think?
>>>
>>> Your reply presents me with a conundrum, Norman.
>>>
>>> Do you believe:
>>>
>>> (1) I actually suffer from Tourette's Syndrome, a recognised
>>> disability under UK law, which means you are using someone's
>>> disability to mock them thereby making you a disgusting and
>>> thoroughly reprehensible individual; or
>>
>> Hardly.  Where's the mockery?
>
> Please proffer a credible explanation for asking the question: "Is
> Tourette's a strength do you think?" that isn't related to you using the
> question as a form of mockery.

There is no mockery.

> Your answer will need to account for the following sentence in your
> post, (namely, "It may just be a fact for which there is actually
> significant evidence.").
>
>> It may just be a fact for which there is actually significant evidence.

> I note that your medical skills are on a par with your legal skills.

You know nothing about either actually.

> I presume asking for details of your neurological qualifications will be
> as fruitless as asking for your legal bona fides?

Yes, of course.

> Diagnosing Tourette's Syndrome from posts in a NG would be something of
> a medical breakthrough so I look forward to seeing your article on how
> you claim to have achieved this feat in an upcoming issue of The Lancet
> or similar.

It is of course difficult to diagnose Tourette's at a distance because
there are no accepted visual clues to go on like eye blinking, other eye
movements, facial grimacing, shoulder shrugging, or head or shoulder
jerking and obviously no hearing of the usual vocal tics like repetitive
throat clearing, sniffing, barking or grunting.

However, there are more complex well-recognised vocal tics that can be
diagnostic too such as repeating one's own words or phrases, repeating
others' words or phrases (echolalia) and using vulgar, obscene or swear
words (coprolalia), that are useful in diagnosis.  One wouldn't normally
expect those to carry over into any written expression of ideas since
they can be reviewed and edited before publication by anyone who has any
self-awareness.  However, several of your recent posts have exhibited
all of these, which is rather unusual here and of possible concern, and
may warrant further consideration.

For example, vocalising

"I call Norman a fuckwit when he demonstrates that he's a fuckwit. It is
a direct result of his fuckwittery and nothing else"

makes that sound very Tourettesy.

>>> (2) I do not have Tourette's Syndrome and you are using a recognised
>>> disability to make an ad hom attack on me which makes you a
>>> disgusting and reprehensible individual and a hypocrite, given your
>>> frequent posturing on the subject of ad hom attacks.
>>
>> In view of your long-standing history of ad hom attacks, do you accept
>> they make you a disgusting and reprehensible individual then?
>
> I consider it disgusting and reprehensible to use a recognised
> disability, whether real or imagined, to attempt to score points in a
> discussion.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, telling a fuckwit that they're a fuckwit is
> not mocking a disability so I do not consider it in the same Universe,
> never mind the same ball park.

That sounds like self-justification to me, ie what you say is naturally
okay, what I say isn't.

I don't agree.  I consider all ad homs to be cheap and beneath me.

> However, yelling "Timmy!" at a person in a wheelchair, despite there
> being 'significant evidence' of their disability, is considered poor
> form by most decent, sensible human beings but I imagine you have no
> idea how decent, sensible human beings think, feel and act.

Who's doing that?  Not me certainly.

> That you conflate telling someone that they're being a fuckwit, (thereby
> affording them an opportunity to modify their behaviour, as behaving
> like a fuckwit is something over which they have control) with using
> disability as a foil with which to mock someone is most illuminating as
> to the kind of individual you are.

There's no mockery.  Anyway, you have the ability to review and edit
your written messages before you post them so you have no excuse for
just posting the abusive and repetitive streams of consciousness you do.
  They are not involuntary tics but totally under your control.  You
therefore bear responsibility for them.

>> But there's actually no ad hom attack at all in what I've said.
>
> You consider that asking a completely unrelated question about a
> completely unrelated disability in the middle of a thread isn't in any
> way an attack on the poster of whom the question is being asked?  It
> isn't an implicit suggestion that the poster asking the question
> believes the person to whom the question is directed suffers from the
> condition?  No, of course not(!).  Not even when they add, "It may just
> be a fact for which there is actually significant evidence." as the very
> next sentence in their post?  Tell me, what colour is the sky in
> NormanWorld?

Your posts are the evidence.

>> Maybe your hypersensitivity on the matter reveals rather more than you
>> realise though.
>
> I have explained previously that I do work for a charity that helps
> children with autism and see no need to go into further detail again.
>
> Most people consider using disability as a means to mock someone to be
> disgusting and reprehensible.  You clearly do not.  As I say, this
> reveals much about you - none of it good, unfortunately for you.

There's no mockery.  Just evidence.

On 10 Dec 2024 at 14:28:34 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:

> They are not involuntary tics but totally under your control.

Following a long winded, AI aided, justification of your ad hom suggestion of
Tourette's syndrome that seems an unfortunate admission, tending to undermine
the rest of your post.

--

Roger Hayter

On 10/12/2024 16:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2024 at 14:28:34 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> They are not involuntary tics but totally under your control.
>
> Following a long winded, AI aided, justification of your ad hom suggestion of
> Tourette's syndrome that seems an unfortunate admission, tending to undermine
> the rest of your post.

No, not at all.  I was drawing the distinction between spoken and
written.  That obviously sailed over your head.

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4687917619.9be609d4@uninhabited.net...
> On 10 Dec 2024 at 14:28:34 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> They are not involuntary tics but totally under your control.
>
> Following a long winded, AI aided, justification of your ad hom suggestion of
> Tourette's syndrome

Why ever would it be considered an ad-hominem, to suggest another person
is suffering from Tourette's Syndrome ?  Which is a recognised medical
condition ?

What exactly is derogatory in suggesting that another peron is suffering from
a recognised medical condition even if they're not ?

Is there something shameful in suffering from a recognised medical condition ?

Or if not, where exactly does the ad-hominem come in ?

It would seem that Mr Parker, at least.  having finally realsed his mistake has now
instead  turned his attention to the possibilty of Mr Wells shouting "Timmy" at people,
in wheelchairs instead.

A developement of which, you appear blissfully unaware.


bb

On 10 Dec 2024 at 19:25:53 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

>
> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
> news:4687917619.9be609d4@uninhabited.net...
>> On 10 Dec 2024 at 14:28:34 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>
>>> They are not involuntary tics but totally under your control.
>>
>> Following a long winded, AI aided, justification of your ad hom suggestion of
>> Tourette's syndrome
>
> Why ever would it be considered an ad-hominem, to suggest another person
> is suffering from Tourette's Syndrome ?  Which is a recognised medical
> condition ?
>
> What exactly is derogatory in suggesting that another peron is suffering from
> a recognised medical condition even if they're not ?
>
> Is there something shameful in suffering from a recognised medical condition ?
>
> Or if not, where exactly does the ad-hominem come in ?
>
> It would seem that Mr Parker, at least. having finally realsed his mistake has
> now
> instead turned his attention to the possibilty of Mr Wells shouting "Timmy" at
> people,
> in wheelchairs instead.
>
> A developement of which, you appear blissfully unaware.
>
>
> bb

Would suggesting a fellow poster suffered from dementia or GPI be an ad
hominem? Or perhaps just helpful advice?

--

Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:6068063769.ff63a5e7@uninhabited.net...
> On 10 Dec 2024 at 19:25:53 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
>> news:4687917619.9be609d4@uninhabited.net...
>>> On 10 Dec 2024 at 14:28:34 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are not involuntary tics but totally under your control.
>>>
>>> Following a long winded, AI aided, justification of your ad hom suggestion of
>>> Tourette's syndrome
>>
>> Why ever would it be considered an ad-hominem, to suggest another person
>> is suffering from Tourette's Syndrome ?  Which is a recognised medical
>> condition ?
>>
>> What exactly is derogatory in suggesting that another peron is suffering from
>> a recognised medical condition even if they're not ?
>>
>> Is there something shameful in suffering from a recognised medical condition ?
>>
>> Or if not, where exactly does the ad-hominem come in ?
>>
>> It would seem that Mr Parker, at least. having finally realsed his mistake has
>> now
>> instead turned his attention to the possibilty of Mr Wells shouting "Timmy" at
>> people,
>> in wheelchairs instead.
>>
>> A developement of which, you appear blissfully unaware.
>>
>>
>> bb
>
> Would suggesting a fellow poster suffered from dementia or GPI be an ad
> hominem? Or perhaps just helpful advice?

If they are recognised medical conditions then why should anyone be
ashamed of suffering from them ?

To suggest otherwise would simply be pandering to the *prejudices of
knuckle-draggers* who might well take refuge in mocking those
so affected.

Now the question as whether or not other people do in fact suffer from a
recognised medical condition, is of course only something which can be
determined by a suitable qualified medical practitioner.

But just as in itself there is nothing derogatory in suggesting that they
do in fact suffer, in an informal sense and without  claiming any medical
expertise, so there is nothing derogatory in suggesting that
"they should get help "


bb

On 10 Dec 2024 at 20:22:14 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:

>
> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
> news:6068063769.ff63a5e7@uninhabited.net...
>> On 10 Dec 2024 at 19:25:53 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
>>> news:4687917619.9be609d4@uninhabited.net...
>>>> On 10 Dec 2024 at 14:28:34 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They are not involuntary tics but totally under your control.
>>>>
>>>> Following a long winded, AI aided, justification of your ad hom suggestion of
>>>> Tourette's syndrome
>>>
>>> Why ever would it be considered an ad-hominem, to suggest another person
>>> is suffering from Tourette's Syndrome ?  Which is a recognised medical
>>> condition ?
>>>
>>> What exactly is derogatory in suggesting that another peron is suffering from
>>> a recognised medical condition even if they're not ?
>>>
>>> Is there something shameful in suffering from a recognised medical condition ?
>>>
>>> Or if not, where exactly does the ad-hominem come in ?
>>>
>>> It would seem that Mr Parker, at least. having finally realsed his mistake has
>>> now
>>> instead turned his attention to the possibilty of Mr Wells shouting "Timmy" at
>>> people,
>>> in wheelchairs instead.
>>>
>>> A developement of which, you appear blissfully unaware.
>>>
>>>
>>> bb
>>
>> Would suggesting a fellow poster suffered from dementia or GPI be an ad
>> hominem? Or perhaps just helpful advice?
>
> If they are recognised medical conditions then why should anyone be
> ashamed of suffering from them ?

Because it amounts to a claim that their posts are so stupid that no normal
person could have written them. This is so obvious that you must be suffering
from dementia yourself to miss this. Not that that could possibly be regarded
as an insult: I am just trying to help.




--
Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:6325242823.d9bab5f8@uninhabited.net...
> On 10 Dec 2024 at 20:22:14 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
>> news:6068063769.ff63a5e7@uninhabited.net...
>>> On 10 Dec 2024 at 19:25:53 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:4687917619.9be609d4@uninhabited.net...
>>>>> On 10 Dec 2024 at 14:28:34 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> They are not involuntary tics but totally under your control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Following a long winded, AI aided, justification of your ad hom suggestion of
>>>>> Tourette's syndrome
>>>>
>>>> Why ever would it be considered an ad-hominem, to suggest another person
>>>> is suffering from Tourette's Syndrome ?  Which is a recognised medical
>>>> condition ?
>>>>
>>>> What exactly is derogatory in suggesting that another peron is suffering from
>>>> a recognised medical condition even if they're not ?
>>>>
>>>> Is there something shameful in suffering from a recognised medical condition ?
>>>>
>>>> Or if not, where exactly does the ad-hominem come in ?
>>>>
>>>> It would seem that Mr Parker, at least. having finally realsed his mistake has
>>>> now
>>>> instead turned his attention to the possibilty of Mr Wells shouting "Timmy" at
>>>> people,
>>>> in wheelchairs instead.
>>>>
>>>> A developement of which, you appear blissfully unaware.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bb
>>>
>>> Would suggesting a fellow poster suffered from dementia or GPI be an ad
>>> hominem? Or perhaps just helpful advice?
>>
>> If they are recognised medical conditions then why should anyone be
>> ashamed of suffering from them ?
>
> Because it amounts to a claim that their posts are so stupid that no normal
> person could have written them. This is so obvious that you must be suffering
> from dementia yourself to miss this. Not that that could possibly be regarded
> as an insult: I am just trying to help.

What is obvious ?

Stupid people not suffering from any medical condition also write stupid posts.

Being stupid is just as "normal",  as is any other condition.

Whether pathological or not.

Being stupid is nothing to be ashamed of; its been an essential part of the
human condition for many people, since the dawn of civilisation.

Whatever could make you think otherwise ?

Just so long as they're not allowed to vote in referendums.

That's the main thing.


bb

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2024 at 15:58:30 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>
>> The Todal:
>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>
>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>
>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>
> I think it is more that he believes that becoming a ulm moderator should
> entail becoming part of an austere priesthood who live their lives in ascetic
> purity. And give not unto temptation.
>

Oh the irony.

On 11 Dec 2024 at 19:29:14 GMT, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:

> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2024 at 15:58:30 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>
>>> The Todal:
>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>
>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>
>> I think it is more that he believes that becoming a ulm moderator should
>> entail becoming part of an austere priesthood who live their lives in ascetic
>> purity. And give not unto temptation.
>>
>
> Oh the irony.

I thought it was more sarcasm; but keep working on those comprehension skills.

--

Roger Hayter

On 11 Dec 2024 at 19:40:18 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

> On 11 Dec 2024 at 19:29:14 GMT, "Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
>
>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
>>> On 1 Dec 2024 at 15:58:30 GMT, "Tim Jackson" <news@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 Dec 2024 11:42:09 GMT, Spike wrote...
>>>>
>>>> The Todal:
>>>>>> Nobody called Norman a fuckwit in ULM.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody said that was the case.
>>>>
>>>> Norman seems to think that ULM rules mean he shouldn't be called a
>>>> fuckwit outside ULM either.
>>>
>>> I think it is more that he believes that becoming a ulm moderator should
>>> entail becoming part of an austere priesthood who live their lives in ascetic
>>> purity. And give not unto temptation.
>>>
>>
>> Oh the irony.
>
> I thought it was more sarcasm; but keep working on those comprehension skills.

On further examination, perhaps more hyperbole:  we live and learn.

--

Roger Hayter