"Simon Parker" <
simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
l2aff3Ffnc3U43@mid.individual.net...
On 04/02/2024 11:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l290urFfnc3U32@mid.individual.net...
On 03/02/2024 19:52, billy bookcase wrote:
If you consider the "Pax Normana" to be enjoyed by the whole group, then >>>> why do you persist in encouraging him, by engaging with him so enthusiastically
in pointless arguments, when he does appear ?
If I have the opportunity to do so, I prefer to correct nonsense when I encounter it.
I find that preferable to leaving legally incorrect information unchallenged and
therefore possibly being seen as the right answer should some poor unfortunate happen
upon the post via Google in the future believing it to be sound advice and following
it
to their peril.
All of which would be satisfied by the one rebuttal; along with any supporting
argument, or evidence, possibly by way of links etc.
Were the poster in question capable of acknowledging the rebuttal, accepting the
argument and evidence and moving one, yes, that would be all that is required. But
that is not the case, and he is prone to reject the rebuttal, ignore the argument and
attempt to discredit the evidence, leaving potentially misleading and potentially
perilous advice available for some poor unfortunate soul to chance upon via a Google
search in the future.
When you must surely realise, as much as does anyone else, that if you stopped
responding to him at such length in these tedious exchanges, then he would >>>> no doubt turn his attentions elsewhere ?
If you consider the exchanges tedious, the solution is in your own hands. Either
ignore the sub-thread, ignore the thread in its entirety when you believe it has
become
tedious, or killfile both myself and Norman so you never need read anything from
either
of us again.
You appear to have already forgotten, that it was you yourself who
suggested above, that the "Pax Norman" was enjoyed by the
"whole group".
ITYM "Pax Normana".
From which one might reasonably conclude, that you yourself
acknowledge that the "whole group" must find them tedious.
If the "one" is really "you" then, yes, you might conclude that and consider it
reasonable to do so. Others are free to draw their own conclusions and assess the
reasonableness or otherwise thereof.
I expect the majority of regulars here do not read my exchanges with Norman nor do I
expect them to. I consider them a service to future netizens potentially protecting
them from dangerously misleading advice.
But if you can't expect "regular readers" to work their way through these lengthy exchanges of yours with Norman, how could you realistically expect future netizens to make the effort to read right to the end of a thread ?
By which stage, most likely, the original point will have long forgotten
in any case.
With Google dropping support for Usenet groups in the not too distant future, after
that has happened, I will assess what other sources are archiving the contents of ULM
and the ranking thereof within Google searches and will re-examine my policy in light
of the results said assessment yields.
Which, as you yourself admit above, would be much to the benefit of the >>>> group overall.
I don't believe he would turn his attention elsewhere. Or if he did, the "elsewhere"
he'd most likely select would be UNNM which already has more than its fair share of
Norman inflicted upon it.
On what possible basis can you make that claim ? I've been encountering
Norman Wells posts, in all sorts of places, for maybe decades.
Yes, he's been making legally inaccurate posts for decades.
Ah right. So you've been well aware of the fact that Norman Wells has been making legally inaccurate posts for decades, but its only in the last two
years that you've taken it upon yourself to do something about it ?
In other words you've stood idly by for eighteen years and watched as
Norman Wells misled innocent people with his potentially misleading and potentially perilous advice, AND YOU DID NOTHING !!!!
How can you live with yourself ?
And if you watch his output, (present annual disappearance around this time of year
aside), his output to ULM and UNNM combined is fairly level. When he's very active in
one, he tends to be quieter in the other. In fact, it is when he is quieter in ULM
that he tends to infect UNNM with his "erudite posts". I'd rather keep him occupied in
ULM than inflict him on UNNM. YMMV.
He could be posting on social media., A quick Google on "Norman Wells"
gives a town in Canada and a bloke who died a few years ago but
he's probably out there somewhere, posting away,
So that unless you can satisfactorily answer this question, I believe any >>>> reasonable person might have grounds to suspend further participation in this
particular exchange - which now appears also to have descended into arguing
for its own sake - at least until a satisfactory answer is forthcoming. >>>
You seem to be conflating "satisfactorily answer"ing a question, with "answering a
question to your satisfaction".
It is my sad duty to inform you that the two are not the same and you are mistaken in
your thinking.
I need only to answer the question to my satisfaction.
There's no doubt that if say, examinations were conducted on that basis
that they'd be a whole lot easier, and cause a lot less stress to the
candidates.
This isn't an exam. Nor is it a court of law. There is no answer sheet to consult to
decide how many points an answer should be awarded nor is there a trier of fact to
pronounce upon the matter.
The correct answer is "This is UseNet not the Spanish Inquisition"
So you've even failed on that one, as well I'm afraid.
It is a discussion forum. If you don't like the way certain discussions are heading,
I've outlined your available options previously. They have been thus since the
inception of Usenet and aren't going to change any time soon.
But whether they'd be of any actual use to anyone else, is doubtful.
As I said to another poster earlier, rather than providing an answer comprised of no
more than a "Yes" or a "No" I prefer to answer "Yes because..." or "No owing to...",
etc. as I believe that is much more beneficial to the poster concerned.
Which I do with every post before hitting the "Send" button.
That would be a "necessary" condition for posting. But whether it would
be "sufficient". is for others to judge.,
"Others" being "you", no doubt?
Er no. You just admitted above, that " I expect the majority of regulars here do not read my exchanges with Norman"
If not, bring forth the jury of my peers and let them pronounce their judgment upon me. I can take it.
But according to you they already have. The majority of regulars that is.
This is what makes answering questions different from say simply sitting
spouting gibberish in a corner. Its a two-way process. The emphasis being on
the "two-way".
If you believe I'm "spouting gibberish in a corner", I wonder why on earth you haven't
exercised your right to ignore me. Go on, you know you want to. Just do it and be
done with it and let's end this futile dance.
Well maybe like with yourself with Norman, I feel it my duty to protect future netizens. Although from what exactly, present circumstances prevent me
from disclosing.
bb
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)