From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:09:35 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
      
   > ds:   
   >>> My statements are based upon my past experiences, and as such are not   
   >>> subject to determinations of "right or wrong" -- they are what they are,   
   > dm:   
   >> Wrong, in this case.   
   >> Of course they can be right or wrong - they're memories.   
   >   
   > No, fuckwit, my memories are my memories and exist as my memories:  they are   
   > what they are, and you're a complete fuckwit for even *attempting* to argue   
   > the point. >> *** I am the sole authority on what I have experienced.***   
      
   Nope.   
      
   To be the "sole authority" on what you have experienced you would have to   
   be able to state what you have experienced with complete authority - IOW   
   your memory would have to be perfect.   
      
   And it's not.   
      
   >> But that's not the point - your memory isn't perfect.   
   > My memory as stated is not in question.   
      
   Yes it is; because it's the only source you've cited.   
      
   > YOU may fuckwitedly TRY to question   
   > my memories, but I will not abide such fuckwit behaviour.   
      
   Such childish behaviour does not support your argument.   
   I am questioning your memories because they're the only source you've   
   cited, and they disagree with verifiable facts.   
      
   >   
   >>> What you fail   
   >>> to grasp is that people have their own authority over their own   
   >>> experiences, and you insist on *trying* to deny them the truths of their   
   >>> own past.   
   >>   
   >> No Dick, I'm proving that your memory is fallible, and that you sometimes   
   >> make mistakes in reasoning.   
   >   
   > although both may be true *at times*, this does not negate the fact that   
   > I've stated what I've stated:  my memories are of a university professor   
   > teaching Unix permissions as read, write, and modify.   
      
   You are claiming this recall is perfectly correct, and it almost certainly   
   isn't.   
      
   > Also, I've used   
   > modify permissions to the effect of modifying folders, subfolders, and   
   > accounts.   
      
   Not under unix.   
      
   > NOTHING (and I repeat this so you'll be sure to HEAR it clearly   
   > in your dim little mind:)  NOTHING can erase or invalidate those memories   
   > other than physical decline / old age / senility on my part.   
      
   This pathological confidence in your own recall is as misguided as it is   
   arrogant.   
      
   Memory is not perfect.  Everyone knows this.   
      
   Except, apparently, you.   
      
   > But since I   
   > don't have those physical factors (yet) in my life, aside from some *short   
   > term* memory issues regarding people's names -- I never forget a face, but   
   > names take forever to learn -- you are incapable of invalidating my   
   > statements, which appears to be your sole objective, at which you are doomed   
   > to forever fail.   
      
   Hilarious.   
      
   >   
   >>> If this were a TECH   
   >>> bulletin board, then yes, your points would be FAR more valid and useful   
   >>> to people out there working on real problems, whereas my comments would   
   >>> be anecdotal at best, and only useful to perhaps one tenth of one   
   >>> percent of the readers who may have an issue with a much older version   
   >>> of Unix.   
   >>   
   >> Where something is posted has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong,   
   >> nor does how "useful" it is.   
   >   
   > are you like, *deliberately* trolling this matter?  OF COURSE it has a   
   > bearing!  this is a psychic experience newsgroup, NOT a tech board!   
   > FUCKWIT!  the issue was regarding the chmod command format of "chmod 666"   
   > and "chmod 777" and how it relates to credit cards, which relates to the   
   > Revelations claim that no one shall be able to effect commerce without the   
   > mark of the beast either upon their hand or forehead.   
      
   Where something is posted has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong,   
   and so far it's been very useful at exposing your true character and   
   capabilities.   
      
   Also, part of your argument depended on equating files and database   
   records; which I've shown to be nonsense.   
      
   > Speaking of which:  people are now getting debit card microchips installed   
   > in their hands, subcutaneously   
      
   Cite?   
      
   > -- and people keep their PIN numbers stored   
   > in their heads... so yes, where something is posted DOES have a bearing,   
   > such that although my comments may be deemed possibly inaccurate or at the   
   > most questionable in a tech group,   
      
   So now you're saying I'm right?   
      
   > in THIS group they are (were) of   
   > relevance, although YOU, mr. FUCKWIT, have decided to turn this into a   
   > personal crusade to say "Fuckwit DM is right, Dick Silk is wrong", which I   
   > REFUSE.   
      
   Dick, I was originally just trying to correct a small error in your post.   
   The fact that it developed into such a vitriolic argument on your part is   
   at least as much to do with your unwillingness to accept that you were   
   wrong as my interest in the truth.   
      
   > And, if I should *choose* to cease to reply to your FUCKWIT   
   > attitude, it's because you are no longer worth my time NOR my attention.   
      
   See above.   
      
   >> Your only counter seems to be that your personal experience is a _more_   
   >> reliable guide to reality (yes we're back on that again), than the actual   
   >> facts - which is absurd - and that I shouldn't even try to challenge your   
   >> experience because that would be 'denying you the truth of your own past'.   
   >   
   > Only a fuckwit like yourself would even attempt to do so.  The actual FACTS   
   > are that I have posted my testimony as to what I was taught and what I've   
   > done in my own past.   
      
   No, you've posted your recall of those things.   
      
   > Your facts are what you posted.  We have two sets of   
   > facts.  SO FUCKING WHAT?   
      
   So one of them is wrong, and since I'm posting extracts from man and info   
   pages, it's your memories that are wrong; which you seem unable to accept.   
      
   > it's NOT a court case over a major issue.  GET   
   > OVER IT, FUCKWIT!   
      
   When all else fails, deny that the issue is important and run away.   
      
   >   
   >>> my real life often intrudes upon my time and energy to deal with   
   >>> fuckwits on the net.  Thus, I leave after realizing that the fuckwit in   
   >>> question will never be able to see my point.   
   >>   
   >> Is "fuckwit" comsidered a polite expression where you come from, or are   
   >> you just not trying very hard?   
   >   
   > People who consistently and constantly tell me that I am not remembering   
   > something correctly (as IF they had access to MY personal memories) fall   
   > under the category of FUCKWIT.   
      
   I _have_ access to your recall of your memories - via your posting.   
   If your recall of facts can be compared to the facts in question - they   
   can be shown to be correct or incorrect.   
      
   This much is obvious and undeniable.   
      
   To say that someone who claims as much is "a FUCKWIT" shows a rather   
   tenuous grasp on reality.   
      
   >   
   > Suggestion:  you could have simply stated:   
   > "Are you SURE you are recalling those events correctly?"   
   > "Yes, I'm sure" -- end of story.   
      
   Your blithe assurance that you are correct isn't good enough.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)