Phango - questions

[David B. Held]

Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> David B. Held wrote:
>> In case you haven't noticed, I haven't been working especially hard to 
>> win friends or standing in the D community.
> 
> Your posts are almost always thoughtful and refraining from animosity. 
> Numerous times you have implored others to do the same.  Your personal 
> attack/forgery was totally out of character.  No matter how wrong you 
> think I was, you have no excuse for acting worse.

No matter how wrong you think I was, you have no excuse for claiming my 
actions were worse.  If you feel strongly offended (and yes, that was 
the intent), then imagine how Janice felt 1) when some coward posted as 
"phango at phangowant.com", and 2) when two other people then had the gall 
to accuse her of being the trickster.  I didn't even get the luxury of 
calling you the perpetrator to complete the recreation, or justice would 
have truly been served.  It's all about you, you, you, isn't it?  My 
whole point here was about Janice, and that fact that *she* is the only 
true victim here.  And yet you continue to insist that *you* are the 
only victim, even after personally experiencing a bit of the situation 
that Janice was placed in.  I'm glad you got to sit in the victim-chair 
for a few minutes.  It's too bad it didn't increase your empathy one iota.

>> Well, your backpedaling and equivocation is pretty transparent, in my 
>> book.  First you say:
>>
>>     "By the way, the charge that one of the posts following yours
>>     was a sock puppet was legitimate."
>>
>> Here, there is no "misconstruing" going on.  You clearly said: 
>> "Somebody accused you of creating a sock puppet, and that accusation 
>> was valid, not baseless."  I don't think it takes a lawyer to read it 
>> that way. You made it about as unambiguous as could be.
> 
> Your interpretation is wrong.  When I said the charge was "legitimate", 
> I meant as in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legitimate:
> 
> 4. in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; 
> logical: a legitimate conclusion.

I already deconstructed this bit of hogwash.  The only way for you to 
make this defense is to claim stupidity: "Yes, I really was swayed by 
the phango at phangowant.com endorsement...until I realized it could only 
have been Janice in disguise!!!"  Either that, or you are gravely 
insulting Janice's intelligence, which would be your third offence: 
"Yes, I really think Janice is stupid enough to post a sock puppet as 
phango at phangowant.com...in fact, I think she's a blazing idiot!!!" 
Neither of those positions is particularly flattering.

> [...]
>> But you realized you had gone too far, so you decided to try to smooth 
>> things over with a CYA clause:
>>
>>     "Doesn't mean you did it, but it's a valid suspicion."
> 
> Wrong again, Mr. Holmes.  I'm trying to make it clear that there is no 
> confirmed guilt, only suspicion. I think I'll stop here.  Believe what 
> you want to believe.

You know what's wrong with defence?  If you had really stopped for two 
seconds to think about the implications of Janice writing those 
anonymous posts, you would have come to the same conclusion that I did: 
Completely bogus hypothesis.  When *you* were the victim, all of the 
sudden is was worth your time to not only consider the implications of 
person X being the author, you made a concerted effort to find out who X 
was!  And still, you lack the ability to put yourself in Janice's shoes 
and imagine that *perhaps she felt the same way you did when you accused 
her of being her own attacker*.  This isn't about what I believe...it's 
about the behavior I observed.  Actions speak louder than words.

Dave