John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
On 2026-01-12, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Who he?
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien who has >> never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the initial
argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Was that everything your post said? Or have you, for some inexplicable reason, neglected to mention most of it - like you have neglected to
mention most of the rejection message?
As an aside, is what I said really an "ad hom"? Or is it in fact
pointing out that what you said was inexplicable nonsense, i.e.
attacking your "argument", such as it is, rather than you? Opinions
from anyone whose opinion I might value would be welcomed.
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the initial argument was poorly founded.
Spike's post has been rejected as 'hurtful'.
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed rCyhurtfulrCO.
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an alien >> is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is
a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an
alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed
rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is
a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
On 2026-01-13, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an
alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed
rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is
a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
The bigger problem is that he's simply outright lying; he's pretending
that he doesn't understand that his post was not rejected for (falsely) "noting the use of ad homs".
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-01-13, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 1/13/26 11:27, Spike wrote:
Thanks to all who replied, with posts that perhaps revealed if not
confirmed more than was intended.
I must remember in future when posting on ulm that calling someone an
alien is acceptable, unlike noting the use of ad homs which is deemed
rCyhurtfulrCO.
If you want to point out a double standard, fine.
Sarcasm, making a point by pretending you don't understand that there is >>> a double standard, is unnecessarily confusing.
The bigger problem is that he's simply outright lying; he's pretending
that he doesn't understand that his post was not rejected for (falsely)
"noting the use of ad homs".
So tell us, just for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of
clarity, what it is that I said was rCyhurtfulrCO?
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
uu-
SpikeAs post has been rejected as AhurtfulA.
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr- 176821562528678.txt>
On 13:00 12 Jan 2026, Spike said:
John Ribbins posted, inter alia:
Like I said, you must for some reason be pretending to be an alien
who has never before encountered humans.
Spike replied:
Like I said, stooping to an ad hom reply is one way to show the
initial argument was poorly founded.
rCorCo-
SpikerCOs post has been rejected as rCOhurtfulrCO.
Is this the message?
<https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.ulm/messages/nr-176821562528678.txt>
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:18:43 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (2,681K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,842 |
| Posted today: | 1 |