| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:22:59 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
169 files (24,310K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,542 |
So, when Mr Good, the English teacher, told a class of 12 year olds that
"Using a condom was like washing your feet with your socks on", you are
adamant that he was teaching them to have unprotected sex?
I must say that I'm not so sure about that.
That's ironic given it's only you that's suggested it.
Personally I have no idea, since I have no idea what you're on about.
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful.
Does anyone know which bit is, please?
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful.
Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when
they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
On 30/07/2025 20:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful.
Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when
they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful.
Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when
they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
On 30/07/2025 20:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful.
Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when
they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
How about "Since you insist on it being spelled out for you"?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn108kt5q.78h.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful.
Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when
they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
This is supposedly a forum of debate.
It's a basic debating skill to be able to put forward a convincing
argument with which the speaker themselves might totally disagree.
If only to tease out any contradictions or weaknesse in their
opponents position.
So that while such disingenuousnes would of course be totally unacceptable when say negotiating a contract, accusing someone of this in the course
of their conducting a debate, is no way similarly defamatory.
On 30/07/2025 21:40, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn108kt5q.78h.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful. >>>> Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when
they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
This is supposedly a forum of debate.
It's a basic debating skill to be able to put forward a convincing
argument with which the speaker themselves might totally disagree.
If only to tease out any contradictions or weaknesse in their
opponents position.
So that while such disingenuousnes would of course be totally unacceptable >> when say negotiating a contract, accusing someone of this in the course
of their conducting a debate, is no way similarly defamatory.
It's not about "defamatory", it's about being abusive. In ULM it is not permissible to accuse another poster of being stupid or dishonest. I
think "disingenuous" implies dishonesty.
On 30/07/2025 21:40, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn108kt5q.78h.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful. >>>> Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when
they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
This is supposedly a forum of debate.
It's a basic debating skill to be able to put forward a convincing
argument with which the speaker themselves might totally disagree.
If only to tease out any contradictions or weaknesse in their
opponents position.
So that while such disingenuousnes would of course be totally unacceptable >> when say negotiating a contract, accusing someone of this in the course
of their conducting a debate, is no way similarly defamatory.
It's not about "defamatory", it's about being abusive. In ULM it is not permissible to
accuse another poster of being stupid or dishonest. I think "disingenuous" implies
dishonesty.
On 2025-07-31, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2025 21:40, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn108kt5q.78h.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful. >>>>> Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when
they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
This is supposedly a forum of debate.
It's a basic debating skill to be able to put forward a convincing
argument with which the speaker themselves might totally disagree.
If only to tease out any contradictions or weaknesse in their
opponents position.
So that while such disingenuousnes would of course be totally unacceptable >>> when say negotiating a contract, accusing someone of this in the course
of their conducting a debate, is no way similarly defamatory.
It's not about "defamatory", it's about being abusive. In ULM it is not
permissible to accuse another poster of being stupid or dishonest. I
think "disingenuous" implies dishonesty.
We have tended to allow "disingenuous", although of course you're right
that it's a way of saying "dishonest" with a veneer of politeness, but
I thought adding "wholly" definitely pushed it over the line.
On 31/07/2025 10:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-31, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2025 21:40, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn108kt5q.78h.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful. >>>>>> Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when >>>>> they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
This is supposedly a forum of debate.
It's a basic debating skill to be able to put forward a convincing
argument with which the speaker themselves might totally disagree.
If only to tease out any contradictions or weaknesse in their
opponents position.
So that while such disingenuousnes would of course be totally
unacceptable when say negotiating a contract, accusing someone of
this in the course of their conducting a debate, is no way
similarly defamatory.
It's not about "defamatory", it's about being abusive. In ULM it is not
permissible to accuse another poster of being stupid or dishonest. I
think "disingenuous" implies dishonesty.
We have tended to allow "disingenuous", although of course you're right
that it's a way of saying "dishonest" with a veneer of politeness, but
I thought adding "wholly" definitely pushed it over the line.
But I actually said "Just in case you are *not* being wholly
disingenuous" (my emphasis). But I do take your point.
You say you can't understand a point fairly often, in circumstances,
given your undoubted intelligence, where one can't help feeling you
could try harder. Or, indeed, you could simply try!
On 2025-07-31, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 10:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-31, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 30/07/2025 21:40, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn108kt5q.78h.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-07-30, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I have had a post rejected on the grounds that it's abusive or hurtful. >>>>>>> Does anyone know which bit is, please?
Don't accuse someone of being "wholly disingenuous". Especially when >>>>>> they are not being even slightly disingenuous, but you are.
This is supposedly a forum of debate.
It's a basic debating skill to be able to put forward a convincing
argument with which the speaker themselves might totally disagree.
If only to tease out any contradictions or weaknesse in their
opponents position.
So that while such disingenuousnes would of course be totally
unacceptable when say negotiating a contract, accusing someone of
this in the course of their conducting a debate, is no way
similarly defamatory.
It's not about "defamatory", it's about being abusive. In ULM it is not >>>> permissible to accuse another poster of being stupid or dishonest. I
think "disingenuous" implies dishonesty.
We have tended to allow "disingenuous", although of course you're right
that it's a way of saying "dishonest" with a veneer of politeness, but
I thought adding "wholly" definitely pushed it over the line.
But I actually said "Just in case you are *not* being wholly
disingenuous" (my emphasis). But I do take your point.
"Just in case" implies that the *low probability* situation is that
I am not being disingenuous, i.e. the unavoidable implication is that
I am almost certainly being "wholly disingenuous".
You say you can't understand a point fairly often, in circumstances,
given your undoubted intelligence, where one can't help feeling you
could try harder. Or, indeed, you could simply try!
I have been bitten too many times in ulm by people saying things that
are slightly ambiguous, I make reasonable assumptions about what they
mean, and they respond with "You fool! You nincompoop! You poltroon!
When I referred to 'the sky' I didn't mean the sky on this planet!"
Plus your post sounded like you were referring back to some previous
post where your scenario had been put forth with more details that
I might need in order to respond to your question.
And finally sometimes I ask people for more details about what they
mean in a (usually futile) attempt to get them to think a bit more
about what they are saying, to give them an opportunity to realise
their mistake for themselves.
" Assume for the sake of this argument that you are not insane.
Is based on the assumptiuon that GB is *not* insane.
At least temporarily.
On 31/07/2025 10:44, billy bookcase wrote:
" Assume for the sake of this argument that you are not insane.
Is based on the assumptiuon that GB is *not* insane.
At least temporarily.
I'd just like to thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
On 2025-07-31, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 10:44, billy bookcase wrote:
" Assume for the sake of this argument that you are not insane.
Is based on the assumptiuon that GB is *not* insane.
At least temporarily.
I'd just like to thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
I'd just like to point out that, as is not uncommon, billy is exhibiting
the reading comprehension level of a dazed mongoose, and the paragraph
he is referring to actually said nothing whatsoever about you being sane
or insane.
On 2025-07-31, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 31/07/2025 10:44, billy bookcase wrote:
" Assume for the sake of this argument that you are not insane.
Is based on the assumptiuon that GB is *not* insane.
At least temporarily.
I'd just like to thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.
I'd just like to point out that, as is not uncommon, billy is exhibiting
the reading comprehension level of a dazed mongoose, and the paragraph
he is referring to actually said nothing whatsoever about you being sane
or insane.