On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:02:21 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:01:35 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem I have with your "simple and effective" solution is that it
>> gives every appearance of being a set up.
>>
>> You offered a solution in order to protect your own reputation, but one
>> which anyone who's using more than a handful of neurons would know that
>> she
>> would not take. And then you have used her refusal to take you up on your
>> offer to further criticize her.
>
>
> 1. A "set up" is (as I understand) a situation that one creates to lure
> someone "innocent" to take advantage of that innocence later. That requires
> at least me knowing of her existance when that "set up" happened. However my
> story of my experience in Siberia was several months ago, way, way back.
> Also me stating that I have certain knowledge of rural Chinese cultural life
> can ne construed as a "set up"? Because she called me LIAR based on these
> two incidents. I hope that demostrates that I did not lure her into calling
> me a liar.

A set up is also when you give someone two choices, both of which work
solely to your own advantage.

To offer someone a choice you have no reason to think they will take and
then criticize them for not taking it also is a set up.

I did not, nor do I, think this was your intention. I was attempting to
point out that it APPEARED that way.


> 2. I very much despise your comment "You offered a solution in order to
> protect your own reputation, but one which anyone who's using more than a
> handful of neurons would know that she would not take". Why would she not
> take it? I offered to deposit same sum myself. If she is confident enough to
> call me a liar publically why would not she make some money in the proces
> sof proving herself right?

You are free to despise the comment. But I stand by it.

What on earth would make you think that she WOULD take the offer? You have
something to gain (or preserve). She doesn't because she doesn't care.

Obviously, you thought this a more pressing matter than either she or I
did. But if I were in a similar position, I wouldn't put up the money
either - even if I had it.

This is just USENET, after all. And I find it hard to believe that your
professional opinion is weak enough that it can be undermined by the
uninformed opinions of a single crank.

> Before I named the price I looked at her resume and her claims on her
> writer's income. She can definitely afford $5,000. You call people liars,
> you should take some responsibility for that action. I have a reputation in
> business and scientific world and I cannot afford people calling me a liar
> without a proper counteraction. She has a right not to believe a word I say
> and express that disbelief. And ask for proof. She may have said that
> certain words I said went against her knowledge and asked me to offer some
> support to my claims of my Chinese travel. etc. That is fine and perfectly
> acceptable. But she did not. And her arrogance ****ed me off. And I think
> its is healthy that we all now know who she is. And her students and peers
> at the Temple and Drex too. Its healthy to have one's claws get clipped once
> in a while.

Again, I acknowledged your justifiable indignation. And I know that I would
be offended - in fact, in similar situations, I have been.

And I never said she didn't deserve a little "claw clipping".

> 3. I would actually take your words more seriously if you were AT LEAST as
> critical of her calling me a liar as of me defending myself. But you didn't.
> may I ask why? Why are you so eager to protect her right to attack me that
> my right to make her pay for that attack?

I'm not critical of you defending yourself. I'm critical of the way you
chose to do it - because it appears to be dishonorable, and I don't believe
you to be a dishonorable guy.

You and I have had our disagreements in the past, but they were always
minor. And I've found you to be a fairly reasonable fellow. That is why I
bothered to comment to you, and not to her.

You see, I no longer bother to throw my pearls before swine, either online
or off.

> You have posted already three
> times on this thread and not a one word on her attacks on me (and others,
> BTW, too). Can you elaborate on that?

Yes. I haven't seen any of her posts in this thread save the last one. It's
been a while since I read RFDT on my laptop and her previous posts are no
longer on my NNTP server. Additionally, because she uses the X-No-Archive
header, any posts older than 6 days are no longer available on Google.

I haven't criticized her "attacks" because I haven't read them. I won't
critique on hearsay. Her subsequent response to your "solution" suggests
that it wouldn't have been worth the time anyway.

>> Derek
>
>> If you want to get to the top, prepare to kiss a lot of the bottom.
>
> I pity you, buddy, if that is really what you were beaten into believing.

Ok, haven't you and I already gone through the misinterpretation of a .sig
quote discussion?

That's rhetorical.
--
Derek