On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:02:36 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> 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:
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Excuse me? She could have taken the offer, and if I would not be able to
> supply the proof of me being truthful get $5,000 of MY MONEY.
> What do you mean "she does not care"? She claims that she is so-oo poor that
> all she can spare is meager $15! This was her chance not only to prove that
> she was right calling me a liar but also afford some very good tea!

Could and would are two different things. That is probably where we
diverged.

And nothing says your estimation of what she "could" pay is accurate.

>> 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.
>
> And that would show people that you are an irresponsible flamer who does not
> stand by his words.

Yes, it would. It would also look like you're someone who uses money to win
arguments.

>> 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.
>
> I am sorry, but this is bull. This is how it goes:
> A question in a board room "Mr. Derek, is it true that you were publically
> accused by a member of an academic community of knowingly publishing false
> of fabricated information?". Mind you, this is not court, where you can
> investigate, call you lawyer, etc. This is academic or business community
> and you would start to explain what happened and how and what I said and she
> said... No, what you say is "Yes, and I offered an accuser to put up or
> shut up and she chosen the latter". End of story. Now you can choose a
> different strategy, but I was attacked without provocation and that is how I
> respond to such attacks.

And so your answer to the question is "Yes. I offered to provide evidence
if she'd put up $5k as a deposit, and I'd put up the same amount. If I was
lying, she'd get the escrow account. If she was wrong, I'd get the account.
She chose not to."

Next question: "So do you always hide information by requiring people to
put up money to see the evidence of your claims?"

You could just as easily say, "Yes. One individual decided that I was lying
about my trips. I offered to show her a copy of my boarding passes and
hotel bills. She declined, which showed that she really didn't care about
the truth and was interested merely in her own opinion."

The only point I want to make is that by requiring that money be put up, it
looks like you're interested in the money and not simply in clearing your
good name.


>> 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
>
> Well, in that case you have to tell me what would be an honorable way. But
> do not tell me to just let it go, because then you have no idea what honor
> is. The last thing I want to do is to insult you here but your quote "If you
> want to get to the top, prepare to kiss a lot of the bottom." already make
> me worried if we ever will understand each other on wsuch issues.

In my opinion, the honorable thing to do would be to simply present the
evidence and let her publicly look like a fool. But as soon as you added
the monetary gain component, it gets a little questionable in my book.

Granted, nobody says you have to live by my book.

Another option is the old "Post proof or retract" statement. Obviously, she
made the claim. In fact, it is not up to you to prove her wrong. She is
required by all rules of debate to provide proof of her claim.

And her opinion doesn't cut it.

And please stop with the comments about the .sig quote already. You don't
get the joke. Fine. But stop using the quote as a basis for character
judgment. Even better, read Marlene's post which tells you not only where I
got the quotes but also why some of us find them funny.

>> 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.
>
> That is your choice and I can respect it. I prefer to whip up the swine that
> had an audacity to question my honor and expose its ugly mug to the public.
> Personal choices. Free country, you know.

Free? Then why do I keep getting all these darned bills?


>>> 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.
>
> They are still available on the USENET, that is how I found them a month
> later. Use your MS Outlook Express.
> But if you have not read them, you could have asked and I would provide you
> with the links.

Switching from Dialog to Outlook Express is not going to suddenly make the
information available to me on my NNTP servers. If it's not on my server, I
can't read it regardless of my newsagent.

And you DID provide a link, remember? You gave the message ID - for a
message which is neither on my server nor on Google any longer. She's got
them set to not be archived.

>> 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.
>
> It is a very troubling approach - to critisize one side for something minor
> (you yourself admitted that) and let the swines (your words, not mine) to
> have a pass just because they are swines. Makes swines proliferate.

You cannot reason with unreasonable people, so why bother? The only thing
commenting to her about her behavior would do is escalate the flame war.

I didn't think a little constructive criticism would be this big of a deal.
But I didn't realize how close to home she'd it. My apologies.

--
Derek

That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.