Tea (rec.drink.tea) Discussion relating to tea, the world's second most consumed beverage (after water), made by infusing or boiling the leaves of the tea plant (C. sinensis or close relatives) in water.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default True face of Rebecca Ore (Brown)

About a month ago (May 19) while I was traveling and was not checking the
forum our famous Rebecca Ore (aka Rebecca Brown) called me publically a liar
and even flexed her pathetic Russian by trying to insult me in my
mothertongue. You can find all that in the infamous "Bai vs Mao Chinese tea
terms" thread. She explicitly called me a liar among other things (message
from 5/19)
I only recently became aware of that and offered Ms. Brown an honorable
solution - for each of us to put in escrow $5,000 into the hands of one or
several of our most well-known posters and then I will deliver the material
proof of my posts and if that would prove my words she will have to pay for
her insults in cold cash.
The following is my message at the above mentioned thread (June 21):


"Rebecca Ore" > wrote in message
...

> One of the problems of jumping into a flame war is that the person being
> attacked (kuri and Sasha were the main people saying the undefensible
> things) doesn't tend to at that point distinguish between people
> offering polite suggestions and people trying to score points. Mydnight
> withdrew at that point. Sasha tried to continue the attack like the
> person he has appeared to be all through this -- someone whose own
> stories about his travels in China and his experiences with the captured
> Japanese tea person sound to this teacher of English like stories that
> he made up. I am willing to call him a liar until proven otherwise.
>


I have been traveling and working during this priceless exchange and missed
these peals of Rebecca's wisdom.
I am willing to prove the provable (my travel and work in ex-military
formerly closed territories in China) of what I was claiming with plane
tickets, original work agreements, official films of local TV stations
(featuring yours truly) about opening of our offices in rural towns just
south of Inner Mongolia and other things. But she has to step up to the
plate and put her money where her mouth is. We both shell send a money order
for say $5,000 to Michael Plant, Lew or DogMa (or any other well known
member of the group) and let him or some other group of judges decide if I
ever lied about my travel and work in China. The winning side will gets the
money. Until she does that, her baseless accusations remain what they are -
empty barkings. But as Turks say "It khurer, karavan kecher" - "The bitch
barks, but the caravan goes". So be it in our case too.

Certainly I cannot prove what happened almost 30 years ago on the shores of
Olenek river in Northern Siberia. And I do not intend to. This was my
personal experience and I do not give a flying puer cake if some
self-absorbed, yet another "professor" from CUNY believes me or not. But not
believing me is one thing and calling me a liar - another. Notice how this
"teacher of English" and an American, I presume, throws away ever so easily
the time honored Western tradition of presuming innocence until proven
guilty. She calls me a liar "until proven otherwise"! She feels that she has
a right to call a person a liar and demand that the only way she would
retract from that accusation if I "prove" myself to be right? No, lady, you
will have to risk some money on the table if you want proof. Until you do
that, your empty accusations only show others what you are made of.
I leave it to the public on this forum to judge why she would be so angry at
someone who she never met in her life? May be some of my remarks on her
ridiculous posts had something to do with it? But there were several posters
who ridiculed her "educated" opinion and she never attacked them... Eureka!
May be she had a Russian boyfriend who run away from her self-absorbed
attitude? That would at least explain her awful, louty Russian.

I think that she does have some alternative motives (like assuming in her
other post that I am rich, which I guess in CUNY's world is the biggest sin
in the universe). I have to disappoint her - I am not rich (moneywise) at
all - by any standards (unfortunately). However I lived a very rich life
filled with love, friendship, adventures and love again. And I think I have
done it honorably. I made a lot of lifetime friends (God bless them) and
certainly some envious enemies, (God bless them too). And that is why all I
feel toward the poor "linguist" is a deep sense of pity.

Sasha.
================================================== ==========
To no surprise of mine her answer was a quick additional insult and a
cowardly PLONK.
This is it: (June 21, same thread)

>I have no doubt that you have more money than sense.
>I don't believe you. Live with it. I don't want to meet you, don't
>want to play games with you.
>I don't care if you aren't lying, either. It sure sounds like bullshit
>to me.
><Plonk>


===================================
Now this is a classic example of hate message! She called me a liar, but she
does not even care if I tell the truth! I congratulate Temple and Drexel
Universities with such a wonderful part-time star. She truly give them a
good name.
Allow me to conclude this exchange with a warning - this is a good example
of what we used to call in Russian a "borscht professor". Here is her web
site:
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore/

Look around her pages - try to find anything in her background that would
remind you of her claims to be an educated linguist - remember her posts
claiming thesis in formal linguistics? What you will find, however is space
aliens, bad paper science fictions and more space aliens.
I do not think that we can hope that a 57 years old woman can all of a
sudden grow up. We can just hope that her PLONK will be a long, long, long,
long long one.

Sasha.



  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jules Dubois
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
> ) wrote:

> About a month ago (May 19) while I was traveling and was not checking the
> forum our famous [personal attack deleted]


plonk
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:45:49 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:

> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
> > ) wrote:
>
>> About a month ago (May 19) while I was traveling and was not checking the
>> forum our famous [personal attack deleted]

>
> plonk


Old USENET saying: "Arguing with someone on USENET is like competing in the
Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."

--
Derek

The best leaders inspire by example. When that's not an option, brute
intimidation works pretty well, too.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jules Dubois
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tuesday 21 June 2005 16:46, Derek >
>) wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:45:49 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
>> > ) wrote:
>>
>>> [crap]

>>
>> plonk

>
> Old USENET saying: "Arguing with someone on USENET is like competing in
> the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."
>


"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable
from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of
free time."
-- Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

First of all - neither Ms. Brown (Ore) nor I are anonyms. So the history of
this dispute is actually a public record attributable to a real person. And
reputation. If you have any doubt of my identity I will gladly dismiss your
doubts. I hate anonymity and view it as an honorless behavior. One of the
reasons I like this group so much is because Mike Petro, Lew, Michael Plant
are real names of the real persons. I do not consider Melinda, DogMa or
Cowboy anonyms either, because although they use nicknames online, they do
not hide their names in private exchange. I do have a card from Dogma and
sent and received tea to and from Cowboy. So you words about "anonymous
strangers" are out of context here.

Second - Instead of throwing flames as a response to insults endlessly as
most of USENET flamers do I offer a simple and effective way to resolve such
situation - you call me a liar, I can prove that I am not, but you will have
to pay. I thought making people put their money where their mouths are was a
time-honored American tradition.
And it is very effective too - her answer immediately shows everyone who is
who.

Sasha.


"Jules Dubois" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 16:46, Derek >
> >) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:45:49 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
>>> > ) wrote:
>>>
>>>> [crap]
>>>
>>> plonk

>>
>> Old USENET saying: "Arguing with someone on USENET is like competing in
>> the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."
>>

>
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable
> from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of
> free time."
> -- Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
>





  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:16:15 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:

> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 16:46, Derek >
> >) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:45:49 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
>>> > ) wrote:
>>>
>>>> [crap]
>>>
>>> plonk

>>
>> Old USENET saying: "Arguing with someone on USENET is like competing in
>> the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."
>>

>
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable
> from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of
> free time."
> -- Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon


Oh, I like that. I'll definitely be adding it to the list.

--
Derek

No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:01:35 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

> First of all - neither Ms. Brown (Ore) nor I are anonyms. So the history of
> this dispute is actually a public record attributable to a real person. And
> reputation. If you have any doubt of my identity I will gladly dismiss your
> doubts. I hate anonymity and view it as an honorless behavior. One of the
> reasons I like this group so much is because Mike Petro, Lew, Michael Plant
> are real names of the real persons. I do not consider Melinda, DogMa or
> Cowboy anonyms either, because although they use nicknames online, they do
> not hide their names in private exchange. I do have a card from Dogma and
> sent and received tea to and from Cowboy. So you words about "anonymous
> strangers" are out of context here.


This is a very good point - and an issue I frequently run into when
discussing online relationships (academic interest). The use of an alias to
protect one's privacy is not equivalent to anonymous, anti-social behavior.

However, assumptions that one is vindicated by the public record are often
untenable positions from which to justify one's actions to others. This is
particularly true when one half of the "dispute" has "X-no-archive: yes" in
her headers.

> Second - Instead of throwing flames as a response to insults endlessly as
> most of USENET flamers do I offer a simple and effective way to resolve such
> situation - you call me a liar, I can prove that I am not, but you will have
> to pay. I thought making people put their money where their mouths are was a
> time-honored American tradition.


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.

Justifiably indignant or not, that still smells of a set up.

> And it is very effective too - her answer immediately shows everyone who is
> who.


Sometimes what we write shows everyone things we don't intend to reveal.

--
Derek

If you want to get to the top, prepare to kiss a lot of the bottom.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.

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?
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.

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? 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?

> 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.

Sasha.


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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!

> 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.

>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.

>
> 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.

>
>> 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.

>
> 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.


Respectfully,
Sasha

>Derek.





  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Marlene Wood
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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 defense of that quote. It's from a 'demotivational' poster on
www.despair.com It's a realy cool site, especially if you're A. a
dissafected college student B. a disaffected cubicle worker, or C. are just
plain sick and tired of pretty posters with 'motivaitonal' sayings on them.
A couple of my faveorite a
Potential
Not everyone grows up to be an astronaut
(the picture being an artfully lit box of french fries)
and
Customer Service
If we stop taking care of our customers, maybe they'll stop calling
(featureing an artfully lit telephone covered in cob webs. I was
particularly attracted to this one when I worked as a phone slave for
Yahoo!)

Marlene


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek -

I think we understood each other. I have to agree with you that an argument
may be made by a convoluted mind of a NY liberal (for instance) that all I
was after was not to punish her for insulting me, but to gain materially. In
that case I change my offer - all remains the same, except that the
judge(judges) will transfer the resulting sum of $10,000 to a charity.
How is that for a greedy me?

Sasha.


  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Alex Chaihorsky
 
Posts: n/a
Default

OK, I realized that this arrangement would make an innocent party pay
regardless, so I change it to a $5,000 from a side proven wrong to be sent
to a charity.

Sasha.

"Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote in message
. ..
> Derek -
>
> I think we understood each other. I have to agree with you that an
> argument may be made by a convoluted mind of a NY liberal (for instance)
> that all I was after was not to punish her for insulting me, but to gain
> materially. In that case I change my offer - all remains the same, except
> that the judge(judges) will transfer the resulting sum of $10,000 to a
> charity.
> How is that for a greedy me?
>
> Sasha.
>
>



  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:51:27 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

> "Alex Chaihorsky" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Derek -
>>
>> I think we understood each other. I have to agree with you that an
>> argument may be made by a convoluted mind of a NY liberal (for instance)
>> that all I was after was not to punish her for insulting me, but to gain
>> materially. In that case I change my offer - all remains the same, except
>> that the judge(judges) will transfer the resulting sum of $10,000 to a
>> charity.
>> How is that for a greedy me?
>>
>> Sasha.

>
> OK, I realized that this arrangement would make an innocent party pay
> regardless, so I change it to a $5,000 from a side proven wrong to be sent
> to a charity.
>
> Sasha.


Sounds good. Now you just have to get the folks in RFDT to agree upon which
charity.

Have a great day, Sasha!

--
Derek

Heffalumps to the left of me, woozles to the right.
Here I am, stuck in the middle with Pooh.


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rebecca Ore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Derek > wrote:

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


It couldn't be more wildly inaccurate.

For a writer to make $20,000 a year, the writer would have to sell
60,000 to 100,000 mass market paperback copies a year. The figures are
lower for trade and hardcover, but figure 10% royalties at $10 to $20 a
book = $1 to $2 a book (real figures vary by 2% in all directions) which
means selling 10,000 (hardcover) to 20,000 copies (trade paper) per
*year* to make $20K per year.

4,000 total sales is roughly $4,000 in royalties for a trade paperback.

Most potters in America do better than writers, and they don't have to
sell so many units per year to make $20K.

There's a saying in writing circles, "Don't quit your day job."

Anyone who knows anything about publishing would know that 4,000 to
40,000 sales total is kinda lower end (and the top sales were Science
Fiction Book Club, which is about a quarter the royalties one would get
from original publisher hardcovers).

I *can* believe Chinese calligraphers only making $800 a year. Most
PEN members (hardcover writers of non-genre work) make about $5K per
year from their writing.

The people who make serious money write a book a year that sells 500,000
to several million copies and get movie deals. And the numbers of
people doing that is around 200 writers in the US, tops.

So I can afford $15 tea sometimes, but not silly wagers in the days when
boarding passes are printed on home computers.

One SF writer made claims of having all sorts of friends on an island
off the coast of Honduras. A friend of mine lived there in the winter
and knew all sorts of people (I knew she lived there because she brought
one of the islanders home with her one summer). It was a small island.
He didn't hang out there on any kind of regular basis, probably visited
once and decided to make it part of his legend (his embellishments on
his life story start with the year he claimed to have been born in).

The cross references between people, the "I've heard that before" and "I
met someone who had the same experience" or "I met someone who remembers
meeting you" is what gives anecdotes veracity.

I find Mydnight and Samarkand both credible -- just suspect that
Mydnight didn't realize a serious Chinese scholar could make jokes at
Mao's expense about the derivation of his name. (Mydnight, anyone who
survived the Cultural Revolution or had older colleagues who did can
make all the jokes he wants at Mao's expense without losing *my* esteem
-- I've met people who went through it).

I trust Mydnight's current observations about literacy rates in the
places he's visited in rural China. I don't know if that can be
extrapolated to all of China or not, but the real answer isn't something
that will be determined by who verbally bullies who on Usenet. (snips
the no-archive header so people can find this later).

Now, I'll start filtering this thread.
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Mydnight
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rebecca,

If I could find some decent, reliable stats, I'd surely give them to
the group, but since it is so far from anything having to do with tea
and nearly impossible to find real stats in China, I don't want to
bother. Literacy is as literacy is in most countries; around the
larger cities and civilization, it is usually higher than the rural
places. It's much more dramatic here, though, in that rural is
reaaaaaallly rural. Some of the farm houses that I've stayed in don't
have any books (let alone 4 walls) in them and if they could afford
books, they would probably spend the money on something that has more
relevance in their lives. I am an advocate for rural literacy and I
spend much time volunteering, if I have any time, teaching in rural
schools around China. I think I have a pretty good grasp of what's
really going on around here in that I've been north, south, east, and
west regardless as to how pointless and limited others view my
experience as.

And, joke or not, I still stand by my understanding and explanation of
his name. This isn't a country of absolutes or absolute understanding
involving any topic; most people that have spent any time whatsoever
here understand that. I thank you for your support in the former
ridiculous flame war that I accidently started and then kept fanning.

Cheers from one teacher to another.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
To brown or not to brown? Using uncooked chicken backs & wings for soup. daveyj General Cooking 28 20-02-2007 06:48 PM
Open letter to Ms. Rebecca Brown (Ore) Alex Chaihorsky Tea 28 27-06-2005 12:09 PM
Egg on my face! Ross Reid General Cooking 7 31-01-2005 03:21 AM
Alton Brown is Elton Brown all growed up Blair P. Houghton General Cooking 4 18-03-2004 07:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"