I wonder if anyone reads Flint's continual jammering?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

I'd guess flint has a lot of us remembering ABC's efforts more fondly. He is more one-sided than ABC while being far less topical, he makes Ken Decker look like someone who diagrams his sentences, and he gives no indication I can see of being part of any dialogue at all. We are being spammed and bored.

-- ,,, (,,,@,,.,,,com), October 28, 2000


Well I certainly enjoy reading Flints comments. I find him thought provoking, topical, well read and original. Completely the opposite to someone like al-d.

He doesn't simply copy someone else's posts from another thread, change them, then repost as his own over a fake name.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), October 28, 2000.

Some idiot is doing a very poor job in faking my forum handle and then post phony messages. What a dork.

It is probably the old dog @ zianet.com

-- ... (...@aol.com), October 28, 2000.

On the other hand, I haven't seen a whole lot of interest in the details of computer interrupt mechanisms either. But these posts do add a bit of variety to al-d's spamming, and don't start any new threads. My only concern is, eventually I'll written everything there is to know about interrupts, because *real* information is finite, while al's babbling is forever. That point isn't anywhere close to being reached, however.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2000.

It's probably H-Dogs. A spammer and moron if there ever was one.

-- T-Bone (T@bone.rex), October 28, 2000.

Some dink is doing a very poor job in faking my forum handle and then post dum dum messages. What a ditz. It is probably the old codger @ moola.ccc

-- (,,,@aol.org), October 28, 2000.

tb2k-un-censored??LOVE YA FLINTY--YOU,LL GET IT-SOMEDAY!! ah the power of a proud-mind!!! wrong-heaven[in mind] & wrong-earth[body of sin] SHALL PASS AWAY!! BUT GODS WORD-WILL REMAIN-FOREVER!!


it,s the MIND KIDS-not what,s outside of us!!!

-- al-d. (DOGS@ZIANET.COM), October 28, 2000.

TB2K--uncensored? LOVE YA FLINTY. YOU'LL GET IT SOMEDAY! Ah the power of a proud mind! Wrong heaven [in mind] and wrong earth [body of sin] SHALL PASS AWAY! BUT GOD'S WORD WILL REMAIN FOREVER!


It's the MIND KIDS, not what's outside of us!

-- (editing_al@Strunk and.White), October 28, 2000.

Flint's perhaps one of five posters on this forum wherein I ALWAYS read his stuff.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 28, 2000.


I couldn't agree more. While Flint's posts may not be "light and airy", I find that they usually contain some thought provoking material. Flint, along with Ken, Z, FS, CapnFun, and many others, also have a wry sense of humor that I enjoy.

And you're not half-bad yourself, Anita :^)

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), October 28, 2000.

Answer: Yes

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 28, 2000.

Personally, I usually skip over most of Flint's responses. I find them boorish, trivial, long-winded, and condescending. He seldom adds much to the conversation at hand, but often destroys the entire thread with an argument about nit-picking details, which are for the most part irrelevant to the original concept of the thread. This has a tendency to derail the course of the discussion from a predominantly light-hearted, imaginative, and spirited exchange, to a sort of "contest" to see who can spew out the most amount of "information". On occasion there are some very technical topics for which the type of knowledge Flint shares is useful, but for the most part I think he degrades the quality of many of the more free-spirited discussions that are most common on this forum. Personally I prefer quality rather than quantity, and the use of imagination rather than a recital of currently available knowledge.

-- (appreciate@creative.thinking), October 28, 2000.


{Your slip is showing}

-- flora (***@__._), October 28, 2000.


Flora, how come you keep using vague innuendo, and then you don't explain what you meant by it.

This thread asked a question, I answered it in the most honest way I know, and now you seem to have a problem with that. What exactly IS your problem?

-- (appreciate@creative.thinking), October 28, 2000.

Thank ya Jim,'tippin' my hat',likewise : )

Yes,I like to read his and EVERYONE elses posts,no exception,except for regurgitated y2k BS.That's the beauty of it all,to keep an open mind just long enough to decide if it's a thought you'd like to pursue,even then,the replies are most often very worthwhile or funny.All this *if* the thread doesn't take a turn and change completely,for the better or the worse.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), October 28, 2000.


My problem in this instance is your changing handle, toots. If you've got something to say, just pick one of your handles & have the fortitude to stick with it.

Otherwise, it's just another weekend spent trolling, eh?

-- flora (***@__._), October 28, 2000.


Are you on drugs? This is the only handle I have used on this thread, and this is my 3rd reply. Please ask OTFR to confirm that if you do not believe me, I have no objection to doing that. Which other handle did you think was me?

-- (appreciate@creative.thinking), October 28, 2000.

Well, I read just about everything Flint posts; and I would hardly consider it "jammering". I like the way his mind works, and I like the way he's able to put that "to paper". The bonus is that I've learned things from what he posts (as well as many others on this board).

What some have missed (it would seem) is that, in the technical sense of the term, al-d is "spamming" the board, though not excessively. But make no mistake; I like al-d and I read just about everything he posts, too.

Frankly, about the only things I don't read (time-constraints not being a factor) are threads that start "CPR-YOU'RE AN IDIOT", just about anything to do with OIL, and the TAX SPAMMERS. (Heh, I lied -- I even read all of those at times.)


-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 28, 2000.


No, I think we should turn it into another parlor game. I can only recall 'Andy Ray' & 'Hawk' resorting to such histrionics:

"Please ask OTFR to confirm that if you do not believe me, I have no objection to doing that."

Gee, any guess as to who it might be? Does anyone care?

Get a grip on yourself, no - not in your usual way. If we could rip off the sheet, I wouldn't even be shocked to find Mr d underneath.

-- flora (***@__._), October 28, 2000.


You are very rude. I am NOT al-d, and I don't think it is very appropriate of you to jump to conclusions and make such accusations. I came onto this thread and responded completely honestly, and now I've got to defend myself from your false accusations. If anyone is "trolling" it is you. Hrruumph!!

-- hate rude people (appreciate@creative.thinking), October 28, 2000.


I've read Paul Milne, and YOU are NO Paul Milne.

-- flora (***@__._), October 28, 2000.


There you go again! What does Paul Milne have to do with anything??

I give up, you are just too plain fucking weird for me.

Oh BTW, thanks for the apology, since you are too stuck-up to admit that you were wrong, "toots"!

-- (appreciate@creative.thinking), October 28, 2000.

You are too kind.

"I give up, you are just too plain fucking weird for me."

Considering the source, I'll take that as high compliment.

-- flora (***@__._), October 28, 2000.

I've read Hawk and he is one.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 28, 2000.

Well, I'm glad at least SOMEONE remembers me! Thanks, hmmmm. :)

-- (appreciate@creative.thinking), October 28, 2000.

Ok Hawk,

Why not come out with your old handle? You used to contribute stuff & may be folks payed more attention to it 'cuz they had a 'feeling' for you. Most all of us have been been trolled by this point. I didn't raise a ruckus with my stuff - who would've known the difference anyway?!

You & I have been around the block before, whazzup with the names?

Hey, don't you remember al- claiming to be other entities on the ol' bomb?

Flint's deal is the polar opposite of that schtick.

-- Yeah I'm flora, though I could change it (***@__._), October 28, 2000.


Maybe you have forgotten, perhaps this will remind you.

If you did not like my opinion of Flint, you should have debated me on that topic, not accused me of being an al-d troll or something.

-- (appreciate@creative.thinking), October 28, 2000.

GEESH, can,t we all just-cut each other some-slack-GOD sure cut,s us alot!!do to the FACT that we,re all gonna live to-gether=FOREVER!! not in present-minds thank GOD!! why does =al-d. hang out here?? well ,er um i,m kinda fond of you's guy,s!! I share my heart--thought,s-and some disagree-but an un-censored - forum is supposed to be free!-some post,s i pass-you can do the same to me-i,ve found a peace that PASSES=UNDERSTANDING!! I know WHO HOLD,S THE FUTURE-SO BAD NEWS DOESN,T MOVE ME! i like to SHARE=THE GOOD NEWS!! do I HAVE=SO-CALLED PROBLEM,S[SURE DO] BUT i SEE THEM AS STEPPING-STONES!! like ol' brother JOB said long-ago-GOD can give it-and-HE can take=so what??-HE alway,s has a reason and I choose to trust him!! [I] don,t have to be in control---that,s very sressful!! AND I understand=HIS MASTER-PLAN!! call me stoopid,that,s OK.--I,LL just enjoy knowing=THE WAY!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 28, 2000.


My point is that if you'd posted your opinion on Flint under your known screen name, it would've carried more weight with me.

As it is, I wouldn't have known you from an EZ boarder {& former timebomber} with an old axe to grind.

-- flora (***@__._), October 28, 2000.

"that we,re all gonna live to-gether=FOREVER!!"


Is that supposed to make me hopeful?

-- flora (***@__._), October 28, 2000.

FLORA DEAR, ON old tb-forum,many-many post,s USING my name- we,re ''NOT-ME!! IT WAS A =SET-UP!!

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 28, 2000.


The troll who raped me of my identity is a regular participant on this forum. I cannot keep the same name long enough for them to figure it out or the same thing will happen again. That troll was using my name to do some despicable things, and many people thought it was me, so I will not allow that to happen again. Unfortunately, this is the way it has to be, so I hope that those who remember me will be able to recognize me apart from those who troll for disruptive purposes. Sorry about the confusion.

-- leaving this handle now (appreciate@creative.thinking), October 28, 2000.

So who died and made Flora the queen mum?

Gettin a little bitchy there Flora, dontcha think?

-- rude (crude@really.screwed), October 28, 2000.

Flora who really cares who uses an undercover handle? Is it really any of your business?

-- crude (rude@majorly.screwed), October 28, 2000.

What a peculiar explanation. I've never used anything but my real name and address, and never suffered any of these alleged problems, even though my opinions have nearly always been in the minority. This leads to the disturbing thought that trolls and jerks are easy to imitate, and don't have enough sense to stop being trolls or jerks.

As a gentle hint to Hawk -- if you display adult behavior few around here would be able to imitate you convincingly. If you show a glimmer of original thought, you'll eliminate anyone who might *want* to steal your handle.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2000.

Flint, you don't fool me, that wasn't gentle nor subtle ;-) (but honest, give yourself 2 brownie points.)

My opinion on Flint is very messed up. I agree with those who find him interesting, enlightened, well spoken etc. But when I catch myself admiring him too much, I remember on which forum in the Great Big Internet he dwells in. Then I realize he's just as nuts as me and you.

Are we a sad bunch, or are we a cozy community of old timers loving to hate each other? We seem to be stuck in our mud and rolling in it with glee.

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 28, 2000.

Batsy ol' Betsy is my new handle, but you can call me BoB for short.

-- Batsy ol' Betsy (batsyolbetsy@lycos.com), October 28, 2000.

I agree that Flint is intelligent, and at times interesting. He is also incredibly condescending and insulting but lacking the humor to make it work. It just comes off as obnoxious, insecure and boorish.

-- Batsy ol' Betsy (batsyolbetsy@lycos.com), October 28, 2000.


The reason I was trolled was because I am honest. I tell people what I really think, and sometimes this offends them. Sometimes I reveal truths to them that they do not want to hear, or are not ready to accept. If it isn't true, then it isn't going to hurt them. If it is true, but they don't like it, they sometimes attack the messenger.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on adult behavior, though you do have your moments, such as referring to al-d's posts as "brain-farts".

But original thought? Please... everything you discuss has already been recorded in multitudes of texts. Common knowledge in the public domain. I doubt that you have had many original thoughts since you were a young man, much less trusted them enough to act on them.

Al-d's posts are not "brain farts". Spirit farts perhaps, and spirit is a difficult thing to put into words. Truly "original" thought comes from trusting one's instincts and intuition, and having the courage to speak about what comes from the soul, yet you insult al-d for doing the very thing that you recommend. Don't pretend that you are superior to others just because your brand of knowledge can be expressed with a more extravagant vocabulary.

-- (appreciate@originality.too), October 28, 2000.


Are you seriously implying that I have always been able to keep my real name and address because I haven't been attacked? Or because what I've said hasn't turned out to be true? Earth to Hawk...

I call them as I see them too. Has it occurred to you that I call them better because I see them better, and so I don't need to hide? Your paranoia stands exposed as stupidity by clear observation. Who are you scared of?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2000.


No one feels threatened by you because what you post comes from a book, it can be proven. I post original thought, which makes some people uncomfortable, you know, conventional thinkers like yourself. Much the same way that you feel threatened by al-d's posting of original thought, so you respond by attacking him.

-- (flint@dropping.in.polls), October 29, 2000.

PS: I'm not "scared" of anything, I just want my posts to be my posts. Since trolls are a fact of reality, I accept that reality and adjust my standard operating procedure accordingly.

-- (trolls@not.an.obstacle), October 29, 2000.

Hawk, according to my standards *hic*, you're definitely smart and astoote *hic*, it's almost amazing at times, but definitely *hic* lacking somewhere... maybe in the domain of introspection too.

*hic* give me a minute to think here...

Ok, I'm going to do some introspection myself and I'll get back to you...

-- (smarty@wannabe.one), October 29, 2000.

LOL Smarty, okay have a few more slugs of the ol' hooch, but don't overdo it, or you'll regret it in the morning!

BTW, I am one of the most introspective people "I've ever known". Hee hee, get it? :-)

-- (easy@on.the.sauce), October 29, 2000.


We have a semantic problem here. When people speak of "original thought", they are referring to good new ideas. They are NOT referring to your habit of producing random, off topic, unrelated, imaginary (and usually belligerant) nonsense. Those who see farther stand on the shoulders of giants. Those with their heads up their asses may see what nobody else can, but so what?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

Al-D has promised only to post to this forum once a day.

-- I like Al-D (he@is.alright), October 29, 2000.


Hawk holds to many nutty beliefs, but his posts are much more lively than yours. Your posts generally tend to represent university lectures presented by the most dull member of the faculty, who has forgotten to have his cup of morning coffee.

While I disagree with Hawk I think he is quite funny and worth reading. I also don't see why you have to continually insult Al. If you don't like what he says just ignore his threads (they are very easy to spot). Instead you always post to them, ensuring that they will head straight to the top of the New Answers (kind of self- defeating, wouldn't you say?).

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), October 29, 2000.

Flint, you say [quote] 'those that stand on shoulder,s of giant,s =see farther" TRY=standing on the shoulder,s of the APOSTLE,S-WHAT A VIEW!!---THE GIFT OF TECHNOLOGY--IS--NOT-THE-GIVER!!


-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), October 29, 2000.

"Those who see farther stand on the shoulders of giants."

I know what you are saying, but the way you worded it isn't exactly correct, because it isn't always necessary to stand on the shoulder of giants to see farther. It should read... "Those who stand on the shoulders of giants see farther". The problem with standing on the shoulders of giants is that you are still limited to seeing things from the same basic perspective as they do. Perhaps, as al-d suggests, you could try standing on the shoulders of the Apostles and see if you see anything that the "giants" have not been able to see yet.

Seeing "farther" is not always better, because if your vision changes and becomes permanently farsighted, you can miss the truth when it is right in front of your face. Seeing clearly is often a more valuable skill. Remember that some of our most profound discoveries have been learned and proven by very independent thinkers who were not afraid to ignore the views of others and look around "outside the box", oftentimes confronting great opposition from those who were thought of as the "giants" at that point in time.

"Those with their heads up their asses may see what nobody else can, but so what?"

Please don't underestimate the value of a good proctologist. Ronald Reagan might not have finished his second term if it had not been for the valuable knowledge gained by men who had their head up his ass. :-)

-- (hyperopia@no.better.than.myopia), October 29, 2000.

no better:

Your argument is tautological. No "great discovery" has ever been the same as before by definition -- it it were, it wouldn't even be a discovery, much less great.

Moreover, you cannot find any brilliant insights, in any field, that have not been solidly grounded both in the evidence available at the time, and in a long history of the development of throught in that field. Those who see something new (whether further OR clearer) have ALWAYS stood on the shoulders of giants. Think about it. Development has always been incremental. Some increments have been larger than others, but all of them have been increments.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

"Those who see something new (whether further OR clearer) have ALWAYS stood on the shoulders of giants."

Simply not true. Many have completely rejected the views that those who you consider to be "giants" had from their perspective, and by doing so gained a new view that has been proven to be the correct one, totally destroying any value of the vision of your giants. In fact, in some cases, the real truth might have been learned much sooner if the "giants", who were proven to be wrong, had not set forth their views first as though they were absolute fact.

Take for example, one of the most basic and profound discoveries of all time... that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Ptolemy, who you would consider to be a "giant" (and I would consider to be a blind fool), observed the sun as it travelled across the sky from sunrise to sunset, and concluded that the Sun revolves around the Earth! With no inkling of the possibility that things are not always as they seem, he convinced the world to believe only what seemed obvious from the evidence.

Copernicus had more imagination than that. He completely rejected the Ptolematic System, and suggested that his more extensive observations led him to believe that the Earth and other planets actually revolved around the Sun. Many traditional scientists denied the validity of his views for over a century, until Galileo proved with mathematical calculations that Copernicus was correct.

So, you would say that if it had not been for Ptolemy coming up with a completely erroneous theory, Copernicus could not have derived the correct one? I say, hogwash! IMO, a more brilliant thinker like Copernicus may have solved the problem sooner if the idiot Ptolemy had not claimed to have already solved it. Copernicus did not stand on the shoulders of your giants, he told them to get the hell out of his way so he could see the truth.

There are numerous examples in the work of Einstein that show that he also frequently disregarded previous scientific theory and derived more accurate results by relying on his own genius of imagination.

-- (genius@ignores.giants), October 29, 2000.


Hawk; reread what you just posted. Even you will see the humor. You know if you continue to post using all of these names, you are going to continue to be ignored.

Best wishes,,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 29, 2000.


You aren't thinking this through. Copernicus wasn't the first or only one to suggest a heliocentic system, but Copernicus had the advantage of the huge body of observation provided by Tycho (a follower of Ptolemy). The heliocentric system did NOT just burst full-blown out of nowhere into the mind of Copernicus by any means. You shoud start to wonder when the position you take requires that you simplify things to the point of meaninglessness.

In a nutshell, we make progress by taking steps. Some steps are larger than others, and some are in the wrong direction and must be corrected. The "giant" is simply the sum total of all the steps we'd ever taken before, without which we could not have taken the sintgle last step that got us where we are. You are basically arguing that you crossed the country in a single step by tuning out all the steps but the very last one and pretending they never existed.

In this sense, we can ONLY see further or clearer from the shoulders of giants. And this doesn't change because you don't like it, or because you choose some midgets who contributed nothing worthwhile and try to "pretend" that they were giants.

Genius certainly exists, and certainly contributes an original component. But this component is always small, relatively speaking.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

Fuck off Z.

Okay, back to you Flint. I think where we differ is our opinion of original thought, from which this whole conversation evolved. You more or less accused me of not producing original thoughts, and I think I am a very original thinker. You think original thought is always based on existing evidence, and I think it is based on imagination and creative genius. We can both be correct, it just depends on how "original" we are talking about.

-- (genius@ignores.giants), October 29, 2000.


[You more or less accused me of not producing original thoughts, and I think I am a very original thinker.]

I can't claim that my thought that *considering* yourself original doesn't *make* you original is an original thought, since I've thought this same thought many times before. But it's obviously original to you.

[You think original thought is always based on existing evidence, and I think it is based on imagination and creative genius.]

My conclusion that you've never had an original thought in your life is based on all the existing evidence available to me. You've had a few stunningly stupid, or unfounded, or plain wrong thoughts based on nothing whatsoever, I can't deny that. But it's not what I'd call creative genius.

You might document your creative genius by listing your inventions, patents, even copyrights, provided we knew they were yours. After all, hiding behind a sequence of fake names for paranoid reasons is neither original nor creative. And you won't earn a whole lot of points running around attacking your superiors rather than producing ideas of your own, either. Hey, we're not asking for genius, we'd be satisfied with a spark of sapience. Show us one.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 29, 2000.

Flint makes a good point about Tycho, whose observations of the heavenly bodies were incredibly accurate for the time. (Tycho was Scandanavian, a fact which should surprise nobody with any sense.)

On the other hand, I think Einstein was a pure genius owing not much to his predecessors, except that they made observations which they were not able to make heads or tails out of.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), October 29, 2000.

"And you won't earn a whole lot of points running around attacking your ,b>superiors rather than producing ideas of your own, either..."

Flint I was wrong about you, you are kind of funny. You were trying to be funny, weren't you?

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), October 29, 2000.

Yes Nugget, it appears that Flint is actually developing a sense of humor, and I'm glad to see it.

-- (genius@ignores.giants), October 29, 2000.

Let us just hope that he was trying to be funny, and doesn't actually believe it.

-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), October 29, 2000.

My conclusion that you've never had an original thought in your life is based on all the existing evidence available to me. You've had a few stunningly stupid, or unfounded, or plain wrong thoughts based on nothing whatsoever, I can't deny that. But it's not what I'd call creative genius.

Seems to me that all thoughts, however trivial, are totally original; they are discontinuities occurring in real-time within a mysterious biological function called MIND. They are something from nothing. Thoughts are creation, ongoing.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 29, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ