I continually try make friends with the few nut cases here (with the exception of John B who is far too far gone) but it doesn't appear to be working.

I can see that Jay is having some serious personal problems which I hope he successfully resolves. What he has been going through I don't know and probably don't want to know. I have problems of my own.

Frank on the other hand has attacked me from the first day for the same reason. I am a practical engineer with a long and successful career and I can see right through the bullshit he tried to pass off to people in the past.

At least he knows better than that now. He doesn't bullshit others and at least acknowledges his limited experience with bicycle types. What he does know I am willing to give him. But even that offends him.

But not being the center of the group because he are an engineer seems to be more than he can stand. So that is the source of his attacks and they haven't changed in the least as far as I can remember (which granted is mostly only the last 9 years.)

People like Axel and Lou who are engineers don't bother him because they haven't had to step in since he has stopped his comments about bikes he knows nothing about.

Jobst and I used to get into it but over disagreement more of style than substance. He rode the most preposterous gears and could lead rides where he expected everyone to be able to read his mind. Jumping a curb at 25 mph onto a dirt trail off camber is hardly something to do with new riders to the group in my mind. He was just riding in his.

He was something like 6'6" and rode the most oversized bike you ever saw (27"?). And he always rode 27 1/4" wheels and tires. and something like an 18-23 5 speed freewheel with a 42-52 chainset. There is no way I could have kept up with him in his hardest rides so eventually I stopped riding with him. Which I found rather easy. It was a long ride over there to begin with. Crossing the Dumbarton Bridge bike lane and go to wherever the starting point was. I can't remember that. But I also can't remember where we started riding those same routes with the Fremont Freewheelers other than we started from Fremont rather than (Palo Alto?)

Jobst ALWAYS had good advice for questions when it didn't have to do with machismo. Though perhaps I shouldn't comment on that since I'm using a 39 chainring now to climb with. The 34 has gone the way of the Dodo for me since I can buy new or nearly new 52-39's for half the price of a compact Ultradrive crankset.

What I will attempt to do is not comment on the asinine postings of the Pee Wee Herman set.

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 16:11:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jobst and I used to get into it but over disagreement more of style than substance.

Perhaps it might be interesting to read what Jobst thought of Tom.
From Dec 2005:

"Re: Tom Kunich is a ass"
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Bdcrb3q1i9w>
"I thought we had gotten over him, now that we
have other contributors who are equally rude
and obnoxious, always carping while offering
no useful information. A few names come to mind."
Jobst Brandt

There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
By the way, nice change of topic.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 16:11:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>I continually try make friends with the few nut cases here (with the exception of John B who is far too far gone) but it doesn't appear to be working.
>
>I can see that Jay is having some serious personal problems which I hope he successfully resolves. What he has been going through I don't know and probably don't want to know. I have problems of my own.
>
>Frank on the other hand has attacked me from the first day for the same reason. I am a practical engineer with a long and successful career and I can see right through the bullshit he tried to pass off to people in the past.
>
>At least he knows better than that now. He doesn't bullshit others and at least acknowledges his limited experience with bicycle types. What he does know I am willing to give him. But even that offends him.
>
>But not being the center of the group because he are an engineer seems to be more than he can stand. So that is the source of his attacks and they haven't changed in the least as far as I can remember (which granted is mostly only the last 9 years.)
>
>People like Axel and Lou who are engineers don't bother him because they haven't had to step in since he has stopped his comments about bikes he knows nothing about.
>
>Jobst and I used to get into it but over disagreement more of style than substance. He rode the most preposterous gears and could lead rides where he expected everyone to be able to read his mind. Jumping a curb at 25 mph onto a dirt trail off camber is hardly something to do with new riders to the group in my mind. He was just riding in his.
>
>He was something like 6'6" and rode the most oversized bike you ever saw (27"?). And he always rode 27 1/4" wheels and tires. and something like an 18-23 5 speed freewheel with a 42-52 chainset. There is no way I could have kept up with him in his hardest rides so eventually I stopped riding with him. Which I found rather easy. It was a long ride over there to begin with. Crossing the Dumbarton Bridge bike lane and go to wherever the starting point was. I can't remember that. But I also can't remember where we started riding those same routes with the Fremont Freewheelers other than we started from Fremont rather than (Palo Alto?)
>
>Jobst ALWAYS had good advice for questions when it didn't have to do with machismo. Though perhaps I shouldn't comment on that since I'm using a 39 chainring now to climb with. The 34 has gone the way of the Dodo for me since I can buy new or nearly new 52-39's for half the price of a compact Ultradrive crankset.
>
>What I will attempt to do is not comment on the asinine postings of the Pee Wee Herman set.

Yup Tommy, the world is against you.

So, buy the tee shirt
https://teeherivar.com/product/the-whole-world-is-against-me-it-wouldnt-be-fair-other-wise/
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 7/2/2021 5:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
> By the way, nice change of topic.

Jobst did not suffer fools gladly.

But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
to consider the following:

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
difference.” ― Author Unknown

On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:24:13 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 7/2/2021 5:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
>> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
>> By the way, nice change of topic.
>
>Jobst did not suffer fools gladly.
>
>But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>to consider the following:
>
>“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>difference.” ? Author Unknown

King James edition Proverbs 26:4
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
him."
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:24:13 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2021 5:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
>>> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
>>> By the way, nice change of topic.
>>
>> Jobst did not suffer fools gladly.
>>
>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>> to consider the following:
>>
>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>> difference.” ? Author Unknown
>
> King James edition Proverbs 26:4
> "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
> him."

So why do you do it?

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 5:05:54 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 16:11:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jobst and I used to get into it but over disagreement more of style than substance.
> Perhaps it might be interesting to read what Jobst thought of Tom.
> From Dec 2005:
>
> "Re: Tom Kunich is a ass"
> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Bdcrb3q1i9w>
> "I thought we had gotten over him, now that we
> have other contributors who are equally rude
> and obnoxious, always carping while offering
> no useful information. A few names come to mind."
> Jobst Brandt
>
> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
> By the way, nice change of topic.

Jeff, what are you proposing that you have added to the group?

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 12:11:51 AM UTC+1, cycl...@ wrote:
> I continually try make friends with the few nut cases here (with the exception of John B who is far too far gone) but it doesn't appear to be working.
..
You may have to wait for hell to freeze over. I have been on RBT for a dozen years or so, and I cannot remember a single day on which Krygowski and the scum he enables by his viciousness did not attempt to put someone's blood on the carpet.

I have other groups to which I can compare the sulphurous atmosphere on RBT.. I ran a group called ROBUST for writers and readers who weren't snowflakes, where aspiring members were warned that it was a space where anything you could say would not be punished for being politically incorrect or even aggressive or abrasive to another member They were also explicitly warned that the mods would not protect them against extravagantly competent wordsmiths replying in kind, plus interest. It was the politest group you ever saw!

I conceived and helped to found and now run a group of c27,000 members on Facebook which is immensely active, immensely useful to the members, and immensely popular, still growing by leaps and bounds. This huge group takes five minutes a day for administration because I've devised a question that the wrong sorts will invariably answer wrong or not at all, and the right people can answer in a single word. There is only one rule, good manners, and one punishment, instant expulsion and permanent blocking.

I'm on a British group for the bicycles of a distinguished maker. The moderator allows huge latitude but nastiness is immediately privately quashed. The informational content of the average post is very, very high by the wretched standards of RBT (it's not unusual for my posts on this small group to have a readers in six figures). I see no reason whatsoever to believe RBT can improve its utility to cyclists until the decent people gang up to put the bullies down the moment they reveal their vicious characters, as I put down the jumped-up librarian Carl Vogel. There's a reason RBT is a mickey mouse group, and its name is Frank Krygowski.

The difference between anti-social scum like Krygowski (and the moral shortass John B) and Jobst Brandt is that Jobst was fair. As an example, he admitted his guilt when I found a mathematical error in his excellent book The Wheel. By contrast, one of the thugs here at the time, whom I called Jimbo, was disgusted that anyone with the nous and the cojones to take on Jobst on his own subject could let Jobst off with a mere promise to address the issue in the next edition of the book. Jumbo, a self-declared metals expert, wanted me to ride Jobst forever about it. It didn't seem to have occurred to Jimbo that a printed correction was all that was required, or that his public letter demanding that I hound Jobst about it ad infinitum rejected badly on the group -- and on him.

I cringe when I hear Krygowski and the other scum putting themselves up as spokesmen for bicycles and bicycling. They do a great deal of harm and zero good to the future of cycling. Who would want to ride with such trailer park trash?

Andre Jute
"Andre is never more brutal than he has to be." -- Nelson Mandela

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:59:57 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
<ralph@invalid.com> wrote:

>John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:24:13 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/2/2021 5:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
>>>> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
>>>> By the way, nice change of topic.
>>>
>>> Jobst did not suffer fools gladly.
>>>
>>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>>> to consider the following:
>>>
>>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>>> difference.” ? Author Unknown
>>
>> King James edition Proverbs 26:4
>> "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
>> him."
>
>So why do you do it?

King James edition John 8:32

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:59:57 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> <ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:24:13 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/2/2021 5:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
>>>>> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
>>>>> By the way, nice change of topic.
>>>>
>>>> Jobst did not suffer fools gladly.
>>>>
>>>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>>>> to consider the following:
>>>>
>>>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>>>> difference.” ? Author Unknown
>>>
>>> King James edition Proverbs 26:4
>>> "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
>>> him."
>>
>> So why do you do it?
>
> King James edition John 8:32
>
> And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Yeah, tell me how that’s working out.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 00:35:30 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
<ralph@invalid.com> wrote:

>John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:59:57 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>> <ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:24:13 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/2/2021 5:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
>>>>>> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
>>>>>> By the way, nice change of topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jobst did not suffer fools gladly.
>>>>>
>>>>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>>>>> to consider the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> ?Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>>>>> difference.? ? Author Unknown
>>>>
>>>> King James edition Proverbs 26:4
>>>> "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
>>>> him."
>>>
>>> So why do you do it?
>>
>> He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her John 8:32
>>
>> And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
>
>Yeah, tell me how that’s working out.

And just prior to the above statement he said, (again the King James
version) "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
stone...".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 3:46:37 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 12:11:51 AM UTC+1, cycl...@ wrote:
> > I continually try make friends with the few nut cases here (with the exception of John B who is far too far gone) but it doesn't appear to be working.
> .
> You may have to wait for hell to freeze over. I have been on RBT for a dozen years or so, and I cannot remember a single day on which Krygowski and the scum he enables by his viciousness did not attempt to put someone's blood on the carpet.
>
> I have other groups to which I can compare the sulphurous atmosphere on RBT. I ran a group called ROBUST for writers and readers who weren't snowflakes, where aspiring members were warned that it was a space where anything you could say would not be punished for being politically incorrect or even aggressive or abrasive to another member They were also explicitly warned that the mods would not protect them against extravagantly competent wordsmiths replying in kind, plus interest. It was the politest group you ever saw!
>
> I conceived and helped to found and now run a group of c27,000 members on Facebook which is immensely active, immensely useful to the members, and immensely popular, still growing by leaps and bounds. This huge group takes five minutes a day for administration because I've devised a question that the wrong sorts will invariably answer wrong or not at all, and the right people can answer in a single word. There is only one rule, good manners, and one punishment, instant expulsion and permanent blocking.
>
> I'm on a British group for the bicycles of a distinguished maker. The moderator allows huge latitude but nastiness is immediately privately quashed. The informational content of the average post is very, very high by the wretched standards of RBT (it's not unusual for my posts on this small group to have a readers in six figures). I see no reason whatsoever to believe RBT can improve its utility to cyclists until the decent people gang up to put the bullies down the moment they reveal their vicious characters, as I put down the jumped-up librarian Carl Vogel. There's a reason RBT is a mickey mouse group, and its name is Frank Krygowski.
>
> The difference between anti-social scum like Krygowski (and the moral shortass John B) and Jobst Brandt is that Jobst was fair. As an example, he admitted his guilt when I found a mathematical error in his excellent book The Wheel. By contrast, one of the thugs here at the time, whom I called Jimbo, was disgusted that anyone with the nous and the cojones to take on Jobst on his own subject could let Jobst off with a mere promise to address the issue in the next edition of the book. Jumbo, a self-declared metals expert, wanted me to ride Jobst forever about it. It didn't seem to have occurred to Jimbo that a printed correction was all that was required, or that his public letter demanding that I hound Jobst about it ad infinitum rejected badly on the group -- and on him.
>
> I cringe when I hear Krygowski and the other scum putting themselves up as spokesmen for bicycles and bicycling. They do a great deal of harm and zero good to the future of cycling. Who would want to ride with such trailer park trash?

Well, I suppose that everything that needed to be said about Frank was said when he complained about my incompetence at building bikes when in the last ten years he can't site a single thing he has done. He can't site one single product that he has worked on. When I showed an entire line of products I designed and programmed no one had anything to say. It was easy to see that they were all my designs since after I designed the first keyboard program, it was such a pain in the butt that I used the same keyboard on all of my designs.

Franky tells me he was so competent at his job that he only held the one. But he doesn't cite a single product he ever worked on.

He is nothing more than a flea on the back of a camel.

On 7/3/2021 3:12 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 5:05:54 PM UTC-7, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 16:11:49 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jobst and I used to get into it but over disagreement more of style than substance.
>> Perhaps it might be interesting to read what Jobst thought of Tom.
>> From Dec 2005:
>>
>> "Re: Tom Kunich is a ass"
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Bdcrb3q1i9w>
>> "I thought we had gotten over him, now that we
>> have other contributors who are equally rude
>> and obnoxious, always carping while offering
>> no useful information. A few names come to mind."
>> Jobst Brandt
>>
>> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
>> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
>> By the way, nice change of topic.
>
> Jeff, what are you proposing that you have added to the group?

Jeff's added tons of technical content, much of which I believe few of
us have known.

And don't forget, he's given you free consultation time on your resume.
(It's not his fault that you're still unemployed.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 18:59:24 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 3:46:37 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 3, 2021 at 12:11:51 AM UTC+1, cycl...@ wrote:
>> > I continually try make friends with the few nut cases here (with the exception of John B who is far too far gone) but it doesn't appear to be working.
>> .
>> You may have to wait for hell to freeze over. I have been on RBT for a dozen years or so, and I cannot remember a single day on which Krygowski and the scum he enables by his viciousness did not attempt to put someone's blood on the carpet.
>>
>> I have other groups to which I can compare the sulphurous atmosphere on RBT. I ran a group called ROBUST for writers and readers who weren't snowflakes, where aspiring members were warned that it was a space where anything you could say would not be punished for being politically incorrect or even aggressive or abrasive to another member They were also explicitly warned that the mods would not protect them against extravagantly competent wordsmiths replying in kind, plus interest. It was the politest group you ever saw!
>>
>> I conceived and helped to found and now run a group of c27,000 members on Facebook which is immensely active, immensely useful to the members, and immensely popular, still growing by leaps and bounds. This huge group takes five minutes a day for administration because I've devised a question that the wrong sorts will invariably answer wrong or not at all, and the right people can answer in a single word. There is only one rule, good manners, and one punishment, instant expulsion and permanent blocking.
>>
>> I'm on a British group for the bicycles of a distinguished maker. The moderator allows huge latitude but nastiness is immediately privately quashed. The informational content of the average post is very, very high by the wretched standards of RBT (it's not unusual for my posts on this small group to have a readers in six figures). I see no reason whatsoever to believe RBT can improve its utility to cyclists until the decent people gang up to put the bullies down the moment they reveal their vicious characters, as I put down the jumped-up librarian Carl Vogel. There's a reason RBT is a mickey mouse group, and its name is Frank Krygowski.
>>
>> The difference between anti-social scum like Krygowski (and the moral shortass John B) and Jobst Brandt is that Jobst was fair. As an example, he admitted his guilt when I found a mathematical error in his excellent book The Wheel. By contrast, one of the thugs here at the time, whom I called Jimbo, was disgusted that anyone with the nous and the cojones to take on Jobst on his own subject could let Jobst off with a mere promise to address the issue in the next edition of the book. Jumbo, a self-declared metals expert, wanted me to ride Jobst forever about it. It didn't seem to have occurred to Jimbo that a printed correction was all that was required, or that his public letter demanding that I hound Jobst about it ad infinitum rejected badly on the group -- and on him.
>>
>> I cringe when I hear Krygowski and the other scum putting themselves up as spokesmen for bicycles and bicycling. They do a great deal of harm and zero good to the future of cycling. Who would want to ride with such trailer park trash?
>
>Well, I suppose that everything that needed to be said about Frank was said when he complained about my incompetence at building bikes when in the last ten years he can't site a single thing he has done. He can't site one single product that he has worked on. When I showed an entire line of products I designed and programmed no one had anything to say. It was easy to see that they were all my designs since after I designed the first keyboard program, it was such a pain in the butt that I used the same keyboard on all of my designs.
>
>Franky tells me he was so competent at his job that he only held the one. But he doesn't cite a single product he ever worked on.
>
>He is nothing more than a flea on the back of a camel.

Nice going Tommy. But all Frank has done is, quite simply, read your
posts and comment on what you have said and for the past month or so
you have posted sob story after sob story about how you bought this or
that and it don't work.

I can't comment on Franks's bicycle building but in the past few years
I have rebuilt 4 bicycle's and strange as it may seem have never had a
problem with bottom brackets that won't fit and cables that are
impossible to insert and all your other problems. Nor have I ever
bought a bicycle part that didn't fit the bike I bought it for.

As for your unsupported claims to fame?

Well, you bragged for a couple of days about your 20 BPM pulse rate
and then on day 3 it suddenly rose to 59 (was it). So (1) You
basically didn't know what you were talking about, or (2) you
underwent some miraculous cure and, as it might be described, and on
the third day you arose from the dead, or (3) you were just lying
about it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>Jeff, what are you proposing that you have added to the group?

Pointing out your lies, fabrications and mistakes while offering
corrections, analysis and explanations. It's a tough job, but someone
has to do it. No need to thank me.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 21:59:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Jeff's added tons of technical content, much of which I believe few of
>us have known.

Thanks, but you're being too generous. Much of what I find
interesting is no longer of interest to the group. For example, I
joined R.B.T. a few years ago to continue a discussion on bicycle
lighting from another newsgroup. That's still my primary interest. As
for the actual bicycle, the current discusions seem to be centered
around very expensive high end bicycles and not the mundane affordable
machines with which I'm somewhat familiar. If I've provided any
technical content, it's not about the present topics of discussion,
the intricacies of building or maintaining very expensive machines.

>And don't forget, he's given you free consultation time on your resume.
>(It's not his fault that you're still unemployed.)

Well, not exactly, I provided a short list of inconsistancies and
errors I found in Tom's resume. I was very busy at the time so I
offered to continue in a few days. I planned to do it via email as
I'm sure the group would not be interested. A day later, Tom lost his
patience and unloaded his chronic frustrations on me:

<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/_Y1MbXuzvNo/m/yzMUyoSvAgAJ>
"I'm glad you liked your job but don't criticize mine
or my requirements. YOU don't like my writing? Fuck you.
And if I have the bad enough luck to meet you I will
emphasis that directly in your face."

That was sufficient for me to withdraw my promise of helping Tom with
his resume and do something else. In a way, I'm glad he did that
because I was overloaded at the time and probably could not have spent
much time massaging his resume. What little I did for Tom was mostly
to point out problems that would have been obvious. To his credit,
Tom did make some correction.

Incidentally, I closed my LinkedIn.com account, where Tom and I both
posted our resumes. The problem was a 2nd massive security breach,
both times by exploiting holes in the LinkedIn API. Fortunately, no
passwords were leaked. Apparently, LinkedIn doesn't care much about
securing user information:
<https://9to5mac.com/2021/06/29/linkedin-breach/>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>
> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
> to consider the following:
>
> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
> difference.” ― Author Unknown

Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or blacks and giving them rights? People different than himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow.

Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I and many others simply provide facts. Is that an argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up different positions and then provide facts or relevant material to support their side of the argument. He who has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.

Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is that an argument? I say no.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 00:35:30 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> <ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:59:57 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>>> <ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:24:13 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/2/2021 5:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
>>>>>>> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
>>>>>>> By the way, nice change of topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jobst did not suffer fools gladly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>>>>>> to consider the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>>>>>> difference.? ? Author Unknown
>>>>>
>>>>> King James edition Proverbs 26:4
>>>>> "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
>>>>> him."
>>>>
>>>> So why do you do it?
>>>
>>> He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her John 8:32
>>>
>>> And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
>>
>> Yeah, tell me how that’s working out.
>
> And just prior to the above statement he said, (again the King James
> version) "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
> stone...".

I’m not completely without sin, but I feel I’m sin free enough to chuck a
handful of gravel at you.

"And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."

Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.

On 7/4/2021 2:43 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 00:35:30 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>> <ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:59:57 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>>>> <ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:24:13 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7/2/2021 5:05 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There seems to be some disagreements as to the substance of Tom's
>>>>>>>> contributions. Not much has changed in the last 15 years.
>>>>>>>> By the way, nice change of topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jobst did not suffer fools gladly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>>>>>>> to consider the following:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>>>>>>> difference.? ? Author Unknown
>>>>>>
>>>>>> King James edition Proverbs 26:4
>>>>>> "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto
>>>>>> him."
>>>>>
>>>>> So why do you do it?
>>>>
>>>> He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her John 8:32
>>>>
>>>> And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
>>>
>>> Yeah, tell me how that’s working out.
>>
>> And just prior to the above statement he said, (again the King James
>> version) "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
>> stone...".
>
> I’m not completely without sin, but I feel I’m sin free enough to chuck a
> handful of gravel at you.

:-) I like that. I plan to re-use it.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/4/2021 7:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>
> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor...

What an odd claim! Have you not looked at data on costs and outcomes?

> ... because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.

The evidence against your argument is the health care system of France.
Or Britain. Or Canada. Or Switzerland. Or Germany. Or Estonia. Or
Norway. Or ... well, there are too many to list. Almost all of which, at
least in "developed" countries, have lower costs and better outcomes
than the U.S. "system."

The U.S. "system" of health does have its good points. It has many more
CEOs and upper managers of medical corporations pulling in truly
astonishing money, more than any person could rationally spend in a
lifetime. And it employs huge armies of insurance functionaries, with
many of them professionally trained to find ways to deny medical claims.

In those aspects, it's a charitable endeavor or "make work" project for
graduates from the bottom half of Business Administration programs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/4/2021 2:42 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>
>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>> to consider the following:
>>
>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>> difference.” ― Author Unknown
>
> Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or blacks and giving them rights? People different than himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow.
>
> Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I and many others simply provide facts. Is that an argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up different positions and then provide facts or relevant material to support their side of the argument. He who has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
>
> Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is that an argument? I say no.

Interesting point.

What would happen to a society in which countering outright lies was
forbidden or harshly discouraged? Nothing good, certainly.

It might even become the sort of hell where a reality show TV grifter
got elected to high office.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/4/2021 1:42 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>
>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom, they may want
>> to consider the following:
>>
>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the
>> difference.” ― Author Unknown
>
> Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or blacks and giving them rights? People different than himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow.
>
> Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I and many others simply provide facts. Is that an argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up different positions and then provide facts or relevant material to support their side of the argument. He who has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
>
> Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is that an argument? I say no.
>

Nice conservative straw man you got there.
Beat him up again please.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 7/4/2021 6:02 AM, William Crowell wrote:
> "And providing health care to people? How dare they propose something so unchristian. Wow."
>
> Russell, you forgot that there is no free lunch. There is no evidence that providing health care to people who can't afford it is a charitable endeavor because, in order to pay for it, taxes have to be raised on those who can just barely afford to buy their own health insurance, to the point where they can no longer afford to buy it. So you're saying that an unemployed person is more deserving than someone who's employed, which is a logical non-starter. By doing so, you're removing any incentive for people to work and buy their own health insurance, a decidedly uncharitable act. And don't say, "tax the rich". ("Don't tax you; don't tax me; tax that man behind the tree!") You can't tax them enough to pay for poor peoples' health insurance. Nobody "deserves" health insurance at others' expense. It is extremely expensive and there is nobody else who can pay for it without creating terribly dysfunctional economic disincentives.
>

+1

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 7/4/2021 10:23 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 2:42 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Friday, July 2, 2021 at 9:24:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
>>>
>>> But those individuals here that delight in attacking Tom,
>>> they may want
>>> to consider the following:
>>>
>>> “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to
>>> tell the
>>> difference.” ― Author Unknown
>>
>> Unknown saying now ascribed to Proverbs and the book of
>> John. How dare anyone use the teachings of the Bible to
>> contradict Republicans. Imagine Jesus Christ (the
>> foundation of Christianity) being good to Mexicans or
>> blacks and giving them rights? People different than
>> himself. Different being non caucasian skinny white man
>> as he is portrayed in USA christianity. And imagine Jesus
>> Christ feeding the poor with something like SNAP, food
>> stamps? He would want to eliminate it. Like a certain
>> political party. And giving money, charity, to unemployed
>> people? Unimaginable. And providing health care to
>> people? How dare they propose something so unchristian.
>> Wow.
>>
>> Now regarding arguing with a fool. I would disagree it is
>> an argument. Tom just states very obvious lies. And I
>> and many others simply provide facts. Is that an
>> argument? Arguments usually have sides that take up
>> different positions and then provide facts or relevant
>> material to support their side of the argument. He who
>> has the best, most persuasive support, wins. But Tom
>> never ever supports his lies. He just lies and makes up
>> nonsensical words. So I don't think anyone is arguing
>> with Tom. Just correcting his lies and nonsense.
>>
>> Similar to someone who is 500 pounds and lays in bed all
>> the time. He says he is skinny and athletic. You simply
>> state the obvious and factually contradict his words. Is
>> that an argument? I say no.
>
> Interesting point.
>
> What would happen to a society in which countering outright
> lies was forbidden or harshly discouraged? Nothing good,
> certainly.
>
> It might even become the sort of hell where a reality show
> TV grifter got elected to high office.
>

well, here we are:

https://www.waynedupree.com/2021/06/biden-worsst-blunder-yet/

And he's repeated it with almost no pushback (sigh). The
crap flows all day every day.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971