Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Is Fogel's SpuScientism more like Scientology or like ChristianScience?

Started by Andre Jute · · Last activity · 39 posts · 1,035 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
6 March 2008
Last activity
21 March 2008
Original author
Andre Jute
Posts
39
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,035
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 39
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Quoted message said:

    Dear Ed,


    ....

    Quoted message said:

    I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
    are unwilling to admit it


    ....

    Quoted message said:

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel

    Dear Carl,

    Those of us with scientific training are starting to dread these
    letters of yours containing the words "I'm starting to suspect" as the
    start of another embarrassing witch-hunt in your long history of
    bullying.

    Ed Pirrero didn't "make up a nonsensical claim". Mr Pirrero
    postulated, he posited, he hypothesized, he speculated, he guessed --
    take your pick. Among gentlemen and among scientists the assumption is
    that those who disagree with Mr Pirrero will now help him specify,
    fund and conduct a study to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Note
    that in true science, as distinct from the spurious scientism you
    adhere to, dear Carl, proving or disproving the hypothesis is equally
    desirable: the kudos go to the person with the brains and the
    imagination to offer a potential solution encapsulated in the
    hypothesis, not to the kneejerk reflexes of the automatic naysayers.

    You're not offering help, dear Carl. Far from it. You're calling Mr
    Pirrero a liar because he dares further the work of science. It is
    what the Spanish Inquisition once did, and in the same sinisterly
    insinuating travesty of socialized manners that you use: "Please
    permit us show you the instruments." (1)

    If you do not understand how science works, dear Carl, for instance if
    your parents apprenticed you to a bricklayer to be his hod carrier, we
    can understand and make allowances, though it must be said that if you
    were paying attention on RBT you would long since have learned what I
    am sharing with you now merely from the interplay of good minds from
    various disciplines. If your parents paid for an education, they
    should ask for the tuition back, because your education failed to
    inculcate you with the difference between proper scientific method and
    its many mimics among the polemical faiths and heresies. (This matter
    is so serious that, if your parents are dead, they should demand the
    return of the tuition they paid in an urgent ouijagram.)

    Once could be an accident. But you have now made this sort of mistake
    too many times to overlook. People are starting to wonder where
    between Ron L Hubbard's Scientology and Mary Baker Eddy's Christian
    Science they should place Fogel SpuScientism. That's embarrassing for
    the rest of us. "Hey, Jute, I hear you're on a newsgroup of trick
    cyclists with that SpuScientism fellow, whatsisname, Fogel, free as
    bird of proper Popper Method. Hahaha."

    Please stop embarrassing us, Carl. I'm asking you nicely. You already
    know I'm not in the habit of asking twice.

    Flamboyantly yours,

    Andre Jute
    If you gotta pop a Popper, pick a Karl Popper. -- Hopscotch rhythm,
    LSE, the hot summer of 1968

    (1) The Inquisition didn't itself torture; it "relaxed" the accused to
    civil authorities who tortured; it was the rack and tongs of the local
    Krygo-Fogel gang the monks made such a show of exhibiting -- the
    showing of the instruments is the point where Galileo recanted. He
    wasn't the only one.

  2. Andre Jute said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dear Ed,


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
    are unwilling to admit it


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    Cheers,

    Quoted message said:

    Carl Fogel

    Dear Carl,

    Those of us with scientific training are starting to dread these
    letters of yours containing the words "I'm starting to suspect" as the
    start of another embarrassing witch-hunt in your long history of
    bullying.

    Ed Pirrero didn't "make up a nonsensical claim". Mr Pirrero
    postulated, he posited, he hypothesized, he speculated, he guessed --
    take your pick. Among gentlemen and among scientists the assumption is
    that those who disagree with Mr Pirrero will now help him specify,
    fund and conduct a study to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Note
    that in true science, as distinct from the spurious scientism you
    adhere to, dear Carl, proving or disproving the hypothesis is equally
    desirable: the kudos go to the person with the brains and the
    imagination to offer a potential solution encapsulated in the
    hypothesis, not to the kneejerk reflexes of the automatic naysayers.

    You're not offering help, dear Carl. Far from it. You're calling Mr
    Pirrero a liar because he dares further the work of science. It is
    what the Spanish Inquisition once did, and in the same sinisterly
    insinuating travesty of socialized manners that you use: "Please
    permit us show you the instruments." (1)

    If you do not understand how science works, dear Carl, for instance if
    your parents apprenticed you to a bricklayer to be his hod carrier, we
    can understand and make allowances, though it must be said that if you
    were paying attention on RBT you would long since have learned what I
    am sharing with you now merely from the interplay of good minds from
    various disciplines. If your parents paid for an education, they
    should ask for the tuition back, because your education failed to
    inculcate you with the difference between proper scientific method and
    its many mimics among the polemical faiths and heresies. (This matter
    is so serious that, if your parents are dead, they should demand the
    return of the tuition they paid in an urgent ouijagram.)

    Once could be an accident. But you have now made this sort of mistake
    too many times to overlook. People are starting to wonder where
    between Ron L Hubbard's Scientology and Mary Baker Eddy's Christian
    Science they should place Fogel SpuScientism. That's embarrassing for
    the rest of us. "Hey, Jute, I hear you're on a newsgroup of trick
    cyclists with that SpuScientism fellow, whatsisname, Fogel, free as
    bird of proper Popper Method. Hahaha."

    Please stop embarrassing us, Carl. I'm asking you nicely. You already
    know I'm not in the habit of asking twice.

    Flamboyantly yours,

    Andre Jute
    If you gotta pop a Popper, pick a Karl Popper. -- Hopscotch rhythm,
    LSE, the hot summer of 1968

    (1) The Inquisition didn't itself torture; it "relaxed" the accused to
    civil authorities who tortured; it was the rack and tongs of the local
    Krygo-Fogel gang the monks made such a show of exhibiting -- the
    showing of the instruments is the point where Galileo recanted. He
    wasn't the only one.

    Dear Dude,

    Chill.

    Sincerely,

    Larry

  3. Andre Jute said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dear Ed,


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
    are unwilling to admit it


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    Cheers,

    Quoted message said:

    Carl Fogel

    Dear Carl,

    Those of us with scientific training are starting to dread these
    letters of yours containing the words "I'm starting to suspect" as the
    start of another embarrassing witch-hunt in your long history of
    bullying.

    Ed Pirrero didn't "make up a nonsensical claim". Mr Pirrero
    postulated, he posited, he hypothesized, he speculated, he guessed --
    take your pick. Among gentlemen and among scientists the assumption is
    that those who disagree with Mr Pirrero will now help him specify,
    fund and conduct a study to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Note
    that in true science, as distinct from the spurious scientism you
    adhere to, dear Carl, proving or disproving the hypothesis is equally
    desirable: the kudos go to the person with the brains and the
    imagination to offer a potential solution encapsulated in the
    hypothesis, not to the kneejerk reflexes of the automatic naysayers.

    You're not offering help, dear Carl. Far from it. You're calling Mr
    Pirrero a liar because he dares further the work of science. It is
    what the Spanish Inquisition once did, and in the same sinisterly
    insinuating travesty of socialized manners that you use: "Please
    permit us show you the instruments." (1)

    If you do not understand how science works, dear Carl, for instance if
    your parents apprenticed you to a bricklayer to be his hod carrier, we
    can understand and make allowances, though it must be said that if you
    were paying attention on RBT you would long since have learned what I
    am sharing with you now merely from the interplay of good minds from
    various disciplines. If your parents paid for an education, they
    should ask for the tuition back, because your education failed to
    inculcate you with the difference between proper scientific method and
    its many mimics among the polemical faiths and heresies. (This matter
    is so serious that, if your parents are dead, they should demand the
    return of the tuition they paid in an urgent ouijagram.)

    Once could be an accident. But you have now made this sort of mistake
    too many times to overlook. People are starting to wonder where
    between Ron L Hubbard's Scientology and Mary Baker Eddy's Christian
    Science they should place Fogel SpuScientism. That's embarrassing for
    the rest of us. "Hey, Jute, I hear you're on a newsgroup of trick
    cyclists with that SpuScientism fellow, whatsisname, Fogel, free as
    bird of proper Popper Method. Hahaha."

    Please stop embarrassing us, Carl. I'm asking you nicely. You already
    know I'm not in the habit of asking twice.

    Flamboyantly yours,

    Andre Jute
    If you gotta pop a Popper, pick a Karl Popper. -- Hopscotch rhythm,
    LSE, the hot summer of 1968

    (1) The Inquisition didn't itself torture; it "relaxed" the accused to
    civil authorities who tortured; it was the rack and tongs of the local
    Krygo-Fogel gang the monks made such a show of exhibiting -- the
    showing of the instruments is the point where Galileo recanted. He
    wasn't the only one.

    Ah! Skewers of Fogel, done to a turn and zestfully peppered! Kudos,
    Mr. Jute.

  4. Ozark Bicycle said:
    Andre Jute said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dear Ed,


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
    are unwilling to admit it


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    Cheers,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Carl Fogel

    Quoted message said:

    Dear Carl,

    Quoted message said:

    Those of us with scientific training are starting to dread these
    letters of yours containing the words "I'm starting to suspect" as the
    start of another embarrassing witch-hunt in your long history of
    bullying.

    Quoted message said:

    Ed Pirrero didn't "make up a nonsensical claim". Mr Pirrero
    postulated, he posited, he hypothesized, he speculated, he guessed --
    take your pick. Among gentlemen and among scientists the assumption is
    that those who disagree with Mr Pirrero will now help him specify,
    fund and conduct a study to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Note
    that in true science, as distinct from the spurious scientism you
    adhere to, dear Carl, proving or disproving the hypothesis is equally
    desirable: the kudos go to the person with the brains and the
    imagination to offer a potential solution encapsulated in the
    hypothesis, not to the kneejerk reflexes of the automatic naysayers.

    Quoted message said:

    You're not offering help, dear Carl. Far from it. You're calling Mr
    Pirrero a liar because he dares further the work of science. It is
    what the Spanish Inquisition once did, and in the same sinisterly
    insinuating travesty of socialized manners that you use: "Please
    permit us show you the instruments." (1)

    Quoted message said:

    If you do not understand how science works, dear Carl, for instance if
    your parents apprenticed you to a bricklayer to be his hod carrier, we
    can understand and make allowances, though it must be said that if you
    were paying attention on RBT you would long since have learned what I
    am sharing with you now merely from the interplay of good minds from
    various disciplines. If your parents paid for an education, they
    should ask for the tuition back, because your education failed to
    inculcate you with the difference between proper scientific method and
    its many mimics among the polemical faiths and heresies. (This matter
    is so serious that, if your parents are dead, they should demand the
    return of the tuition they paid in an urgent ouijagram.)

    Quoted message said:

    Once could be an accident. But you have now made this sort of mistake
    too many times to overlook. People are starting to wonder where
    between Ron L Hubbard's Scientology and Mary Baker Eddy's Christian
    Science they should place Fogel SpuScientism. That's embarrassing for
    the rest of us. "Hey, Jute, I hear you're on a newsgroup of trick
    cyclists with that SpuScientism fellow, whatsisname, Fogel, free as
    bird of proper Popper Method. Hahaha."

    Quoted message said:

    Please stop embarrassing us, Carl. I'm asking you nicely. You already
    know I'm not in the habit of asking twice.

    Quoted message said:

    Flamboyantly yours,

    Quoted message said:

    Andre Jute
    If you gotta pop a Popper, pick a Karl Popper. -- Hopscotch rhythm,
    LSE, the hot summer of 1968

    Quoted message said:

    (1) The Inquisition didn't itself torture; it "relaxed" the accused to
    civil authorities who tortured; it was the rack and tongs of the local
    Krygo-Fogel gang the monks made such a show of exhibiting -- the
    showing of the instruments is the point where Galileo recanted. He
    wasn't the only one.

    Ah! Skewers of Fogel, done to a turn and zestfully peppered! Kudos,
    Mr. Jute.

    http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/FOOD.html

    Andre Jute
    Polymath

  5. Andre Jute said:

    On Mar 6, 10:12 pm, Ozark Bicycle

    Quoted message said:

    On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, Andre Jute <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > Dear Ed,
    ...
    > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
    > are unwilling to admit it
    ...
    > Cheers,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Carl Fogel

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dear Carl,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Those of us with scientific training are starting to dread these
    letters of yours containing the words "I'm starting to suspect" as the
    start of another embarrassing witch-hunt in your long history of
    bullying.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Ed Pirrero didn't "make up a nonsensical claim". Mr Pirrero
    postulated, he posited, he hypothesized, he speculated, he guessed --
    take your pick. Among gentlemen and among scientists the assumption is
    that those who disagree with Mr Pirrero will now help him specify,
    fund and conduct a study to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Note
    that in true science, as distinct from the spurious scientism you
    adhere to, dear Carl, proving or disproving the hypothesis is equally
    desirable: the kudos go to the person with the brains and the
    imagination to offer a potential solution encapsulated in the
    hypothesis, not to the kneejerk reflexes of the automatic naysayers.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You're not offering help, dear Carl. Far from it. You're calling Mr
    Pirrero a liar because he dares further the work of science. It is
    what the Spanish Inquisition once did, and in the same sinisterly
    insinuating travesty of socialized manners that you use: "Please
    permit us show you the instruments." (1)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you do not understand how science works, dear Carl, for instance if
    your parents apprenticed you to a bricklayer to be his hod carrier, we
    can understand and make allowances, though it must be said that if you
    were paying attention on RBT you would long since have learned what I
    am sharing with you now merely from the interplay of good minds from
    various disciplines. If your parents paid for an education, they
    should ask for the tuition back, because your education failed to
    inculcate you with the difference between proper scientific method and
    its many mimics among the polemical faiths and heresies. (This matter
    is so serious that, if your parents are dead, they should demand the
    return of the tuition they paid in an urgent ouijagram.)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Once could be an accident. But you have now made this sort of mistake
    too many times to overlook. People are starting to wonder where
    between Ron L Hubbard's Scientology and Mary Baker Eddy's Christian
    Science they should place Fogel SpuScientism. That's embarrassing for
    the rest of us. "Hey, Jute, I hear you're on a newsgroup of trick
    cyclists with that SpuScientism fellow, whatsisname, Fogel, free as
    bird of proper Popper Method. Hahaha."

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Please stop embarrassing us, Carl. I'm asking you nicely. You already
    know I'm not in the habit of asking twice.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Flamboyantly yours,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Andre Jute
    If you gotta pop a Popper, pick a Karl Popper. -- Hopscotch rhythm,
    LSE, the hot summer of 1968

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    (1) The Inquisition didn't itself torture; it "relaxed" the accused to
    civil authorities who tortured; it was the rack and tongs of the local
    Krygo-Fogel gang the monks made such a show of exhibiting -- the
    showing of the instruments is the point where Galileo recanted. He
    wasn't the only one.

    Quoted message said:

    Ah! Skewers of Fogel, done to a turn and zestfully peppered! Kudos,
    Mr. Jute.

    http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/FOOD.html

    Andre Jute
    Polymath

    Perhaps next time you can serve up Spatchcocked Fogel. Served with a
    fine Chianti, of course. ;-)

  6. Andre Jute said:

    [...]It is
    what the Spanish Inquisition once did, and in the same sinisterly
    insinuating travesty of socialized manners that you use: "Please
    permit us show you the instruments." (1)


    Soft cushions with the stuffing up one end and The Comfy Chair!

    Quoted message said:

    [...]
    (1) The Inquisition didn't itself torture; it "relaxed" the accused to
    civil authorities who tortured; it was the rack and tongs of the local
    Krygo-Fogel gang the monks made such a show of exhibiting --


    The three weapons of The Spanish Inquisition are fear, surprise, and
    ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

    Quoted message said:

    the
    showing of the instruments is the point where Galileo recanted. He
    wasn't the only one.


    I bet Galileo wasn't expecting The Spanish Inquisition!

    --
    Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
    "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

  7. Dear Dude,

    Chill.

    Sincerely,

    Larry

    Sheesh, is that immature Andre Jute still up to ranting and raving about
    Carl Fogel? It's become an obsession with the guy!

    Pat in TX

  8. "Andre Jute" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    <a lot of drivel>:

    Quoted message said:

    Creepy Carl might claim he is maintaining his dignity by these hit and
    run affairs, but his drive-by shootings, followed by a run for the
    safety of his killfile, simply demonstrate that he is a coward who is
    only too well aware that on a level playing field he will be exposed
    as a tenth-rater, not a player at all.

    <more drivel>

    Face it, you ridiculous bullfrog [1]. Fogel is ignoring you and nothing you
    say will induce him to play your silly games. Could anything twist the iron
    more deeply into your benighted soul?

    PH

    [1] Rana catesbeiana "Bullfrogs are territorial and protect their
    territories by calls, displays, chases, jump attacks, and even wrestling"
    allaboutfrogs.org

  9. Peter Howard said:

    "Andre Jute" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    <a lot of drivel>:

    Quoted message said:

    Creepy Carl might claim he is maintaining his dignity by these hit and
    run affairs, but his drive-by shootings, followed by a run for the
    safety of his killfile, simply demonstrate that he is a coward who is
    only too well aware that on a level playing field he will be exposed
    as a tenth-rater, not a player at all.

    <more drivel>

    Face it, you ridiculous bullfrog [1]. Fogel is ignoring you and nothing you
    say will induce him to play your silly games. Could anything twist the iron
    more deeply into your benighted soul?

    What makes you think Jute is seeking a reponse from Fogel? IMO, Jute
    is illustrating Fogels 'hog-nosed snake' behavior: puff up to frighten
    others and then play dead when that first tactic fails.

  10. Andre Jute said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dear Ed,


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
    are unwilling to admit it


    ...

    Quoted message said:

    Cheers,

    Quoted message said:

    Carl Fogel

    Dear Carl,

    Those of us with scientific training are starting to dread these
    letters of yours containing the words "I'm starting to suspect" as the
    start of another embarrassing witch-hunt in your long history of
    bullying.

    Ed Pirrero didn't "make up a nonsensical claim". Mr Pirrero
    postulated, he posited, he hypothesized, he speculated, he guessed --
    take your pick. Among gentlemen and among scientists the assumption is
    that those who disagree with Mr Pirrero will now help him specify,
    fund and conduct a study to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Note
    that in true science, as distinct from the spurious scientism you
    adhere to, dear Carl, proving or disproving the hypothesis is equally
    desirable: the kudos go to the person with the brains and the
    imagination to offer a potential solution encapsulated in the
    hypothesis, not to the kneejerk reflexes of the automatic naysayers.

    You're not offering help, dear Carl. Far from it. You're calling Mr
    Pirrero a liar because he dares further the work of science. It is
    what the Spanish Inquisition once did, and in the same sinisterly
    insinuating travesty of socialized manners that you use: "Please
    permit us show you the instruments." (1)

    If you do not understand how science works, dear Carl, for instance if
    your parents apprenticed you to a bricklayer to be his hod carrier, we
    can understand and make allowances, though it must be said that if you
    were paying attention on RBT you would long since have learned what I
    am sharing with you now merely from the interplay of good minds from
    various disciplines. If your parents paid for an education, they
    should ask for the tuition back, because your education failed to
    inculcate you with the difference between proper scientific method and
    its many mimics among the polemical faiths and heresies. (This matter
    is so serious that, if your parents are dead, they should demand the
    return of the tuition they paid in an urgent ouijagram.)

    Once could be an accident. But you have now made this sort of mistake
    too many times to overlook. People are starting to wonder where
    between Ron L Hubbard's Scientology and Mary Baker Eddy's Christian
    Science they should place Fogel SpuScientism. That's embarrassing for
    the rest of us. "Hey, Jute, I hear you're on a newsgroup of trick
    cyclists with that SpuScientism fellow, whatsisname, Fogel, free as
    bird of proper Popper Method. Hahaha."

    Please stop embarrassing us, Carl. I'm asking you nicely. You already
    know I'm not in the habit of asking twice.

    Flamboyantly yours,

    Andre Jute
    If you gotta pop a Popper, pick a Karl Popper. -- Hopscotch rhythm,
    LSE, the hot summer of 1968

    (1) The Inquisition didn't itself torture; it "relaxed" the accused to
    civil authorities who tortured; it was the rack and tongs of the local
    Krygo-Fogel gang the monks made such a show of exhibiting -- the
    showing of the instruments is the point where Galileo recanted. He
    wasn't the only one.

    If you dislike Carl it's perfectly OK with me. If ANYBODY dislikes
    Carl it's OK with me.

    However, I want to go on record as saying that I think Carl is a
    pretty decent and quite interesting fellow.

    OK, so maybe he is a little different but, lets face it, the truth is
    that we are ALL a little different, if you really get down to it.

    I think Carl makes a very worthwhile contribution to this group and I
    have found several of his postings to be of great interest.

    So, I give Carl Fogel a big, fat, ATTABOY !!!!!

    Kind regards.

    Lewis.

    *****

  11. Quoted message said:

    If you dislike Carl it's perfectly OK with me. If ANYBODY dislikes
    Carl it's OK with me.

    If he dropped the "dear" schtick then people would not find him so annoying.

  12. SMS said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you dislike Carl it's perfectly OK with me.  If ANYBODY dislikes
    Carl it's OK with me.

    If he dropped the "dear" schtick then people would not find him so annoying.

    Yes, the Famous Fogel Smarm. Yuck.

    Apparently, Mama Fogel taught young Carl that he could be as hostile
    and obnoxious as he pleased so long as he said "please" and "thank
    you".

  13. Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
    SMS <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you dislike Carl it's perfectly OK with me. If ANYBODY dislikes
    Carl it's OK with me.

    If he dropped the "dear" schtick then people would not find him so
    annoying.

    Are you doubting his authenticity?

  14. SMS said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you dislike Carl it's perfectly OK with me. If ANYBODY dislikes
    Carl it's OK with me.

    If he dropped the "dear" schtick then people would not find him so
    annoying.

    Well, that and the smarminess, sneakiness, dishonesty, hypocrisy,
    mean-spiritedness, cowardice...

    Bill "for starters" S.

  15. Sandy said:

    Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
    SMS <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you dislike Carl it's perfectly OK with me. If ANYBODY dislikes
    Carl it's OK with me.

    If he dropped the "dear" schtick then people would not find him so
    annoying.

    Are you doubting his authenticity?

    LOL

    Carl is a /genuine/ [censored].

  16. Bill Sornson said:
    Sandy said:

    Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
    SMS <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > If you dislike Carl it's perfectly OK with me.  If ANYBODY dislikes
    > Carl it's OK with me.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If he dropped the "dear" schtick then people would not find him so
    annoying.

    Quoted message said:

    Are you doubting his authenticity?

    LOL

    Carl is a /genuine/ [censored].

    Albeit a [censored] with ED. ;-)

  17. Ozark Bicycle said:
    Bill Sornson said:
    Sandy said:

    Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
    SMS <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
    > [email hidden] wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> If you dislike Carl it's perfectly OK with me.  If ANYBODY dislikes
    >> Carl it's OK with me.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > If he dropped the "dear" schtick then people would not find him so
    > annoying.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Are you doubting his authenticity?

    Quoted message said:

    LOL

    Quoted message said:

    Carl is a /genuine/ [censored].

    Albeit a [censored] with ED. ;-)- Hide quoted text -

    I'm pretty sure he's a [censored] most all the time. Not just with me.

    🙂

    E.P.

  18. Andre Jute said:
    Quoted message said:

    On Mar 6, 4:45 pm, Andre Jute <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote:
    > Dear Ed,
    ...
    > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
    > are unwilling to admit it
    ...
    > Cheers,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Carl Fogel

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dear Carl,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Those of us with scientific training are starting to dread these
    letters of yours containing the words "I'm starting to suspect" as the
    start of another embarrassing witch-hunt in your long history of
    bullying.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Ed Pirrero didn't "make up a nonsensical claim". Mr Pirrero
    postulated, he posited, he hypothesized, he speculated, he guessed --
    take your pick. Among gentlemen and among scientists the assumption is
    that those who disagree with Mr Pirrero will now help him specify,
    fund and conduct a study to prove or disprove the hypothesis. Note
    that in true science, as distinct from the spurious scientism you
    adhere to, dear Carl, proving or disproving the hypothesis is equally
    desirable: the kudos go to the person with the brains and the
    imagination to offer a potential solution encapsulated in the
    hypothesis, not to the kneejerk reflexes of the automatic naysayers.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You're not offering help, dear Carl. Far from it. You're calling Mr
    Pirrero a liar because he dares further the work of science. It is
    what the Spanish Inquisition once did, and in the same sinisterly
    insinuating travesty of socialized manners that you use: "Please
    permit us show you the instruments." (1)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If you do not understand how science works, dear Carl, for instance if
    your parents apprenticed you to a bricklayer to be his hod carrier, we
    can understand and make allowances, though it must be said that if you
    were paying attention on RBT you would long since have learned what I
    am sharing with you now merely from the interplay of good minds from
    various disciplines. If your parents paid for an education, they
    should ask for the tuition back, because your education failed to
    inculcate you with the difference between proper scientific method and
    its many mimics among the polemical faiths and heresies. (This matter
    is so serious that, if your parents are dead, they should demand the
    return of the tuition they paid in an urgent ouijagram.)

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Once could be an accident. But you have now made this sort of mistake
    too many times to overlook. People are starting to wonder where
    between Ron L Hubbard's Scientology and Mary Baker Eddy's Christian
    Science they should place Fogel SpuScientism. That's embarrassing for
    the rest of us. "Hey, Jute, I hear you're on a newsgroup of trick
    cyclists with that SpuScientism fellow, whatsisname, Fogel, free as
    bird of proper Popper Method. Hahaha."

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Please stop embarrassing us, Carl. I'm asking you nicely. You already
    know I'm not in the habit of asking twice.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Flamboyantly yours,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Andre Jute
    If you gotta pop a Popper, pick a Karl Popper. -- Hopscotch rhythm,
    LSE, the hot summer of 1968

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    (1) The Inquisition didn't itself torture; it "relaxed" the accused to
    civil authorities who tortured; it was the rack and tongs of the local
    Krygo-Fogel gang the monks made such a show of exhibiting -- the
    showing of the instruments is the point where Galileo recanted. He
    wasn't the only one.

    Quoted message said:

    Dear Dude,

    Quoted message said:

    Chill.

    Quoted message said:

    Sincerely,

    Quoted message said:

    Larry

    Who're you talking to, Larry, Galileo or me? I imagine that righteous
    Signor Galilei is plenty cool already. And I'm a Calvinist; my place
    in all the coolest places was reserved at birth, so I don't need to
    chill, ever. It looks like you're talking to neither of us. Aaah! I
    get it. You're telling Carl Fogel to chill. Brill. I love you for your
    compassion for the lost and the ugly. -- Andre Jute- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    You, you pompous twit.

    cheers,

    Larry

  19. On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:12:43 GMT, "Peter Howard"
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    [---]

    Quoted message said:

    Face it, you ridiculous bullfrog [1].

    In view of his claimed high-speed downhill sprint behind a delivery
    van, Toad of Toad Hall also comes to mind.

    Quoted message said:

    Fogel is ignoring you

    And not only Fogel ...

  20. Ozark Bicycle said:
    Peter Howard said:

    "Andre Jute" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    <a lot of drivel>:

    Reprinted below so interested parties can judge whether it is I who
    speak drivel or Peter Howard from Big Brother.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Creepy Carl might claim he is maintaining his dignity by these hit and
    run affairs, but his drive-by shootings, followed by a run for the
    safety of his killfile, simply demonstrate that he is a coward who is
    only too well aware that on a level playing field he will be exposed
    as a tenth-rater, not a player at all.

    Quoted message said:

    <more drivel>

    Quoted message said:

    Face it, you ridiculous bullfrog [1]. Fogel is ignoring you and nothing you
    say will induce him to play your silly games. Could anything twist the iron
    more deeply into your benighted soul?

    What makes you think Jute is seeking a reponse from Fogel? IMO, Jute
    is illustrating Fogels 'hog-nosed snake' behavior: puff up to frighten
    others and then play dead when that first tactic fails.

    I don't read what Peter Howard writes. He follows me from newsgroup to
    newsgroup; apparently his life's quest is proving I'm not as good as
    he is. He's some kind of never-has-been, never-can-be wannabe-writer
    who thinks that if he proves I'm unworthy, he'll be as good as my
    forty or so books.
    members.lycos.co.ukTHE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
    Won't happen, of course. Poor hopelessly untalented sods like Howie
    are forlornly familiar figures to all published writers.

    You've already passed judgement on what use poor Howie is: little
    Howie thinks he's abusing me but all he's doing is making my point
    that Creepy Carl Fogel is a coward who has run away yet again. He's
    too dully predictable to waste time on.

    But the hognose snake is an interesting connection. I was watching the
    David Attenborough series about reptiles, the programme about snakes
    in particular, and when I saw this pignosed slithering creature hiding
    in water, I was reminded (a synapse clicked!) that Creepy Carl Fogel
    is entitled to another tankful of slurry over the next few years for
    the impertinence of trying to assassinate my character. Imagine my
    surprise when I started looking for a cause, found it in Creepy Carl's
    slitheringly insincere letter to Ed P., and a few posts further on,
    there was the snake I thought of already as my property! Such
    coincidences are not supposed to happen to a novelist; one of the
    handful of editors who influenced my outlook as a novelist, John
    Blackwell at Secker & Warburg, was an easygoing fellow in the pub but
    absolutely dead set against coincidence, which he considered the very
    devil's work, a dereliction of duty well beyond mere storytelling
    laziness. Calculating the odds of two posters with bicycles in common
    thinking at the same time about how much Creepy Carl Fogel resembles a
    pork-snouted snake renowned for its bluster and cowardice, even if the
    calculation were not bedeviled by chaos theory, will probably be a
    fraught process, and no one will be happy with the result, so I'll
    just state it as an order of magnitudes: 10^??? -- that should be
    vague enough for eveyone!

    Andre Jute
    A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
    ("Saki"😉(1870-1916)

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.