Text 23515, 100 rader
Skriven 2015-04-15 23:45:58 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 23503 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Fidonews Vol 32 no 15 Page: 4
=====================================
 On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Joe Delahaye:

 MvdV> In this particular case, their was plenty of reason to supsect 
 MvdV> that the information that Roy was "OK" was wrong.

 MvdV> 1) He stopped posting.

yeah, and i've gone for a year or more without posting... so what? no one came
looking for me...

 MvdV> 2) We knew tha he had cancer, terminal cancer.

no we didn't... this was not public knowledge... if it had been, certainly some
would have tried to use it against him but the arguments and fighting with him
kept on as they always had...

 MvdV> 3) He did not respond to e-mailand to phone calls.

i didn't either when i was away for a year plus... so what??

 MvdV> 4) His mailer went off-line

all of my mailers go offline from time to time... they certainly did more than
once in the year+ that i was "away"... no one tried to even bother about
finding out what happened to me during that time so all of these arguments are
pure crap and bullshit...

 MvdV> That were some pretty strong indications that Roy was not "OK". 

and yet it took direct confrontation with me to bring out some parts of why i
was gone for a time and responding as angrily as i was... yet, roy got none of
that... i guess being an asshole make one more special??

 MV>> Or so she says. But why should we believe her? Anyway, the "he
 MV>> will be back" was her own addition. Or at least according to her
 MV>> own statement. Which you may or not believe to be fact.

 JD> So given the information she had,

 MvdV> Claims to have had....

phuck off...

 JD> would you not have come to the same conclusion?  I certainly would
 JD> have.

 MvdV> I certainly would not have accepted it at face value.

because why? you're the almighty scientist who doesn't accept anything without
absolute proof? guess what... your proof isn't always as absolute or clean as
you desire it to be...

 MV>> Then we have a serious cultural difference. Again. Here ignorance
 MV>> is no excuse. False info is false info. If you buy a stolen car
 MV>> from someone and sell it again, it is fencing. Period. You don't
 MV>> get away with claiming the person who sold you the car told you
 MV>> it was not stolen.

 JD> Why is that?  I the  timeline is off by a week or so, and is mis
 JD> remembered does it make the information false?
 JD> The only thing that would be wrong, would be the timeline.

 MvdV> Roy had already been given up by the doctors in October.

proof? this was not public knowledge... roy certainly didn't post about it
anywhere... at best one might take certain changes in his posting habits and
formats into account but there was nothing forewarning about the end...

 MvdV> Only a pathologial optimist would label that as "OK". So even if 
 MvdV> the timeline was not of by a week but by many month, it still 
 MvdV> does not scan.

apparently you've been mislead again... perhaps you might try painting with a
different paint? or maybe smoking something new?

 MV>> If what you say is true - and I am not prepaired to take your
 MV>> word for it - it means that we can never trust info coming your
 MV>> side because if it turns out to be wrong, you guys can always get
 MV>> away with claiming that you were misinformed.

 JD> Notice I said 'seem to think differently'  It does not mean at all
 JD> what you write however.  You have this affinity of always wanting
 JD> concrete proof before you believe anything.

 MvdV> And this incident once again confirms that startegy is a good
 MvdV> strategy. 

not...

 JD>  hat is not always possible.

 MvdV> In that case, I keep an open mind and defer any conclusions. 

riiiiight... an open mind wouldn't question the possibility of life after death
or reincarnation or even the possibilty of life on other worlds... you've
questioned at least two of those three within the last few weeks...

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)