[OT] Whilst On The Road...

... I came across an Internet Cafe... a half-dozen or so PCs hooked
together with a 100Mbps LAN... and gatewayed (I don't know if that is an
acceptable verbing of a noun, I left my OED t'home) into a 56K modem on a
dial-up line.


Anyhow... I telnetted into this account and found that some guy had sent
me an email; I am quoting his words with his permission, which he gave
with the caveat that I should render him as close to anonymous as possible
by attributing his words to those that... some guy had emailed me.  So...


... back in April some guy emailed me.  If nothing else he reinforced my
penchant (nigh a fetish) for Internet Anonymity because he knew me only by
my email address; he wrote me the following:


--begin quoted text:

Have read both of you on cobol sites and thought that Wagner guys seems a
pain. Well three years later I have the displeasure of working with him.
He is as arrogant in the office as on the web.

--end quoted text

Such small circles I run in, aye... or maybe it is just that the Internet
makes these circles more readily available to others.  I replied with:

--begin quoted text:

Dear me... a blast from the past, both barrels!  Not, of course, that his
personality has anything to do with his technical abilities - some folks
have said that *I* am not the easiest person to get alone with, imagine
that! - but it would not be the first time a UseNet personna carried over
into the Outside World.

A side note - I'm not sure where you ran across our interactions but, as
mentioned above, they started on the UseNet in the newsgroup
comp.lang.cobol.  A couple of folks were asking about Mr Wagner just the
other day... if you could find a way to post to the newsgroup I'm sure
that they'd be interested in hearing that at least he's in good health...
if you can find a way to post to the newsgroup *anonymously* then you
might be able to give something more closely resembling your honest
opinion.

Until I have explicit permission, of course, your words - anonymous or
with full attribution - stay in my inbox.  Thanks for the note.

--end quoted text

... and then I heard nothing - and posted nothing, obviously - until early
May, when a reply came unto me, saying -

--begin quoted text:

Let me think about that post Mr. Wagner may be (and I stress MAY be) with
us three more months.  He is never wrong according to him about anything.
He and another contractor got into a 'discussion' about per diems and Mr
Wagner says he can claim per diem (tax free) even though he has not worked
in his home state in years and would not budge that he was wrong until the
other contractor got so pissed off and called the IRS confirming him wrong
and turned him in for tax evasion. Now that is pissed off.

--end quoted text

... and I thought 'Now I cannot see how *anyone* dealing with *anybody*
might *ever* get so annoyed... but I, after all, am the King of England.'
I then responded to this reply, saying -

--begin quoted text:

Yes, that sounds like the Mr Wagner who used to post here... to give
credit where due he had, at times, some sound technical basis for his
assertions... but when he had no answer or his answer was one of many his
responses could get a tad... ire-raising, if one allows the illigetimate
to carborundise... or something like that.

As I said. all of this will remain strictly confidential until such time
as you give me permission to post it; even then, as you desire, your name
will be reduced to the e'er popular 'a guy told me in email that'... but
also rest asured that some folks - petty, mean, nasty people who get a
Good Laugh over the hardships others experience, I'm sure - would bust a
gut over this.

--end quoted text

... to which... a guy told me in email that...

--begin quoted text:

get my name off when you post! PLEASE i sit close by the gentleman. oh you
are right thoogh sometimes he is on the mark and other times he is
'winging' it.

--end quoted text


... and from this I conclude that I've been given the go-ahead for what
I've posted here... and if I've concluded or posted incorrectly then I
apologise, accept full responsibility for my errors and will do whatever
is within my powers to make amends.


DD

An entertaining, if unworthy, exchange, Doc.

Richard is an easy target. :-)

Observation: It is easy to remain anonymous and denigrate people (although I
have never done it).

If 'some guy' wanted to be considered a credible source, perhaps he would
have the courage to fire his own bullets?

I'm glad that Richard is alive and well and still pissing people off...(And
before I'm asked if I would still feel that way if I ever have to work with
him, I can unequivocally state "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it"
:-))

Anyone who would turn a colleague (or anyone else) in to the IRS (no matter
how much you disliked them) is beneath contempt in my book. I would have a
fist fight with someone, lose, and STILL not turn them in. It is a covert
cowardly act, that says much more about the person who does it than the
person they are doing it to.

Please forward this response to 'some guy' and point out that I am happy to
put my name on what I write.

Even (or especially) in a public forum on the internet.

Pete.

TOP POST.

Only gossip below...:-)

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e43lsg$370$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> ... I came across an Internet Cafe... a half-dozen or so PCs hooked
> together with a 100Mbps LAN... and gatewayed (I don't know if that is an
> acceptable verbing of a noun, I left my OED t'home) into a 56K modem on a
> dial-up line.
>
>
> Anyhow... I telnetted into this account and found that some guy had sent
> me an email; I am quoting his words with his permission, which he gave
> with the caveat that I should render him as close to anonymous as possible
> by attributing his words to those that... some guy had emailed me.  So...
>
>
> ... back in April some guy emailed me.  If nothing else he reinforced my
> penchant (nigh a fetish) for Internet Anonymity because he knew me only by
> my email address; he wrote me the following:
>
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> Have read both of you on cobol sites and thought that Wagner guys seems a
> pain. Well three years later I have the displeasure of working with him.
> He is as arrogant in the office as on the web.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> Such small circles I run in, aye... or maybe it is just that the Internet
> makes these circles more readily available to others.  I replied with:
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> Dear me... a blast from the past, both barrels!  Not, of course, that his
> personality has anything to do with his technical abilities - some folks
> have said that *I* am not the easiest person to get alone with, imagine
> that! - but it would not be the first time a UseNet personna carried over
> into the Outside World.
>
> A side note - I'm not sure where you ran across our interactions but, as
> mentioned above, they started on the UseNet in the newsgroup
> comp.lang.cobol.  A couple of folks were asking about Mr Wagner just the
> other day... if you could find a way to post to the newsgroup I'm sure
> that they'd be interested in hearing that at least he's in good health...
> if you can find a way to post to the newsgroup *anonymously* then you
> might be able to give something more closely resembling your honest
> opinion.
>
> Until I have explicit permission, of course, your words - anonymous or
> with full attribution - stay in my inbox.  Thanks for the note.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> ... and then I heard nothing - and posted nothing, obviously - until early
> May, when a reply came unto me, saying -
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> Let me think about that post Mr. Wagner may be (and I stress MAY be) with
> us three more months.  He is never wrong according to him about anything.
> He and another contractor got into a 'discussion' about per diems and Mr
> Wagner says he can claim per diem (tax free) even though he has not worked
> in his home state in years and would not budge that he was wrong until the
> other contractor got so pissed off and called the IRS confirming him wrong
> and turned him in for tax evasion. Now that is pissed off.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> ... and I thought 'Now I cannot see how *anyone* dealing with *anybody*
> might *ever* get so annoyed... but I, after all, am the King of England.'
> I then responded to this reply, saying -
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> Yes, that sounds like the Mr Wagner who used to post here... to give
> credit where due he had, at times, some sound technical basis for his
> assertions... but when he had no answer or his answer was one of many his
> responses could get a tad... ire-raising, if one allows the illigetimate
> to carborundise... or something like that.
>
> As I said. all of this will remain strictly confidential until such time
> as you give me permission to post it; even then, as you desire, your name
> will be reduced to the e'er popular 'a guy told me in email that'... but
> also rest asured that some folks - petty, mean, nasty people who get a
> Good Laugh over the hardships others experience, I'm sure - would bust a
> gut over this.
>
> --end quoted text
>
> ... to which... a guy told me in email that...
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
> get my name off when you post! PLEASE i sit close by the gentleman. oh you
> are right thoogh sometimes he is on the mark and other times he is
> 'winging' it.
>
> --end quoted text
>
>
> ... and from this I conclude that I've been given the go-ahead for what
> I've posted here... and if I've concluded or posted incorrectly then I
> apologise, accept full responsibility for my errors and will do whatever
> is within my powers to make amends.
>
>
> DD
>

On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:05:33 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> enlightened us:

>
>An entertaining, if unworthy, exchange, Doc.
>
>Richard is an easy target. :-)
>

Wasn't his name Robert Wagner?  Anyway, the other guy's observation of
him in the workplace doesn't surprise me at.  Oddly I thought about
Mr. RW just the other day.  I remember having a discussion with him
about aspertamine.  He of course bought into the erroneous fact that
continued use of aspertamine caused cancer (which it did in rats
exposed to humongous amounts).  When I pointed out all the studies
that disputed that fact, he of course said they were all paid for by
the manufacture and were, therefore, worthless.  Then just this past
w or so, an independent study done by the FDA concluded that
continued use of aspertamine does not cause cancer.  If RW were still
posting here, I'm sure he say the manufacturer owns the FDA and the
study was done on humans and not rats and therefore isn't valid.


>Observation: It is easy to remain anonymous and denigrate people (although 
I
>have never done it).
>
>If 'some guy' wanted to be considered a credible source, perhaps he would
>have the courage to fire his own bullets?
>
>I'm glad that Richard is alive and well and still pissing people off...(And
>before I'm asked if I would still feel that way if I ever have to work with
>him, I can unequivocally state "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it"
>:-))
>
>Anyone who would turn a colleague (or anyone else) in to the IRS (no matter
>how much you disliked them) is beneath contempt in my book. I would have a
>fist fight with someone, lose, and STILL not turn them in. It is a covert
>cowardly act, that says much more about the person who does it than the
>person they are doing it to.
>
>Please forward this response to 'some guy' and point out that I am happy to
>put my name on what I write.
>
>Even (or especially) in a public forum on the internet.
>
>Pete.
>
>TOP POST.
>
>Only gossip below...:-)
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e43lsg$370$1@reader1.panix.com..
. 
>
>

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"I'm so unlucky that if I was to fall into a barrel of
nipples I'd come out sucking my thumb."
-- Freddie Starr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
 news:fv1c621u64nt2ubfc335ij2gsbi5s2i6bd@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:05:33 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> enlightened us:
> 
>
> Wasn't his name Robert Wagner?

Yes, thanks Steve, I had my wires crossed. Of couse it was Robert.

>Anyway, the other guy's observation of
> him in the workplace doesn't surprise me at.  Oddly I thought about
> Mr. RW just the other day.  I remember having a discussion with him
> about aspertamine.  He of course bought into the erroneous fact that
> continued use of aspertamine caused cancer (which it did in rats
> exposed to humongous amounts).  When I pointed out all the studies
> that disputed that fact, he of course said they were all paid for by
> the manufacture and were, therefore, worthless.  Then just this past
> w or so, an independent study done by the FDA concluded that
> continued use of aspertamine does not cause cancer.  If RW were still
> posting here, I'm sure he say the manufacturer owns the FDA and the
> study was done on humans and not rats and therefore isn't valid.

I'm sure you're right and he probably would say that.

Consider this though...

Whether you changed his mind or not, you were stimulated to post your
viewpoint and make a case against his argument. Many people reading here may
have been completely unaware of ANY potential problem with aspertamine.

The fact that you even thought about him recently shows that you remember
the exchanges. Are these memories that cause you discomfort? I suggest they
are not; rather you think : "Wonder what happened to that idiot I was
arguing with...?"

Did you not find some of his positions to be so way out there that they were
amusing? And what abou the times when he was right?

Given that he arrived in CLC with the stated intention of destroying it,
given that that never happened, and given that he departed when he tired of
it, I can't see where the 'bad' part of this was... :-)

So, ultimately, although exchanges may have been heated at the time, no real
harm was done. And other people reading the exchange may have learned
something.

Personally, I learned much from exchanges with Robert.

Pete.
<remainder snipped>

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Consider this though...
>
> Whether you changed his mind or not, you were stimulated to post your
> viewpoint and make a case against his argument. Many people reading
> here may have been completely unaware of ANY potential problem with
> aspertamine.

Many people are completely unaware the moon is made of green cheese, that
two plus two equals purple, or that the entire universe was created at 10:02
last night with our memories intact. Fact is, many people are unaware of
very many things that are just not so.

>
> The fact that you even thought about him recently shows that you
> remember the exchanges. Are these memories that cause you discomfort?
> I suggest they are not; rather you think : "Wonder what happened to
> that idiot I was arguing with...?"

More like: "I hope that idiot I was arguing with went to Hell with a broken
back."

>
> Did you not find some of his positions to be so way out there that
> they were amusing?

Never

> And what abou the times when he was right?

Discounted entirely by the (far more) times he was criminally wrong.

>
> Given that he arrived in CLC with the stated intention of destroying
> it, given that that never happened, and given that he departed when
> he tired of it, I can't see where the 'bad' part of this was... :-)
>
> So, ultimately, although exchanges may have been heated at the time,
> no real harm was done. And other people reading the exchange may have
> learned something.

You cannot say no harm - real or otherwise - was done. Aside from the
impossibility of proving a negative, there may have been worthy contributors
or recipients who moved on rather than subject themselves to Wagner's
vituperation. Who knows?

>
> Personally, I learned much from exchanges with Robert.

As did I, most importantly zero tolerance for pompous assholes.

"HeyBub" <heybubNOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:126dc8g4m19bl95@news.supernews.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote: 
>
> Many people are completely unaware the moon is made of green cheese, that
> two plus two equals purple, or that the entire universe was created at
> 10:02 last night with our memories intact. Fact is, many people are
> unaware of very many things that are just not so.
> 
>
> More like: "I hope that idiot I was arguing with went to Hell with a
> broken back."
> 
>
> Never
> 
>
> Discounted entirely by the (far more) times he was criminally wrong.
>

Nobody here is 'criminally' wrong, Jerry.  It's a discussion forum. Having
an opinion (even if it is presented pompously) is not a criminal offence
under any jurisdiction I am familiar with.
 
>
> You cannot say no harm - real or otherwise - was done. Aside from the
> impossibility of proving a negative, there may have been worthy
> contributors or recipients who moved on rather than subject themselves to
> Wagner's vituperation. Who knows?
>

OK.

I agree we will never know.
 
>
> As did I, most importantly zero tolerance for pompous assholes.
>

He obviously got to you.

Zero tolerance for important issues in society is one thing; for a poster to
a public forum on Usenet...?

I guess we have to disagree on this.

Pete

Posting order slightly corrected.

On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:05:33 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

Snip

><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:e43lsg$370$1@reader1.panix.com..
. 

>
>Anyone who would turn a colleague (or anyone else) in to the IRS (no matter
>how much you disliked them) is beneath contempt in my book. I would have a
>fist fight with someone, lose, and STILL not turn them in. It is a covert
>cowardly act, that says much more about the person who does it than the
>person they are doing it to.
>
Although I would normally agree with you on this situation, it is my
opinion on this particular case that reporting to the IRS was not the
issue, but more precisely the need to prove, yet again, that Mr.
Wagner was wrong. You know by know that when dealing with this person
its not enough just to stop knowing that WE are right, but instead the
continous behaviour forces us to prove it. This just happend to
require the IRS intervention to convince Mr. Wagner.

The fact that this proff requires involvement from the IRS, and that
it will impact on Mr. Wagner finances may just be the thing required
to have him state he is right less frequently.

snip remaining as not required for context.




Frederico Fonseca
ema il: frederico_fonseca at syssoft-int.com

"Frederico Fonseca" <real-email-in-msg-spam@email.com> wrote in message
 news:iu6e6298gqhumvtqkpcj22c1m6n3c9quv4@
4ax.com...
> Posting order slightly corrected.
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 02:05:33 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Snip
> 
> 
> Although I would normally agree with you on this situation, it is my
> opinion on this particular case that reporting to the IRS was not the
> issue, but more precisely the need to prove, yet again, that Mr.
> Wagner was wrong. You know by know that when dealing with this person
> its not enough just to stop knowing that WE are right, but instead the
> continous behaviour forces us to prove it. This just happend to
> require the IRS intervention to convince Mr. Wagner.
>
> The fact that this proff requires involvement from the IRS, and that
> it will impact on Mr. Wagner finances may just be the thing required
> to have him state he is right less frequently.
>

I understand your point, Frederico. I think there is some merit in it,
insofar as it may be a "correction" that is necessary. But don't you think
it is a bit drastic? So he believes he's right. So what? We all have the
right to disagree with him... and many of us did... vehemently :-)

I just don't think, personally, (and I don't think others are 'wrong' for
disagreeing), that the rightness or wrongness of someone is important enough
to do something as drastic as this.

(As you may have gathered, I am no friend of the IRS, although I am
scrupulously honest with them (they have a bigger gang than I've got :-)), I
do think they shouldn't be allowed to take as much as they do... not without
a gun, anyway... :-)).

Irrespective of how one stands on the IRS, 'ratting someone out' or 'dobbing
them in' (as we say in NZ), is behaviour that is simply beyond the pale for
me. I don't do it. Maybe because I grew up in a culture that doesn't do it,
maybe because I don't think somebody being an XXXXXXX in CLC is important
enough to cause that kind of grief. I never got wound up enough arguing with
Robert, that I would feel such a course was justified.

However, it seems there are at least two people here who disagree so I
accept that this position is not universally endorsed :-).

Pete.

On Sun, 14 May 2006 10:49:01 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> enlightened us:

>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:fv1c621u64nt2ubfc335ij2gsbi5s2i6bd@
4ax.com... 
>
>Yes, thanks Steve, I had my wires crossed. Of couse it was Robert.
> 
>
>I'm sure you're right and he probably would say that.
>
>Consider this though...
>
>Whether you changed his mind or not, you were stimulated to post your
>viewpoint and make a case against his argument. Many people reading here ma
y
>have been completely unaware of ANY potential problem with aspertamine.
>
>The fact that you even thought about him recently shows that you remember
>the exchanges. Are these memories that cause you discomfort? I suggest they
>are not; rather you think : "Wonder what happened to that idiot I was
>arguing with...?"
>

No discomfort whatsoever and I'm not sure, given the limited amount of
memory space there seems to be in my brain these days, why the
aspertamine report even triggered a memory of RW.

>Did you not find some of his positions to be so way out there that they wer
e
>amusing? And what abou the times when he was right?
>

I don't recall ever being amused by his positions.  I kept thinking he
was really just an Internet troll but not even your common, everyday
variety of troll goes to the amount of trouble he did to be so
outrageous.  Worse yet was I ignored my own thinking and got drawn
into, albeit briefly, too many exchanges with him.


>Given that he arrived in CLC with the stated intention of destroying it,
>given that that never happened, and given that he departed when he tired of
>it, I can't see where the 'bad' part of this was... :-)
>

Well, I suppose he may have driven some posters who are adamantly
opposed to OT stuff away at least temporarily.

>So, ultimately, although exchanges may have been heated at the time, no rea
l
>harm was done. And other people reading the exchange may have learned
>something.
>

That's possible as well.

>Personally, I learned much from exchanges with Robert.
>
>Pete.
><remainder snipped>
>
>
Regards,

////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-


"I'm so unlucky that if I was to fall into a barrel of
nipples I'd come out sucking my thumb."
-- Freddie Starr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
 news:fv1c621u64nt2ubfc335ij2gsbi5s2i6bd@
4ax.com...
[snip]
>  I remember having a discussion with him
> about aspertamine.

Perhaps you intended 'aspartame'.