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

[Andre Jute]

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear Ed,
....
> I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> are unwilling to admit it
....
> 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.

[larrylikesthecircus@yahoo.com]

On Mar 6, 4:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Dear Ed,
> ...
> > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > are unwilling to admit it
> ...
> > 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.

Dear Dude,

Chill.


Sincerely,

Larry

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 6, 3:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Dear Ed,
> ...
> > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > are unwilling to admit it
> ...
> > 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.

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

[Tom Sherman]

Andre Jute wrote:
> [...]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!

> [...]
> (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.

> 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"

[limeylew@gmail.com]

On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Dear Ed,
> ...
> > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > are unwilling to admit it
> ...
> > 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.

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.

*****

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 13:45:48 -0800 (PST), Andre Jute <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote:


Dear Jute,

are you still pestering your betters on the interwebs?

So what's the deal now, are you designing the cycling equivalent of single-ended
triodes for the few who can afford your work?

Do you have a website full of descriptions of pipe-dream products for "sale,"
yet? Still? Again?

Pimping for review samples? Again? Still?

Have your delusions driven you to believe that this area of human endeavor is
somehow suffering for want of your prose stylings?

Or are you just scouting around for some dispute you might join to exercise your
bile ducts?

While there is certainly some symmetry and justice in a battle of pedantic
pissery between yourself and Carl, there are plenty of people already here ready
to answer Carl on the actual physics. One must assume your knowledge of cycling
is comparable to your knowledge of amplifier design. Which means there's no
reason in the world for you to be typing the word "science" in this context. You
surely cannot claim that Carl is the leader of some "mob" dominating this forum.
So what's your excuse now ?

Ron

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 6, 9:50*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 6, 4:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Dear Ed,
> > ...
> > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > are unwilling to admit it
> > ...
> > > 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.
>
> Dear Dude,
>
> Chill.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> 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

[Pat]

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

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 6, 10:12*pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Dear Ed,
> > ...
> > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > are unwilling to admit it
> > ...
> > > 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.
>
> 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

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 6, 7:38*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 10:12*pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
>
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 3:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Dear Ed,
> > > ...
> > > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > > are unwilling to admit it
> > > ...
> > > > 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.
>
> > 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. ;-)

[larrylikesthecircus@yahoo.com]

On Mar 6, 8:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 9:50*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 4:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Dear Ed,
> > > ...
> > > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > > are unwilling to admit it
> > > ...
> > > > 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.
>
> > Dear Dude,
>
> > Chill.
>
> > Sincerely,
>
> > 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

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 7, 3:16*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > [...]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!
>
> > [...]
> > (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.

You mean the fool Krygowski tilting at windmills to defend Fogel while
Fogel skulks in a cowardly sulk? One does wonder precisely how foolish
Krygo is; his intelligence might correlate closely with howmuch time
passes before he decides it is time to stop taking beating for Creepy
Carl.

Actually, it would be interesting to hear Fogel defend these swingeing
assaults be makes on people's reputations for what appears the most
bizarre of reasons. For instance, does anyone with longer experience
than mine of Fogel truly believe that he understands the scientific
principles which proceed by discussion and hypothesis and test and
analysis, not by abuse and calling people liars as if enquiry is some
kind of an adversarial court with Creepy Carl as the hanging judge,
and the venal jury, and the crooked prosecution, all rolled into one.

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.

> > 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!

These guys were major psychologists. The Galileo business took months
or possibly years to play out. He was before church courts of enquiry
(frightening enough to be questioned in search of heretical believes
-- note, not statements, just beliefs, which needn't even be
expressed... anyone for "flamboyance"?) several times. It was
understood that they signalled their impatience by having the
Dominicans "show Galileo the instruments".

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

Tom, what is Holstein-Friesland Bovinia? Surely you don't have a whole
country or region as shrine to cows? Or "dinners", as I taught the
wife of a Swiss banker to say when she irritated me with a constant
stream of "Oh, look at the cows, look at the cows. Hello cows!" I said
to her, "No, in the local English, once you have fingerspitzengefuhl
for the vernacular, the patois, you will inderstand that we say one
cow, many dinners." After which, every time she saw a herd of cows,
she shouted out, "Hello dinners." On another occasion, when she
insisted on playing her accordion in a hitherto respectable pub, I
said to her husband (a business associate of thirty years standing),
"Herman, you are a rich man. You don't even have to do it yourself,
you can hire someone to kill her." And he replied darkly, "Don't think
I haven't thought of it."

And here's my original heads-up to Creepy Carl:

****
<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear Ed,
...
> I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> are unwilling to admit it
...
> 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.

****

[Tom Sherman]

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Mar 7, 3:16 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> [...]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!
>>
>>> [...]
>>> (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.
>
> You mean the fool Krygowski tilting at windmills to defend Fogel while
> Fogel skulks in a cowardly sulk? One does wonder precisely how foolish
> Krygo is; his intelligence might correlate closely with howmuch time
> passes before he decides it is time to stop taking beating for Creepy
> Carl.
>
> Actually, it would be interesting to hear Fogel defend these swingeing
> assaults be makes on people's reputations for what appears the most
> bizarre of reasons. For instance, does anyone with longer experience
> than mine of Fogel truly believe that he understands the scientific
> principles which proceed by discussion and hypothesis and test and
> analysis, not by abuse and calling people liars as if enquiry is some
> kind of an adversarial court with Creepy Carl as the hanging judge,
> and the venal jury, and the crooked prosecution, all rolled into one.
>
> 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.
>
>>> 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!
>
> These guys were major psychologists. The Galileo business took months
> or possibly years to play out. He was before church courts of enquiry
> (frightening enough to be questioned in search of heretical believes
> -- note, not statements, just beliefs, which needn't even be
> expressed... anyone for "flamboyance"?) several times. It was
> understood that they signalled their impatience by having the
> Dominicans "show Galileo the instruments".
>
Playing the straight man?
See <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZQI0Xm29To> and
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56ZZzz4meU>.

>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"
>
> Tom, what is Holstein-Friesland Bovinia? Surely you don't have a whole
> country or region as shrine to cows?
>
Here is an event that takes place on the grounds of the state capitol
(aka Andrew Muzi's photo back-drop for bicycle portraits):
<http://www.danecountydairy.com/dairycows>.

The dairy cow is the official "domestic animal", and almost all of the
dairy cows are Holstein-Friesians:
<http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/nature/state/domestic.htm>.

> Or "dinners", as I taught the
> wife of a Swiss banker to say when she irritated me with a constant
> stream of "Oh, look at the cows, look at the cows. Hello cows!"

The pastures here are usually occupied by black and white cows. As a
child (living next to a dairy farm) I thought all dairy cows were
Holstein-Friesians.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Peter Howard]

"Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b46d6b27-3d40-4ab7-8fcf-8fbb4e62b337@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

<a lot of drivel>:

>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

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 7, 5:09*am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 3:16 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> [...]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!
>
> >>> [...]
> >>> (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.
>
> > You mean the fool Krygowski tilting at windmills to defend Fogel while
> > Fogel skulks in a cowardly sulk? One does wonder precisely how foolish
> > Krygo is; his intelligence might correlate closely with howmuch time
> > passes before he decides it is time to stop taking beating for Creepy
> > Carl.
>
> > Actually, it would be interesting to hear Fogel defend these swingeing
> > assaults be makes on people's reputations for what appears the most
> > bizarre of reasons. For instance, does anyone with longer experience
> > than mine of Fogel truly believe that he understands the scientific
> > principles which proceed by discussion and hypothesis and test and
> > analysis, not by abuse and calling people liars as if enquiry is some
> > kind of an adversarial court with Creepy Carl as the hanging judge,
> > and the venal jury, and the crooked prosecution, all rolled into one.
>
> > 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.
>
> >>> 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!
>
> > These guys were major psychologists. The Galileo business took months
> > or possibly years to play out. He was before church courts of enquiry
> > (frightening enough to be questioned in search of heretical believes
> > -- note, not statements, just beliefs, which needn't even be
> > expressed... anyone for "flamboyance"?) several times. It was
> > understood that they signalled their impatience by having the
> > Dominicans "show Galileo the instruments".
>
> Playing the straight man?

Not at all. There was no television in South Africa. We listened to
The Goon Show on the radio. By the time Monty Python came along, I was
working a 100+ week to keep my employees fully employed and paid. I
didn't have time to watch television, except at for seeing my own ads
when I went up to accept prizes for my teams' work. I still don't
"watch television" in the sense of slobbing in front of it. Stuff is
recorded for me and I watch it and then go back to work.
> See <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZQI0Xm29To> and
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F56ZZzz4meU>.
Super references. Very funny.

> >> --
> >> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> >> "I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"
>
> > Tom, what is Holstein-Friesland Bovinia? Surely you don't have a whole
> > country or region as shrine to cows?
>
> Here is an event that takes place on the grounds of the state capitol
> (aka Andrew Muzi's photo back-drop for bicycle portraits):
> <http://www.danecountydairy.com/dairycows>.

Oh, gee, you do. Forget that I asked!
>
> The dairy cow is the official "domestic animal", and almost all of the
> dairy cows are Holstein-Friesians:
> <http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/nature/state/domestic.htm>.

I understand. It wouldn't be polite to explain to me in public about
the "Bovinia". We have it here too, except we call it European Common
Agricultural Policy or Creuzfeldt-Jacob for short.

> > Or "dinners", as I taught the
> > wife of a Swiss banker to say when she irritated me with a constant
> > stream of "Oh, look at the cows, look at the cows. Hello cows!"
>
> The pastures here are usually occupied by black and white cows. As a
> child (living next to a dairy farm) I thought all dairy cows were
> Holstein-Friesians.

I grew up among ostriches; I rode them in races. I kept a baboon, and
a whole menagerie of snakes of various sizes, and a family of owls in
the hay loft over the stable block, and a pair of ghosts in the
windowseats of a garden-room my mother used as a sewing room, and a
white rat bigger than a cat, and a when Immigration at Heathrow tried
to stop my chimpanzee travelling with me, I was amazed at their
stupidity. "He doesn't have a passport. He's like a child, travelling
on mine. And damnit, don't say 'quarntine' so loudly -- he's
sensitive!" They thought I was weird enough to be dangerous and let
both of us into the country. That was when terrorism was something
that happened to other people on the other side of the world.

> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Andre Jute
Even my piranha were well-behaved: the only person they ever ate was a
tax collector

[Tom Sherman]

Andre Jute wrote:
> On Mar 7, 5:09 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Andre Jute wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Tom, what is Holstein-Friesland Bovinia? Surely you don't have a whole
>>> country or region as shrine to cows?
>> Here is an event that takes place on the grounds of the state capitol
>> (aka Andrew Muzi's photo back-drop for bicycle portraits):
>> <http://www.danecountydairy.com/dairycows>.
>
> Oh, gee, you do. Forget that I asked!

Check out the slogan on the vehicle license plates:
<http://www.worldlicenceplates.com/usa/US_WIXX.html>.

1942 version:
<http://members.aol.com/ww2jeep4u/LicensePlatesWWII/1942Wisconsin.jpg>.

>> The dairy cow is the official "domestic animal", and almost all of the
>> dairy cows are Holstein-Friesians:
>> <http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/eek/nature/state/domestic.htm>.
>
Dairy cows are only eaten when they stop producing milk.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 7, 9:12*am, "Peter Howard" <bbrover...@bbbigpond.net.au> wrote:
> "Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b46d6b27-3d40-4ab7-8fcf-8fbb4e62b337@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> <a lot of drivel>:
>
> >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.

[Andrew Price]

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:12:43 GMT, "Peter Howard"
<bbrover109@bbbigpond.net.au> wrote:

[---]

>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.

>Fogel is ignoring you

And not only Fogel ...

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 7, 4:30*pm, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 9:12*am, "Peter Howard" <bbrover...@bbbigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > "Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <a lot of drivel>:

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

> > >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.

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.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%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)

[SMS]

limeylew@gmail.com wrote:

> 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.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 7, 5:04*pm, "limey...@gmail.com" <limey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Dear Ed,
> > ...
> > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > are unwilling to admit it
> > ...
> > > 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.
>
> 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.

Including the ones where Creepy Carl Fogel falsely accuses someone of
lying? If you're such a fan, you must have noticed that Creepy Carl
makes rather a nasty little habit of it. And you must also have
noticed that at the slightest resistance, Creepy Carl dives into his
hole and pulls it in after him. That defines not only a bully but a
coward and a liar.

Don't you think that if Creepy Carl were a "pretty decent ...
fellow" (your words, not mine), he would at least apologize for
telling a lie he cannot prove, instead of just running away and
letting his evil stand?

I repeat, this is iterated behaviour; it has been seen so many times
that for the rest of us it defines Creepy Carl Fogel as immoral scum.

> So, I give Carl Fogel a big, fat, *ATTABOY !!!!!
>
> Kind regards.
>
> Lewis.
>
> *****

It's a free country, Lewis. You're entitled to your opinion. Thanks
for stating it in a courteous manner.

Andre Jute
I wonder if Creepy Carl has ever taken the Hare Test

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 7, 11:51*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> limey...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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".

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:47d17ffe$0$36394$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 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?

[Bill Sornson]

SMS wrote:
> limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 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.

[Tom Sherman]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> On Mar 7, 11:51 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> limey...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> 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...

Peggy?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:06:22 -0800 (PST), Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatelier@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:

>On Mar 7, 11:51*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> limey...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > 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".

How can there be any question when Carl is and is not sincere in his
salutations. It's not "smarmy" it is smartassed.

It's his schtick. I know it drives you freeking nuts, which is why it's
rewarding. Do keep encouraging Jute, please. You have an entirely new interweb
level of smarm and insincerity to discover.

Ron

[Bill Sornson]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de news:47d17ffe$0$36394$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>> limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> 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/ prick.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <47d184ea$0$17326$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Sandy" <leurrre@free.fr> wrote:

> Dans le message de news:47d17ffe$0$36394$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > limeylew@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> 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?

Certain paranoid mental disorders render the sufferers unable to process
normal human interactions in a sensible fashion. They literally don't
understand social graces, and depending on the disorder may make
paranoid assumptions about even the most benign actions.

It's frankly amazing what social conventions can be taken up. I would
refer you to the favored form of friendly personal address in
rec.bicycles.racing...

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Mar 7, 12:29*pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> Sandy wrote:
> > Dans le message denews:47d17ffe$0$36394$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
> > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> >> limey...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> 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/ prick.

Albeit a prick with ED. ;-)

[Ed Pirrero]

On Mar 7, 10:50*am, Ozark Bicycle
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:29*pm, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sandy wrote:
> > > Dans le message denews:47d17ffe$0$36394$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net,
> > > SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> > >> limey...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >>> 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/ prick.
>
> Albeit a prick with ED. ;-)- Hide quoted text -

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

:)

E.P.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 7, 7:20*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 6, 8:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 9:50*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 4:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > Dear Ed,
> > > > ...
> > > > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > > > are unwilling to admit it
> > > > ...
> > > > > 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.
>
> > > Dear Dude,
>
> > > Chill.
>
> > > Sincerely,
>
> > > 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

No, no, dear Larry. When in rage we stutter incoherently, we don't
render the result with a comma but with an ellipse as in "You...
you... pompous twit."

But I can't be pompous. I already told you so. Read my post again. It
is this sentence you want: "And I'm a Calvinist; my place in all the
coolest places was reserved at birth, so I don't need to chill, ever."
Predestination delivers one from the temptation of pomposity.

Anyhow, this thread is about the crimes of Carl Fogel. Do you think
Creepy Carl's betrayal of the Proper Popper Principle deserves to rank
up there with L Ron Hubbard's greedy wittering, or should we take the
scumbag at his own account and accord him the dignity of a fat lady
like Mrs Eddy Baker of the Church of Jesus, Scientist?

HTH.

Andre Jute
A little smugness is of course not ruled out. -- Amherst Villiers,
master mechanic

[Andre Jute]

Andre Jute wrote:
> Reprinted below

Just for the record. Forgot the first time round. -- AJ

On Mar 7, 9:46*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 4:30*pm, Ozark Bicycle
>
> <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 9:12*am, "Peter Howard" <bbrover...@bbbigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > > "Andre Jute" <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <a lot of drivel>:
>
> Reprinted below so interested parties can judge whether it is I who
> speak drivel or Peter Howard from Big Brother.
>
> > > >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.
>
> 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.http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%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)

<carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:

> Dear Ed,
...
> I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> are unwilling to admit it
...
> 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.

[larrylikesthecircus@yahoo.com]

On Mar 7, 5:04*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 7:20*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 6, 8:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 9:50*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 4:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Dear Ed,
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > > > > are unwilling to admit it
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > Dear Dude,
>
> > > > Chill.
>
> > > > Sincerely,
>
> > > > 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
>
> No, no, dear Larry. When in rage we stutter incoherently, we don't
> render the result with a comma but with an ellipse as in "You...
> you... pompous twit."
>
> But I can't be pompous. I already told you so. Read my post again. It
> is this sentence you want: "And I'm a Calvinist; my place in all the
> coolest places was reserved at birth, so I don't need to chill, ever."
> Predestination delivers one from the temptation of pomposity.
>
> Anyhow, this thread is about the crimes of Carl Fogel. Do you think
> Creepy Carl's betrayal of the Proper Popper Principle deserves to rank
> up there with L Ron Hubbard's greedy wittering, or should we take the
> scumbag at his own account and accord him the dignity of a fat lady
> like Mrs Eddy Baker of the Church of Jesus, Scientist?
>
> HTH.
>
> Andre Jute
> A little smugness is of course not ruled out. -- Amherst Villiers,
> master mechanic- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Andre,

Perhaps not pompous, but certainly a twit.

Regards,

Larry

[Ron Ruff]

Andre Jute wrote:
> 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.

Bully? Not something I would ever accuse Carl of...

> 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.

Actually Ed did indeed make a nonsensical claim. It didn't pass the
basic test of logical self-contradiction... no need for further study.
Carl may not be a scientist, but he has many of the traits of a good
one... ie he is curious, he appreciates the truth, and... most
importantly... he can *think*. He is also polite... and when he is
shown to be wrong, he readily admits.

[Andre Jute]

On Mar 8, 9:05*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 7, 5:04*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 7:20*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 6, 8:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 9:50*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 6, 4:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Dear Ed,
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > > > > > are unwilling to admit it
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > Dear Dude,
>
> > > > > Chill.
>
> > > > > Sincerely,
>
> > > > > 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
>
> > No, no, dear Larry. When in rage we stutter incoherently, we don't
> > render the result with a comma but with an ellipse as in "You...
> > you... pompous twit."
>
> > But I can't be pompous. I already told you so. Read my post again. It
> > is this sentence you want: "And I'm a Calvinist; my place in all the
> > coolest places was reserved at birth, so I don't need to chill, ever."
> > Predestination delivers one from the temptation of pomposity.
>
> > Anyhow, this thread is about the crimes of Carl Fogel. Do you think
> > Creepy Carl's betrayal of the Proper Popper Principle deserves to rank
> > up there with L Ron Hubbard's greedy wittering, or should we take the
> > scumbag at his own account and accord him the dignity of a fat lady
> > like Mrs Eddy Baker of the Church of Jesus, Scientist?
>
> > HTH.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > A little smugness is of course not ruled out. -- Amherst Villiers,
> > master mechanic- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Andre,
>
> Perhaps not pompous, but certainly a twit.
>
> Regards,
>
> Larry

I don't understand why you should think I'm a twit, Larry. Did you
administer the Scientology IQ test to me and discover I failed? I
would be the first, wouldn't I? "Hello, is the Guinness Book of
Records?"

So, Larry, not that we've outed you as a Scientologist, what about
your fellow-travellers in the Krygo-Fogel Centipede? Are they too
hangers-on of the L. Ron? It will come as no surprise, considering the
mindlessness of their arguments in the helmet debate. I'm still trying
to find out if Creepy Carl is a Scientologist or a Christian Scientist
or just a fool pretending to spurious scientific method.

Andre Jute
I took the Scientology IQ test once. The rated me *lower* than my real
IQ as taken by competent professionals! "Hello, is the Guinness Book
of Records?"

[Jay Beattie]

On Mar 8, 5:40*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:05*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 5:04*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 7, 7:20*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 6, 8:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 6, 9:50*pm, larrylikesthecir...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 6, 4:45*pm, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Dear Ed,
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > I'm beginning to suspect that you just made up a nonsensical claim and
> > > > > > > > are unwilling to admit it
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > 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.
>
> > > > > > Dear Dude,
>
> > > > > > Chill.
>
> > > > > > Sincerely,
>
> > > > > > 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
>
> > > No, no, dear Larry. When in rage we stutter incoherently, we don't
> > > render the result with a comma but with an ellipse as in "You...
> > > you... pompous twit."
>
> > > But I can't be pompous. I already told you so. Read my post again. It
> > > is this sentence you want: "And I'm a Calvinist; my place in all the
> > > coolest places was reserved at birth, so I don't need to chill, ever."
> > > Predestination delivers one from the temptation of pomposity.
>
> > > Anyhow, this thread is about the crimes of Carl Fogel. Do you think
> > > Creepy Carl's betrayal of the Proper Popper Principle deserves to rank
> > > up there with L Ron Hubbard's greedy wittering, or should we take the
> > > scumbag at his own account and accord him the dignity of a fat lady
> > > like Mrs Eddy Baker of the Church of Jesus, Scientist?
>
> > > HTH.
>
> > > Andre Jute
> > > A little smugness is of course not ruled out. -- Amherst Villiers,
> > > master mechanic- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Andre,
>
> > Perhaps not pompous, but certainly a twit.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Larry
>
> I don't understand why you should think I'm a twit, Larry. Did you
> administer the Scientology IQ test to me and discover I failed? I
> would be the first, wouldn't I? "Hello, is the Guinness Book of
> Records?"
>
> So, Larry, not that we've outed you as a Scientologist, what about
> your fellow-travellers in the Krygo-Fogel Centipede? Are they too
> hangers-on of the L. Ron? It will come as no surprise, considering the
> mindlessness of their arguments in the helmet debate. I'm still trying
> to find out if Creepy Carl is a Scientologist or a Christian Scientist
> or just a fool pretending to spurious scientific method.