Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Todays rant
Date: 3 Jun 2025 14:04:43 GMT
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <ma8dnrF9ri5U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <vjckja$1klr9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vjcr1f$1mp9t$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjcut2$1m78i$3@dont-email.me>
 <vjd208$1o18h$4@dont-email.me>
 <vjent1$253ke$2@dont-email.me>
 <vjepiu$25d06$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjf7rm$253ke$4@dont-email.me>
 <vjfep1$2te9j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjfs30$30hcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <Dm3%P.355044$%uk3.202223@fx10.iad>
 <101ivd4$2nld9$4@dont-email.me>
 <ma55l1Fomq6U1@mid.individual.net>
 <3lhr3kpdgobli9eu2bor349st8u7o7cemd@4ax.com>
 <101lp2h$3pbdl$2@dont-email.me>
 <v93t3kl39nvapbdmhfqtgs6051n2v73lhh@4ax.com>
 <101muf1$3b3h4$3@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net yWBDUVO2nGCsVfq7DpNbKARedXkPKlwTi2x8etS/O0N1nUiEQB
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AH1G/GR8OkVLKZWBXep1U2dqRbk= sha1:Zi+3Ja1xUJENwvy15PNsNE5ZGF8= sha256:I0JEkWG7XRc0mLrr79sXcgE1hVu6KDTDiarY28bgYMY=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.6 (iPad)

Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/3/2025 2:19 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 23:10:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/2/2025 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>>>> On 2 Jun 2025 08:28:17 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/2025 5:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu Dec 12 18:37:02 2024 Frank Krygowski  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the
>>>>>>>>>>> act, not the hardware.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> To a certain extent.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a
>>>>>>>>>> device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be
>>>>>>>>>> possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level
>>>>>>>> of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his
>>>>>>>> AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need
>>>>>>>> it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced
>>>>>>>> holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better.
>>>>>>>> Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reason
>>>>>>>>>> therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully- operational m134
>>>>>>>>>> minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never
>>>>>>>>>> been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a
>>>>>>>>>> security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor
>>>>>>>>>> and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent
>>>>>>>>>> behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people
>>>>>>>>>> with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Well, you could.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own NFA tax
>>>>>>>>> stamp,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such
>>>>>>>> a gun to kill other people.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video
>>>>>>>> games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices
>>>>>>>> designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tell me Frank, what does it feel like for the law itself to disagree with you?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Damn, Tom, what does it feel like to have to resurrect arguments from
>>>>>> December 12 to feel good about yourself? Have you been constantly
>>>>>> stewing over that for almost six months?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suspect in this case it’s incompetence rather than deliberate!
>>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>> 
>>>> The 6 month delay is not Tom's incompetence or malice.  Tom is using
>>>> newshosting.com as his Usenet News service and his news reader
>>>> program:
>>>> <https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
>>>> I tried it...
>>> 
>>> It's nice of you to be kind, but I don't think the bad newsreader
>>> excuses Tom's incompetence. If we can tell he's responding to a 6 month
>>> old thread, Tom ought to be able to tell.
>> 
>> I'm not being kind.  I'm being honest.
>> 
>> Tom can probably tell when he's doing something wrong.  
> 
> IMHO I don't believe that to be the case. There is a delusion at work 
> here, I don't believe he actually can discern between the truth and his 
> fantastic inventions.

It’s Confabulation he has enough reasons for causes.
> 
>> It's not just
>> responding to an ancient posting in rec.bicycles.tech.  He also
>> ignores his copious typing errors.  He invents amazing facts and
>> numbers out of thin air.  When challenged, he tries to substantiate
>> his amazing facts with difficult to verify ancient postings.  When
>> that fails, he puts words into other peoples mouths, claims that they
>> said something ridiculous, and continues to "prove" his original
>> amazing facts.  When that doesn't work, he resorts to repetition,
>> resurrecting an old amazing fact and repeats the process.  To do all
>> that, he has to know what he's doing.  In some cases, the mistakes are
>> not intentional, such as the typing errors, which might be from
>> intoxication or peripheral neuropathy.  These mistakes might not be
>> intentional, but leaving them uncorrected is probably malicious and
>> intentional.
>> 
>> Do you see a pattern here?  To Tom, what is important is NOT whether
>> something is true, can be verified, makes sense, is logical, etc.  In
>> other words, all the necessary components of a fact.  What is
>> important to Tom is that the information, right or wrong, came from
>> Tom as the sole source and authority.  If Tom said it, it must be true
>> and correct, even if he invented it.  
> 
> This goes to my point above. He believes what he says is the truth 
> regardless of any evidence to the contrary. In that, I don't believe he 
> is capable of knowing what he is doing is wrong.
> 
Having experienced it to some degree to one it is true takes time to regain
insight, its in my case the brain trying to make best guesses out of
available information and likely to be the case with him as well.

>> If Tom makes or ignores a mess,
>> such as responding to an old thread and ignoring obvious errors, he's
>> doing it because all the lies and mistakes can be directly
>> attributable to Tom.  Something like:
>> "Hey world.  Look at me.  I did all this by myself".
>> When he can't get it right, he just changes the topic to something
>> he's more familiar with.  When he doesn't know what to say, he just
>> invents something or writes something incoherent.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
Roger Merriman