An Open Letter to Curt Olson

[legoboyvdlp]

And then, why do you call him King Curt or Emperor Curt, and such?

[IAHM-COL]

and you took that as he is my superior?

[legoboyvdlp]

I apologize for what looks to me as a rather cross message. There was no need to write it.

[KL-666]

I gave Curt the opening to step down from his false accusation without loosing face. But he wishes to persist instead of doing the honourable thing. Now i have to scale him down from heavy weight debater to mediocre weight. He has the cunning but not the honour.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Legoboy, this is the reason, KL-666 warned you to be naive about the heavy weights.

Well, this would be a real party, seeing Curt proving, that his use of Stuart has no behavioral similarities with Eichmann's defense in his war criminal trial. See, I can prove, I haven't said what he claimed I have said, so what he did was slander. On the other hand, I can prove by hundreds of posts, Stuart acted in a similar manner and even defended himself in a similar manner as Eichmann did. I can also prove, based on his posts by at least enough circumstantial evidence to that he also followed similar behavioral patterns. And while it is a felony to accuse someone of wrongfully accusing another person of a crime, it is no crime to call someone "Emperor". The funny part would be only the label "ballless" ... so, if he is willing to pack evidence on the table, I pay the $50 from what he has to pay in compensation for accusing me of "pretense of a felony", which technically the "child abuse" twist was.
My suggestion for you, Legoboy, is, that you read very careful, very very careful. Because those little things with words work only if you know what you do.

[Octal450]

I repeat this: Curt has not been the offender. It was Stuart and bugman who banned us. However, that doesn't bother me so much, since we are unbanned. However it is bugman who kept coming up with fiction stories, about the whole thing. In fact, falcon offered the server before he even knew I got banned. I will write to bugman, and discuss this, and maybe we can finish this once and for all. I am not the type to hold grudges, as some of you know, so I will try to work this out, in the mean time, please not more fighting/personal attacks/etc, since you are only making FreeFlight and FGMEMBERS look bad and argumentative. Until we know bugmans side of the story, please not accusations.

Regards,

[Lydiot]

I can prove by hundreds of posts, Stuart acted in a similar manner and even defended himself in a similar manner as Eichmann did. I can also prove, based on his posts by at least enough circumstantial evidence to that he also followed similar behavioral patterns.

The only reason one makes comparisons is to either illustrate how something doesn't hold up to scrutiny, such as a principle applied in two different contexts to illustrate how it's context-dependent, or one does it to illustrate how two things are the same or very similar in essence.

In the above case there's simply no reason to bring a Nazi into the comparison unless there's some merit to choosing a Nazi specifically. So, it's not entirely unreasonable to view your comparison as an indictment of him as engaging in Nazi manners.

To say that it's counter-productive and unbecoming of you to make this comparison is an understatement.

[jwocky]

@Lydiot:

The reason to make comparisons is to show similarities. If people would make more such comparisons, history wouldn't repeat over and over again. The interesting point in the Eichmann comparison is, that Eichmann did bad things and justified them by "he followed only orders", which, according to his defence, cleared him of all responsibility. Stuart claims, he follows only rules ... means basically standing orders, someone else made. Which in the basic mechanism is the very same thing.
The comparison in question only has one drawback, that is, that people tend to see only the Nazis, not the mechanism and the brave little political corrects don't speak about them anymore, thinking, they can silence the past by just suppressing it. Which is what many people like to do with many subjects. Silence the uncomfy things by telling someone else "it is unbecoming to you to mention this or that". Like JWocky, don't mention the Nazis, it is unbecoming, like X, don't mention FGMEMBERS, it is unbecoming, like Y, don't mention TerraGit, it is unbecoming, like Z, don't mention bubble neighborhoods, it is unbecoming. Basically, it is just suppressing the truth for the political correctness and therefore, I won't go down that road.

J.

[KL-666]

I respect Jwockys way of doing things, even though i would not always do things the same way. Jwocky does things very straightforward following rules of reasoning which i can follow. I think on the other hand that without compromise you will never get anywhere with someone thinking different. So even if if i think someone is wrong, i still might try to find compromise with them. Yet i also respect Jwockys uncompromising ways. We are just different people. And i do not think i can convince Jwocky quickly of my way of doing (and vice versa).

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

@Vincent,

how boring would it be if we would be all the same personality! So,you are you, I am me. And once, we get in a situation, we have to talk about technical compromises, you will find, I am not always uncompromising. In technical matters, there is always more than one way to skin a cat. However, to get there, the necessary prerequisites have to be given and to me, that means, truth is truth, equality is equality and open means actually open. Everything else ... yeah, in some things, I am uncompromising, you got me there.