Yes, he's clearly an idiot, but did he mix up "license" (US) and "licence" (UK) too? ; )

Oh, my spelling went transatlantic some time ago. I try not to let it bother me.

my spelling went transatlantic some time ago

Good heavens, S2 - next thing we know you'll be using an airplane to go on vacation.

It's airoplane, ignoramus.

I've officially inducted you into my new religion, the Smiters of Iniquity, as the official Recogniser of Idiots (an honorary position). I hope you don't mind :-)

In UK usage "licence" is the noun and "license" is the verb.

Yes, saying that did make me happy.

I thought it was something like that, but wasn't sure.

Glad to give you the opportunity to make yourself happy, Mrs Solent.

If he guy was referring to the "technical" definition of idiot as follows:

"A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers"

Then he would be correct. However, the normally-used definition is merely "a foolish or stupid person", so obviously you don't need to have a special degree to be able to measure one's idiocy!

On another note, I don't particularly like Cassingham's attitude in general. Try actually reasoning with this guy when you have a difference of opinion, and you'll see that his tactics devolve into a series of name-calling. I don't think there's enough space available here for me to show you the entire email thread I had with him, but I think your eyes would be opened if you saw it. I think he cherry-picks the emails that offer opposing viewpoints that are poorly argued ON PURPOSE so he can blast away at them and make him look better. He won't publish the ones that offer good points to the contrary. I don't remember him ever admitting a mistake.

If anyone is interested, let me know and I can email you the entire thread.

He runs an email list about stupid people doing stupid things. Why on Earth should he publish examples of people being intelligent?

I had an email echange with him just recently, and he didn't call me any names.

> I don't remember him ever admitting a mistake.

Yeah, that's why he has a permanent errata page on his site.

Squander: when you emailed him, did you disagree with any of his points? And when I refer to "admitting a mistake", I'm not just talking about typos and stuff like that.

And as for your comment about why he should publish examples of people being intelligent, he isn't JUST publishing a list of stupid things done by stupid people. What he's doing is basically social commentary.

For example, one of his stories was about a printed newsletter or brochure in Canada that was loaded with mistakes. He referred to them as "Spelling errors", and made a negative comment about Canadian schools (and using a slang word that is often considered a slur in the process). I pointed out that you could tell that these were obviously TYPOS, which has nothing to do with the Canadian educational system. Instead of debating this assertion like an ADULT, he followed with a series of snide comments and insults. I was appalled at his lack of debating skills, given that he is an attorney.

So his entire conclusion, which was his "social commentary" about Canadian schools, was false given the facts presented. He should have acted like a MAN and, if not admit his mistake, at least defend it through reasonable means.

To me, his whole newsletter is a forum for him to show his "superiority" over everyone else. If you don't agree with his point of view, you're immediately "stupid."

You know, I had some pertinent replies to that all typed out, then realised I just couldn't be bothered. I think I can see why Cassingham might have called you "stupid".

Squander, I see that you seem to be of the same bent as Randy Cassingham. You don't want to "bother" debating the points I brought up, so instead you called me "stupid". Is that constructive? You really have no idea if I am "stupid" or not. Maybe I'm even more intelligent than you -- who really knows? But this really shouldn't be about who is smarter than who. That's what my beef is with Randy.

So, if you really want to debate my comments with your "pertinent replies", go right ahead. I wouldn't mind discussing this with you further.

> You don't want to "bother" debating the points I brought up, so instead you called me "stupid".

No, no, no. I don't want to bother debating the points you brought up, and I called you stupid. There's no "instead": the one isn't a substitute for the other. I could have done both.

The world would be a much better place if people didn't have the attitude that you and Mr. Cassingham have. So, did it make you feel better to call me "stupid"? What exactly did you accomplish by this? Maybe some day you'll grow up and act like an adult, because right now you're acting like a 10-year old on the playground.

By the way, there are many levels of intelligence. Only one of them is being able to write coherent sentences.

> What exactly did you accomplish by this?

I made a point that I knew would go right over your head. And it did.

So that's how you interact with someone? I don't think any "points" you made went right over my head, because you really haven't made any noteworthy points, expressed or implied.

Yes, you could have debated my points and called me stupid at the same time. So what? How is this even constructive? I guess you don't really care about being constructive, so I guess I WAY overestimated your intellectual capacity.

Go back and read the last sentence I wrote in my previous post. It most definitely applies to you. You couldn't even understand that Cassingham's newsletter is social commentary. You thought that it was just an "email list about stupid people doing stupid things." Clearly you cannot think and reason enough to understand that there's more to his newsletter than just a bunch of stories.

I read your homepage here, and I can see from your own words that you thrive on pissing people off. That's just pathetic, really.

> I don't think any "points" you made went right over my head, because you really haven't made any noteworthy points, expressed or implied.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. And you think I haven't accomplished anything.

No, you really haven't. The only thing you've done is proven to the world that you're a rude individual. Congratulations for that. Good luck finding a job with an attitude like yours (your main page indicated that you're looking for work). I hope prospective employers read this thread and see what kind of person you might be like to work with. If I were looking to hire somebody, I wouldn't touch the likes of you with a 10-foot pole. I guess I'm lucky that I work with a good group of people who actually engage in a free exchange of ideas. Maybe you should try that sometime. Although, since you probably work from home doing freelance, the inter-personal stuff probably doesn't matter as much in your line of work. Hmmmmm....maybe that's WHY you work in that kind of environment -- because nobody wants to work side-by-side with someone like you.

I think I'm done with you now.

A few points, 'cause I've got a couple of minutes:

Don't know where you got your "technical definition" of idiot, but the word was around in English long before anyone wrote that bollocks. I could come up with a new technical definition of tomato if I wanted. Wouldn't override the existing meaning.

Cassingham regularly publishes cogent, intelligent comments from people who disagree with him. I've read them. The debates in the True Stella Awards newsletter are particularly good.

His errata page usually only contains typos, because they're usually the only errors — there's not a lot of scope for misreporting when you're reprinting stories from other sources and checking the sources first. However, he has issued corrections in the past when a detail of a story has turned out to be incorrect. I've read them, too.

Obviously, his stuff is social commentary — he says as much regularly. So what? The newsletter is his, and he can publish whatever he likes in it, whether it's about silly everyday events or nuclear proliferation. He has no obligation or duty to print your emails. Similarly, if you have such a problem with him, you can buy some webspace and write about him there, and you don't have to publish any comments from him.

Furthermore, he writes for a living, and he has figured out what type of content gets him the most subscribers. If he doesn't think your email exchange is profitable, he won't publish, even if he likes it. He's not a state-run public enquiry or something.

This blog, conversely, is my hobby, run entirely for my own entertainment and benefit at my own expense. I have no duty to you; I have no duty to be constructive by your estimation. Like Cassingham, I don't have to publish any of your comments, and could delete them all right now if I wanted. However, I find your comments very, very funny — the angrier you are, the funnier they get. By being so dismissive towards you, I got to read more of them. That's what I achieved. I don't give a fuck whether you think that's an achievement. It wasn't for you.

If you reacted to Cassingham's insults anything like you reacted to mine, I suspect that he insulted you for similar reasons: your responses are highly entertaining. In an ideal world, my encouraging you to realise that could have been another achievement. Unlikely, though.

Proof-reading is where a human being goes through another human being's writing and checks for typos and such using their brain. A large number of typos in published material most certainly does reflect badly on education. Whether poor education has led to someone's being bad at proof-reading or someone's not realising that proof-reading is necessary is debatable.

Cassingham is not, has never been, and has never claimed to be a lawyer.

Even when one of your stupidest comments is quoted directly back at you, you still can't see that there's anything wrong with it.

Just because I don't do something in this comment thread, on this blog, right now, because you demand it, doesn't mean I am incapable of ever doing it anywhere.

The work I'm looking for is freelance stuff on top of my existing job. I have a full-time job, and get on well with my bosses and colleagues. My freelance employers seem to like me, too. I'm glad, however, that you wouldn't employ me, because I'd hate to work for someone so humourless. And stupid.

I doubt that your colleagues engage in a free exchange of ideas whenever you want them to. Ring one of them up at midnight and try to have a debate.

Your use of capitalisation is hilarious.


> I think I'm done with you now.

Bet you're not. You just can't contain yourself.

You have a very interesting blog here, and you normally argue your point of view very well. In this discusson, however, you appeared to be more interested in trying to find fodder for a put down than you were in defending your position.

I am very familiar with the publication "This Is True", and I agree with the poster that he can be a bit caustic for no good reason. This is not the reason for my post here though.

I believe David's was trying to point out that Randy Cassingham never admits that he has made an error in a key point in an argument. You shot back that he has an errata page. David tried to point out that the errata page contains mostly typographical and other such technical errors, so the existence of such a page doesn't refute his point. You also did seem to simplify things when you described his publication. When he called you on it, you commenced with the name calling.

When he finally gave up, you came back with an attempt at an argument, but it fails on many counts.

His technical definition of idiot is correct. In fact, many words such as idiot, moron, etc. were originally based on technical evaluations of people, and those words became common forms of speech afterwards. You can look it up!

I didn't see that he demanded any of his letters to Randy Cassingham be published. Nor did I see him demand you to engage him in a debate. I think that after reading some of your other blog entries, he (as did I) may have anticipated that you would be open for a thought-provoking exchange. When you acted like a bully in response, it seems he got a bit defensive. Under the circumstances, he still seemed rather polite for one more round.

Your point about engaging a colleague for a discusison at midnight was a very poor one. It's what is called a non-sequitir. You had plenty of time to respond to his entries at your leisure. This is totally not analagous to ringing up a colleague at midnight.

Your goal was to get under his skin. It worked. He seems to have recognized that and took a parting shot or two. I have to admit it was entertaining reading, but probably not for the reasons you may think.

You are correct about one thing though. Randy Cassingham is not an attorney.

Have a good day.

John Quigley

Hi, John.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this discussion started when I was asked to defend my point of view. It didn't. It started because David came on here and started ranting about his own problems with Cassingham, totally unrelated to my point of view or to anything on this blog, simply because I mentioned Cassingham's name.

Hey S2

I was blog searching for something else when I came across your post and, then, this resulting discussion thread -- 21 comments? I had to see what that was about. I enjoyed your treatment of the story about Mr. Saraiva's displeasure, but got a much bigger chuckle out of your intellectual "debate" with the unarmed David K.

He had written to me with great displeasure about the Canadian item, which had the tag "Translation: Canuck schools are about as good as U.S. schools." He tried for quite a while to convince me that the word "Canuck" is a "slur", and now he's trying to convince you that calling something a "spelling error" instead of a "typo" somehow means my "entire conclusion ... was false." Or, to put it another way, he wants us to believe that Canuck schools are fantastic, they do teach people how to spell, but it's the Canadian students who are so stupid that they don't know it when they have spelled the name of their own province wrong. Yeah, that's a lot more acceptable, isn't it?!

Meanwhile, David proclaims I'm a lawyer. No idea where he got that idea -- or many of his others. It is of course incorrect, and I've said so in print many times. Next he proclaims I'm not "JUST publishing a list of stupid things done by stupid people. What he's doing is basically social commentary." A wonderful conclusion: maybe that's because I promote my work as social commentary? Hello?

But enough slamming on the poor fool: it's just too easy. I'm really posting this to say you're entirely correct in your analysis of what I was doing, even though you didn't see the exchange: I was definitely enjoying yanking David K's chain and watching him sputter. But it stopped being fun since it was all going right over his head: he couldn't even grasp that he was being paternalistic and PC to insist that Canadians should take offense at a word that they use proudly.

I thus told him to stop e-mailing me. He continued anyway, so I blocked him. When he got the bounce he actually registered another Yahoo address so he could continue to argue! I give people a choice: they can subscribe to my stuff or not. I don't need to force people to read it. So why does he attempt to force people to read his blatherings? Oh, right: that's "acting like a MAN." Pathetic.

As I've said again and again, I'll never run out of material for my social commentary column which uses as its basis the stupidity of the bottom half of the human race.

Cheers!

rc

PS: It's not "airoplane" but rather "aeroplane"! :-)

Hi, Randy.

It's an honour (with a U) to have a multi-million-seller such as you here at this little Web backwater of mine, especially to tell me I'm right.

Mr K was a laugh, wasn't he? I imagine he's shouting at someone else about your iniquitous email exchange now. Maybe he'll write to his senator about it. Or the UN.

Cheers.

I've always subscribed to the idea that it's better not to argue with an idiot, lest observors are unable to distinguish between you.

Well, I know that observers can't distinguish between us anyway, so I figure, what have I got to lose?

I accidentally came back to this page now (6 months later), and noticed that Mr. Cassingham had put in his 2 cents here. Well, the two of you may laugh at me, but it is clear that you both are completely WAY off base here.

First of all, by saying the Canadians proudly use the term "Canuck" themselves to prove that it is not a slur when others use the term towards them in a derogatory way, is clearly INCORRECT. Have you ever heard African Americans use the "N-word" toward each other, but if a white person called someone by that word in a derogatory way, it would not be well received? The same thing applies here. I told this to Randy in an email, and he seems incapable of understanding this very simple idea.

Second, Randy still can't seem to distinguish between typos/editor laziness and incorrectly spelled words. Certainly you've seen typographical errors of simple words in the newspaper every now and then, right? Do you claim that the reporter and the editor are not sufficiently educated because the typo made it into print? That was my point. The typos that Randy was commenting about were clearly not spelling errors, due to how the missed keys were adjacent on the keyboard, for example. For him to conclude that Canadian schools have failed because of obvious typographical errors is indeed a false conclusion.

You can rail on me all you want about continuing this argument, but I was somewhat hopeful that either of you would have half a brain and understand my point and realize that you are in error. But maybe both of you are too stubborn to admit a mistake.

PS: I apologize for thinking Randy was a lawyer. I guess I assumed that because of his "True Stella Awards" publication, he must be an attorney. I realize now that my assumption was wrong. I guess I am the only one here that can admit to making a mistake.

Didn't I say so?

> You just can't contain yourself.

Proved right again.

heh... just found this from googling "samuel saraiva"...

darn it, i can't contain myself, either... :P

in case mr. k "accidentally" comes back here again, i have just one question for him: do you know of any sports teams that use the "n-word" as part of their team name? (i'm referring to his comparison of the term "canuck" with the "n-word" -- i happen to live in vancouver, where our hockey team is called the "canucks").

thanks, s2 and randy, for all the laughs! :D