Harristotelian Logic

Repeatedly over some years I've kept seeing posters claiming that I tried to get David Ullrich fired, or that I call people's employers about newsgroup postings, as these Ullrich defenders try to make a case against me, by never telling the full story.

The real story is that YEARS ago, in the usual back-and-forth, and actually rather dumb arguments that have flared up around my posts, I said that David Ullrich acted as my lapdog in an instance.

Over a year later in yet another one of the flare-ups, Ullrich responded that more than a year before when I'd said that he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, he'd gotten angry, thought a racial slur was the appropriate reply, but been talked out of delivering it.

Importantly, back when I had said he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance, I picked up from his postings—as they got even weirder than normal—that he was very upset, so I APOLOGIZED to Ullrich about the lapdog comment.

It was over a year later from the time of the comment and my apology when Ullrich made his comments, where HE introduced the subject of racial slurs.

Now I know that many of you don't want to be troubled with the facts, but here they are anyway, though I find it amazing how little many of you seem to care about facts.

So I thought about it more and more, and eventually complained to Ullrich's school as he's a professor at Oklahoma State University, and I happen to think that his behavior reflected badly on his school and on academics.

I think those who defend Ullrich wish Usenet to be a place where you can say anything you want without any consequences.

My making a complaint scares them because it challenges their anarchist position.

Why else would anarchist types defend a racist statement for so long and with so much effort?

As make no mistake, Ullrich's delivery doesn't leave much doubt. Hinting at calling someone by a racial slur by talking about wanting to deliver it, calling it an appropriate reply, and then saying you were talked out of it, isn't even really subtle.

Why would Usenet posters react so consistently in Ullrich's defense?

Why do posters keep bringing it up even now?

I say becaue they fight to be able to say anything on Usenet, without consequences.

Now here's where it gets really interesting, as a complaint is one thing, but Ullrich is the one who informed the newsgroup.

He has tenure people.

I don't know how stupid many of you are, but professors with tenure don't typically need to worry about a single complaint.

IF Ullrich were actually worried, why would HE bring it up on Usenet?

Why would Ullrich be the one to publicize a complaint, if he actually had concerns about his job?

Instead he claimed to be worried, which fueled a firestorm on the newsgroup, with lots of people calling me names, including some actual racial slurs.

I'm sure Ullrich was quite satisfied and probably thought he had his revenge on me for daring to say he'd acted as my lapdog in an instance.

Now think about that, as Ullrich has acted as if saying someone acted as your lapdog in an instance is a grievous insult. And I actually apologized soon after making the comment!

You people are used by this person in stuff that isn't even very clever, and definitely isn't really defensible.

The reality is that Ullrich used you as his lapdogs in a bizarre need to come after me, where he picked race, and many of you defended him, and STILL defend him.

Supposedly, it's nothing if he didn't actually deliver a racial slur. Just talking about thinking about delivering a racial slur but not doing it, shouldn't be ground for a complaint.

But hey, Ullrich's thoughts were his own, until HE gave them in a public post.

Don't think your thoughts matter if you publicize them?

Why don't you go tell some Secret Service agent that you'd been thinking about killing President Bush, but been talked out of it?

Ask yourselves one question, why, over a year after the event, would Ullrich feel a need to inform me and the newsgroup what he says he thought a year earlier?