Talk:Reinhold Aman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Reinhold Aman, has edited Wikipedia as
Maledictus (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Reinhold Aman, has edited Wikipedia as
209.148.125.90 (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

There doesn't seem to be anything on his extensive career as an all-round general-purpose annoying flamer on Usenet, where he attempts to be the combined Archimedes Plutonium / Don Rickles for certain groups. AnonMoos 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in there now, phrased as neutrally as possible. The guy does enjoy his scatology. --Orange Mike 01:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I strongly resent that anonymous AnonMoos's libelous characterization of me and my Usenet posts and request that his/her defamation of character be deleted. Anyone who has read just part of my 8,000+ posts to "alt.usage.english" and other language-oriented newsgroups would see that AnonMoos's defaming me as an "all-round general-purpose annoying flamer" is clearly incorrect, false, and libelous. That anonymous coward has also made other derogatory comments about me in Wikipedia ("rv panegyrical probable vanity addition by subject of article." 14 Dec 2006). I don't know who that person is and what the cause is for his/her hatred. Maledictus 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if (as you seem to be claiming) you are Prof. Aman, you certainly seem to be fitting his description of you as a flamer. The actual language in the article is not nearly as inflammatory as the language here in the talk page, and is not libelous, etc. --Orange Mike 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm one of hundreds of people who have had an encounter with you in the past -- one which was rather brief and insignificant in itself, yet served to thoroughly illuminate your character. If I had proposed that my wording above be incorporated as is in the article, then you would have had a legitimate cause for complaint, but as it is, you don't really. As for my edit of 09:32, 14 December 2006, guess which version most editors would consider to be more neutral? AnonMoos 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that use of a username is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. Not all of us are as brash in our public personae as you and I, and AnonMoos' use of a lower profile is no evidence of cowardice. You are out of line in that accusation, and violating the Wikipedia standards of civility. This is not Usenet. --Orange Mike 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reinhold Aman replies

"AnonMoos" wrote: There doesn't seem to be anything on his extensive career as an all-round general-purpose annoying flamer on Usenet, where he attempts to be the combined Archimedes Plutonium / Don Rickles for certain groups." AnonMoos 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I resent this anonymous character's falsely and libelously describing me as an "all-round general-purpose annoying flamer" and his/her comparing me to "Archimedes Plutonium," whoever that person is and whatever s/he does (a priori, s/he can't be a "nice" person).

"Orange Mike" responded: "It's in there now, phrased as neutrally as possible. The guy does enjoy his scatology." --Orange Mike 01:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to Mike's "neutral," i.e., non-libelous and factual statement that "Aman is INCLINED TO a vituperative mode of discourse and is known in certain Usenet newsgroups as one INCLINED TO participate in flame wars." The key term is "inclined to," which indicates only a tendency or propensity but not my ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY negative conduct as an "annoying flamer" in newsgroups. I do others things there too, as explained below. (I could demonstrate that "scatology" is not the correct term, but it's good enough for hoi polloi.)
I, Aman (as "Maledictus" and earlier with my ISP number, when I made several corrections) wrote: "I strongly resent that anonymous AnonMoos's libelous characterization of me and my Usenet posts and request that his/her defamation of character be deleted. Anyone who has read just part of my 8,000+ posts to "alt.usage.english" and other language-oriented newsgroups would see that AnonMoos's defaming me as an "all-round general-purpose annoying flamer" is clearly incorrect, false, and libelous. That anonymous coward has also made other derogatory comments about me in Wikipedia ("rv panegyrical probable vanity addition by subject of article." 14 Dec 2006). I don't know who that person is and what the cause is for his/her hatred." Maledictus 03:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mike wrote: "Well, if (as you seem to be claiming) you are Prof. Aman, you certainly seem to be fitting his description of you as a flamer. The actual language in the article is not nearly as inflammatory as the language here in the talk page, and is not libelous, etc." --Orange Mike 22:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, I have no objection to the language in the ARTICLE, but I do resent having that anonymous AnonMoos's snide, false, and libelous characterization in the TALK page, because apparently there are people with too much time on their hands and/or a mildly morbid interest in me to check the Talk page and History.
And, Mike, stating in plain language my objection to what I resent doesn't make me a "flamer." If you consider my factual characterization of "AnonMoos" as an "anonymous coward" as flaming, your definition of "flaming" and "flamer" are idiosyncratic: He/she is indeed anonymous, and that person is indeed a coward for sniping while hiding behind his/her anonymity and fake name. (I happen to dislike all such anonymous posters -- cowards or not -- in newsgroups too.) You're welcome to use genteel, wishy-washy language to describe "AnonMoos" as "a cautious person protecting his/her privacy" -- but being "Uncle Maledictus" (my alter ego), I use honest, blunt language.

"AnonMoos" added (with my replies interspersed): "I'm one of hundreds of people who have had an encounter with you in the past"

I believe that "hundreds of people" is way exaggerated. I'd be surprised if I had any kind of encounter (negative or positive) with even one hundred DIFFERENT people during the ten years or so I've wasted in newsgroups. And if you're not an anonymous coward, why don't you identify yourself, even via confidential e-mail to me <aman@sonic.net>, and explain the encounter that turned you hostile?

" -- one which was rather brief and insignificant in itself, yet served to thoroughly illuminate your character."

Logical and reasonable folks call this "making a snap judgment." How many of the 8,000+ posts of mine have you read? There are two facts to consider:
(1) My early years in <alt.usage.english>, during which I battled mainly with two insane, paranoid, and nasty old women and their foul & vulgar attack dogs, and who sicced the FBI on me, trying to get me back in prison for five years; and my later years (up to the present), in which I have rarely flamed anyone, except some particularly nasty or stupid individuals, including Establishment professors.
(2) I classify my contributions to newsgroups as (a) flames and battles, (b) generously sharing my scholarly expertise in various languages and verbal aggression, and (c) humor, wit, irony, wordplay, puns, and sarcasm -- all of which, in six languages, are documentable via Google Group searches. For this reason, I thoroughly resent being pigeonholed by "AnonMoos" as only an "all-round general-purpose annoying flamer."
In order to expand and correct Mike's statement ("inclined to a vituperative mode of discourse...."), I've added "In addition to sharing his expertise in languages and verbal aggression, and renowned for his sarcastic wit." These are FACTS. During the past 30 years, dozens of journalists worldwide and many newsgroup friends have praised my "sarcastic" and "razor-sharp wit." These are their words; I'm simply quoting them. If you want a lengthy example of that, read my "J'accuse" <http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/j-accuse.html>.
Naturally, my adding "In addition to sharing his expertise in languages and verbal aggression, and renowned for his sarcastic wit" to Mike's statement triggered the snide and nasty "panegyrical probable vanity addition" by that hostile "AnonMoos." There's nothing "panegyrical" about my FACTUAL addition, nor is it a "vanity addition." (The first time I tried to add the above to Mike's statement, it didn't show up, because I was ignorant about how to use Wikipedia, and I basically still am. And I don't care what anyone writes about me, as long as it's the truth and factual.)
In sum, "AnonMoos" is ignorant about the great number of my positive, instructive and enjoyable (i.e., non-flaming) posts in various newsgroups, yet his/her brief encounter with me was sufficient to serve him/her "to thoroughly illuminate [my] character."

"AnonMoos" continued: "If I had proposed that my wording above be incorporated as is in the article, then you would have had a legitimate cause for complaint, but as it is, you don't really. As for my edit of 09:32, 14 December 2006, guess which version most editors would consider to be more neutral?" AnonMoos 23:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My complaint is about the false, libelous and snotty comments in TALK by "AnonMoos," not about Mike's wording in the ARTICLE.
I have spoken and am outta here. Maledictus 23:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
First off, Wikipedia is not Usenet, so that the way you duplicated other people's remarks as part of your own remarks above was misguided. If you want to engage in an actual discussion here (as opposed to drive-by rhetoric), then you should learn how to conduct a discussion the Wikipedia way. Second, the standards governing Wikipedia article talk pages are quite different from those governing Wikipedia articles. Though gratuituous insults unrelated to article improvement are certainly discouraged even on talk pages, in general it is OK to express a personal opinion as part of remarks which are intended to improve the article. Third, very little on Wikipedia is truly "deleted" in any meaningful sense. Even if my remarks above were wiped from this talk page, they would still be visible in the talk page history to anybody who knew how to look there. Only a very few Wikipedia edits are ordered shielded from public view by high-level Wikimedia Foundation officials for legal reasons or public-relations disaster reasons (and I doubt whether anything here would trigger that threshold). Fourth, I'm actually no more and no less "anonymous" than many many thousands of other Wikipedia account-holders who choose not to make their personal details public, so your snide swipe at my supposed anonymity is rather irrelevant. AnonMoos 02:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My long previous message was no "drive-by rhetoric" but a calm, detailed, fact-filled defense against your two false and libelous statements about me. Second, describing you as an anonymous coward who snipes from behind his/her "supposed" (supposed?) anonymity is a factual statement, not an irrelevant and snide swipe. Maledictus 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way (now that you seem to be issuing legal threats right and left), you should be aware of the fact that use of vague and non-specific epithets to express personal opinions (e.g. a statement such as "I consider X to be an asshole!") is not usually libelous under U.S. law. AnonMoos 13:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If I "seem to be issuing legal threats right and left," you are being hyperbolic and paranoid. I have never in my life issued legal threats against anyone and certainly would not in this ridiculous matter. Why don't you have the decency to retract your two initial false ("libelous") accusations and apologize for making them? Maledictus 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

He has not actually made any legal threats in the above language. That is a specific guideline, and one he has not violated. --Orange Mike 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course I didn't and wouldn't. Maledictus 19:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
for the record, the phrase "anonymous coward" is a standard phrase on usenet and elsewhere for a contributor who prefers to by anonymous, generally inserted automatically by the program as a signature to comments by those not signed in. It is not to be considered an insult in that sort of use. DGG (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
When uttered by the editor of a quasi-scholarly journal devoted solely to the study of insults and derogatory language, however, then it probably is to be considered as such (and Reinhold doesn't seem to have a great understanding of online culture outside his particular domain of Usenet, where an "Anonymous Coward" ID is certainly not inserted by default when using any newsposting software that I'm aware of...). AnonMoos 00:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, this is not Usenet, this is Wikipedia; our norms are considerably different here. (Although vituperation is likely to get you plonked in rec.arts.sf.fandom, my Usnet hangout of choice.) --Orange Mike 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What's the Point?

I don't get what this guy did to deserve his own Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.43.221 (talk • contribs)

Read the article. He's published a fascinating and unique magazine for a long time, written some interesting stuff, been the subject of various controversies; in other words, he's notable, in a way that I, like most of the rest of Wikipedia's editors, am not. --Orange Mike 22:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)