About a month ago (May 19) while I was traveling and was not checking the
forum our famous Rebecca Ore (aka Rebecca Brown) called me publically a liar
and even flexed her pathetic Russian by trying to insult me in my
mothertongue. You can find all that in the infamous "Bai vs Mao Chinese tea
terms" thread. She explicitly called me a liar among other things (message
from 5/19)
I only recently became aware of that and offered Ms. Brown an honorable
solution - for each of us to put in escrow $5,000 into the hands of one or
several of our most well-known posters and then I will deliver the material
proof of my posts and if that would prove my words she will have to pay for
her insults in cold cash.
The following is my message at the above mentioned thread (June 21):


"Rebecca Ore" > wrote in message
...

> One of the problems of jumping into a flame war is that the person being
> attacked (kuri and Sasha were the main people saying the undefensible
> things) doesn't tend to at that point distinguish between people
> offering polite suggestions and people trying to score points. Mydnight
> withdrew at that point. Sasha tried to continue the attack like the
> person he has appeared to be all through this -- someone whose own
> stories about his travels in China and his experiences with the captured
> Japanese tea person sound to this teacher of English like stories that
> he made up. I am willing to call him a liar until proven otherwise.
>

I have been traveling and working during this priceless exchange and missed
these peals of Rebecca's wisdom.
I am willing to prove the provable (my travel and work in ex-military
formerly closed territories in China) of what I was claiming with plane
tickets, original work agreements, official films of local TV stations
(featuring yours truly) about opening of our offices in rural towns just
south of Inner Mongolia and other things. But she has to step up to the
plate and put her money where her mouth is. We both shell send a money order
for say $5,000 to Michael Plant, Lew or DogMa (or any other well known
member of the group) and let him or some other group of judges decide if I
ever lied about my travel and work in China. The winning side will gets the
money. Until she does that, her baseless accusations remain what they are -
empty barkings. But as Turks say "It khurer, karavan kecher" - "The bitch
barks, but the caravan goes". So be it in our case too.

Certainly I cannot prove what happened almost 30 years ago on the shores of
Olenek river in Northern Siberia. And I do not intend to. This was my
personal experience and I do not give a flying puer cake if some
self-absorbed, yet another "professor" from CUNY believes me or not. But not
believing me is one thing and calling me a liar - another. Notice how this
"teacher of English" and an American, I presume, throws away ever so easily
the time honored Western tradition of presuming innocence until proven
guilty. She calls me a liar "until proven otherwise"! She feels that she has
a right to call a person a liar and demand that the only way she would
retract from that accusation if I "prove" myself to be right? No, lady, you
will have to risk some money on the table if you want proof. Until you do
that, your empty accusations only show others what you are made of.
I leave it to the public on this forum to judge why she would be so angry at
someone who she never met in her life? May be some of my remarks on her
ridiculous posts had something to do with it? But there were several posters
who ridiculed her "educated" opinion and she never attacked them... Eureka!
May be she had a Russian boyfriend who run away from her self-absorbed
attitude? That would at least explain her awful, louty Russian.

I think that she does have some alternative motives (like assuming in her
other post that I am rich, which I guess in CUNY's world is the biggest sin
in the universe). I have to disappoint her - I am not rich (moneywise) at
all - by any standards (unfortunately). However I lived a very rich life
filled with love, friendship, adventures and love again. And I think I have
done it honorably. I made a lot of lifetime friends (God bless them) and
certainly some envious enemies, (God bless them too). And that is why all I
feel toward the poor "linguist" is a deep sense of pity.

Sasha.
================================================== ==========
To no surprise of mine her answer was a quick additional insult and a
cowardly PLONK.
This is it: (June 21, same thread)

>I have no doubt that you have more money than sense.
>I don't believe you. Live with it. I don't want to meet you, don't
>want to play games with you.
>I don't care if you aren't lying, either. It sure sounds like bullshit
>to me.
><Plonk>

===================================
Now this is a classic example of hate message! She called me a liar, but she
does not even care if I tell the truth! I congratulate Temple and Drexel
Universities with such a wonderful part-time star. She truly give them a
good name.
Allow me to conclude this exchange with a warning - this is a good example
of what we used to call in Russian a "borscht professor". Here is her web
site:
http://mysite.verizon.net/rebecca.ore/

Look around her pages - try to find anything in her background that would
remind you of her claims to be an educated linguist - remember her posts
claiming thesis in formal linguistics? What you will find, however is space
aliens, bad paper science fictions and more space aliens.
I do not think that we can hope that a 57 years old woman can all of a
sudden grow up. We can just hope that her PLONK will be a long, long, long,
long long one.

Sasha.

On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
> ) wrote:

> About a month ago (May 19) while I was traveling and was not checking the
> forum our famous [personal attack deleted]

plonk

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:45:49 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:

> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
> > ) wrote:
>
>> About a month ago (May 19) while I was traveling and was not checking the
>> forum our famous [personal attack deleted]
>
> plonk

Old USENET saying: "Arguing with someone on USENET is like competing in the
Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."

--
Derek

The best leaders inspire by example. When that's not an option, brute
intimidation works pretty well, too.

On Tuesday 21 June 2005 16:46, Derek >
>) wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:45:49 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
>> > ) wrote:
>>
>>> [crap]
>>
>> plonk
>
> Old USENET saying: "Arguing with someone on USENET is like competing in
> the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."
>

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable
from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of
free time."
-- Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

First of all - neither Ms. Brown (Ore) nor I are anonyms. So the history of
this dispute is actually a public record attributable to a real person. And
reputation. If you have any doubt of my identity I will gladly dismiss your
doubts. I hate anonymity and view it as an honorless behavior. One of the
reasons I like this group so much is because Mike Petro, Lew, Michael Plant
are real names of the real persons. I do not consider Melinda, DogMa or
Cowboy anonyms either, because although they use nicknames online, they do
not hide their names in private exchange. I do have a card from Dogma and
sent and received tea to and from Cowboy. So you words about "anonymous
strangers" are out of context here.

Second - Instead of throwing flames as a response to insults endlessly as
most of USENET flamers do I offer a simple and effective way to resolve such
situation - you call me a liar, I can prove that I am not, but you will have
to pay. I thought making people put their money where their mouths are was a
time-honored American tradition.
And it is very effective too - her answer immediately shows everyone who is
who.

Sasha.


"Jules Dubois" > wrote in message
...
> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 16:46, Derek >
> >) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:45:49 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
>>> > ) wrote:
>>>
>>>> [crap]
>>>
>>> plonk
>>
>> Old USENET saying: "Arguing with someone on USENET is like competing in
>> the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."
>>
>
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable
> from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of
> free time."
> -- Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon
>

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:01:35 GMT, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:

> First of all - neither Ms. Brown (Ore) nor I are anonyms. So the history of
> this dispute is actually a public record attributable to a real person. And
> reputation. If you have any doubt of my identity I will gladly dismiss your
> doubts. I hate anonymity and view it as an honorless behavior. One of the
> reasons I like this group so much is because Mike Petro, Lew, Michael Plant
> are real names of the real persons. I do not consider Melinda, DogMa or
> Cowboy anonyms either, because although they use nicknames online, they do
> not hide their names in private exchange. I do have a card from Dogma and
> sent and received tea to and from Cowboy. So you words about "anonymous
> strangers" are out of context here.

This is a very good point - and an issue I frequently run into when
discussing online relationships (academic interest). The use of an alias to
protect one's privacy is not equivalent to anonymous, anti-social behavior.

However, assumptions that one is vindicated by the public record are often
untenable positions from which to justify one's actions to others. This is
particularly true when one half of the "dispute" has "X-no-archive: yes" in
her headers.

> Second - Instead of throwing flames as a response to insults endlessly as
> most of USENET flamers do I offer a simple and effective way to resolve such
> situation - you call me a liar, I can prove that I am not, but you will have
> to pay. I thought making people put their money where their mouths are was a
> time-honored American tradition.

The problem I have with your "simple and effective" solution is that it
gives every appearance of being a set up.

You offered a solution in order to protect your own reputation, but one
which anyone who's using more than a handful of neurons would know that she
would not take. And then you have used her refusal to take you up on your
offer to further criticize her.

Justifiably indignant or not, that still smells of a set up.

> And it is very effective too - her answer immediately shows everyone who is
> who.

Sometimes what we write shows everyone things we don't intend to reveal.

--
Derek

If you want to get to the top, prepare to kiss a lot of the bottom.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:16:15 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:

> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 16:46, Derek >
> >) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:45:49 -0600, Jules Dubois wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 21 June 2005 07:12, Alex Chaihorsky >
>>> > ) wrote:
>>>
>>>> [crap]
>>>
>>> plonk
>>
>> Old USENET saying: "Arguing with someone on USENET is like competing in
>> the Special Olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."
>>
>
> "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
> because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable
> from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of
> free time."
> -- Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

Oh, I like that. I'll definitely be adding it to the list.

--
Derek

No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood.