On Sun, 6 Dec 1998, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
> I would prefer to stop this, but I don't want to have you coming back
> with statements like:
> >Ian seems to be operating in some sort of an absurd binary mode here.
I said this because I saw you operating in some sort of an absurd binary
mode. This observation was valid. And you have reverted to this primitive
> >The highly curious Alice in Wonderland world of Ian Hutchesson...
I said this because I felt that you often inhabit a highly curious Alice
in Wonderland world. This observation was valid. And you have provided
further confirmation for this observation.
You admitted yourself that you don't know the first thing about the full
background of this complex problem. All of your abundant rants relating to
this subject have confirmed this. You have not introduced a single shred
of new evidence that was not already known to everyone. No citations, no
Usually those who are ignorant about a subject have the wisdom to keep
quiet about it. Not Ian. He has posted a large number of posts consisting
of nothing except abundant platitudes, vacuous posturing, transparent
evasions, extremely twisted logic, and doubtful morality. Ignorance and
Usually in the world of Internet people like that are known as TROLLS, and
are placed in killfiles...
This is what I noticed about Ian after watching him for a long time. He
often engages in bitter and prolonged confrontations with people about
extremely obscure subjects, and on rather undefined subjects. These
conversations usually go in every direction at once. If an outsider sees
one of these posts, the first reaction would be, "What in Heaven's Name
are they talking about? What may be at stake in this dispute?" Nobody
seems to know or care...
It is extremely difficult to make the heads or tails of such disputes, and
it does seem to me that, after a while, Ian himself looses track of what
is being discusssed. It always looks like there's a whole lot of thick
smoke around, but where is the fire? Arguing for the sake of arguing... Or
else, trolling pure and simple.
But perhaps I'm now being too hard on Ian? I don't think so. To be fair to
Ian, he does seem to have some considerable expertise in the areas like
the DSS and the OT apocrypha. Unlike the subject of SecMk, Ian _can_
potentially add something valuable to discussion of these subjects. But
unfortunately his extremely confrontational style tends to detract from
some potentially valuable contributions he can make in these areas that he
actually knows something about. And obviously also his habitual
evasiveness that often reaches uncomfortably close to dishonesty is a
If Ian makes an effort to address these glaring shortcomings, his standing
in public eye can only benefit.