"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Dec 23, 4:33 pm, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
If Tom Klem were still around, you would get a vigorous defense of the
theists' position, the logic of which is well demonstrated in this
debate concerning the relative merits of Islam and Christianity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxsn8DYMBA

Mildly funny. I haven't seen that much circular reasoning since the
1975 movie "Rollerball."

Sadly, Tom is no longer with us. I know I am not alone in considering
his loss a significant blow to the group.

Agreed. Klem was staunch in his beliefs, but not overbearing. He was
quite willing to listen to others' views and accept disagreement
without taking offense. A gentlemanliness often in short supply here.

That's not the Tom I remember. We had a horrendous disagreement back when
Bill Goichberg was the only thing discussed in this group. But hey. De
mortibus nil nisi bonum.

On Dec 27, 2:37 am, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in oglegroups.com...

On Dec 23, 4:33 pm, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
If Tom Klem were still around, you would get a vigorous defense of the
theists' position, the logic of which is well demonstrated in this
debate concerning the relative merits of Islam and Christianity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxsn8DYMBA

Mildly funny. I haven't seen that much circular reasoning since the
1975 movie "Rollerball."

Sadly, Tom is no longer with us. I know I am not alone in considering
his loss a significant blow to the group.

Agreed. Klem was staunch in his beliefs, but not overbearing. He was
quite willing to listen to others' views and accept disagreement
without taking offense. A gentlemanliness often in short supply here.

That's not the Tom I remember. We had a horrendous disagreement back when
Bill Goichberg was the only thing discussed in this group. But hey. De
mortibus nil nisi bonum.

Ah, well, I was speaking based only my own experience here with Klem,
which admittedly was quite recent and brief.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Dec 23, 4:33 pm, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
If Tom Klem were still around, you would get a vigorous defense of the
theists' position, the logic of which is well demonstrated in this
debate concerning the relative merits of Islam and Christianity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxsn8DYMBA

Mildly funny. I haven't seen that much circular reasoning since the
1975 movie "Rollerball."

Sadly, Tom is no longer with us. I know I am not alone in considering
his loss a significant blow to the group.

Agreed. Klem was staunch in his beliefs, but not overbearing. He was
quite willing to listen to others' views and accept disagreement
without taking offense. A gentlemanliness often in short supply here.

That's not the Tom I remember. We had a horrendous disagreement back when
Bill Goichberg was the only thing discussed in this group. But hey. De
mortibus nil nisi bonum.

Tom may have had strong opinions, but I don't recall his ever having
overstepped the mark.

Can you give a specific reference to the disagreement over Mr.
Goichberg? What, in particular, about Tom Klem's post(s) did you find
irksome?

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Dec 23, 4:33 pm, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
If Tom Klem were still around, you would get a vigorous defense of the
theists' position, the logic of which is well demonstrated in this
debate concerning the relative merits of Islam and Christianity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxsn8DYMBA

Mildly funny. I haven't seen that much circular reasoning since the
1975 movie "Rollerball."

Sadly, Tom is no longer with us. I know I am not alone in considering
his loss a significant blow to the group.

Agreed. Klem was staunch in his beliefs, but not overbearing. He was
quite willing to listen to others' views and accept disagreement
without taking offense. A gentlemanliness often in short supply here.

That's not the Tom I remember.

Nor I. Nor the one that emerges from postings in the newsgroup
archives.

We had a horrendous disagreement back when
Bill Goichberg was the only thing discussed in this group.

Mention of St. Bill's conflict(s) of interest remind me of the good old
days of rgcp.

But hey. De
mortibus nil nisi bonum.

Mr. Klem was a deeply troubled, poisonous man. I hope he has found
peace at last.

The Historian wrote:

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Dec 23, 4:33 pm, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
If Tom Klem were still around, you would get a vigorous defense of the
theists' position, the logic of which is well demonstrated in this
debate concerning the relative merits of Islam and Christianity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCxsn8DYMBA

Mildly funny. I haven't seen that much circular reasoning since the
1975 movie "Rollerball."

Sadly, Tom is no longer with us. I know I am not alone in considering
his loss a significant blow to the group.

Agreed. Klem was staunch in his beliefs, but not overbearing. He was
quite willing to listen to others' views and accept disagreement
without taking offense. A gentlemanliness often in short supply here.

That's not the Tom I remember.

Nor I. Nor the one that emerges from postings in the newsgroup
archives.

We had a horrendous disagreement back when
Bill Goichberg was the only thing discussed in this group.

Mention of St. Bill's conflict(s) of interest remind me of the good old
days of rgcp.

But hey. De
mortibus nil nisi bonum.

Mr. Klem was a deeply troubled, poisonous man. I hope he has found
peace at last.

Very interesting, Neil. Evidently I didn't know him so well. I played
him a number of times on ICC, and we had some conversations here, but
never did he strike me as "deeply troubled," or "poisonous".

Perhaps Angelo and you knew him better, or you're more perceptive than
I am, or both.

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Tom may have had strong opinions, but I don't recall his ever having
overstepped the mark.

Search for "Is CCA anti-Black?" Or any of Klem's disgusting personal
remarks about Eric Johnson, for that matter.

The Historian wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Tom may have had strong opinions, but I don't recall his ever having
overstepped the mark.

Search for "Is CCA anti-Black?" Or any of Klem's disgusting personal
remarks about Eric Johnson, for that matter.

Thanks for the heads-up, Neil. The scope of my ignorance continues to
astound me (even if you guys are getting used to it, which you may not
be...).

I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


Very interesting, Neil. Evidently I didn't know him so well. I played
him a number of times on ICC, and we had some conversations here, but
never did he strike me as "deeply troubled," or "poisonous".

Perhaps Angelo and you knew him better, or you're more perceptive than
I am, or both.

If you never discussed Goichberg or Jarecki with him, you might never
have noticed these tendencies. On many topics, he could be amiable and
engaging. However, his rage knew no bounds when it came to anyone that
he held responsible for the martyrdom of St. Stan of Las Vegas.

Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


Very interesting, Neil. Evidently I didn't know him so well. I played
him a number of times on ICC, and we had some conversations here, but
never did he strike me as "deeply troubled," or "poisonous".

Perhaps Angelo and you knew him better, or you're more perceptive than
I am, or both.

If you never discussed Goichberg or Jarecki with him, you might never
have noticed these tendencies. On many topics, he could be amiable and
engaging. However, his rage knew no bounds when it came to anyone that
he held responsible for the martyrdom of St. Stan of Las Vegas.

Yes, thanks to Angelo, Neil and you I have begun to notice this
tendency.

Thanks, Vince