Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ut-sally!jsq
From: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Three cheers for Lauren's reply to GNU
Message-ID: <210@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Oct-83 00:20:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.210
Posted: Mon Oct 24 00:20:33 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Oct-83 03:18:18 EDT
References: <120@ut-sally.UUCP> <693@omsvax>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 28

Deleting some irrelevant headers (and faking a non-indented first line
for those who haven't fixed the inews truncation bug):

	From: flamer@omsvax.UUCP
	Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
	Subject: Re: Three cheers for Lauren's reply to GNU
	Message-ID: <693@omsvax>
	Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 07:59:37 CDT
	References: <120@ut-sally.UUCP>
	Organization: Intel Corp. - Hillsboro,OR
	
	Aren't the gateways to and from the ARPANET and Usenet moderated?
	If so, it's no one's fault but the moderator(s)' that let the GNU
	article through.  And just because you were here first doesn't mean
	you can take a high-socialite attitude toward us!
	
The ARPANET/USENET gateway for unix-wizards used to be moderated,
but has not been now for some months (how long *was* it, Mike?).
Doubtless ignorance is a perfect excuse.

What, pray tell, is a "high-socialite attitude"?  Considering that I *am*
one of you, as you can tell by the path on this message?

I would have replied by mail, but "omsvax!flamer" didn't seem too promising
(though it was certainly appropriate to the content of the message).
-- 
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}