Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: An open letter to jj
Message-ID: <2219@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Nov-83 10:39:34 EST
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2219
Posted: Mon Nov 21 10:39:34 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Nov-83 02:47:35 EST
References: <244@houxu.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 49


First, Larry, I don't give a hoot how you spell your name, in fact,
if it's not your name I spelled, then why are YOU so offended?

Second, you don't know what a reactionary is, you idiot! <I'll
try to match your shrill, emotional, raving tone, but I don't
think I'll manage.>  If you think I'm a reactionary,then you
have clearly disqualified yourself from ANY political discussion,
and you will please shut up until you read about Jesse Helms,
Thurmond, O'Hare, AND ESPECIALLY Cranston <by your definition, at
least, he lashes out at anything that he doesn't agree completely
with.  Or would you like to forget that, perhaps?>.  I think
that YOU are a reactionary, also, by your own definition, and
that your article shows just why.  <So much for your
"definition".>  (Oh, yes, and you talk about being
slanderous, eh?  I think calling someone a reactionary
is certainly slanderous.)

Third, I DID read your silly article, and you BLOODY WELL did
imply that the dictionary definition (and I don't care how to spell
that either, netnews isn't worth much effort!)  was in fact
true.  Read your own article, please.  You read it.  For the
FIRST TIME maybe???

Fourth, I did not say YOU were the person who was suggesting
that conservatives were sub-human.  Read MY article again, fool!
I split from your article, clearly and obviously, after the first
paragraph or so, when I stopped talking about the use of 
dictionary definations, and I started talking about some ones
that I was proposing.  Your ravings about slander are similarly
wrong, since I can't slander someone I wasn't talking about.

Fifth, post an apology for being such a jerk.   If you can't read
into an article what's there, don't clutter the net.  Mail me,
and we can argue in relative silence. <Or maybe you WANT
to clutter the whole net?>

Sixth, please explain just what you wanted to do with your article.
Where DID all that unbridled hostility that you focused on me
come from?  Why did you focus it all on me?  What did you ever
think you would achieve with your article.  What did you want
to achieve.  Why did you think you were personally attacked?
Did you WANT to be?

FEH!  Further ravings in mail, please!
-- 
-Diogenes stopped here-

(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj