Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!akgua!mcnc!decvax!cca!ima!ism780b!jim
From: jim@ism780b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to Dick Dunn - (nf)
Message-ID: <14@ism780b.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jul-84 00:38:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: ism780b.14
Posted: Tue Jul 24 00:38:23 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Jul-84 03:42:44 EDT
Lines: 42

#R:ihuxe:-72600:ism780b:28100006:000:2215
ism780b!jim    Jul 16 02:52:00 1984

> >Rainbow, I think that you are an insensitive, egotistical, chauvinistic
> >asshole.  You don't care what effect your postings have on other people
> >on the net, as long as you get what you want.
> >You have no grounds for complaint about the preceding statement.  It does
> >not, according to your own standard, exude hostility.  It is a statement of
> >fact, according to your own reasoning.

> You are so way out of line I feel absolutely no need to set you straight.
> This is the kind of attitude I despised in the first place. Personal attacks
> are always uncalled for. How many times do I have to say it?
> And anyway, general opinions on general subjects are not personal attacks.
> They can be discussed and argued about in a fair way. There is a difference.
> You obviously dont see it.

Robert, in the original article the statement about you was in brackets.
Dick was not actually making a statement about you.  Rather, he was
paraphrasing Trish's statement with your name inserted, and suggesting that,
if you would see hostility in such a statement (you obviously do) then
you should see hostility in Trish's statement also, whereas you claimed
that she meant no hostility.  Even though the statements are nearly identical,
your reactions to them are wildly different.  This was supposed to illustrate
your hypocrisy to you, but I suspect that your emotional makeup does not
allow you to comprehend logic that indicates that you are in error.
(To use your own phrase, this is a statement of fact.
I really do suspect this.)

> I really dont understand
> what you want to accomplish. Create an infinite loop? Incite me to anger
> again so that I continue with my arguments that I'm sure no one wants to hear
> again for the nth time? What was wrong about saying something three weeks
> ago? I have no choice but to believe that you enjoy controversy and will go
> out of your way to create it if you can't find any. And if you choose to
> continue in this fashion I once again will not hold my peace on the net.
> Let me know your decision.

I hope that, if you do choose to continue to vent your anger, maliciousness,
and arrogance, people will refuse to respond further.

-- Jim Balter (ima!jim)