Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq
From: aeq@pucc-h (The Blackguard of the West)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: telling off Ron Vaughn
Message-ID: <1750@pucc-h>
Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 03:24:40 EST
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.1750
Posted: Tue Jan 29 03:24:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 06:11:57 EST
References: <154@ihdev.UUCP>
Organization: Cordes Junction
Lines: 143

I had hoped that, by keeping quiet in response to Ron Vaughn, that I would
keep him quiet.  But no-o-o-o!  My apologies for the somewhat flaming tone
of this posting, which I am posting (and also mailing to Ron) since he
makes some false statements about me which I wish to combat.

> i was serious about feeling that jeff was a problem, and i was serious in
> wanting the debate to come out in public.

As I've said before, and you did not respond to, you could brought the matter
out like an adult, and not like the worst of the twittish kids who persecuted
me in grade school!

> "has this accomplished anything??"  YOU BET!!  jeff HAS seemed to tone down
> his postings lately.  this could be a phase, this could the be real thing.

It hasn't been due to the net's reaction, rather to the fact that I now have
other sources of support available.  Again, as I have mentioned in a previous
article, my therapist and my closest Usenet friend were both on vacation at
the same time during my heaviest barrage of articles.

> he seems now to finally realize that yes, a MAJORITY of net.singles (as far
> as i or anyone else can tell) are finally fed up with all the stuff we've
> said we're fed up with.

So?  I was fed up with the fact that nobody came up with a cure for my
perfectionism, and nobody understood that it was not a problem that could
be solved as simply and glibly as anyone said, especially since I've been
that way all my life.

> "you're cold, heartless, mean, cruel, and uncaring"  awww, go suck rocks.
> do you think jeff got hurt or upset by all of this??  haven't you all
> realized he THRIVES on the attention.  have you seen HIM say "i was really
> hurt by all the postings."???  hell no, he's been replying, arguing
> his case.

You're cold, heartless, mean, cruel, and uncaring.  OF COURSE all these
postings hurt, yours most of all, again because they conjured up memories of
the terrible pain on the school playground.  I argued against them as gently
and with as much patience (not much) as I could manage given that background,
precisely because I wanted them to stop.  I was DEFENDING myself against these
excessive attacks.  I find it hard to believe that you're so unintelligent as
not to infer that argument implies self-defense, seeing that you are employed
in a job that requires some intelligence; so don't act as if you are.

> jeff isn't *always* the "sensitive, caring" person you
> all make him out to be.

That's exactly what I said in all the articles you've attacked me for!  Did
you intend to agree with me?

> he can be as thoughtless, and have disregard for net-etiquette as me or the
> next guy.  (e.g. his long drawn out "christianoid" topics in singles
> everyone got sick of, his blatant counter-attacks on any advice given him
> etc.) jeff loves this.

At least you included yourself.  And just because *you* refuse Christ does not
mean that He is not a significant factor in my life, affecting my decisions
and my feelings (about relationships and everything else), and thus I would
not be telling the truth if I tried to isolate my feelings about relationships
with people from my relationship with Christ.

And who are you to speak for me, saying that I loved your mistreatment of me?
The mistreatment was cruel enough, but presuming to speak for me was supreme
arrogance.

> i would never campaign like this against someone like chuqi.  i knew right
> from the start that jeff, on the other hand, wouldn't be offended at all, as
> long as he's the center of the discussion......

If you were at all human, you would not campaign as you did against anyone at
all.  You could certainly bring the issue out, but not in the language you used.
And again, don't presume to speak for me, when you've never even met me.

The only bit of accuracy in this is that if I felt that I could neither get nor
deserve "warm fuzzies" (as in the neat story posted a little while back), then
I would prefer "cold pricklies" to nothing.  (The [apparently, by you] sainted
Chuq recently posted a statement that, given a choice between pain and nothing, 
he would choose pain.  I believe the originator of that statement was William
Faulkner, but I believe Chuq when he makes it about himself.)

> you really can't
> blame me for speaking out on behalf of MOST of the people in the group.

Had you consulted with any of those people, I'm sure they would have told
you to tone down your postings.

> "you shouldn't have done this in public"  bull.  you think jeff would listen
> to a letter, maybe two from some net people telling him we're ALL sick of
> his junk??  that's one of his biggest problems, he doesn't listen.  this
> was the ONLY way i could think of to bring the topic out.

Ron....  You didn't even TRY sending me a letter before you barfed all over
the net!  Only if you had done so, and perhaps induced others to do so, and
IF I then had continued to post articles of the type that so offended you,
would it have been appropriate to go public.

> if you think it's ok to let one person take over
> a group, and never say anything "just to be polite....." who's being honest??
> who's REALLY helping jeff???  just sit there and let him ramble and ramble,
> never do or say anything, let him wallow in self pity??

A lot of people said things; they really tried to help me out of my problems.
Unfortunately even Chuq's positive postings were insufficient.  It might have
been good if some nicer person like Chuq or Snoopy or Gregbo had taken the
initiative in suggesting that I diminish the volume and tone of my postings;
then a lot of the net traffic from the last week (flaming back at you and
others) would never have occurred; and perhaps some good might have been done
without the recriminations on all sides.

> personally, i'm just going to skip over EVERYTHING with jeff's
> name in it for a while (month or two) and then check back and see if
> he's cleaned up his act any.

Prejudice again, just as in so many of your other blatherings.  Even mixed
among my stuff you so disliked were some thoughtful, constructive, sensitive,
beneficial articles.  And besides, you yourself commented earlier in your
posting that I have already "cleaned up my act", so why skip my articles?
That doesn't make sense.

>	only on a great net like this could a group rise up and say
>	"i'm mad as hell, and i'm not going to take it any more!"

Exactly what I have been doing in this posting.

>	(then again, only on a great net like this could such a yucchhhhy
>	problem occur in the first place.  oh well...),

The problem has existed since the foundation of the world, just not on such
a worldwide scale.  People of all times have probably done exactly what I
have done -- i.e. be involved in such a demonic, fixed state of negativism
that they could not be brought out of it by any normal inducement.  Perhaps
if people had prayed for me instead of flaming at me, the problem would have
been solved sooner.  And you might have noticed, had you troubled to read one
of my recent articles, that I have passed a turning point of sorts in my
ability to relate (the bit with the letter exchange with the young woman in
St. Louis; that reminds me, I owe her a reply to her reply).

Oh well, this has already gone on far too long.

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
Your money or your wife! :-) [or wives, in Utah] :-)