Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Followup yours, Mr. Wingate
Message-ID: <599@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 18:59:09 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.599
Posted: Thu Feb 28 18:59:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 21:15:06 EST
References: <278@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <580@pyuxd.UUCP> <3654@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 55

>>>By the way, I was not amused by your "followup-to" line, which attempted to
>>>prevent me from responding in net.religion.  Your motivations are as
>>>transparent as usual, jerk.  [MARONEY IN RESPONSE TO WINGATE]

> [Enter wry tone of voice]
> One can see from the evidence that net.flame would indeed have been more
> appropriate.  [Exit wryness]  	   [WINGATE]

Evidence?  You provoke people by telling them where to submit their articles
(wouldn't we all like to do the same to you!), and you claim this as "evidence"
that any response to your article belonged where you so elegantly routed it?
No, wait, there's more.

>>This seems to be a common tactic by Charley Wingate.  Set his "Followup-to:"
>>line to "net.flame", as a means of (hopefully?) preventing people from
>>responding and rebutting to his offering in the forum in which it was
>>offered.  Nice try, Chuckles, but apparently I'm not the only one who's
>>seen through your tripe this time.  You have some set of balls to attack my
>>articles in net.religion.whatever when YOU make use of a slimy tactic like
>>that.  [ROSEN]

> Funny, this one seems to be misposted too....:-)
> Quit whimpering, Rich.  No reason in the world why you can't change the group
> back to the forum you wish to contaminate.  [WINGATE]

Both Tim and I did so.  I guess we should thank you for giving us the
opportunity to do so.  Got any more features of netnews you want to test,
Charlie?  Any ideas on making sure just one more time that that Distribution
feature still works?

> I was trying to assist you in the choice of an appropriate group for
> articles such as the two I quote from.  [WINGATE]

Obviously Mr. Wingate is in the business of deciding for other people which
newsgroup to post to.  Are there are other things that you'd feel comfortable
deciding yourself in advance for other people.  Is this the same man who
claims to be a "liberal Christian" unallied with Falwellian fascism in the
same breath as he shows us his well-oiled prejudices?  Is this the same man who
proclaims that manipulative proselytizing is "OK"?  Of course it is.  Thanks,
Charley, but no.  Your offers of "assistance", like your offers of morality
and propaganda, have been turned down.  Knowing your views, I wouldn't expect
that to stop you from "assisting" other people in the future.  If you're so
convinced that you were doing nothing wrong in resetting your "Followup-to:"
line, why did you stop doing it?  Why aren't you still doing it, since it was
obviously a benign thing you were doing?  I think you and the rest of us all
know the answer.  A civilized human being would have apologized.  A good
"christian" (your sp?) would have.  But Charley Wingate tells us to stop
whimpering and accept his delusions of autocracy.

In the past, Charlie has accused me of running some sort of smear campaign
against him.  It's clear now that, given Charlie's own actions, I have no
need to do so.  The man smears himself.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr