Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!pyramid!decwrl!labrea!jade!ucbvax!BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU!gsmith
From: gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Bitching and Whining and General Nasty Noise
Message-ID: <8709181116.AA26524@ronzoni>
Date: Fri, 18-Sep-87 07:16:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: ronzoni.8709181116.AA26524
Posted: Fri Sep 18 07:16:27 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Sep-87 00:58:33 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@bosco.BERKELEY.EDU ()
Organization: Bosco Gang Chocolate Center
Lines: 65

In article <1554@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes:
>In article <8709130104.AA11330@ragu> ragu!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>Clearly they were posted to sway public opinion in favor of the brahms gang
>by implying that Tim Maroney was trying to squelch the free speech of the
>brahms gang

  This is merely a fact. Do you deny it?

>Truer words were never spoken.  The same principle applies to you and
>Matthew, you know.  Instead of taking it like human beings, you are
>now whining about someone complaining about your rudeness and obnoxiousness.

  I am not "whining"; that I think is the sort of thing you have
termed a "gratuitous insult." I don't think being annoyed when
people write to one's sysadmin alleging that one is a part of
(and I quote) an "illegal conspiracy" in an attempt to remove
one's account and/or ability to use netnews constitutes
"whining". You might want to consider what adjective a less
partisan observer might be inclined to use about your evident
resentment of and triumphing over Matthew Wiener.

>For all Tim's hostility, he never stooped to your level of gratuitous
>insult, did he?  (Who could?)

  Once again, I submit for your attention the possibility that a
careful count of instances will show that you have insulted me
more often and certainly more gratuitously than I have done you.
Since you evidently wish to be hostile and rude, I don't know how
you can maintain at the same time your blanket anti-gratuitous
insult stance.  I would say that the argument is becoming silly,
except for the fact that it began that way. Physician, heal
thyself!

>doubt that Tim's letter was anything but well documented.  For a
>communication like that to be taken seriously by the reader, and not
>dismissed as the ravings of a whining complainer, it would have to have
>something behind it that the reader can see. 

  You are making unwarrented assumptions about something
(internal politics of Berkeley Math computers) about which you
have little knowledge. Your conclusions are wrong, and in my
opinion supported mainly by your prejudices (notably hostility to
Matthew Wiener and myself.)

>This is why I believe
>your claim that Tim Maroney told "lies" is the real fabrication.

  Once again, a statement whose sole visible means of support is
your evident and overt hostility to me. Certainly no one who
knows any of the details has as yet seen fit to dispute that
particular point.

>Any intelligent political discussion that resulted was incidental.

  Any intelligent outcome of this particular cat-fight will be
not only incidental, but well-nigh miraculous. I suggest we
either end it, or agree that we will continue slanging each other
in public under pre-selected ground rules. Any suggestions?

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith	    Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"We should consider it as one of the most astonishing errors of the present
age that so many people listen to the words of pseudoprophets who, in place
of the dogmas of religion offer scientific dogmas with medieval impatience
but without historical justification."	     --Baron Lorand von Eotvos