Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Newsgroups: news.misc,soc.net-people
Subject: Re: Libertarian Theory and Libertarian Practice: A Portrait From Life
Message-ID: <1554@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 14-Sep-87 00:08:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: chinet.1554
Posted: Mon Sep 14 00:08:38 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Sep-87 04:18:46 EDT
References: <8709070142.AA00636@ragu> <1520@chinet.UUCP> <8709130104.AA11330@ragu>
Reply-To: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Followup-To: soc.net-people
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 102
Xref: mnetor news.misc:919 soc.net-people:500

In article <8709130104.AA11330@ragu> ragu!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>>What peaks my curiosity about this article (and others like it in a large
>>number of newsgroups, to which I have submitted this article) is why they
>>were posted at all.
>
>   I doubt this. They were posted because I was annoyed, and with
>good reason. And I suspect you know this, whether your curiosity
>is still "peaking" or has already attained its customary summit.

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 and by making it seem as though you two were martyrs to the
cause of free speech.  Other people have pointed out that when the "free
speech" is nothing but abusive name calling, the "rights" associated with free
specch don't necessarily apply.  According to Laura, Matthew wanted nothing
less than the RIGHT to flame Tim as much as and in any manner that he felt
like.  Also according to Laura, he was also convinced that Tim could flame
back at his system administrators as much as he liked, believing that no one
would ever delete the account of Matthew Wiener.  I think it's a positive
thing to see such conceit shattered.  

>>And does
>>having done any of this, the hypocrisy or the hostility, prohibit him from
>>complaining when it is done excessively and abusively to him?
>
>  Of course it does. He who lives by the flame shall die by the
>flame; and Tim wishes to be a violent flamer. He should take it
>in return like a human person, and not like a small rodent which
>squeaks its fear to the night.

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

>>Matthew Wiener apparently has a long history of being hostile and rude to
>>people for no good reason. 
>
>  He has a long history of being rude, period. He *always* has a reason in
>my experience. He was more rude to you than he needed to be. He also
>had an excellent reason, which you failed to see then and continue to
>fail to see. This seems to be the reason for your own venting of 
>hostility now. So where does this leave you?

What I'm venting is my opinion, having been another victim of brahms gang
rudeness and intimidation tactics.  After reading your cloying pleas to
newsgroups like soc.culture.jewish practically begging for people to see
it your way, I was really offended, and I thought the other side, from
the perspective of someone harrassed by the brahms gang, needed to be heard.
It is only in the interest of presenting a balanced picture that I speak.
As for Matthew's "excellent reason," I only failed to see it because Matthew
failed to demonstrate it.  But that is typical of brahms gang tactics:
fail to demonstrate your position, then blame the other person for failing
to see that position and call them rude names.  I've been a victim of this
game and I've seen others fall victim to it many times.  I'm not surprised
that you, Matthew's collaborator in rudeness, would have seen valid
"reasons" for rudeness.

>  Wrong. I am not proud of being rude, I just have a very short fuse and
>little ability to suffer fools gladly. (Even less ability to tolerate
>bigots of various stripes. Thus, my flames.) 

I went through this same line with Matthew.  It seems that people who tell 
us how they are unable to suffer the behavior of "fools" most often are
really saying that they hate it when someone doesn't see things their way, and
of course anyone who doesn't is a "fool."  I'm not really sure whether or not
anyone should care how well you feel you can suffer the behavior of fools,
your lack of ability in that area doesn't absolve you of th social obligations
to be reasonably courteous.  Even when we fools fail to see what you fail
to demonstrate.

>  If he wanted to bitch, he could bitch on the net or send nasty e-mail
>to us. Most people react that way. What about my free speech right to
>write letters to Tim Maroney's employers claiming he is a drug-crazed
>Communist-Satanist menace to the American Way of Life? Should I exercise
>that? 

Sure, if you want to.  If you did you'd probably come off looking like an
idiot.  If his employers have a shred of common sense, they will laugh at
you for being a lunatic making wild accusations.  This is the reason I
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.  This is why I believe
your claim that Tim Maroney told "lies" is the real fabrication.  He
had plenty of real material to provide showing how obnoxious you two
are.  He didn't have to go to the trouble of making things up.

>>Gene has tried to make this into a political argument, claiming that the
>>issue is "libertarianism." 
>
>  I was trying to have an intelligent discussion about some
>issues that got raised by this over in talk.politics.theory.

Oh, fiddlesticks, Gene.  Do you think you're kidding anybody with this
"intelligent political discussion" fish story?  Were you attempting to have
a serious discussion about how Matthew's getting the boot was related to
Judaism by posting to soc.culture.jewish?  You were writing rhetorical articles
in an effort to sway opinion in your and Matthew's favor, period.  Any
intelligent political discussion that resulted was incidental.
								--Rhonda