Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU!gsmith From: gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: Usenet account "termination with extreme prejudice" Message-ID: <8710030525.AA25406@garnet.berkeley.edu> Date: Sat, 3-Oct-87 01:25:40 EDT Article-I.D.: garnet.8710030525.AA25406 Posted: Sat Oct 3 01:25:40 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Oct-87 12:31:41 EDT References: <315@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> <3967@well.UUCP> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu () Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc. Lines: 91 In article <4550@ncoast.UUCP> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: >The flame comes first. Type "g@END(FLAME)" from rn to get to the important >and rational part. (Actually, I have tried to base the flame on facts as >well, rather than opinions, but I am but human and I may have some or all >of it wrong.) Don't worry, you did make some mistakes: since you sometimes present speculations rather than facts, this should not surprise you. >Come to think of it, this makes Tim look like the pot >calling the kettle black.) Figured that out at last? Good! >Matthew >Weiner was thrown off the Berkeley machines because the UCB admins received >complaints from people. I strongly suspect that Tim's letter was merely the >straw that broke the camel's back: for a while, I was under attack by the >Brahms Gang, and *I* was tempted to fire off a note to fair@ucbarpa despite >the fact that I'm pretty liberal about freedom of speech (ask a Cleveland >modemer about the Great North Communitree if you want proof). Of course Tim was just the proverbial straw. He wasn't taken that seriously, but (I am told) Matthew had given assurances that no more trouble was coming from him, and Captain Carnage qualifies as "trouble" in most vocabularies. As far as the "Brahms Gang" flaming you, I don't recall it. What was I flaming you about? Or do you also think I'm Matthew Wiener? >I would remind the net of the Brahms Gang's complicity in the atrocious >net mismanagement that resulted in fh@mit-eddie losing his account (deserved >or not, we still don't have all the facts on that one. I would remind the net that this is utter bull-bleep. I posted a short notice saying that certain "Ken Arndt" and "Paul Koloc" articles were phonies. Foothead jumped all over me for that, challenging me to prove it. An investigation led to evidence which made it (say) 95% certain Foothead himself posted the articles, attempting at the same time to make it appear Rich Rosen did. We posted this evidence in response to Foohead's demands that we show evidence. Neither I nor Matthew wrote to Foothead's sysadmin, nor did we suggest any course of action by anyone. Foothead shot himself in the Foot as far as I can tell, but I accept neither the credit nor the blame for his exit. >I personally suspect >that Foothead got the axe because of the Brahms Gang plus the fact that he >was forwarding news to/from Rich Rosen, and not because of any actual proof >that he was involved in any "shady" net activities). I would also suggest >that a tally of messages, subjects, and newsgroups for postings by the >Brahms Gang since the beginning of the year would be enlightening. I personally suspect you are talking through your hat. The mit@eddie people never did clarify exactly why they tossed Foothead off; all I know is that *I* did not suggest it to them. As for whatever dark and dreadful deeds you suspect me or Matthew of, put up or shut the hell up. If you want to be nasty, try using a little thought and/or evidence, don't just shake out all the decaying detritus in your brain and mutter "Plots! Everywhere, plots!" >To put it mildly, the ousting of Matthew Weiner from the net was long >overdue. Tim@hoptoad has never been as outrageous in his disregard for >netiquette and freedom of (others') speech, possibly because his own ousting >of a few years ago taught him wisdom and possibly because he is simply more >considerate of others. I would say sending mail to our department chairman and sysadmin accusing me of things I didn't do qualifies. This is more bull-bleep; you seem well-suppiled and I suggest you may have a profitable career ahead of you in the fertilizer industry. >I invite the admins at UCB to present the text of Tim's letter to the net. >Tim has already authorized this; I don't think Mr. Weiner has demonstrated >that he deserves the right to a vote. OK, I just got back after two weeks, but at last we may began. More than one letter was involved, though; it was a massive effort on Tim's part. > "Mummy, what's an opinion?" In your case it seems it is almost synonymous with "baseless speculation" ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Logicians are apt to call this an *argumentum ad hominem*. Quite so: .. I am addressing *humans*. I am addressing neither dogs nor logicians.