Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdahl!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU!gsmith
From: gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,alt.flame
Subject: Out of control
Message-ID: <8710030953.AA26952@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 3-Oct-87 05:53:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: garnet.8710030953.AA26952
Posted: Sat Oct  3 05:53:34 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Oct-87 12:36:48 EDT
References: <3496@rutgers.rutgers.edu> <1179@quad1.quad.com> <27951@sun.uucp> <3013@hoptoad.uucp> <1593@killer.UUCP> <3022@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu ()
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc.
Lines: 109
Xref: hoptoad rec.arts.sf-lovers:7374 alt.flame:189

In article <3022@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>In article <1593@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes:

>Have you had training in distorting the facts, or is it a natural talent?

  This is a question you should ask yourself, along with another
one: just what kind of a liar are you? The "pathological" kind?
The Reaganesque kind, unable to tell truth from your own (in your
case, rather paranoid) fantasies? Or do you distort and lie out
of convienience, to help your nasty attacks on other people to be
as painful and damaging as possible?  Why the lies, Tim? Why? Why
did you make me your enemy by telling them, Tim? Do like like to have
enemies? Do you really hate insults like Matthew's or do you at some
level crave them?

>Some people, like Chuq and Matt Wiener, naturally arouse suspicion by
>behaving in an obnoxious fashion. 

  Naturally, you and I are above such things. Let's both be a
little honest and admit we're obnoxious SOB's, OK? It would do
you good (Chuq and Rhonda, et al too, for that matter.)

>Chuq has a number of times attacked me in
>ways that evaded responsibility for doing so, a common occurrence on the
>net, and certainly not Chuq's exclusive purview (or solely directed at me).

   That seems like a better thing to do than to write lies about
someone to their site, without even the minimal courstesy of a
"cc".

>If I'd been through what Mark has, I'd probably be about as paranoid as he
>is. 

  You ARE as paranoid as he is--maybe you should try to find a
better source of pot or something. But you act like a nut and
then scream bloody murder when someone calls you a nut. Not a
very well-balanced boy, here.

>It's been hard enough keeping things in balance since finding, and
>making public, proof of a conspiracy against me at UNC.

  I'm curious: was this a real "conspiricy", or like the "conspiricy" I
was supposed to be a part of?

>Remember, just because you're paranoid, that
>doesn't mean they aren't out to get you (as you have proven for Mark).

   I wasn't out to get you until you, in your paranoia, made an enemy
of me. Paranoia seems to be a little self-fulfilling at times.

>Nothing about coercion was mentioned by me, anyway.
>The issue at hand was the rudeness of asking everyone to stick their fingers
>in their ears and sing the Star-Spangled Banner whenever certain people
>start talking.

  It seems to me the rudeness of trying to trash the net-acess of people 
whose "crime" is pointing out your shortcomings is a worse rudeness.

>>>It would be nice if people would try
>>> a little harder to keep their personality problems off the net.

>>Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

  In a word, yes.

>I don't think so.  I make every attempt to keep my temper under control and
>to avoid making egotistical pronouncements, and I have gotten better and
>better at this as the years have gone by.

  To paraphase the slogan, you've not come a long way, baby. Or else you
must have been absolutely intolerable before, in which case it is no wonder
you got booted off the net.

>(The infamous shout of "YOU
>LIE!!!", which was truthful but uncalled for, was only after three people
>told the same bald-faced lie: I held myself back as long as I could.  These
>days, I would probably have just ignored the whole thing, because I'm more
>practiced.)

   It not only was not a lie, it was even true. YOU LIE!!!

>I have seen no evidence that Chuq does the same, or even admits
>that these flaws are part of his personal repertoire.  Everyone has
>failings, myself certainly included, but I assure you I really try hard to
>restrain mine. 

  I will accept said assurence only when I see some evidence it
is true--I've seen not one whit of evidence you have ever even
attempted to retrain your penchant for being insulting and
untruthful.

>Chuq, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong with telling all
>and sundry that he deserves a Hugo 
 
  This is from the guy who posts his SAT and GRE scores to the net
in the mistaken belief it will prove he is not a fool. 

>I would like to see a similarly self-critical statement from Chuq before I
>retract my request.  And to all those who are about to jump on me for
>admitting my failings:  think about how this makes *you* look first.

  If you think *this* bit of self-congradulatory flummery is
"admitting your failings", you are very much mistaken. The first
step is to admit to yourself, at least, if not to the net that
you are a liar.

ucbvax!garnet!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"Some people, like Chuq and Matt Wiener, naturally arouse suspicion by
behaving in an obnoxious fashion." -- Timothy Maroney, aka Mr. Mellow