Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU!gsmith From: gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Maroney Archives, vol VI Message-ID: <8710120713.AA14094@garnet.berkeley.edu> Date: Mon, 12-Oct-87 03:13:25 EDT Article-I.D.: garnet.8710120713.AA14094 Posted: Mon Oct 12 03:13:25 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 13-Oct-87 01:18:24 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc. Lines: 206 Here is a short letter sent the next day, followed by "Sunday's gaily (sic) insults". Matthew's "insults" in fact are a good deal more than that, they are an analysis of just why Maroney's case was so weak and how Wiener's case (that Maroney was getting no more than he deserved and possibly required) could be supported. Apparently it was rot13ed when posted, and was unrot13ed somewhere along the line, probably by Tim. Date: Sun, 2 Aug 87 02:30:11 PDT From: hoptoad.UUCP!tim@cgl.ucsf.edu (Tim Maroney) To: postmaster@brahms.Berkeley.EDU Please respond by Wednesday or I will proceed with the next step. I do not wish to be threatening, but the situation is getting worse and worse, and I will no longer tolerate it. Tim Date: Sun, 2 Aug 87 02:29:06 PDT From: hoptoad.UUCP!tim@cgl.ucsf.edu (Tim Maroney) To: postmaster@brahms.Berkeley.EDU Subject: Sunday's gaily insults >From ptsfa!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU!obnoxio Sun Aug 2 02:11:50 PDT 1987 Article 4636 of talk.religion.misc: Xref: hoptoad rec.arts.comics:3295 rec.arts.sf-lovers:6005 talk.religion.newage:828 talk.religion.misc:4636 Path: hoptoad!ptsfa!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU!obnoxio >From: obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (the Comedian) Newsgroups: rec.arts.comics,rec.arts.sf-lovers,talk.religion.newage,talk.religion.misc Subject: Dear Timmy Message-ID: <8708020515.AA13081@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 2 Aug 87 05:15:29 GMT References: <10005@orchid.waterloo.edu> <611@microsoft.UUCP> <8707300646.AA24099@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> <2588@hoptoad.uucp> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (the Comedian) Followup-To: rec.stupid.maroney.tricks Distribution: world Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central Lines: 165 I am crossposting this all over the spool because I cannot predict in which other newsgroups Timmy is going to next post his remarkable fantasies in. It is rot13ed to make it that much easier for all of you bright people with better things to do with your time to skip it. Right? In article <2588@hoptoad.uucp>, tim@hoptoad (Tim Maroney) writes: >If you share my objection to the Brahms gang posting, As we all know now from your "The ridiculous and the sublime" article in talk.religion.newage, you have great difficulty in even IDENTIFYING who is and is not in the Brahms Gang. Our invitation to e-mail you a standard Brahms Gang style .signature for your inspection remains wide open. > literally, It's a shame how this wonderful word has degenerated into meaning little more than "figuratively". Abuse the language all you want, Timmy--see if I care. But when you start calling Israel the most "genocidal" and "tyrrannical" nation on the planet--and you cite your arguments with one extreme Orthodox Jew from Isreal (on CompuServe!) as PROOF--I'm going to come down on you heavily. And if while doing so you show off, while being obnoxiously sar- castic, that you are unaware of the difference between an Arab and a Muslim, or between expert reference material and KKK propaganda, etc, you really shouldn't be surprised that your qualifications for discussing the Mideast are obnoxiously derided in return for the strangury that it is. If you object strongly to the treatment of rape in Cerberus #99, then do so. Had you limited yourself to coherent objections, I would have ignored you. But you went on and purposely ignored the obvious fact that Sim is writing his own work for his own reasons, which as you know--or is that asking too much?--might take another 100 issues for us to find out. The leap between a stark treatment of a very difficult, unclear issue and authorial "complicity" in the maintenance of "invalid cultural models or rape", is quite immense, but one which you took without hesitation--or thought, apparently. And then when your response to my request that you skip the PC buzzwords consists of nothing but totally wild accusations up and down, as if not admiring Timmy's genius is equivalent to supporting oppression of women and minorities, you really should shut your trap when people treat *you* like mental dog doo. (PS-"Political correctness" is NOT an allusion to political parties. I was rather surprised that you did not know that. I guess nothing in that department should ever surprise me. (Actually, what's *really* puzzling to me about your complaints about Cer- berus #99 is reconciling this with your posted interest in sadomasochism. I mean, I would think you of all people would *get off* on C99! Or have you gone off some bizarre deep end, unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy in comic books, while of course doing so--as you would claim-- in your own little whipping sessions, real, imagined, or otherwise? But *please* spare us. You always have *some* micturating excuse why it's OK for you to behave such-and-such, but when anyone else does so, it's pure lutulent gleet on your part--and that's putting it nicely!) And when you wish to lament the modern commercialization of art, do so. But don't act so shocked that when your lamentations are carried out via ex- tremely false comparisons between the United States and the Soviet Union, totally ignorant comments about the status of the avant-garde in America and the cost of xeroxing in Berkeley, all accompanied by extremely crude ad hominem attacks against Michael Larsen, that you then get responded to in kind. Although I must confess, Michael's e-mail to you was far super- ior a dress-down and total exposure of the scope of the micranial Maroney mind. (PS-if you ever reply, could you cc me a copy? Thanks!) You did say you have no trouble believing that Marie Antoniette really did say "Let them eat cake?", didn't you? Yes, you'll believe anything, so long as it fits in with your little pseudo-liberal fantasy world, with clearly drawn lines listing who is to be hated. Things like *evidence*, which you pride yourself on demanding when mocking the newagers viciously, just evaporate when it comes for what you're willing to believe, doesn't it? And of course, when Michael Berch pointed out that you were picking and choosing about beliefs as badly as the people you were insulting, you then viciously attacked him for doing so, bringing up nothing but strawmen and ad hominem insults. What, pray tell, is the relevance of Michael's liking of Heinlein, other than your own known rabid intense dislike of Heinlein? > several >articles a day which have no content except insults directed at me, You are quite welcome to point out the "several articles a day" that have NO content EXCEPT insults directed at you. There are, in fact, no such beasties. The closest may be my "sold out" article. If you missed the Veidt allusion--a spiritual followup on my DARK VEIDT article where I first divined the many similarities between you and Ozy--that's your mental deficiency. Like I said, "Tim. No brains. I checked. Very bad." (This answers, weakly, Jim Poltrone's question. Please, I do not con- sider it one of my better articles; when reading and rereading Watchmen over and over, echoes of the series reverberate uncontrollably.) As for "Captain Carnage": well, gee, whom do you expect to be compared to after your highly insulting invitation to the Brahms Gang to find a spot where you come off inferior, when said invitation came off being a master- stroke of footshooting stuPUDity on your part? It's no different in prin- ciple then other people casting you as a smelly and vicious vigilante or a completely amoral sometime pawn of Richard Nixon. I don't recall seeing you getting all huffy then. And on top of it, it was a little trivia quiz! Did *you* remember who CC was right away? With brains the size of an ASCII null, you probably did not. And do you remember many months ago, when you called one of us Brahms Gang- sters a fuckhead in talk.philosophy.misc because of our Ayn Rand articles, and you just *knew* we were being close-minded dorks unable to deal with disagreement, you were muttering, "where there's smoke", followed suddenly by your acceptance of our invitation to *read* some Ayn Rand for crying out loud? Ah yes, that was Tim "Captain Carnage" Maroney at the top of his form! You posted how just totally fallacious her IOE was, agreeing 100% with what we had been saying all along, while providing, as so expected, 0% examples to actually support YOUR assertions. Of course, there may well have been no content articles by someone not in the Brahms Gang attacking you in some group I don't read. Please, for your own sake, before making a complete steatopygial fool of yourself yet AGAIN by citing "so-and-so, of the Brahms Gang, is attacking me repeatedly", CHECK the .signature and VERIFY that the poster IS in the Brahms Gang. I again affirm my complete willingness to send you a copy via e-mail of a standard Brahms Gang .signature for your personal perusal. > please >write to the members of the gang in complaint, We haven't exactly been deluged with complaining e-mail. Quite the oppo- ite. Of the e-mail that I have received, my favorite is the following, in response to "The ridiculous and the sublime and the Maroney", in t.r.newage, the article where Gene and I took up YOUR explicit invitation to find some- thing inferior about you: |Haven't laughed so much in months. I had been having a bad morning. It |just improved. Thanks. Think about it, Timmy! Your unflagging excerebrosity helped contribute to someone's day! > and cc to >postmaster@brahms.berkeley.edu. Do you bother our postmaster BEFORE or AFTER you bother to identify whether a posting is indeed from a genuine Brahms Gangster or not? When it comes to sending you a copy of the standard Brahms Gang .signature to aid you in this serious problem area of yours, I'm Mr SuperFriendlyCooperation himself, Timmy! Lucky you, one would think! By the way, what do you plan to do if we take up that long-standing invita- tion for hoptoad accounts, eh? Cry? You can pathetically whinge all you want, little boy, but you can't hide the brown spots of your diapers when you post to the net. > Enough childishness is enough. Yes Timmy, enough *is* enough. You stop living your nambypamby little fan- tasy of the Tim Maroney double standard, in which *you* are permitted to viciously (although ineptly) flame and mock everywhere but anyone who re- turns the favor, matching viciousness with viciousness, is posting "no con- tent childnessness", and you know what? >Poof<, the major cause of your childishness will magically disappear. "There's really no reason to be so offended, you know." Ayuck yuck yuck. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Hark! The herald angels sing / Beechan's pills are just the thing. Peace on earth and mercy mild / Two for man and one for child. P.S.: Just what the heck do David Letterman and General Electric have to do with rec.arts.comics, anyway?