Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Bitching and Whining and General Nasty Noise
Message-ID: <1605@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 01:08:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: chinet.1605
Posted: Mon Sep 21 01:08:38 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Sep-87 00:37:34 EDT
References: <8709181116.AA26524@ronzoni>
Reply-To: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 69

In article <8709181116.AA26524@ronzoni> gsmith@bosco.BERKELEY.EDU () 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?

Matthew used to also throw around the word "fact" (he capitalized it) to
mean a personal assertion in his many insulting abusive letters to me.  You
have not shown one shred of evidence to support your "facts," and you have
cowered away when asked to supply evidence.  You cite proper net etiquette
as your reason for your not supplying that evidence. (a first in the history
of the brahms gang!)  Yet the author of the letters in question gave his
consent to seeing them posted.  Frankly, I think I'm not alone in believing
that you're full of it when it comes to the "facts" of this affair.

Again with the cry of free speech.  Do you know what free speech is?  It's
your right not to have your speech or expression become a victim of prior
restraint, while at the same time holding you accountable when your
speech or expression is abusive, treasonous, libelous, etc.  We all got
to see examples of you and Matthew running around the net chasing Tim from
newsgroup to newsgroup insulting him every chance you could get.  Do you
think you have a RIGHT to be abusive, insulting, childish, and obnoxious
in a persistent annoying way?  If you do, you're a pair of sick puppies.

>>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.

A number of less partisan obsrevers have already provided the answer.
I have received little else but praise in e-mail for my articles about
you and Matthew, the little else being a number of letters of which you
are a co-recipient asking that the whole discussion be moved out of
inappropriate groups, groups that you panderingly drew into the discussion
in an effort to tell your own biased side of the story to rally support
for Matthew, insulting Tim merrily as you went along.

>>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.  

You may claim to your heart's desire that I have been gratuitously
insulting you, but I doubt you can come up with an example.  I describe
your behavior and document it.  Since your behavior is often rude and
boorish, these descriptions are of course very negative.  If your behavior
were more under control, then swuch descriptions wouldn't be so negative.
Whining is a description of behavior, and you are certainly not singled out
for your whining.  In the drug debate, you might notice I have refered
to any complaining without merit (such as the cries of drug use proponents
that there is a conspiracy against them) as whining.  I'm sure you have
a dictionary and can look up the word whining to see where and when it
applies.  Your assertion that Matthew's free speech rights are being
violated is whining.
								--Rhonda