Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!trudel From: trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: weiners/maroneys/smiths/apes Message-ID: <15922@topaz.rutgers.edu> Date: Sun, 25-Oct-87 13:08:48 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.15922 Posted: Sun Oct 25 13:08:48 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 27-Oct-87 06:21:13 EST References: <15637@topaz.rutgers.edu> <8710240755.AA19949@garnet.berkeley.edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 124 To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu In article gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene W. Smith) rants: > You know it is or what are we doing flaming each other on > alt.flame? I know enough to know that you wouldn't have a fire if you didn't throw logs onto the kindling... > >I don't even want to know about who's guilty - here's some > >observations I have of the whole big picture: > > To paraphase, 'I don't even want to know what the facts are, I take it that you don't really like people who even hint at disagreeing with you. Anyone who does, well...I guess they'd better watch their asses, ooooooooooo...or else the mighty Genie'll have them toasted for breakfast. What's the matter, Gene, don't get your way in REAL[tm] life that often? > >Foothead (remember him?) lost his account DIRECTLY because of a > > posting from the Brahms gang. > > INDIRECTLTY, dweeb. Do you even know what your sentence means?? I thought that graduate math majors would understand causal relationships, but I guess not. Let me iterate: 1) Foothead apparently posts something from Ken Arndt (or whoever. it doesn't matter) It is found out. 2) Various people get pissed. 3) Brahms gang people do some hunting, and discover mail logs that implicate that some funny business went on, POSSIBLY from Foothead. Sort of "smoking gun" evidence, but heavily accusatory. Brahms gang posts their "evidence" in a long article. 4) In a FOLLOWUP TO THAT ARTICLE, sysadmin@eddie informs net that foothead's account has been removed. If your posting was not a DIRECT cause of foothead's account being removed, what was it? A fluke? Go ahead, make my net. > >Genie Smith appears to want Tim's account removed because of > > the old adage "an eye for an eye" > Wrong-o, Stupid. I wanted him shut down temporarily *before* > Matthew's account was removed, as a way of getting him to stop > his own censorship/harassment/damn_lies campaign. And Tim didn't want the same thing? The Kettle's black, you say, Mr. Pot??? > >Each account in jeapordy was placed in jeapordy because of some sort > >of antagonism on the part of each account's owner. > My account and Tim's were never in much danger. In any case, > why was Tim antagonistic to my account? I wasn't flaming him much > at all, *then*. I flame him far more now and he has quit > complaining. I knew it. Here's the "Well, Timmy started it" that I was expecting. Thanks for proving me right. Thansks for showing us that you couldn't really accept that you might possibly be at fault in some way. Go on deluding yourself, it's everyone else's fault. If you believe you're right, by god, then you're right. I never saw the (*cough*) light until now. Thanks. Sorry I ever doubted you. >If I tried to remove your account because of what > you wrote, would you regard this as a reasonable reaction? I > doubt it. Oh, Tim tried to do this, and you haven't ever tried to do the same? Look at what you said above, and prove me wrong. If you can, tell me quickly so I can let my head explode. > >You guys need help. Desperately. > Well, I guess you will hear from my lawyer soon. Your flames > are just too horrible, and if I get you thrown off, it *must* be > your fault, right? I'm glad I added the "apes" into the subject line. If we can predict prehistoric human behavior based on current ape behavior, human beings established pecking orders amongst their tribes, mostly through intimidation via shouting, grunting, and displays of force. Nothing's really changed, except that we use lawyers for this purpose instead. Speaking of lawyers, of course we all know how lawyers make everything "right," just like mommy used to, so instead of "Mommy, he hit me!!!" "Well, did you hit him first?" "Yeah, but -" "No buts, young man, go straight upstairs! NO supper for you!!!" we now have "Lawyer, Lawyer, he said something bad about me!!!" "Ok, fill out this form, and I'll take the case. We can file for Defamation of Character, and ask for a Cease and Desist order from the courts until we have time to file. Can you come up with a $5000 advance on my fee? I'll need something to work with." "Ok, here's the story -" "Don't bother me with the details, I'm sure they'll come out in your favor. Let's do lunch next week, I'll have the case ready by then." "But, what about - " "No buts, just let me handle this." Justice is served, no? > Gene Ward Smith > Proud member of ECIS -- "An effete corps of impudent snobs" -- I division There can be only one, eh? I think I know who's trying to be it... Jon -- Hm-m-m-mm? I thought this place was for Brontosaurusses only!?!!?!!