Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!jade!ucbvax!GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU!gsmith From: gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Apes Only Message-ID: <8710300940.AA29210@garnet.berkeley.edu> Date: Fri, 30-Oct-87 04:40:49 EST Article-I.D.: garnet.8710300940.AA29210 Posted: Fri Oct 30 04:40:49 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Oct-87 16:36:00 EST References: <15637@topaz.rutgers.edu> <8710240755.AA19949@garnet.berkeley.edu> <15922@topaz.rutgers.edu> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) Organization: Garnet Gang Gems of Wisdom, Inc. Lines: 144 Keywords: Brahms Gang Ongoing Flame Wars In article <15922@topaz.rutgers.edu> trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.) rants: >In article gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene W. Smith) writes: >> >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: Graduate math students might or might not; we actually don't analyze 'causality' in math courses. I did spend a lot of time on it in philosophy. I think we disagree over our respective definitions of "direct cause"; in any case, if I agree to use (what I think is) yours, then Foothead's own postings were a "direct cause" (according to what I take to be your sense of that phrase) of his being booted off. So what? Does this somehow prove that Foothead was an advocate of deep-sixing Foothead? You need to introduce a doctrine of intent, at the very least. > 1) Foothead apparently posts something from Ken Arndt (or > whoever. it doesn't matter) It is found out. Foothead's *apparent* (for nothing was ever proven, as far as I know) transgressions were much greater than just a phony Arndt article. > 2) Various people get pissed. This step should read, "Gene Smith points out that the Arndt and Paul Koloc stuff are phony", for this is what set Foothead off. > 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. We "do some hunting" at Foothead's vociferous insistence. Foothead is a "direct cause" of this at least, and so (I would say) an "indirect cause" of #4 below: > 4) In a FOLLOWUP TO THAT ARTICLE, sysadmin@eddie informs > net that foothead's account has been removed. Where you have convieniently failed to notice that sysadmin@eddie claimed to have their own reasons (bad or good, I can't say) for removing this account. My article was presumably the "direct cause" of sysadmin@eddie checking the fh@eddie account, and so an "indirect cause" (along with Foobarhead's vehement insistence that my evidence, which he doubted the existence of, be posted) of this removal. >If your posting was not a DIRECT cause of foothead's account being >removed, what was it? A fluke? Go ahead, make my net. I think I did. I would call it an "indirect cause", a "fluke" would be rather different (e.g., if you were to make an intelligent point intelligently presented, that would be a "fluke".) >> >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??? No, certainly not. Why do I call Stupid? Because you just don't get it. I wanted Tim shut down (temporarily), since he was trying to shut us down. I think it is obvious that if you try to shut another person down (and especially if you tell lies in doing so) then you lose any right not to be shut down yourself for cause, and in particular, for the prevention of just such censorship tactics. This is the principle of reciproicity which is the cornerstone of the notion of justice. For example, a lot of people could quite reasonably complain if they were violently flamed, but I ought not do so, since justice demands I be willing to take what I am willing to dish out. In the same way, if you are committing armed robbery, you have no cause for complaint if the storekeeper were to pull a gun on *you*; but if he did it because you insisted that he break a $20, then you might feel aggrieved. >I knew it. Here's the "Well, Timmy started it" that I was expecting. He did start it. This is merely true. So what if you were expecting it. >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. I've flamed a lot of people a lot of times, but it just so happens that in this instance I was too busy (among other things) to want to get involved in the Maroney-Wiener war. This, again, is merely the truth. >Go on >deluding yourself, it's everyone else's fault. If you believe you're >right, by god, then you're right. You present no evidence but your twisted, distorted picture of various events and then say *I* am deluding myself, Stupid? >>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? No, I have N-E-V-E-R done the same, STUPID. >Look at what you said above, and prove me wrong. If you can, tell me >quickly so I can let my head explode. My objection was not *anything* Maroney posted, it was the fact that he was trying to kick me off and sending preposterous and by now well-documented damn lies in so doing. I don't think he had even a bit of a case against Matthew Wiener, so what in Hell and/or Peoria was his case against me? >> >You guys need help. Desperately. You need a brain. Desperately. >we now have > > "Lawyer, Lawyer, he said something bad about me!!!" > "Ok, fill out this form, and I'll take the case. If this is what you think, why are you sticking up for Tim "I'll sic my Lawyer on you, then you'll be sorry" Maroney and flaming Gene "lets keep the damn lawyers in misc.legal, where they belong" Smith? Damn, but you are stupid, Stupid! ucbvax!garnet! gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith "When Ubizmo talks, people listen."