Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU!gsmith
From: gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Miss Manners invades alt.flame
Keywords: hypocrisy? gag me with a spamhead!
Message-ID: <8801261319.AA01734@wheatena>
Date: 26 Jan 88 13:19:02 GMT
References: <4789@pyr.gatech.EDU> <2280001@hpcilzb.HP.COM> <8801221316.AA03356@wheatena> <8690@ism780c.UUCP> <8801240902.AA02332@chex> <19180@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <8801250650.AA01610@wheatena> <19203@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: wheatena!gsmith (Gene Ward Smith)
Organization: Bosco Gang Chocolate Center
Lines: 55

In article <19203@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes:
>In article <8801250650.AA01610@wheatena> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>>In article <19180@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes:
>>>In article <8801240902.AA02332@chex> gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene Ward Smith) writes:

>>>Was this posting really necessary? [...]

>>  The "topic at hand" (foot?) was a suggestion I cut off my legs
>>and send them through the US mail.

>Your posting had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

  I presume you can read? Good: read. The "topic at hand" was
*not* Brian Willson, etc etc. Is that too hard for you? Should I
say it again and speak very, very slowly?

> In place of a
>well-written flame intended to shake the views of your opposition, you
>posted a pointless article that called your opponent an "airhead
>slime" and suggested he place portions of his body in a garbage
>disposal.

  I don't see the purpose in trying to "shake" the view that I
should cut off my legs by using reason and logic. Since you do,
maybe you should explain what purpose you imagine this could
serve.

>Isn't that a bit off the topic?  Or have you lost your grip
>on reality?

  No, I think this shoe is on the other foot, probably in a
mailbag somewhere.

>So, why is it that you follow up an argument with such a piece of
>pointless offal?

  Once again: THERE WAS NO ARGUMENT! None! Got it? I followed up
a pointless piece of offal with more pointless offal, that's all.

>Yes, this is alt.flame.  And here you are slapping my hand for flaming
>you in alt.flame.  Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

  Pardon me for snickering sardonically. *That* you thought was a
flame? I had to apologize, it was so damned meek, and *you* think
I was flaming you. And what is "hypocrisy" doing in the keywords,
anyway? You are the one flaming me for flaming, or hadn't you
noticed this is what you've been doing? I have been flaming you
(more or less) for not paying attention and playing the fool. Got
that, finally?

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith    Gene Ward Smith/Brahmsgangster/Berkeley CA 94720
"We never make assertions,  Miss Taggart,"  said Hugh Akston.  "That is
the moral crime peculiar to our enemies.  We do not tell--we *show*.  We
do not claim--we *prove*." H Akston, the last of the advocates of reason