Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!garnet!weemba
From: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: "Morris did it"--the new excuse?
Message-ID: <17085@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 16 Nov 88 11:34:05 GMT
References: <552@comdesign.CDI.COM> <1570@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> <16915@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1585@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> <17025@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1589@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Organization: Brahms Gang Posting Central
Lines: 46
In-reply-to: deke@socrates.ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian)

In article <1589@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>, deke@socrates (Dikran Kassabian) writes:
>
>In article <17025@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> An Obnoxious Math Grad Student writes:
>>Don't be a stupid nit.  Read what I wrote.  YOU brought up an example,
>>real or imaginary; I then discussed the example.  I never said anything
>>about your site beyond what you said.
>
>Name calling?  Really now.

Yes.  If you condescend towards me, then I shall return the favor.  If you
can't deal with it, then get lost.  Simple, eh?

>The point I wanted to make can be seen below and in at least 3 other postings.
>I brought up an illustrative example.  You latched onto it and turned away
>from the topic.

What do you mean, "the topic"?  You *own* it or something?  You gave exam-
ples, and I told you why I didn't think much of them.  This apparently an-
noys you.  To the point that you start in with asinine accusations that "I
can't read" or what not.

>		  Why is it that I'm not surprised?

I don't know.  Meanwhile, you are more than welcome to *DISCUSS* issues.
For example: go back to my first reply, where I raised the Mrs Brown ques-
tion.  Tell me why you see a difference between the two deaths.  The rea-
son I posed this example to EXPLAIN WHAT I THINK ARE THE RELEVANT QUES-
TIONS WE SHOULD BE PROBING, AND WHY I THINK WHAT I THINK IS RELEVANT IS
INDEED RELEVANT.

You, instead of responding to my example, simply got snotty.

>>By the way, since you seem willing to conclude that what Morris did was
>>"wrong" based on the consequences you enumerate, may I conclude that a
>>non-violent version of the worm would be "right" in your eyes?  If not,
>>why not?

>Because, my dear weemba, (for the fourth and hopefully final time),
>	[[ HERE IS MY POINT, DOES IT LOOK FAMILIAR?? ]]
>the author could not have known what was and was not "violent".  For this
>reason your question is pointless.

So you've raised this point.  What of it?  I really have no idea what
you are getting at now.

ucbvax!garnet!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720