Xref: utzoo news.groups:16253 alt.flame:13919
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!oliveb!bu.edu!bu-cs!buengc!bph
From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Cancellation and Suspicion
Message-ID: <5229@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 9 Jan 90 19:37:22 GMT
References: <.:ZI=Fxds10@ficc.uu.net> <1990Jan5.073857.24939@twwells.com> <24327@gryphon.COM> <I=+OP4xds8@ficc.uu.net> <04.+V8xds13@ficc.uu.net> <1990Jan9.082626.24809@twwells.com>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 58

In article <1990Jan9.082626.24809@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
>In article <04.+V8xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>: Jeff, Bill, and others. Greg Laskin doesn't deserve your condemnation.
>
>As far as that goes, I hadn't condemned Mr. Laskin. Something he
>didn't mention was that I sent my missive to postmaster@gryphon.com
>rather than to him personally.

C'mon, Billy, sue the flock out of Dickie and Greg.  A
chimpanzee in single-breasted pinstripe could beat you into
the ground if you used arguments like that, and I want to
watch.

(C'mon.  Tell me you expect me to come out of retirement
just to fit the clothes...)

>I did not know who that was, nor did (or do) I care.

You pedal backwards almost as fast as Greg Lemond does
forwards.

Call for votes:  To choose T. William ("Bone-Dry") Wells as
the recipient of the 1990 Usenet Reverse Laurent Fignon Award.

>The simple fact is that the owner of a machine
>is, at least morally and almost certainly legally, responsible for
>what he permits to be done with the machine.

And do you include answering rapacious allegations to
be an illegal or immoral act?  Many states, and the
federal government, do include language in their laws
that recognizes mitigation due to "fighting words."

Is it worth lots and lots of money to find out you're
a poor semanticist?

>Then again, Mr. Laskin's comments about my resources are, on the
>one hand, demonstrably false, and on the other hand, would, for
>him to have known the validity of them, have to be partly based on
>information which he would have had to have committed a felony to
>have obtained. Not the mark of a person who is thinking very hard.

I, think, you resemble, your ,remark,s too much.,

And it's not a felony to ask around about someone's
financial status.  There are almost always a few people
with enough releasable info to develop a figure with two or
three significant digits.  Besides, he only doubted you;
now he's certain, and so am I.  You couldn't fund a court
battle against someone with real depth to their pockets.

>And the not-so-veiled threat which he ended his post with was not
>too bright, all things considered.

Just don't drop the soap in my bathtub, either, Billy.

				--Blair
				  "Here.  Have a fish."