Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!shelby!portia!mack
From: mack@portia.Stanford.EDU (Siamak Hashemi)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: soc.culture.iranian
Message-ID: <9383@portia.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 21 Feb 90 04:25:34 GMT
References: <1990Feb19.220948.21739@hayes.uucp> <19557@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <6807@internal.Apple.COM> <19568@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Sender: Siamak Hashemi <mack@portia.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: mack@portia.Stanford.EDU (Siamak Hashemi)
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 57

I will quote a couple of postings in news.groups for you, which strangely
enough were written by the same person!

Our dear Sam Conway (the hero of our story) writes:

In article <19557@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> dragon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Sam Conway) writes:

	[on the postings for the creation of soc.culture.iranian]

>What the bloody Hell is THIS doing in this newsgroup?  Have I missed
>something?
>
>(like the taking of a number of American hostages in Iran in 1979, a
>death sentence imposed upon a British subject, or the active support of
>world terrorism....but let's not get started on THAT.)
>

And a short while later he writes:

In article <19568@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> dragon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Sam Conway) writes:

>I have received e-mail which has indicated that the initial posting about
>the new "soc.culture.iranian" was intended as a joke.  An inside joke,

After having seen his two postings, I tend not to believe him, since
it seems like he is biased in his opinions which would directly
affect his postings.
Sam, you could have posted a copy of the e-mail that you received, so
all of us would have been enlightened.

>If this is the case, I am disappointed that the originator hasn't
>made mention of this fact, but rather allows the Net to be clogged up
>with followups from those who believe it to be sincere.

If everyone has responded to his call (even if it were a joke),
then he must have been wise not to mention of his purpose.
It seems like everyone was just waiting for someone to bring
up the issue, and if he is not going to take responsibility of
counting the votes (I assume that you would know about that
since he or someone else who knows him well informed you by
e-mail!) I am willing to take over the responsibilities.

>Let us assume it is a joke, as indeed it must be, and allow it to pass
>quietly into memory.

Let us not. With the number of people who have been posting responses
recently, I think we should take it more seriously. (only for those
who haven't taken it seriously so far, e.g. people like you who have
secret e-mail info!)

>Sam Conway                               *


-- 
					Siamak Hashemi
					Electrical Engineering Department
					Stanford University