Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Followup yours, Mr. Wingate
Message-ID: <3755@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 18:55:00 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3755
Posted: Fri Mar  1 18:55:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 07:44:58 EST
References: <278@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <580@pyuxd.UUCP> <3654@umcp-cs.UUCP> <599@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 60

>>By the way, I was not amused by your "followup-to" line, which attempted to
>>prevent me from responding in net.religion.  Your motivations are as
>>transparent as usual, jerk.  [MARONEY IN RESPONSE TO WINGATE]

>> One can see from the evidence that net.flame would indeed have been more
>> appropriate.  [Exit wryness]  	   [WINGATE]

>Evidence?  You provoke people by telling them where to submit their articles
>(wouldn't we all like to do the same to you!), and you claim this as
>"evidence" that any response to your article belonged where you so
>elegantly routed it?  

The man called me a jerk, Rich; if that isn't flaming, then nothing is.

>This seems to be a common tactic by Charley Wingate.  Set his "Followup-to:"
>line to "net.flame", as a means of (hopefully?) preventing people from
>responding and rebutting to his offering in the forum in which it was
>offered.  Nice try, Chuckles, but apparently I'm not the only one who's
>seen through your tripe this time.  You have some set of balls to attack my
>articles in net.religion.whatever when YOU make use of a slimy tactic like
>that.  [ROSEN]

>> Funny, this one seems to be misposted too....:-)
>> Quit whimpering, Rich.  No reason in the world why you can't change the
>> group back to the forum you wish to contaminate.  [WINGATE]
>> I was trying to assist you in the choice of an appropriate group for
>> articles such as the two I quote from.  [WINGATE]
>
>Obviously Mr. Wingate is in the business of deciding for other people which
>newsgroup to post to.  Are there are other things that you'd feel
>comfortable deciding yourself in advance for other people.  Is this the
>same man who claims to be a "liberal Christian" unallied with Falwellian
>fascism in the same breath as he shows us his well-oiled prejudices?

[Abuse continues, but I think we can break off here]

Rich, you sound precisely like Falwell when you say that.

The couple of articles in question were expected to bring on lots of flaming.
Your record of violent attacks upon anyone who would dare to tread upon your
holy priciples (especially your sacred right to ignore the stated purposes
of a newsgroup) speaks in favor of hanging net.flame on any reply to any
article you post.

The problem is, Rich, that you are far more full of hatred than I could ever
possibly manage.  Your response to any criticism seems to be to launch an
all-out attack upon your opponent's character; we're all so hopelessly
immoral for not falling in line with the sacred principles.  What the article
from which I quoted is is a piece of McCarthyism; slander the opponent so
that you don't have listen.  Could you just calm down a little bit?  It isn't
as if what you are saying is going to change the world.

The only reason I used the "Followup-to:" line was because it seemed to me
that most of responses to the articles in question would be flames, as was
in fact the case.  Obviously, the reason I quit using the line was because
it didn't work.  I have no intentions of apologizing, especially after both
you and Tim took the liberty of heaping abuse upon me without even bothering
to ask as to why I had done such a thing.  Talk about assumptions.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe