Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Followup yours, Mr. Wingate Message-ID: <614@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Mar-85 15:34:21 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.614 Posted: Sun Mar 3 15:34:21 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 08:27:41 EST References: <278@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <580@pyuxd.UUCP> <3654@umcp-cs.UUCP> <599@pyuxd.UUCP> <3755@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Huxley College Lines: 115 >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? [ROSEN] > The man called me a jerk, Rich; if that isn't flaming, then nothing is. > [WINGATE] Ah, but you were called a jerk precisely because you chose to unilaterally decide for other people where THEIR followups to YOUR articles belonged. Thus, you provoked him to call you a jerk because of your tactic, and I think, by the evidence, he was right in doing so. |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] Abuse? I'd call it a very accurate description of what you did. YOU chose unilaterally what newsgroup other people should be posting to. I also pointed out the irony of your consistent claiming that you are a "liberal Christian" unallied with Falwellian fascism, while you engage in imposing your rules on other people the same way Mr. Falwell would like to. I'm sorry you don't see deciding which newsgroups your respondents should respond to (thus effectively silencing them in the forum to which YOU posted!) as wrong, I would guess for the same reasons that you didn't see manipulative proselytizing as wrong. > Rich, you sound precisely like Falwell when you say that. Now, THIS is abuse. (Moreover, what does it mean? Is it solely an attempt to smear by assertion?) > 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. We've been through who is "violently attacking" whom already. Calling any response to that which you've offered a flame (in advance) is to make a very egotistical and erroneous claim about what you have to say: that anything offered in opposition to it MUST be a flame. Now, THAT's a violent attack on other people and their thoughts. > 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. Oh. Is this an example of "charley" engaging in projection or what? Seriously now, this seems to describe responses TO me much more than responses FROM me. > 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. Slander? Do you deny deceitfully and surreptitiously re-routing ANY responses to your articles in the forum where they were presented into some other forum where YOU deemed them more appropriate? We are listening, "charley" (hey, if you can do it to "christian", why can't I?). And you're right, at least I no longer expect certain things to change. > 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. Perhaps, in part, prompted by your surreptitious manipulation of the followup forum for your articles. Who the fuck are you to decide that anything said contrary to one of your articles MUST be a flame and thus belongs in net.flame? If that were the case, the original article belonged in net.flame too, no? The net effect of your tactic (at least as it was intended) was to silence those who had something to say in opposition to your statements in the forum where the original statements were made. If that's not a symptom of a repressionist mindset, making decisions for other people in YOUR best interest, I don't know what is. > Obviously, the reason I quit using the line was because it didn't work. Obviously, the reason you quit using it was because you got caught at it. But now I'm worried that "charley" will somehow find some other method to achieve his ends that DOES work, now that this one has failed. > 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. Talk about covering up after the fact. As long as you are asserting that what I say is McCarthyist and Falwellian, can I assert that you would have been right at home on a certain ex-President's personal staff, taking the evidence and attempting to twist it in your direction? You seem very good at denying what is apparent (e.g., motivations for posting articles on methods for testing distribution features, motivations for denouncing certain surveys) to others. -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr