From: aa@iti.org (Aayush Asthana)
Subject: .... Crick 
Cc: postmaster@cis.umn.edu, aa@iti.org, postmaster@iti.org
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:55:22 GMT

[Hit the `n' key if uninterested in reading this reply.  This is the
last public reply/discussion from my side.  I will carry on the
discussion more privately and in the appropriate manner.  Any  
replies/rejoinders should be sent by private e-mail]

crick@lenti.med.umn.edu (Ed Crick (CD)) writes:

>In article <aa.725562789@hela.iti.org> aa@iti.org (Aayush Asthana) writes:
>>Once more, this is not a flame.  For those not interested in this
>>reply, hit the `n` key.
>>
>>
>>Sigh.  Mr. Ed <a la dummy a/c> opines correctly that free speech is

>Have you now stooped to petty insults and name-games?  And you said this is

Astonishing:  I have been told by an authoritative source that
crick@umn.edu is a dummy account;  if that is incorrect, then I
stand corrected.  Your remarks on petty insults are even more
surprising:  you indulge in them all the time; can you say the same
for anything that I have posted thus far?  And what's this about
name games?  You seem to be imagining things .. or would you care to
explain what you refer to .. leave out the unneccessarry adjectives
while you do so.

>not a flame, how the noble has fallen from his pedestal.  Beware of such an

This a flame?  Hardly!  Look at what you have written, first 
This is merely a level-headed reply.

>affront, as I may report you to your system administrator.  And while we're

Go ahead:  take care though; there is a qualitative difference in
what you write (abuses, inults, misusing this public facility) and
you can hardly expect to get *any* reaction based on my writing.

Reporting misuse of public forums such as this is the
correct thing to do if there is abusive language that adds
nothing to the content (the criterion used by most sys admins to
judge a posting unacceptable.. this criterion is of course a
variable depending on the particular sys admin)
 
>on the topic of insults, you have yet to produce evidence of my gratuitous use
>of 4-letter words.  First you indulge in brazen McCarthyism with your 

Answer me:  Did you post an apology?  Was it sincere?  What was the
	    reason?  Was it not your offensive posts? 
	    You were charged & committed, by your sys admin, for
	    posting an offensive posting!  And you expect to gloss
	    over that so easily by asking me to show what you have
	    done?
		
>ungrounded accusations, and then when called to support your claims you avoid
	    I don't have to produce any proof:  what was the reason
	    for your apology?

>the topic entirely. When I said that someone (maybe you, maybe not) is

Hardly!  Your system administrator looked at your postings and
deemed it neccessarry to have you apologize.... 
 
>a deformed, abandoned waif raised by whores and beggars, that is not a common
>vulgar expression, rather an evocative use of language.  Try to separate the
>two.

What's your point?  Anybody can write flowery prose in their spare
time..

>>sincere then aforementioned Crick did cause sufficient pain. 

>You were in sufficient pain?  How so, as you were not the target of the flames,
>only Nimmala and his cohorts.  So why would one person complain to force the
>system administrator to demand said apology, unless he felt his virgin
>sensitivities being raped by the post, an act easily avoidable with "n."

You forget that several people asked you to take this into private
e-mail; btw, some others did take this matter to your sysadmin:  he
chose to ignore them for a while till the evidence cumulated; yes,
he chose to correspond with me briefly on the subject and chose to
act subsequently.

>>
>>As for why publicly now:  observe how useful the Usenet is, for
>>every user posting directly, there are scores of others who do not
>>waste bandwidth.   Every system administrator knows the limits of
>>sanctions they can place on their users; and they encourage users to
>>participate in such informal `governance' mechanisms as it is most
>>efficient [quicker payback: less volume of bandwidth required for
>>faster corrective action] and democratic [consensus].  It is an
>>extremely diplomatic means:  the weight of opinion generated
>>determines the extent of the reprimand/rebuke.  And in the end

>And in your case, you seek to throw your weight around by whining to several
>system administrators.  But do you reserve your complaints to those posts only

Say that to your sys administrator as well!  He, in fact, told me
categorically that I was justified in complaining!

Are you questioning my right to object to an offensive posting from
you?

If no:  I rest my case.  If yes:  then your labels (McCarty'ism)
apply particularly well to you, based on your own reasoning.

>on SCI?  It would seem that a white knight such as yourself, who champions
>conservative use of bandwidth would joust against other wasteful groups such
>as alt.sex.homosexual.etc., truly a waste of bandwidth, or do you prefer to

Insults like these surely reinforce my point:  you are misusing the
network and abusing others.
 
I am only concerned with a `culture,' group
such as this which interests me; it is my prerogative to take
umbrage at a post that offends not because of the content but
because of unrelated and uncalled for `labels' and other vulgarity. 

>>						 Good Day, Mr. Ed

>Again, another snide reference, should I email postmaster@iti.org and file

Snide?  How so?
Go ahead:  I am sure he
will find it amusing, if not baffling..
.-)

>my disapproval?  Be that as you would have it, at least I lay claim to the
>talking end of the horse, the other end is all yours.

Astonishing !
Go ahead:  'tis your imagination surely, not mine, Crick.

>Ed Crick
--
[] Regards,   | Industrial    :      _________ ___________ ___________
Aayush Asthana| Technology    :    /___   ___//___    ___//___    ___/
aa@iti.org    | Institute     :   ____/  /___    /  /    ____/  /____ 
(313) 769-4652| Ann Arbor, MI :  /__________/   /__/    /___________/