From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: do Overpeck's flamers have problems themselves? (was: Overpeck's problems)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:22:55 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct11.223839.25748@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
Darcy) wrote:
> 
> In article <lefty-071092101308@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct4.205149.3755@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin
> >Darcy) wrote:
> >> 
> >> Either you're extremely ignorant, then, or you're just trying to cover up a 
> >> whole bunch of lies with this one, because you've posted lots of untrue 
> >> stuff to the Net; the lie about me threatening to sue Lefty, for instance. 
> >
> >Sigh.  Here we go _again_.
> >
> >The last time you brought this matter up, Mr. Darcy, I ended up explaining
> >what it was you were blathering about.
> 
> I can speak for myself, thank you very much. I don't need you or anyone else
> to be my "mouthpiece". And even if I did, you'd probably be last on my list
> of candidates for such a position.

Well, by all means, speak then.  Remember, you're the one who brought this
up.  Again.

By all means, keep beating that horse.  I got quite a kick out of just how
foolish you ended up looking the last time around.  Let's see whether you
can beat your previous record for wrong-headedness.

I notice, by the way, that you chose to excise misc.legal from the
"Followups-To:" list.  Any problem explaining your, er, _interesting_
theories pertaining to contract law there?

> >Since I'm feeling magnanimous today, and in the interests of allowing both
> >sides equal time on this issue, why don't _you_ explain to the studio
> >audience exactly what you threatened me with and why.
> 
> I didn't "threaten" you with anything, Lefty. I just explained some of the
> options available to me *IF* I wished to pursue the matter.  Then you went 
> ballistic and threatened me with
> 
> 	o  Court action (i.e. litigation, hence "Litigious Lefty")
> 
> 	o  Interference in the relationship between me and my employer,
> 	   Chrysler Financial Corporation (hence you're an asshole, and
> 	   possibly you qualify as a net.cop wannabe too)

A classic bit of Darcy conjugation: "I explain options; you threaten". 
Sadly for you, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  I
merely explained some of the options I could pursue should you make an
attempt to put into practice some of the options _you_ explained.  Do you
have a problem with that?

> Next time you feel the urge to go over the edge like this, I would recommend
> consider counting to 10 while repeating the famous Spaf(?) mantra:
> 
> 	It's only 1's and 0's, people!

It's highly ironic that you would invoke Gene Spafford in this context,
considering that Gene himself posted a message stating his belief that your
extremely peculiar beliefs about the nature of contracts were ridiculous. 

> (It still boggles my mind how, in the view of some folks in these parts, I 
> continue to be held responsible for YOUR gross overreaction).

But of course, there's _so_ much that boggles that teeny weeny mind of
yours, isn't there?

I'm not surprised that you hold steadfastly to your view that truth is not
determined by a majority vote.  On the other hand, a person less totally
arrogant than you might, for an instant, consider that if the entire world
regularly considers him to be an idiot, they might actually have good
reasons for holding that opinion.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.