From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 06:34:12 GMT


John S. Van Etten writes:
jve> Anyway, the vote stands and so be it.  Amusing to note that only 6
jve> people cared enough about Ferrell's stuff to voice their opinions in 
jve> favor...

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It's amusing that you haven't figured out yet that usenet readers 
rl> weren't fond of your notion that "voting" ought to dictate 
rl> someone else's posting privileges.

In article <ykry8bj@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
jve> Christ.
jve> 
jve> Russell please tell me (and the net) why you have such a pressing need
jve> to LIE in an effort to defame your opponents.  What in hell are you
jve> talking about?  Voting on Ferrell Wheeler's posts was *his* idea,
jve> *NOT* mine.  Your efforts at accusing me of being a censor, for
jve> suggesting that he put his info on a mailing list instead, were bad
jve> enough, but this tripe really takes the cake.  You've really outdone
jve> yourself, son.  Kudos.  I'd appreciate a public appology for this lie,
jve> since I *never* suggested voting...  

Uh huh.  I had the impression that Ferrell was asking for an 
informal referendum, yet you were pretty insistent that the 
"voters" had some sort of obligation to mail copies of their 
opinions on the matter directly to you.  As I recall, you said 
something to the effect that this would "keep Ferrell honest".  
Did Ferrell need a censor like yourself to keep him "honest"?

And let's not forget the classic remark you made after Ferrell 
posted my coworker's "yes" vote: 

	"I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or 
	 mothers or whatever) vote in this." 

Such comments would have seemed really strange had they come 
from a free-speech advocate like Dan Sorenson, who made it clear 
at the get-go that posting privileges ought not be determined by 
public polls.  Coming from you, however, they didn't seem 
out-of-place at all.  

jve> God, children like you irritate me, Russell.  Please grow up.  If 
jve> I was your father (and I'm proud to say that I've never raised a 
jve> kid like you) I'd probably put you over my knee and teach you a 
jve> lesson about life and telling the *truth*.  

Is it wise to conjure up these mock-paternalistic dreams of violence 
when you're trying to convince people that you're an advocate of free 
speech?   

jve> One other comment, I respect Ferrell's honesty for posting the
jve> list of all those who voted, to show that it was legit.  I'm also
jve> disappointed in those that didn't have enough guts to send me a copy
jve> of their vote, as well.  

rl> I can't speak for the other people who encouraged Ferrell to 
rl> continue posting, but I can assure you that I regarded your 
rl> demand for copies of the "votes" as childish and immature.  Is 
rl> it reasonable for you to assume that a man or woman lacks "guts" 
rl> just because he/she considers one of your ideas to be silly?  

jve> The only thing "childish and immature" was all you little kiddies 
jve> with your secret ballots and special decoder rings.  Adults 
jve> aren't afraid to speak up for what they believe in.  Only the 
jve> gutless are.  

Amazing.

I'm not absolutely sure what a "special decoder ring" is, but I'm 
pretty sure that I don't own one.  I can also assure you that I'm 
not afraid to speak up for my convictions.  One of my convictions 
is that you're a silly individual who doesn't need or deserve copies of 
the personal correspondence that I mail to other posters to let 
them know that I enjoy their contributions.  If you want to fool 
yourself into believing that this conviction stems from my 
"gutlessness", it's fine with me.  You're entitled to your illusions.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals