From: yangze@acf3.nyu.edu (Ze Yang)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Email Harrasment?
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:58:34 GMT
Organization: New York University

jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato) writes:


>In article <65500114@acf3.NYU.EDU>, yangze@acf3.NYU.EDU (Ze Yang, , , ) writes:
>|> In article <3131@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU> jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato) writes:
>|> >
>|> >
>|> >Recently Mr Yang Ze has sent me emails concerning my postings in SCC. After
>|> >a few email exchanges I found that there is no point in further discussing
>|> >the matters. However, I was still harassed my Mr Yang continuous emails. I
>|> >told Mr Yang that further emails harassment would be redirect to SCC.
>|> >Since Mr Yang thinks that his ideas are so good, I therefore included the
>|> >recent four unabridged emails between Mr Yang and myself.
>|> >
>|> 
>|> The story is a little different from what Mr. Lin (or Lam?) said, 
>|> I did sent him emails, but it's not about his postings, 
>|> it's about another issue, is he trying to depicit me as 
>|> an newsgroup policeman? The first cited email by Mr. Lin is my 
>|> last mail to Mr. Lin, from that you can see that I am more 
>|> concerned about that issue itself instead of his posting.  
>|> 
>|> His above paragraph might give you another impression that I have send 
>|> him lots of emails, actually, after he declined further discussion, 
>|> (in that mail he wrote about 50 lines, end with "I think we should
>|> stop discussion here."), even though I thought his arguments 
>|> didn't make sense, I only replied him a very short email (3 lines), 
>|> say, "...anyhow, I stop my discussion here." after that I had no 
>|> intension to communicate with him anymore, but 
>|> I got another e-mail from him, I answered that one, he send me
>|> one more, which is the one he claimed here that he warned me of 
>|> posting my emails, but actually either he hasn't done that or 
>|> I missed the words (definitely I havn't seen those words in the email), 
>|> I followed another one, that is the LAST email I send to him.
>|> 
>|> By those words "continous", "harrasement", Mr. Lin depecit me
>|> as a wu1 nai4, and he himself as a volurable victim, I am amazing at
>|> Mr. Lin's language skill, he has such a good skill, he can use his
>|> skill somewhere else instead of fooling around with his "brothers 
>|> and sisters" here? 
>|> 
>|> Mr. Lin obviously lack common sense, he posted a lot 
>|> of criticism articles in fake name in scc (it's not allowed 
>|> in US published criticism articles anonymously on newspaper) 
>|> while he posted my emails without my permition, even if what he
>|> said is true and he did warned me of posting my email, he can only 
>|> post my last email. Maybe just because he lost the debate and 
>|> "lost his temper" (Mr. Carl's words)?  
>|> 
>|> (Note that before I send the following email to him, 
>|> he had said "I want to enligt(en)
>|> you", "If you think you garbage could be sold, post it in scc")
>|> 

>Mr Yang, you have chosen the right word better than I could, your are a really
>Wu1 Nai4, a big liar in public. I don't need to explain so much as you have to
>because it was who sent me the harassment emails and that was clear. 

Any rational arguments here? You netters can see.

>As you said you didn't refer to my postings, why did you REPLY to my postings?
>If you said you didn't attack my postings and emails, what are the last two
>lines in your last email message (see below) mean? Big liar. Or perhaps you
>don't understand the language you type and for this I may forgive you.

I did send mail to him to disscuss something, I am more concerned about
the topic we disscused than his posting itself. From my last email to
him you can see that.(Note before I send this email to him, he said"
I send email to you because I want to enlighten you...., if you think
your garbege can be sold, post it in scc..")

>=========================================================================
>Your arguments lack common sense, don't you think so? I won't post
>garbage like you do. When I talk law, you say you can make a new one,
>does this make sense? When I say big territory is a potential, I quoted
>Abraham Lincoln's words, I also remind you middle east. Another point
>is that because of the oil deposit, the situation is tense in the south
>China sea already, it may become the second Persian Gulf, what argument
>did you give, you only say "cannot prove", nobody can prove, don't you
>think so? For TI, if they choose secede, they are the agressors, they
>shoud be responsible for the bloody war just the Southern States are
>responsible for the American Civil War, I really want to enlight you, 
>you are only sceptical about all my arguments, while you cannot make any 
>arguments at all, can only say "brothers and sisters", you seemed
>to have learned this word from ccp. I cannot see any valuable point from
>your posts and the e-mails. 

>Ze Yang
>=========================================================================

>Obviously you didn't really read my reply before you sent me your emails, 
>that was exactly the way you were arguing things and that was why I told 
>you not to send me emails anymore. Now you try to use slander, fine, everyone 
>sees what's the nature of your presence here -- a policeman (that was your
>own description above, I just borrow from you) ? Perhaps a bandit is more 
>likely. How many times did you use fake names, anonymous emails, prove to us that
>you didn't use faked names in SCC. You action speaks for itself and what can I
>say? 

>This would be my last reply both inpublic and in private. Please again, not to 
>bother me with emails, I didn't invite your for the discussion, did I ? You 
>always want the last word, don't you? Wasn't you sending me emails ignoring my 
>requests ? Well, you are welcomed to have it here.

Mr. Can learned that "harrassment" could be
used as a weapon in the USA, did he learn anything else? I cannot
see. As I said before, I have never saw his warning words in his
email to me (I deleted his trash the time I read it). Even if he
did include the warning words, I only sent him one more email afterwards.

Mr. Can managed to play a role of GOD (just like the communist, 
what a coincidence, the communists also claim that they are 
saver of the whole human being, they will get rid of all 
the 'evil'of human being) in scc, is this an example of 
evil resulting from impractical thinking?(There are kind of
conservation of hostility?...I don't know...)


>Lin Can                                          


Ze Yang
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:24828 soc.culture.japan:7740