From: aa@iti.org (Aayush Asthana)
Subject: Banerjee's Credibility WAS: Re: Asthana's Sc<>
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:16:14 GMT

[The original article by Banerjee had a Follow-Up line with groups
other than this one -- an attempt by him to propagate messages and
waste bandwidth; a fine example of a responsible person!]

banerjee@hsc.usc.edu (Samit Banerjee) writes:


Trying to be Crick, are you?  Wasting bandwidth in such proportions
is not exactly your idea of ethical use of resources is it?


>His (ass)holiness, the prophet Asthana writes:

>>Banerjee, how kind should this net be to you?

>Mighty pretentious coming from somebody who has complained in chronological
>order to the following system administrators (that I know of):
						^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Banerjee aside from yourself, you know of nobody else for certain
especially the lady (my what a big guess about the timing as well)
and who are you anyway to go around conjecturing -- you simply have
no idea how many people feel exactly the way I do so why don't you
hypothesize about who these other people are while your imagination
is at work?


>1. Samit Banerjee    2. Ed Crick   3. Sreehari Nimmala  4. Deb Chatterjee
>5. Mustafa Ibrahim   6. An elusive MSA net   7. Deepak Bose
>8. The Wimpy Finn who runs the anonymous service
>9. The lady from KSU who forgot to log out and from whose account certain 
>descriptions of sex acts with a cow were posted. This was after an apology 
>was posted from her account the next day.

>>>	2. Since no such connection has been established, it is unfair to
>>>	   the Non Resident Pakistanis to apply to them criteria which have
>>>	   no applicability to them.
>>>	

>>?

>Look at your response. A pathetic question mark. Obviously the people who
>coined the terms "Space, the Final Frontier" after examining the contents

Really!!!!  What are you trying to do so publicly or do you think
that you own this medium and can abuse people in any way you like?


>of your cranial cavity were closer to the mark than they thought. 

>>>	3. It is generally inappropriate for this prudish newsgroup to use
>>>	   such language and if Mr.Asthana is sufficiently peeved, it may be
>>>	   your systems administrator who will admonish you in the future.
>>

>>Semms like this is becoming your pet peeve .-)  Coming from one who
>>was admonished (even briefly) it simply illustrates that you really
>>have nothing to say here...   

>You even repeated some of the words I had used, in a valiant attempt to lay 
>claim to a degree of literary sophistication that you do not have.  As for 
point I make about your pet peeve?


There you go again with your literary sophistication bit which
somehow in your mind gives you the right to hold forth on other
people's personalities; look at what you write -- is there anything
at all of substance?  Simply a waste of everyone's time.


>being peeved, you are the one who should hold the copyright on that, 
>considering the number of times you have been flamed.

>>>std. disclaimer  I hope this does not violate Mr.Asthana's code of ethics.
>>Give it a shot..-)

>I just did and also in my last posting. Dosen't the repeated use of the word
>'asshole' offend your prudish sensibilities and your smug sense of well being
>to the point where my sys admin. would be your only resort?


You are wasting your time.  Try to remember that I consider this a
public forum -- hence your baiting tactic will not work; but yes go
ahead and be a little more offensive -- if you can get away from
your tangential remarks and indirect analogies then certainly a
reprimand may just be the remedy for lewd and low remarks.


>>>Please check with me before complaining to my sys.admin.
>>What happened to free speech all of a sudden?

>Since when does a one on one complaint to a sys. admin. fall within the 
>perview of freedom of speech? You really ought to spend less time on the

Oh yes -- you would restrict people from reporting directly with an
example of offensive posts -- to suit your own ideas about the use
of computing facilities you restrict the definition enough but are
quite liberal when it comes to your own writing...


>alt.sex.*** type of newsgroups and make an honest effort to understand
>what the First Amendment is all about.


Again you have descended to the level you know best.  And try not to
put a copyright on what free speech is about -- you cannot on the
basis of that principle get away with anything you like..


>>Generally, I ignore these `childish postings' as one netter asked me
>>to -- apparently Samit has a personal score to settle with me?  

>Apparently you are humor impaired or else after the barrage of postings
>lampooing your brand of McCarthyism on the net, you felt it was time
>to air your rising sense of indignation. And after such juvenile behaviour, 
>you have the audacity to call somebody else's posting 'childish'.

>>I have known for some time that his system administrator said that
>>Banerjee has lied to everyone on the net about his personal (see @)
>>relationship with Brian.  I find this sort of subterfuge beneath his
>>level of training etc.  

>I have neither had the occassion nor seen the necessity to explain my 
>personal relationship with Brian on the net. I do remember having mentioned
>something in my personal correspondence with you, around the time you
>complained a second time.

Well, a case of the pot calling the kettle black...

As for personal correspondence, you actually called me up and said
something about his being a student of yours....  why did you lie?


>I do not see why I must justify your charges with a response since any
>personal relationship has a certain degree of privacy attached to it. 
>Suffice it to say, that what I said about my sys admin. is true and posting
>a letter (which will probably be altered like Nimmala's) changes nothing.

Come now, I don't fabricate postings nor do I play games like a
select group of people have done on this newsgroup (re the fictional
character Ed Crick) -- who actually revelled in having wasted a
tremendous amount of bandwidth --- your agenda is very clear; people
should not talk to system administrators as the game will be up for
those who may have played a rather large hoax on Usenet;  this is
clearly not in the best interests of those who would actually use
Usenet properly.

Anyone can check with your sysadmin (yamaguch@usc.edu) and ascertain
the truth of the matter directly!!!!

>> Hope to see a more positive side of Banerjee in the near future.  

>Tell us that all the complaints that I listed above, were also an expression
>of your positive side. I shudder to think what your Mr.Hyde would look
>like or what he would do if left to himself on SCI.

>And please cut the patronising tone from your postings. For a person who
>has never contributed to any significant extent on SCI beyond those inane
>one liners, you sound terribly presumptous and irreverent in your constant 
>whining mode.


Listen to what you are saying.  The fact that I would like to make
the best use of scarce resources is being turned around against me.
Sure, when you write something interesting it's fine; but that does
not give you leverage to insult people; as for the irreverent bit,
you again stand on your pedestal and whenever convenient use free
speech as an excuse for your misbehavior.

>>To all those who attempt to complain to
>>sysadmin's remember you must include an original posting so that it
>>is clear that these are not fraudulent attempts.  

>There you go again. Another quote from Asthana's handbook of personal pitfalls.
>I doubt if you can get any more oxymoronish than this....a complaint without
>a copy of the posting? What's next for you? Justifying sex with a tadpole
>as final proof of the Big Bang theory. 

Banerjee, you are acting like a child on Usenet for all the world to
see;


>Along the same lines, here are some guidelines taken from the bulletin 
>issued for Asthana's school for prudishness:

This is an example of what waste of bandwidth isx:


>1. All class members must log a specified number of complaints to fulfil 
>   minimum graduation requirements.  

>2. If their posts force someone to post an apology, they graduate cum laude.  

>3. If their complaints cause someone to lose his/her account they graduate 
>   magna cum laude (or suma cum laude, whichever is the highest)  

>4. If they decide to lead a 'satyagraha' march against a noncompliant systems  
>   admin. (even an anonymous one) they are immediately awarded the school's 
>   medal of valor. 

>5. Forcing the systems admin. to fall in line would almost guarantee the title
>   of class valedictorian.

>6. The ability to match to match the school's founder by becoming a nuisance
>   on any USENET group qualifies the person to compete for the gold medal 
>   awarded to the most promising Victorian nanny of the year.

Perhaps this means something to you? 


>>Some people tried
>>this with me; a trace is in the works -- apparently the same people
>>who post anonymously tried to create from a sys admin's account a
>>fraudulent set of complaints (with no basis of course) which was so
>>patently obvious that now most sys admin's will check archived files
>>before taking any action which of course is the correct procedure
>>for correcting any misuse.  

>Since I know exactly what happened, your grand plans of a conspiracy 


Hardly Banerjee, don't even try to drown the facts out with blatant
lies;  first off:  your claim to know everything!!  Really!!  Tell
me more!  Trying to divert attention from the fact that a hoax was
perpetrated and an attempt made to create the impression of real
users when in fact such was not the case will not work.

>theory seem heroic but sadly redundant.  Better luck next time, Asthana. 

Once again, the familiar cover up tactic is at work.  Next time you
even think of talking to me remember that I do not separate my
ethics from public forums and personal interactions;  your
credibility as at stake:  you seldom write what you mean:  can
anybody believe you?


>>Since, I put my name on everything I
>>write, I am careful about what I say;  if enough of us can think

>The only "things you say" are complaints dashed off to various systems admins.
>Notice the pontificial arrogance of your last sentence and the same 
>patronising tone evident in the rest of your article. When will you grow
>up and realise that this newsgroup does not and will not run according
>to your edicts, whims or fantasies or an idiotic set of guidelines? When will
>you stop being a nuisance on the net? 


Listen Banerjee don't make conjectures about what I may or may not
do;  as for your literary claim to fame, try to actually be humble.
While there are no guidelines nor any attempts for such a grand
design as you would have it, it is time for you to look at what you
grow out of your child-like misuse of bandwidth and start respecting
public property.

[] Regards,                                              _  _______  _ 
Aayush Asthana|Tech. Transfer & |Industrial Technology  [_][_     _][_]
-- aa@iti.org |Commercialization| Institute,           [~~~] [   ] [~~~]
     *Disclaimer: Standard*     | Ann Arbor, MI 48103  [___] [___] [___]