From: joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Arne Adolphson, Moron At Large
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:21:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1993Jan8.162139.19231
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <73149@cup.portal.com> Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:
>Arne screeches annoyingly:
>>nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar) writes:
>>> In article <1993Jan6.040527.7765@spdcc.com>
>>> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) suggests to Furr
>>> >Maybe you could try reading what Arne has to say without prejudice.
>>> what, and make us miss all the fun?!
>
>[Aside to Messrs. Dyer and Minar:]
>
>I don't know where Steve got the idea I'm "prejudiced" against
>Arne. It's not like I met him in person, decided I didn't care
>for him and from *that* perspective find his postings abrasive.
>I've never met him in person; my entire opinion of him is derived
>from the nasty, vitriolic postings to .motss that Steve finds so
>inexplicably charming. So telling me to "read without prejudice"
>would only lead to me coming to the same conclusion all over
>again.

I guess it is you calling someone a clueless piece of self-absorbed
shit, or a moron. You have, in the past, called me a muscle-bound
jerk, and other people other things. You know, George, hyperbole only
functions well when there is /contrast/. The same rhetoric used for
homophobes like Hsu or Cramer applied to Arne and others renders the
former pathetic, and the latter ludicrous. If ever there was a whine,
it is the continual "there are no hairy men in the media" mantra you
type at the drop of a hat, when simplistic analysis would find
otherwise (I'm very good at simplistic analysis I've never found good
support for your assertions, and I should know). Very few people have
attacked you because of this whine, and endless banal repetition.

There are good ways of being tart, without being subject to being
accused of what John Waters would call "assholism". Henry Mensch and
Roger Klorese are masters of the devestating four-word cattle-prod,
and I look forward to their postings. I'm always /curious/ about what
you are going to write, but I shudder nonetheless when I see you in
the "From:" header.

I know the charm of writing well, having a sense of humor, and being
well-exposed to culture and life can be inexplicable to those for whom
that is meaningless. You must agree, George, you don't have a buoyant
sense of humor, and your ability to detect sarcasm in writing isn't
really finely tuned. You usually call sarcasm 'dreck' or 'pointless
drivel'.

>>You know, I'm completely mystefied by George's (and Greg's)
>>reaction to me.  I think I'm a nice enough fellow, and there
>>are people who've put up with me for extended periods of time
>>recently -- hi W! hi H! -- so I know I'm not Godzilla or
>>something.  Maybe George has some kind of hormonal imbalance?

>Talk about an utterly clueless piece of self-absorbed shit.
>Try re-reading this, moron -- maybe you'll catch a badly
>needed clue:
>
>>That tired old queen?  Why the hell would anyone bother
>>talking to a drab who'd chose to live in *Glendale*?
>
>Putting shit like that in a message where you whine about not
>being able to fathom why I find you about as pleasant as salt
>in an open wound is an *amazing* -- though not uncharacteristic
>--example of your hypocrisy.

It isn't hypocrisy. And, after all, aside from having Dinah Shore sing
in a sleepy, narcotized voice about Glendale as "Glendale Federal',
and being the place where Joan Crawford escaped /from/ in "Mildred
Pierce", it really doesn't have a lot to say for itself, or to be
proud of.

What's your point?

-- 
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
Newsgroups: soc.motss