From: wjb@moscom.UUCP (Bill de Beaubien)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kiran Wagle
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:40:05 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., Pittsford, NY
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Peter Breton (pbreton@asylum.UUCP) wrote:
: In article <1992Aug24.232723.26512@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
: >In article <1992Aug24.035919.6460@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
: >oldman@coos.dartmouth.edu (Prakash Das) writes:
: >>
: >> kiran@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Kiran Wagle) writes:
: >>>
: >>But that's exactly it! Your posts very often read like a manual
: >>written as a law text. If you haven't been everywhere, perhaps
: >>you should learn to sound less certain. You can opine on various
: >>topics as you want, but please make opinions sound like, well,
: >>opinions and not like the gospel. That is irritating to say the least.
: >
: >If you don't like the way his postings read, perhaps you shouldn't
: >read them?
: 
:   This is, in my opinion, bullshit.net.political.correctness. No one
: disputes Kiran's write to post whatever he wants to (as he, in fact,
: does). Don't presume, then, to tell Prakash that he can't post that
: Kiran's posts irritate him. It's *just* as legitimate. Or perhaps Mr.
: Prakash is being given a hard time because he's not an old crony??

Nobody ever said Prakash couldn't post anything he wanted to.  He can post
whatever he likes, as long as he's prepared to live with the consequences.
If you post an article claiming that "real men get their dates blasted so
they can get laid that night" or other such drivel, you're going to get
royally flamed.  If you're a relative unknown and you start attacking the
posting style of an established poster, you risk getting flamed by the 
poster, the poster's friends, etc.  And these were relatively mild as
flames go, too...

: 
: >At least Kiran uses proper grammar.  Perhaps that's what you're
: >objecting to?
: 
:   This is, quite bluntly, nit-picking. Prakash's posts were perfectly
: lucid.

True, though improper grammar tends to draw focus away from what one says
and onto how one says it.

...

: >Furthermore, why should he care?  You complained
: >about his postings, he told you how to avoid them.  That's much more
: >than he's obliged to do.
: 
:   This is exactly the heart of the matter. What all this advice
: basically boils down to is: Don't rock the boat. Fiddlesticks, say I.
: "If you don't like my stuff, don't read it" ISN'T VALID. That's a
: worthy attitude to take with regard to censorship, but this ISN"T
: CENSORSHIP, because NO ONE is saying Kiran shouldn't post, it's a
: criticism of style! What if Prakash WANTS to read his posts and ALSO
: bitch about them publicly? It's his damn right to do so!!!

True.  It's also everybody elses' damn right to bitch about Prakash's
posts publicly.  I do wonder why Prakash attacked Kiran's posting
style publicly rather than via e-mail, though.
: 
: >If reading this newsgroup upsets you, perhaps you should find another
: >hobby.
: 
:   (See above comment) 
: 
: >>Anyway, I am making criticisms in good faith, and some of your
: >>postings are not bad. My purpose is simply to tell you to
: >>polish it up.
: 
:    Now why in hell did that get everyone so riled? Who out there is
: actually liscensed to give out advice, anyway?

Well, it just seems so... hypocritcal.  On one hand Prakash complains about
Kiran's alleged know-it-all attitude;  then he writes the above.  That last
paragraph sounds a lot more know-it-all than anything Kiran's written.  But
then, maybe that's just Prakash's posting style.
-- 
"Bless me, Father; I ate a lizard."
"Was it an abstinence day, and was it artificially prepared?"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill de Beaubien / wjb@moscom.com