From: jlam@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lord Automato)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Email Harrasment?
Date: 15 Sep 92 00:43:27 GMT
Organization: University of Melbourne


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. 

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.

=========================================================================
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.

Lin Can                                          





                                          




                                          

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china