From: vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: CIE, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:40:59 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> It's amusing that you haven't figured out yet that usenet readers 
>rl> weren't fond of your notion that "voting" ought to dictate 
>rl> someone else's posting privileges.
>
>In article <ykry8bj@rpi.edu>, vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten) writes:
>jve> Christ.
>jve> 
>jve> Russell please tell me (and the net) why you have such a pressing need
>jve> to LIE in an effort to defame your opponents.  What in hell are you
>jve> talking about?  Voting on Ferrell Wheeler's posts was *his* idea,
>jve> *NOT* mine.  Your efforts at accusing me of being a censor, for
>jve> suggesting that he put his info on a mailing list instead, were bad
>jve> enough, but this tripe really takes the cake.  You've really outdone
>jve> yourself, son.  Kudos.  I'd appreciate a public appology for this lie,
>jve> since I *never* suggested voting...  
>
>Uh huh.  I had the impression that Ferrell was asking for an 
>informal referendum, yet you were pretty insistent that the 
>"voters" had some sort of obligation to mail copies of their 
>opinions on the matter directly to you.  As I recall, you said 
>something to the effect that this would "keep Ferrell honest".  
>Did Ferrell need a censor like yourself to keep him "honest"?
                    ^^^^^^
Time to pop out Webster's, old friend.  A "censor" is one who tries to
prevent the spread of information (in this case knowledge of the poll
which was taken), not try to make it more widely available.  Would you
care to try again?  Remember, three strikes and little Russell is out,
no matter how hard you cry.
     BTW, you didn't answer my question about why you lied and said
that the suggestion to have a poll was my idea.  Would you mind
answering it?  Thanks.


>And let's not forget the classic remark you made after Ferrell 
>posted my coworker's "yes" vote: 
>
>	"I didn't know we could let our girlfriends (or wives or 
>	 mothers or whatever) vote in this." 

Russell, only very small people quote things out of context.  I don't
know if you're impressing all your AR friends or not, but it's time to
grow up and be honest.  Is there some reason why you did't post the
entire thing?  You're lying and grasping at some mighty weak straws.
Forgive me for saying this, but I expect a little more from you.

     To refresh your memory, I said, "I didn't know we could let our
girlfriends (or wives or mothers or whatever) vote in this. :-) :-)
Just funnin' ya, Russell."


>Such comments would have seemed really strange had they come 
>from a free-speech advocate like Dan Sorenson, who made it clear 
>at the get-go that posting privileges ought not be determined by 
>public polls.  Coming from you, however, they didn't seem 
>out-of-place at all.  

Russell, two things here.  First, please *quote me* as saying that a
person's privileges should be determined by a poll, or else please
shut up and stop lying.  Thanks.  Second, it's amusing to note that
Dan has since supported the idea of having people get the info from a
mailing list (already available, BTW) and have Ferrell post a periodic
summary here, as was my original suggestion.  So how come Dan is a
"free-speech advocate" and you claim I'm a "censor?"  Please make an
effort towards consistency in your opinions, it helps me keep all this
stuff straight.  That's a good lad.
     Just as an aside, is there any reason why you folks that want the
info can't get added to the mailing list where the info already comes
from?  Are you scared?  I'll be glad to help anyone get on it, if
that's the problem.


>jve> God, children like you irritate me, Russell.  Please grow up.  If 
>jve> I was your father (and I'm proud to say that I've never raised a 
>jve> kid like you) I'd probably put you over my knee and teach you a 
>jve> lesson about life and telling the *truth*.  
>
>Is it wise to conjure up these mock-paternalistic dreams of violence 
>when you're trying to convince people that you're an advocate of free 
>speech?   

I'll make you a deal, Russell.  You be *honest* for a whole day, and
I'll refrain from such comments for a whole day.  If that works, we
can extend the period indefinitely, as long as you keep up your half
of the bargain.  Perhaps we could even have some rational discussions.
I can only hope.


[stuff deleted]
>jve> The only thing "childish and immature" was all you little kiddies 
>jve> with your secret ballots and special decoder rings.  Adults 
>jve> aren't afraid to speak up for what they believe in.  Only the 
>jve> gutless are.  
>
>Amazing.
>
>I'm not absolutely sure what a "special decoder ring" is, but I'm 
>pretty sure that I don't own one.  I can also assure you that I'm 
>not afraid to speak up for my convictions.

That's odd, I got a completely different opinion.


>  One of my convictions 
>is that you're a silly individual who doesn't need or deserve copies of 
>the personal correspondence that I mail to other posters to let 
>them know that I enjoy their contributions.

I don't recall ever asking for any such thing, Russell.  Could you
show me where I asked for anything other than that the poll be a
matter of public record (by sending votes to me as well as Ferrell)?
Thanks in advance.  I have no desire to read your e-mail -- your posts
are full of enough lies as it is.


John

--
******************************************************************************
               John S. Van Etten     vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu
       Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  1000 MIPS GaAs F-RISC Project
       --"If sand didn't irritate oysters, there would be no pearls"--
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals