Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic
Subject: Re: The *SMILE* controversy
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:08:33 EDT
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company

In article <1992Oct12.123749.2239@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu>,
shazam@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu says:
>
>Wait.....are you seriously saying that it is difficult for you to
>glide your eyes over *smile* because it is uncomfortable for you to
>read?  Or is it that you have difficulties with something that is
>new to you?  Or is it difficult because it comes from me, someone who
>does not mind disagreeing with you occasionally?  Come on!
>Talk about not being able to believe your ears!  *smile*
Suzanne, I presume I'm the "you" you are referring to, but I can't be sure
because you don't include the points you're replying to. Of course, this
is a handy trick on your part, because nobody can actually remember the points
I made, as there have been at least 50 other message in the group since my
post. Believe it or not, most of us don't include great tracts of somebody
elses arguments just to wast net.bandwidth, but as a courtesy to the other
readers of the group. And it's not just scc that abides by this netiqette,
but most of Usenet.

I'm not going to recap my arguments, because I don't care what you post,
or how you post it any more, but you are attacking me for being rude, when
you are the one who is "breaking" the rules of netiquette. By all means
continue to use your own mannerisms, but don't pretend that you are more
"polite" or "sweet" than anyone else.
>
>As far as my insisting on using the language of the *'s goes, I have been
>involved in International Communication for almost 6 years.  I have used
>the *'s during this 6 years in order to add a more personal touch
>to my notes and conversations.  I did not come up with this
>myself.  I picked it up from others around the world who used it
>then, and who still use it.  In this time, this is the *first* and
>*only* complaint I have had.  Oh, in case that was a bit difficult for
>you to understand, since it was enclosed in *'s, let me restate
>that for you.  I said that your complaint was the FIRST and ONLY
>complaint I have ever received about using *'s in my mail and conversations.
>Was that better?
Perhaps you should learn to count as well? Kevin O'Connell's "*wince*"
post may not have made it to your site, but it made it this far, and
Ray Dunn had a "shudder" at the end of his post. I've also had 1 e-mail
correspondant agreeing with me. Even counting the public posting, I
count 3, (but then we're all ignorant Europeans, so we probably don't
matter).
>
>Dear, if people around the world worried everytime something this
>petty was brought up, we'd ALL be insane!!  *laugh*  If you have a
>*real* problem, that is REAL Problem, then address it.  But for
>goodness sakes, leave this petty stuff for the children.
>
stuff deleted|
>If you choose to continue with this, have at it.  You will not, however,
>find me continuing with this childish, rediculous crap.  *smile*
But you just wanted to get in that one last post, to set the record straight
right? Funny, that sounds vaguely familiar....

>People here, and rightly so, have asked that we stay on the topic
>at hand.  I have tried to do that for the last few weeks.  If you
>insist on flaming me in public, go ahead.  You may add remarks
>indicating I am afraid or whatever you chose.  *smile*  That is fine,
>too.
If you'd rather not be flamed you should be less hot-headed about flaming
others, especially when your victim is factually correct. If you want to
flame people for things they didn't say, you should pick something outrageous
so that your victim doesn't get any sympathy from the audience.

>I am telling you here and now that I will no longer be a
>part of your childish antics.  I am a nice person, and if you knew
>me I think you would find that I am alwyas willing to try to
>help others.  If you have a problem with somethign I am doing, write me
>and tell me.  I do my best in trying not to offend others.
>But leave it off the list, and stop filling others boxes with this
>drivel?
Suzanne, I'm posting this in soc.culture.celtic, a netnews group. To the
best of my knowledge, s.c.c isn't available as a mailing list, so nobody
has any boxes to be filled. And even if they did, why did you "mail"
this to everybody, and not just me?
stuff about nobody ever complaining about *smile* on RELAY deleted.
And what's this thing you have about satan worship anyway?|

>And as far as my being rude goes, if no one has ever complained before,
>and since it is so widely used on Interactive Communication devices
>such as RELAY and others, how is one supposed to know this behavior
>is rude?  No, sir, *YOUR* behavior is rude.  You need to learn that
>everything in life will NOT come your way.  You have to give a
>little in order to receive.  Good luck.
Nor will everything come yours. You've managed to make quite an impression
on a number of people in your time in scc. The indignation at the suggestion
that there might be any African blood in your family, the "America almost
didn't survive the last Democrat administration" post, the Cliff Richard
thread, the claim that there is no poverty in Mississippi or Alabama, (and
you know what yo're talking about, caused you worked on the Food Stamp
program there, giving aid to the non-poor who don't live there).

Yes, quite a body of work for 6 or 8 weeks. And you've proved to everybody,
except a few boorish transplanted Europeans who don't have any right to
be hanging out in scc, what a bright, sunshiney person you really are.

In the immortal words of Zig and Zag, "It's a funny old rock and roll world!"

>
>*S M I L E*  Have a nice week all!!
>
>Suzanne
Aengus
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"