From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Accountability, or rather, JJ's lack of it.
Summary: Shaw caught in minor outright lie, why aren't we surprised?
Date: 12 Aug 92 12:32:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23431
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <SHAW.92Aug11021118@whopper.lcs.mit.edu> shaw@whopper.lcs.mit.edu (Andy Shaw) writes:
>Well Ed, now that James has admitted that "JJ" is not just a nickname, and
>something that he is hiding behind, you've come up with a different
>rationalization.
I have "admitted" no such thing.  You are now showing your incapability
to reason, if you're not telling an untruth on purpose, Andy.
I've said I will not release my "real name" to the net.  That offers
NO information about what my alleged "alias" is.  Of course, since you
dishonestly want to slander me, you claim otherwise.

You are a liar, sir, I've admitted no such thing.  Please retract your
outright lie, or (if you didn't intend to tell this untruth) admit
your utter inability ot reason.

>because
>he is afraid that people he will meet in the future will know the beliefs
>he holds because of the actions of his past.
Andy, if you had cause to fear this, you might be asking something reasonable,
but as you are well aware, you have no reason to fear any such thing,
therefore this is also rhetorical untruth.  

>Everyone reading this _knows_ who I really am: if I meet them in real life
>for a job interview, at a conference, while they are reviewing my papers,
>what I say here will affect my real life. 
Prove it.  How can we tell?  How can we tell that "Andy Shaw" is any
more real than "jj". (Note that I don't particularly disbelieve you
here, but your assertions carry only the weight of someone who
has already lied repeatedly elsewhere in this debate.)

>Which he often does. 
Prove this, Andy, what "bilge" do I spew forth?  You make another
slanderous claim. Perhaps you don't agree with what I have to say,
but you will have a very difficult time disproving what I say,
I dare say an impossible time, and that regardless of any
useless information like "names".  

>"Electronic" consequences are worthless.
Frankly, what are you suggesting?  Do you want to sue me for
telling the truth?  Do you want the opportunity to slander
me worldwide?

I simply can't imagine you can have a single honest motiviation
for asking what you ask.  Given your behavior in this thread,
it's hard to imagine ANY request of yours being forthright.

>accountable for it.
And how do you propose to hold me accountable for the truth?
The only way you can do that is to slander me behind my back
where I can't refute your lies.

>There would be a hell of a lot less KKK members, if they didn't go around
>wearing those hoods and hiding their identities -- people will say and do
>anything if they are not held accountable in real life.
You've never met these weasels, now, have you?
There would be a FEW less, and the ones who remain would be, I 
think, even more vicious and unlawful.


Andy Shaw has a long record of deliberately creating dissention in 
this newsgroup.  He has done so several times before, and I've
taken him to task for it before.  He has embarked on this pointless
personal attack because I've cut his argument off at the beginning
when he came back and tried to spread his hatred again.

Come on, Andy, you still can't answer the "discounting" argument,
now, can you?  That's the whole problem, isn't it?  You just
lost the first time out.

I almost hope your name is an alias, because that way you won't
suffer for these really stupid articles.  I'm sure it's just your
adolescent hormones at fault.  Yeah, that's it, it's not
YOUR fault, you're not RESPONSIBLE, it's just testosterone poisoning.
-- 
 Bush    *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   vs       *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
 Clinton  --    *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 Just Say !NO!       *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.