From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Skoll and "netiquitte"
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:09:17 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: poster
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Andy)

In article <92352.1801272893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, 2893684@QUCDN (Andy) writes:
>>>Well, "Andy", if you post a public denunciation of me on scj, calling
>>>me names in front of the entire scj community, I will send you e-mail
>>>to keep the discussion OFF scj.

>>I've had similar problems with Andy
>>insulting without you replying.  If you do, it's harassment.

>I see no need in maintaining e-mail contacts where the discussion is
>pointless or has descended to insult.

It takes special oversensitivity and hyperdefensiveness to take merely
annoyed corrections as "insults".  It takes special chutzpah to then
lie about what you and I had posted, and then be "insulted" when I tell
you these are lies.  You may not like having your nose rubbed in your
blundering stupidity, but that is not "insult".

If you have such an extreme distate for insults, why did you and do you
continue to engage in so many?

>				       It is simply a principle that
>phoning, mailing or e-mailing people who have asked you not to do so
>is considered to be harassment.

You were told that if you stopped sending me lies, I would stop sending
you corrections regarding your lies.  You were given a simple choice.
There was no need to get hysterical about it.

>				 Most people understand this and desist
>communication when a request for termination has been made, others feel
>the infantile need for the last word

Speaking of which, why did you include repetition of known falsehoods
and character assassination and raving gibberish in your requests?
Unless, of course, you were trying very hard to fulfill an infantile
need for the last word, enforced by autobouncers?  Which by the way,
I can bypass anytime I want.  You had your infantile last word, by my
choice, and my choice only.

>				      or have no respect for others privacy
>and insist on persisting with unwanted communication.

The only thing unwanted was my irrefutable pointing out of your mistakes.
Rather than deal with it, you responded with denunciations and off the
wall accusations.  You even agreed that I was correct regarding the
various points I had originally made, but you were extremely pissed off
that I was incapable of reading your mind, and kept going off on some
looney denunciations.  Trying to be rational--as in pointing out that
I am not a mind reader and so on and so on--only disturbed you further.

>Both you and Skoll have in the past shown a lack of maturity and a
>juvenile attitude by persisting in e-mailing me when I have requested
>you do so no longer.

Both Skoll and I have been on USENET longer than you've known how to
type.  We've seen newbies come and go, and we each went through your
phase once too.  Yawn.

>For the record, [...]

                it takes extreme cases to provoke me to violate any
implicit privacy that people assume e-mail has, as long time readers
(certainly not you) are aware.  The only reason I am going public is you
seem to be out of control, repeatedly abusing people with this nonsense,
and refusing to permit e-mail discussions where they properly belong.

As for trying to explain netiquette to me, don't make me laugh.  I wrote
a good chunk of the rules that you find in the n.a.newusers FAQs.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish