From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: WARNING: Sam Saal coersion
Organization: liver ---> spleen
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:30:33 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Summary:  Ooooooooh!!!!!

For all those who don't see the humor in this,  I suggest they hit the "n"
key now.  I would think it is a waste of time, too, if it weren't so
funny.

I suspect it is almost time for a call for votes on the necessity or
usefullness off a complain.about.Sam.Saal newsgroup.  I'm not sure if
it would belong under the sci.* or rec.* domains.  I believe we could
skip the "call for discussion" phase as there are already enough
articles on the topic that I'm sure it would be moot.

I'd like to thank Eli for posting so many references about me in the
same place.  It saved me the time and effort of digging them out of the
already-ignored list of articles.  It is a shame that my response is so
long (I wanted to quote the whole article even though it means later
humor posts won't be able to charge me with the crime of creative
editing).  Hopefully there won't be much response.  I've set the
Followup line to "poster" to try to save the rest of the SCJ readers
from having to wade through too much more.  This, of course, does not
preven anyone from resetting the followups.

In article <emc.721061425@reg> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:

>It is unfortunate that I have to take this into the public domain but I 
>have experienced Sam's consistent barrage of private mail trying again

Note that my "barrage" was a one-for-one response to Eli's email.

>and again to convince me to take my postings elsewhere.

After all that email discussion, it is a shame that Eli understood so
little that he took my very specific suggestions to move his discussion
about the Jewish-Christian comparisons to a misc.religion (or
misc.history) newsgroup, and considers that coersion (for the article's
title; for this paragraph we're down to "convince") to move (all?) his
postings elsewhere.

>                                                         At first he was
>reluctant to say what he was doing and it seemed like a friendly
>exchange.  But soon, when I disagreed with him, the charges became more
>virulent and forceful.  I asked why we should be having this private
>debate when I posted publicly to which he should reply publicly.  He 
>replied that his main interest was in a seek-and-weed-out mission of
>Christian missionaries and anti-semites.  (Of course anyone that does
>not carry the same viewpoint as Sam can be classified as such.  See
>below).

I like the term "seek-and-weed-out mission."  It doesn't happen to be
my aim, but the term is a great one.  It rolls off the tongue pretty
nicely.  A shame my imagination is inadequate to come up with such a
term; it is also inadequate to come up with such a litany of baseless
charges.

>In all of this Sam insisted that he had been reading SCJ for a very
>long time and as such his views were the right ones as to what should
>be posted in this newsgroup.  EVEN AFTER I OBTAINED CLARIFICATION 
>AND AGREEMENT FROM THE USENET ADMINISTRATORS.

Close.  But no cigar.  I do believe that comparitive religion
discusions are more appropriate for a misc.religion newsgroup.
However, I certainly have never said that my views are the only ones
that can be posted on this (or any other) newsgroup.  After all, many
people read the net for its humor content and I know I couldn't
maintain the level acheived by the likes of Eli and "Paranoid Andy."

>If anyone else has experience this type of private exchange from Sam
>please let us know.  YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE YOUR VIEWS HEARD!  This
>is NOT A MODERATED NEWSGROUP and private coersion will not do!!

I tend to send both "good job" and "bad job" messages through email.  I
don't see why they need to be made public.  That people can't deal with
one or the other is a shame.  I also try to answer mail I get.  While
this can be time consuming, - even when my response is no more than
acknowledgement that I received the mail - if these responses are so
onerous, I have two suggestions: either don't send me mail or ask that I
not bother responding (but don't bother doing the latter if you expect
your last message to be "the last word").  For example, the reason I've
not answered "Paranoid Andy" is that he asked that I not send him mail.

Well, I admit there's another reason: I enjoy PA's histrionics and I've
been afraid he might stop if I sent him any mail.  In fact, this post,
itself, might be enough to cause him to stop (though somehow I have my
doubts :-).

>In <92310.2354472893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> andy
><2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:

>>In article <emc.720893206@tomalak>, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) says:

>>>The problem is that Sam is looking for hidden devils everywhere.  What
>>>Mr. X has to say should be more important than who he is.  Give the
>>>man the benefit of the doubt until he proves himself guilty of
>>>anti-semitism (which he has not done so far.  Disagreeing with Jews
>>>is not a mark of anti-semitism.  Racial slurs and hatred are).

This is a far more limiting working "definition" of antisemitism in its
disagregation than I'd use.  For example, I'd apply the duck test as
well.  A person who never expresses anything positive about Judaism or
Israel (except when charged with nearing antisemitism - ala' "some of
my best friends are..." or with an insistent "I am not.....") may well
be close to the border.

>>>The price we pay to have our views heard, is to let others have
>>>as say as well.

True.

>>This is true.

Note humor content:  I'm agreeing with PA.  Does this make me paranoid,
too?  I hope not.

>>              I found it interesting Sam has not bothered to respond to the
>>fact that his own post shows the veracity of my claim that my student number
>>and userid are identical. I must assume he can no longer argue the point but
>>lacks the honour to concede he made a mistake or retract his accusation that
>>I am a "lier".

>>Also, there's a bit of bait and switch. His post seems to suggest that he
>>contacted a supervisor here and attempted to get me into trouble, thus my
>>getting upset. Sam says nothing in the original post about his not informing
>>Mr Hooper of my id or not returning his request 

I don't know why he thought that.  I made no such insinuations and posted
the explicit explanation that I had not used name, serial number, ID, or
article reference in my question of "paranoid Andy's" postmaster only to
try to calm "Paranoid Andy" down.  Obviously that didn't work.  On the
other hand, as I was writing this paragraph I think I understand why
"Paranoid Andy" might have thought I was trying to get him in trouble.
For a hint, the name I've been using seems more and more appropriate.

>>) After I castigate him for getting trying to get me into trouble, he accused
>>me of being paranoid because he did not inform Mr Hooper of my userid or
>>persue the matter. This is a bit much since he did not include these facts
>>in his original post, thus I had no reason to know that I needn't get upset.

Does this mean that "getting upset" is Paranoid Andy's usual reaction and
that it is our responsibility to make sure all our posts avoid this?

>>As for anti-Semitism, a frankly libellous charge which Sam has repeated.

I'm not sure if my considering Paranoid Andy actions borderline
antisemitic is libelous, let alone "frankly libellous," let alone
prosecutable under Canadian law, let alone under American law, let
alone under Canadian law as it applies to an American who hasn't set
foot in Canada for about 25 years.

>>All and all I find Saal intellectually dishonest and completely unable to
>>concede making any mistake, indeed, point out a mistake and he escalates his
>>attack. Hopefully, he has learned something about himself through all this
>>and will be more prudent in future, I certainly hope so.

If prudent means that I agree with you, I think not.

>Also note this by Yigal Arens:

>>In article <1992Nov4.132843.26985@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
>>saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:

>>> I thought the appelation "Mystery Andy" would suffice.  This post leads me
>>> to believe "Paranoid Andy" is more accurate.  That may be why he doesn't
>>> care to post his name.

At this point I belive I should apologize.  Mystery Andy is truly wrong
given that his school seems to use login names and IDs interchangably.
I suppose someone could find some deep dark secrets if they got the two
pieces of information _and_ cared enough to want to do something.  I
can't imagine what they'd be able to do (change PA's postal address to
somewhere in the Great White North?) let alone why they'd want to
bother.

>>Talk about paranoia all you like, but the fact remains that:

>>1. YOU -- due to either stupidity or malice -- wrote to Andy's
>>postmaster, creating the impression that something improper was done by
>>him (Cf. the postmaster's request for "the details on the articles in
>>question"[?!] so that he can "take action if warranted").

I asked a acouple of simple questions of the postmaster that gave me
information I wanted.  It was only when someone else posted on the
topic that I added the partially relevant (to the net?  to PA?)
information I'd gleaned.  I have not responded to PA's postmater's
request because I don't think there's a problem.  My curiousity is
satisfied; I don't believe PA is posting to the most relevant group but
I found he has no choice as he's told me his site doesn't get the
talk.* groups.  Besides, what would we do without PA's humor?

>>2. YOU -- due to either stupidity or malice -- worded the questions to
>>the postmaster so that they didn't even accurately inquire into the
>>statements made by Andy.

Neither stupidity nor malice.  I got the information I wanted.  It didn't
happen to be exactly relevant to the article I followed up, but I thought
some might find it of interest so I posted. On the other hand, it doesn't
surprise me if Yigal considers my actions motivated by stupidity.  I doubt
my opinion of him is that much higher.

>>3. YOU -- due to either stupidity or malice -- further misinterpreted
>>the postmaster's replies as contradicting Andy's statements.

I don't recall making any interpretations.  I don't doubt that my post was
fodder for any number of interpretations.

>>And we're not even discussing your accusations of anti-Semitism -- BOTH
>>stupid AND malicious -- yet.

Something to look forward to or is "stupid AND malicious" the last word?

Oscar Wild would be proud of me.  Wasn't it OW who said (paraphrased)
'the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked
about'?
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.african-american,misc.legal