From: aahz@netcom.com (Mean Green Dancing Machine)
Subject: Stupid people (was Re: Women, Cats, & Chocolate)
Organization: Don't blame me, I voted for Bill 'n' Opus
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 03:23:27 GMT

I got the following piece of e-mail a few days ago, in response to a
post I made using foul language (the predecessor to this article if you
use a threaded newsreader); my reply is underneath it.  For those of you
who query the propriety of posting e-mail, all I can say is that I gave
the guy a chance to respond.

Oh, and if anyone wants to respond to this, ah, being, you can reach him
at thiggins@ttsi.lonestar.org (Thomas Higgins).

>        Your message has shown a deep intollerance for other people.  This
>        may be caused by your limited number of years  (still  wet  behind
>        the  ears).  It  could  also be due to a lack of real intelligence
>        (not schooling).  In either case as you grow up mentally  you  may
>        learn to accept not only the views of others but also their faults
>        without becoming irate.
> 
>        In some cases an attitude like yours  develops  because  a  person
>        is  totally  self  centered,  caring  only for that which benefits
>        them directly.  The world does not look to them for  salvation  or
>        guidance.  This  group  is  the least likely to be of help because
>        everything they do depends on what they can gain by their actions.
>        If  you are in this category you have the least chance of maturing
>        and becoming a benefit to yourself or others.
> 
>        In any case  when  you  'flame'  on  the  net  instead  of  to  an
>        individual  you  show your extreme immaturity to a great number of
>        people.  If you have been on the network for more than a few  days
>        you should have realized that most people do not want the sig used
>        for anything other than its intended  purpose.  Flames  belong  in
>        the alt.flame sig.
> 
>        One  last note.  This is a flame.  Did you notice no screaming, no
>        vulgarity and no name calling?  Those types of remarks only  leave
>        a portrayal of someone sitting at a keyboard gritting their teeth,
>        a jaw shut tight, a face red with anger and flames shooting out of
>        eyes,  ears  and  mouth.  Not a pretty picture is it?  These types
>        of remarks also do more to prevent  a  message  from  being  taken
>        seriously.

My, my, my, so *literate* a flame.  And so ignorant, too.  I won't even
bother pointing out a couple of typos (we all have bad days).  I will
note that someone who calls a "newsgroup" a "sig" shouldn't be casting
rocks at another's expertise.  You also obviously have no knowledge of
the newsgroup to which I was posting.  You don't even refer to me by
name.

This smacks of an automated reply, created by 'grep'ing through the news
spool, searching for certain words of which *you* happen to disapprove.
Unless you give me good cause, I will post your missive and my response
back to soc.singles; depending on how annoyed I'm feeling I may even
forward it to your sysadmin.

(BTW, I usually do prefer to flame like this.  But your response proves
that the occasional vulgarity still serves for shock value.)

One last note: you show further ignorance for net.convention by writing
with a large left margin and right justification.  Don't do it.  It
creates difficulty in reading, and I'm sure you don't want people to
think that your words have even less intelligence than they already do.
-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Virtual anniversary: 9 days and counting

-- 
                         --- Aahz (the *other* Dan Bernstein)
                             @netcom.com 

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6

Virtual anniversary: 4 days and counting
Newsgroups: soc.singles,soc.women,soc.men,misc.legal,alt.abortion.inequity