From: thetroll@rata.vuw.ac.nz (The Troll)
Subject: Re: nz.waffle?? (was Re: Hello....hello...is anybody home)
Organization: Computing Serv. Ctr, Victoria Uni., Wellington, New Zealand
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:56:55 GMT

In article <J338RB5w165w@status.gen.nz> jonc@status.gen.nz (Jon Clarke) writes:
> Whilst you may only be human net.manners do not go astray! 

Yup, please note this the next time you try and create a newsgroup without
being polite about it. (Gosh a return to the subject in hand, wow).

> While we are on the subject chap what in paticular has 
>jonc@status.gen.nz done to YOU! In fact from the tone of your mail
>I would suggest he has gone as far as opening an OLD WOUND which lays 
>bear for attack ... Hmmm debate ....

It is a guiding principle of my life not to suffer fools gladly, I may not
be offering my services to CORSO or the organisations that actually try
to end human suffering but I can rail against stupidity wherever I see it.
And Jon, you do fall into that category, not only do you seem unable to
appreciate that USENET has rules, which you happily flout, but you also
attack those who criticise you with attacks against their character and
not their points. That is a sign of the small-brained redneck, a lifeform
unhappily in no danger of extinction. When someone can spend several pages
writing about how the use of the word "fuck" offends them, ignoring the
fact that a number of people are heavily pissed off by their actions, that
is the time I jump in. Not that I don't think Craig is capable of
defending himself, but that if several people tell you you're wrong, the
message might sink home. 

The last time I was in a shop and the owner was attacked by some thugs, I
pitched in and helped defend the owner. Because I believe that we shouldn't
stand by when people are attacked. If Craig had unjustly attacked you, I
would be taking your part against him. But Craig knows how to form an
argument and while his expression of his points may be crude, he doesn't
resort to ad homini (bad spelling but my dictionary is in the other room)
attacks. 

>Again I reiterate there is NO need for foul language in this NEWSGROUP
>what so ever. 
And I reiterate that there is. 
Now what are you going to do? Here are two opinions that are opposed. How
will you show that your opinion is more valid/better/should be enforced/
than mine? 

>As you are aware there are others world wide reading this mail and the 
							   ^^^
							   Are you sure
you know what you are talking about, this is a USENET posting, not email. 

>attempt (however belittling) to use such foul words IMHO does indeed
>refer to the lack of social graces that is attributed to the lower
>social economic groups of this country in the more profane districts
>of this country we happly refer to as Gods Own, and indeed as you stated 
>the lower levels of education that like it or not is with us today
>may well attribute to this fame from the sites indeed doing just that.

And you sir, are an elitist bastard. You sound like a bible reading
person, go and look up the parable of the Good Samaritan again, instead of
Samaritan, insert the phrase "lower social economic groups ". 

--
Alex Heatley                                Speaking for himself. In case
Domain: Alex.Heatley@vuw.ac.nz              someone out there hasn't noticed.