From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Happy Anniversary!  (Four days and counting)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Keywords: lies, Dennis, Chaney
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:12:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.122313.12283@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.003937.28175@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <Bsz6qn.1yo.1@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>> >In article <yd6mlza.gordons@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>> >#<1992Aug12.215027.1814@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>> >##<1992Aug11.181819.9370@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) :
>> >
>> >
>> >###Kinda like a barnacle.  Seriously, has someone *really* tried to get your
>> >###net access removed?  Do you have proof of this accusation?  Isn't true
>> >###that you think it was wonderful that Dan Bredy lost his net access?  And
>> >###now you are whining that you think someone tried to remove yours.
>> >##
>> >##Susan Garvin? 
>> >#
>> >#I see a name.  I don't see any *proof*.
>> >
>> >And you won't, since Dennis is lying again.
>> >
>> >I have never written Chaney's sysadmins.  I did report his forgery
>> >to my sysadmins at CMU, as policy here requires.  
>> 
>> "As policy requires"? Why does this sound faintly reminiscent of "I was only
>> following the Fuehrer's orders" (sorry, Nora)?
>
>Damn but you're an idiot, Darcy.  Someone reports to their
>administrators that a lame attempt at an article forgery was
>made and you compare that person to a Nazi?  You really are
>a first class asshole, Kebbie.  Yet again, where there is no
>case, you just fly off into the stratosphere looking for a
>chance to flame someone you don't like.  The pity of it all
>is that this lame crap is the best you can manage.

Content, please? Alt.flame is down the corridor.

>> Working as I do at a large corporation, I'm aware of hundreds, if not 
>> thousands of policies affecting my day-to-day work. Ninety-nine percent or 
>> more of those policies are routinely and flagrantly  I G N O R E D. Is CMU so 
>
>So what?  That is absolutely irrelevant, as are you when it
>comes to any rational or intelligent discussion, come to think
>of it.

Still waiting for content...

>> different, I wonder? How would they police such a policy, inasmuch as it 
>> refers only to _knowledge_ of a forgery. Orbital Mind Control Lasers?
>
>Here we go.  The usual Kebbie "Let's try to make any discussion
>a nit-picking little game so I can twiddle on my keyboard since
>I have nothing useful to say about anything."

Still waiting...

>> I'm sorry, but the observance of this "policy requirement" sure seems to smell
>> like a conveeeenient post-hoc rationalization to me...
>
>Your posting is just another idiotic shot at Susan because
>you don't like her, she has taken you apart in posting after
>posting, and you're an asshole.
>
>Grow up, Kebbie.  Be a man for a change.
>
>Dean Kaflowitz

Nope, not even a morsel of content.

Dean, you should really try to get access to a system that carries alt.flame.
Sounds like you have a lot of emotional baggage to get rid of.

								- Kevin