From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: Revised consistency check
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:23:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.183357.25988@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> Telling them to do something about the harassing e-mail I was getting
> from Scott Dog. Why is it that he doesn't nag our system
> administrators or me, anymore? 

Because his system administrators preferred he go through proper
channels and because you aren't worth the trouble.  And because he
never harassed anyone to begin with.  He merely contacted your
administrators to determine whether you in fact were the owner
of the Dennis Hall account and were posting material that was
inflammatory and ostensibly pro-choice under an assumed name.
The system administrator in question confirmed that it was you
all along.  You then whined and cried to the head of your computer
department and he had his sys admins write a report, for which they
were upset with you.

> Because 1) They won't listen to him; and 2) Dick Smith will, well, as
> they say, deal with Scott Roby personally, in ways which Roby won't
> like it.  

Dick Smith called me, personally, after I had written to him asking
who was telling the truth.  My reason for doing so was that I had
supported Scott Roby's version of things, but decided that I
couldn't do so without confirming his statements independently.
Dick Smith confirmed Scott Roby's story.

You, Stephen Chaney, are simply a liar.

> Abuse you? You ain't seen abuse yet, kid. Keep lying about me and
> you'll learn what abuse is all about.

All of this is terribly cute, sonny, but the fact is that telling
the truth about you appears to garner more abuse than anything
else.

> No one has yet proved one thing about my family that could be
> dysfunctional, and yet you continue to assert my family history was
> "bad." There is absolutely nothing wrong - at least there never has
> been a thing wrong - with parents demanding respect, which my brother
> didn't give for a while, before they put their feet down and demanded
> it from him. There is also nothing wrong with taking an inheritance
> away when the kid(s) decides not to give respect at all. 
> 
> But in your language, it's called "dysfunctional." The rest of America
> knows it as normal. Y'know, 50 million French can't be wrong and you
> be right. Or, in this case, 250 million Americans.  

When a child does not respect his parents, then either the child or
the parents have problem, and actually one could say they both do
since the problem of one is the problem of the other.  When a child
does not respect his parents, that is a non-functioning, or
dysfunctional family relationship.

I am terribly sorry that you think not respecting one's parents
is normal, or that disinheriting one's child is normal.

My family never had that problem, and yet we have some serious
disagreements about politics, and about abortion.  I am sure I
am not alone.

Also, again you demonstrate that you have severe problems with
applying logic.  See, what is "normal" is not necessarily
good.  About half of all mariages end in divorce.  With divorce
about as common as continued marriages, divorce is normal.
But divorce does not necessarily mean "good," though it is
normal.  Maybe your family is normal.  That does not mean it
is not dysfunctional, nor does it mean that dysfunctional is
good.

Dean Kaflowitz