mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (09/29/86)
In article <1041@gilbbs.UUCP> mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) writes: > In article <1085@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > . . . > > Tom is still upset because I suggested that the reason he can't find a > > job he's willing to take is because he won't live Sonoma County. Of > > course, he's collecting disability, but trying to get a job. If he's > > disabled, he can't work. And if he can work, he shouldn't be collecting > > disability. Everyone now understand why Tom is so concerned that everyone > > be sympathetic to those who can work and don't want to? > > Cramer, *HOW DARE YOU*????? I corresponded with you private and attempted > to explain my situation to you. Had I wished to discuss the matter with the > entire net, I would have posted to the net. You had absolutely *NO* right to > bring my personal comments to you into the public arena! > [. . .] > Finally, through innuendo, you imply that I am not working because I have > chosen not to. Much as I never thought I would say something like this, > Cramer, I sincerely hope that someone comes along to injure you along the > lines of my injuries, such that you cannot work. I would dearly love to see > you squirm. > [. . .] > In closing, let me explain why I made this posting, in light of my recent > announcement of temporary retirement from net participation. A friend > wrote me a letter and pointed out Mr. Cramer's article to me, so I read it. > After many hours of deliberation (and, frankly, a lot of cussing, fuming and > screaming...my poor housemate had to take her daughter and leave the house for > two hours), I finally determined that I had to make this posting. My > retirement still stands, though I will monitor this newsgroup for a short > while to see what, if any, excuses Mr. Cramer can make for his irresponsible, > unethical and highly offensive behaviour. I don't think that Mr. Cramer owes anyone an apology or "excuse", particularly not Tom Keller. I try to stay out of personal flaming wars on the net, but I can't stay out of this one. For those of you who are tempted to feel sorry for Mr. Keller for the alleged "breach of confidence" regarding his disability, I'd like to point out that Tom Keller has hardly kept this a confidential matter, and in fact he has on several occasions retreated behind his claimed "depression" or "illness" to excuse some of the more vituperative and ad hominem examples of his postings. I'm sorry I don't have all of the articles; you might want to refer to <1039@gilbbs.UUCP>, his "retirement announcement" posted to soc.net-people, as an example. I certainly would not belittle anyone's disability, whether physical or psychological, and can only give Mr. Keller the benefit of the doubt as to its nature and validity, based on the evaluation of his doctors. Nevertheless, I find it particularly ridiculous for him to post a number of articles citing his personal problems (e.g., to net.jobs and {net,soc}.singles), and then fulminate with rage when someone has the bad taste to mention them. This "retirement" business is also nothing new. After Tom Keller and I had exchanged a number of articles on the subject of Nicaragua in net.politics last April, in which his rhetoric became rather obnoxiously ad hominem and emotional (a fact noted by other participants in the discussion), he apologized to me by mail, blaming his personal attacks on me on his "depression" and stating that he was going to retire from posting further articles to the net. Obviously, he did not retire, nor did he change his style. Now, I would not normally relate that sort of matter in a public forum, but Mr. Keller has thrown the entire matter of his character and personal problems into question, and since he brought up the subject, other relevant evidence is certainly in order. As to the substantive matter of his unemployment and disability, I express no opinion save that the fact that he can post articles competently to Usenet and has expressed some kind of technical proficiency with regard to UNIX would certainly qualify him (at the very least) for an entry-level programming position; he states that he is "unable" to go to Silicon Valley to do so, but declines to state the reasons. I can only presume that they are unpersuasive. What bothers me the most is that Mr. Keller has never stated that he will attempt to improve the tone and manner of his postings in order to try to conform to our collective sense of netiquette. Instead, he rants and raves in the most foul manner (you might want to check out his recent personal attacks on Greg Woods in, I think, net.news.group) and then claims that the postings are a product of his "depression" and that he isn't going to post anything anymore. This "devil made me do it" kind of reasoning is not highly persuasive, and I would prefer that Mr. Keller simply cleaned up his act instead of making numerous apologies and promises of retirement. Frankly, I hope that he does not retire, as I enjoy a diversity of opinion in the "talk" groups; I just wonder why he is unable to repress his emotional attacks when the rest of us seem to do so reasonably well. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,dual,sun}!lll-lcc!styx!mcb
anderson@uwmacc.UUCP (Jess Anderson) (09/29/86)
Michael Berch writes of Tom Keller's (admittedly obstreperous) postings: > [...] Frankly, I hope that > he does not retire, as I enjoy a diversity of opinion in the "talk" > groups; I just wonder why he is unable to repress his emotional > attacks when the rest of us seem to do so reasonably well. While I *do* agree that Keller is inconsistently obnoxious, the rejoinder was itself a flame, and a long one at that. Mr. Keller is a troubled man, from all appearances, and so far I have not seen anything from his immoderate remarks that was *actually* injurious to anyone. Keller isn't the only pain in the butt in this life; why not just ignore that kind of stuff and get on with things that *are* fun or instructive or otherwise virtuous. If we pause to correct everyone's politics (personal or social), we probably will end up with little time for better things. (Naturally, if somebody flames *me*, I'll let 'em have it!!! :-). Remember: angels fly because they take themselves lightly. -- ==ARPA:====================anderson@unix.macc.wisc.edu===Jess Anderson====== | (Please use ARPA if you can.) MACC | | UUCP: {harvard,seismo,topaz, 1210 W. Dayton | | akgua,allegra,ihnp4,usbvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!anderson Madison, WI 53706 | | BITNET: anderson@wiscmacc 608/263-6988 | ==The sage acts without choosing.=========(Chuang Tsu)======================
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (09/30/86)
Normally I don't smear people by revealing embarrassing facts about them or betraying the contents of confidential communication .... So I won't start now.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (10/01/86)
> Normally I don't smear people by revealing embarrassing > facts about them or betraying the contents of confidential > communication .... > > So I won't start now. Tom's e-mail to me concerning his "disability" wasn't labelled "confidential", nor did he ask me to keep it confidential. Ordinarily, for most people on the net, I might be inclined to wonder if Tom wanted something like that kept confidential, but since Tom has in recent history posted articles in which he complained about not having sex with his SO in two years...it's hard to believe there's ANYTHING Tom wants kept quiet. Clayton E. Cramer