anita@drux3.UUCP (08/31/84)
--
It really amazes me that people in this group are wasting so much time and
energy on Ken Arndt. He started his maniacal ranting and raving in net.women,
too, and after a few weeks people just got smart and basically ignored him. He
makes everyone who responds to him look like a fool because his
remarks are so far out that they should appear to most to be too ridiculous
to bother with. Aren't there topics on this newsgroup that deserve your energy
more than responses to Ken? At least be so kind as to mention in your
subject line that you're responding to an Arndt article so I can 'n' past
it before I bother to start reading it.
Anitacher@ihuxi.UUCP (Mike Musing) (09/04/84)
I suppose you can ignore Arndt, but ignoring the questions he raised
would be a mistake. Despite of some legendarily offensive lines in his
postings (made me look in disbelief) the points he makes are usually well
argumented. He supports them with excerpts from research papers, surveys,
some valid (for net postings at least) logic, etc. His efforts in composing
articles are such that it looks like a result of reaction formation towards
homosexuality :-). Still, those things are not important. The quality of
arguments is. If quality postings are ignored, the net would only suffer.
Mike Musinghartwell@CSL-Vax.ARPA (Steve Hartwell) (09/07/84)
Perhaps you think so, but I don't. Nor do most, from what I read.
I do know that I don't like to be goaded, and if our attempts to
ignore him fail and he doesn't go away, I will unsubscribe to motss,
as perhaps several of us have. I'm just not in the mood to deal with
snivelers, however 'thought-provoking' you might find them.
--
Steve Hartwell, Computer Science Lab, Stanford University
{ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!csl-vax!hartwell, hartwell@SU-Shasta.ARPA