[net.origins] broadcast message.

hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (06/14/85)

___________________________________________________________________________

> From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
> 
> > { From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Keebler) }
> >
> > Listen, Arndt, I don't know what your problem is (are) ... but I would
> > strongly suggest that you correspond through E-MAIL for any of your
> > inane personal messages.
>
> Speaking as one who enjoys Ken Arndt's postings *and* the responses to
> them, I request that you refrain from posting messages such as this one.

I am not going to stop you from enjoying Ken Arndt's postings, though I
have trouble understand why you do.  All of his contributions amount to
nothing worthwhile.  When he posted his last article, which was a strict
personal attack upon Colin Rafferty and I, I responded with the message
above because I don't think it is terribly appropriate to post such things
on the net.  If he had anything personal to say to me, I wish that he would
use E-MAIL instead.  Now is that too much to ask of him?  I only have a
few very simply requests of him, the most inconvenient of which is that
he use the standard ">" quotation scheme rather than his much more difficult
to read method.  So far his only appearances on the net have been ridiculous
attempts at mocking me and/or others.  If nothing else, it is too annoying
to have to skip over his articles, not to mention the wasted disk space.

> > It's difficult to deal with someone who does not respond to
> > constructive criticism or even simple questions.
>
> > None of your posts so far have shown any deviations.
>
> Neither do mine. Neither do yours. Each of us has a point
> of view. Each of us adheres to it. So what?

What in the world are you talking about here?  Certainly not what I was
talking about in the three lines that you quoted.  Whether to deal or not
to deal with constructive criticism or simple questions is not a matter of
opinion.  If you do not deal with them, others can only assume that you
have nothing valuable to offer in response.  It is the same as withdrawing
from the discussion.  I have dealt with a lot of constructive criticisms
and questions, and so have you, so I really do not understand your complaint
here.  I know very well that everyone has a point of view, and that most
people tend to adhere to their own.  I guess I will have to toss your question
back to you.  ("So what?")  I do not see how your response is related to my
statements.

> > If you do not change, I will just as well assume (and I probably should
> > have done this long before) that you are simply trying to annoy me, and
> > I will spend my precious time responding to more relevant articles,
> > which I have not done lately.
> 
> > Incidentally, how's your dead kid doing?
> 
> You really enjoy bringing this up again and again.

Wrong.  I don't think it's terribly nice.  If you want to discuss this point
with me in private (E-MAIL), I will gladly do so.  (If you do, I can provide
you with my own reasons [in addition to the fact that it is hardly worthy of
Usenet resources] for not discussing it now.)

> You often tout the value of not letting emotionalism play a role in rational
> discourse; your taunts indicate a basic inconsistency in your postings.

No.  Again ... if you want to discuss this point with me in private, I will
be more than happy to.
___________________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }