billw@killer.UUCP (09/22/87)
Tim Maroney, <3013@hoptoad.uucp>, in rec.arts.sf-lovers: > Well, Oleg, at least some of us noticed that all you said was that Bear > wasn't a genius. If that's a nasty, spiteful insult, then the muppets are > genocidal. I can't think of any SF writer I would consider a genius in this > century. When was this ever characterized as a nasty, spiteful insult by anyone besides yourself? Chuq simply came to the defense of Greg Bear (a personal friend?) which is quite acceptable, especially as Bear has no net access that I know of. Oleg also acknowledged that this was "not a very nice thing to say." Have you had professional training in blowing things out of proportion or is it a natural talent? > Chuq is really out of control these days. As are Tim Maroney, Mark Ethan Smith, Gene Ward Smith, and Rhonda Scribner? Come off it, half of the network seems to be out of control. > Not only did he flame you > outrageously for nothing in particular, he has started posting inaccurate > little digs at Locus that have almost nothing to do with what he's talking > about at the time, since I mentioned my tangential connections with the > magazine. Well, Tim, I guess you've got me there. I've certainly never seen anyone else, and most definitely not you, posting little digs that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. In fact.. could this be one here? Oh dear, I better re-read my "Tim Maroney Netiquette Handbook," and soon. Has anybody noticed how rampant paranoia has been on the net lately? Here, Maroney is convinced that Chuq personally dislikes him because of an ephemeral connection with Locus magazine. Got any proof, Timmy? I'm surprised Mark Ethan Smith even gets out of bed in the morning, considering all the paranoia he has been expressing lately. We have anti- semitics pulling his accounts on two systems. We have chauvinistic UNIX wizards deliberately contriving to insure that he is not allowed to post to soc.women from Berkeley. Well, don't worry, Mark, some of us really ARE out to get you. And, of course, all of us who are after you are men. > He's also taken up recommending that everyone KILL-file anyone > Chuq dislikes or feels threatened by. Chuq is quite free to recommend anything he wants to. That does not mean that the public-at-large is in any way compelled to FOLLOW those recommendations. > It would be nice if people would try > a little harder to keep their personality problems off the net. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? -- Bill Wisner, HASA ..ihnp4!killer!billw 'An it harms none, do what thou will.' Everything in this message may be wrong.
tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (09/22/87)
In article <1593@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: >When was this ever characterized as a nasty, spiteful insult by anyone >besides yourself? [...] Have you had professional training in blowing things >out of proportion or is it a natural talent? Well, here's what Chuq had to say: >If you're going to make nasty comments about authors, and least give >yourself some basis for it. You might as well say that Bear is a rotten >person because his first name is Greg -- it makes as much sense. Have you had training in distorting the facts, or is it a natural talent? >Has anybody noticed how rampant paranoia has been on the net lately? Some people, like Chuq and Matt Wiener, naturally arouse suspicion by behaving in an obnoxious fashion. Chuq has a number of times attacked me in ways that evaded responsibility for doing so, a common occurrence on the net, and certainly not Chuq's exclusive purview (or solely directed at me). While it does appear I was incorrect in this case - friends at Locus have informed me that he attacks the magazine frequently for no apparent reason - I do not accept that it is paranoia to accuse someone of repeating a prior offense. >Here, Maroney is convinced that Chuq personally dislikes him because of >an ephemeral connection with Locus magazine. Got any proof, Timmy? Now, now, I don't call people names and I would appreciate not being called any. If you want, I can cite letters in which Chuq insults me personally and says he dislikes me. These were hard to get - I tried to patch things up between us years ago and he refused to admit in e-mail that he disliked me, though he had already told a number of other people that he did. He has finally started admitting it not only to others but to me. >I'm surprised Mark Ethan Smith even gets out of bed in the morning, >considering all the paranoia he has been expressing lately. We have anti- >semitics pulling his accounts on two systems. We have chauvinistic UNIX >wizards deliberately contriving to insure that he is not allowed to post >to soc.women from Berkeley. Well, don't worry, Mark, some of us really ARE >out to get you. And, of course, all of us who are after you are men. Hey, now there's a good way to discourage paranoia. Nice job. If I'd been through what Mark has, I'd probably be about as paranoid as he is. It's been hard enough keeping things in balance since finding, and making public, proof of a conspiracy against me at UNC. It would almost have been better not to know. Remember, just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you (as you have proven for Mark). >> He's also taken up recommending that everyone KILL-file anyone >> Chuq dislikes or feels threatened by. > >Chuq is quite free to recommend anything he wants to. That does not mean that >the public-at-large is in any way compelled to FOLLOW those recommendations. Nor did I say it is. Nothing about coercion was mentioned by me, anyway. The issue at hand was the rudeness of asking everyone to stick their fingers in their ears and sing the Star-Spangled Banner whenever certain people start talking. And the main victim I was complaining about was Omega Mosley, who I don't like much myself, but who deserves better than that. >> It would be nice if people would try >> a little harder to keep their personality problems off the net. > >Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? I don't think so. I make every attempt to keep my temper under control and to avoid making egotistical pronouncements, and I have gotten better and better at this as the years have gone by. (The infamous shout of "YOU LIE!!!", which was truthful but uncalled for, was only after three people told the same bald-faced lie: I held myself back as long as I could. These days, I would probably have just ignored the whole thing, because I'm more practiced.) I have seen no evidence that Chuq does the same, or even admits that these flaws are part of his personal repertoire. Everyone has failings, myself certainly included, but I assure you I really try hard to restrain mine. Chuq, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong with telling all and sundry that he deserves a Hugo (he started saying this even before the first issue of OtherRealms, and never stopped) and recommending to others that they KILL-file people he dislikes. I would like to see a similarly self-critical statement from Chuq before I retract my request. And to all those who are about to jump on me for admitting my failings: think about how this makes *you* look first. -- Tim Maroney, {ihnp4,sun,well,ptsfa,lll-crg}!hoptoad!tim (uucp) hoptoad!tim@lll-crg (arpa)
billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (09/23/87)
Tim Maroney: >>When was this ever characterized as a nasty, spiteful insult by anyone >>besides yourself? > Well, here's what Chuq had to say: >>If you're going to make nasty comments about authors, and least give >>yourself some basis for it. OK, so Chuq said nasty. There is still a big difference in magnitude between a mere "nasty" and a "nasty, spiteful insult." > While it does appear I was incorrect in this case - friends at Locus have > informed me that he attacks the magazine frequently for no apparent reason - Chuq's idea of an attack obviously differs from Locus's idea of a jibe. I'll not inject my opinion on that matter here. > I do not accept that it is paranoia to accuse someone of repeating a prior > offense. This depends. Paranoia implies a belief that said offender is CONSTANTLY attacking you. Simple accusation is much milder. > Now, now, I don't call people names and I would appreciate not being called > any. Right - I do apologize for the unwarranted use of the appellation "Timmy." No sarcasm here; I know how "Billy" has the ability to irk me at times. > Hey, now there's a good way to discourage paranoia. Nice job. I wasn't trying to discourage anything. The intent of that sentence was to show up some of the ridiculous ideas that Mark holds. > If I'd been through what Mark has, I'd probably be about as paranoid as he > is. It's been hard enough keeping things in balance since finding, and > making public, proof of a conspiracy against me at UNC. It would almost > have been better not to know. Remember, just because you're paranoid, that > doesn't mean they aren't out to get you (as you have proven for Mark). Paranoia is fine, as long as kept to oneself. But when a person starts making completely unwarranted accusations against someone else (I've got Erik Fair in mind here) then things have been taken a bit too far. Mark didn't even have the courtesy to make sure he was flaming the right person; he just happily bashed away at Erik Fair, who has nothing to do with the administration of violet. At least, that's the idea I got from Mike Meyer. If he has a LEGITIMATE complaint, then air it, I say. But an occasional article from him really makes me want to get sick with the sheer obtuseness of it. (I know for a fact that the administrator of chinet did not yank Mark's account due to Libertarian or anti-semitic or whatever-it-was reasons, for example.) What's this about a conspiracy against you at UNC? I've never heard anything of the kind. I'm sincerely interested. > Nor did I say it is. Nothing about coercion was mentioned by me, anyway. > The issue at hand was the rudeness of asking everyone to stick their fingers > in their ears and sing the Star-Spangled Banner whenever certain people > start talking. And the main victim I was complaining about was Omega > Mosley, who I don't like much myself, but who deserves better than that. This is somewhat exaggerated; but we're all guilty of using that device to enhance our arguments. And, since I don't know of any kind of battle involving Omega, I refrain from comment here. > I don't think so. I make every attempt to keep my temper under control and > to avoid making egotistical pronouncements, and I have gotten better and > better at this as the years have gone by. (The infamous shout of "YOU > LIE!!!", which was truthful but uncalled for, was only after three people > told the same bald-faced lie: I held myself back as long as I could. These > days, I would probably have just ignored the whole thing, because I'm more > practiced.) You describe some facets of your life that you have tried to change here; this is more than many people would have done. Clap, clap. > I have seen no evidence that Chuq does the same, or even admits > that these flaws are part of his personal repertoire. Everyone has > failings, myself certainly included, but I assure you I really try hard to > restrain mine. Chuq, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong with telling all > and sundry that he deserves a Hugo (he started saying this even before the > first issue of OtherRealms, and never stopped) and recommending to others > that they KILL-file people he dislikes. Many, many things can be interpreted as arrogant or egotistical. If I tried very, very hard, I could even find some in the portions of your article that I've quoted. One thing people must try to do is differentiate between those things that are truly arrogant and those things that just happen to come across that way. This can be difficult in the absence of bodily cues. > I would like to see a similarly self-critical statement from Chuq before I > retract my request. What request? > And to all those who are about to jump on me for > admitting my failings: think about how this makes *you* look first. -- Bill Wisner, HASA ..ihnp4!killer!billw 'An it harms none, do what thou will.' Everything in this message may be wrong.
alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) (09/25/87)
Both of you: In article <3022@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <1593@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: > and >> [..exchange of comments irrelevant to this newsgroup..] Will you kids take this over to alt.flame? Not that it really belongs there either (I can't imagine why either of you think the world cares about your bickering), but at least not here, ok? -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle."
gsmith@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (10/03/87)
In article <3022@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >In article <1593@killer.UUCP> billw@killer.UUCP (Bill Wisner) writes: >Have you had training in distorting the facts, or is it a natural talent? This is a question you should ask yourself, along with another one: just what kind of a liar are you? The "pathological" kind? The Reaganesque kind, unable to tell truth from your own (in your case, rather paranoid) fantasies? Or do you distort and lie out of convienience, to help your nasty attacks on other people to be as painful and damaging as possible? Why the lies, Tim? Why? Why did you make me your enemy by telling them, Tim? Do like like to have enemies? Do you really hate insults like Matthew's or do you at some level crave them? >Some people, like Chuq and Matt Wiener, naturally arouse suspicion by >behaving in an obnoxious fashion. Naturally, you and I are above such things. Let's both be a little honest and admit we're obnoxious SOB's, OK? It would do you good (Chuq and Rhonda, et al too, for that matter.) >Chuq has a number of times attacked me in >ways that evaded responsibility for doing so, a common occurrence on the >net, and certainly not Chuq's exclusive purview (or solely directed at me). That seems like a better thing to do than to write lies about someone to their site, without even the minimal courstesy of a "cc". >If I'd been through what Mark has, I'd probably be about as paranoid as he >is. You ARE as paranoid as he is--maybe you should try to find a better source of pot or something. But you act like a nut and then scream bloody murder when someone calls you a nut. Not a very well-balanced boy, here. >It's been hard enough keeping things in balance since finding, and >making public, proof of a conspiracy against me at UNC. I'm curious: was this a real "conspiricy", or like the "conspiricy" I was supposed to be a part of? >Remember, just because you're paranoid, that >doesn't mean they aren't out to get you (as you have proven for Mark). I wasn't out to get you until you, in your paranoia, made an enemy of me. Paranoia seems to be a little self-fulfilling at times. >Nothing about coercion was mentioned by me, anyway. >The issue at hand was the rudeness of asking everyone to stick their fingers >in their ears and sing the Star-Spangled Banner whenever certain people >start talking. It seems to me the rudeness of trying to trash the net-acess of people whose "crime" is pointing out your shortcomings is a worse rudeness. >>>It would be nice if people would try >>> a little harder to keep their personality problems off the net. >>Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? In a word, yes. >I don't think so. I make every attempt to keep my temper under control and >to avoid making egotistical pronouncements, and I have gotten better and >better at this as the years have gone by. To paraphase the slogan, you've not come a long way, baby. Or else you must have been absolutely intolerable before, in which case it is no wonder you got booted off the net. >(The infamous shout of "YOU >LIE!!!", which was truthful but uncalled for, was only after three people >told the same bald-faced lie: I held myself back as long as I could. These >days, I would probably have just ignored the whole thing, because I'm more >practiced.) It not only was not a lie, it was even true. YOU LIE!!! >I have seen no evidence that Chuq does the same, or even admits >that these flaws are part of his personal repertoire. Everyone has >failings, myself certainly included, but I assure you I really try hard to >restrain mine. I will accept said assurence only when I see some evidence it is true--I've seen not one whit of evidence you have ever even attempted to retrain your penchant for being insulting and untruthful. >Chuq, on the other hand, sees nothing wrong with telling all >and sundry that he deserves a Hugo This is from the guy who posts his SAT and GRE scores to the net in the mistaken belief it will prove he is not a fool. >I would like to see a similarly self-critical statement from Chuq before I >retract my request. And to all those who are about to jump on me for >admitting my failings: think about how this makes *you* look first. If you think *this* bit of self-congradulatory flummery is "admitting your failings", you are very much mistaken. The first step is to admit to yourself, at least, if not to the net that you are a liar. ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Garnet Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Some people, like Chuq and Matt Wiener, naturally arouse suspicion by behaving in an obnoxious fashion." -- Timothy Maroney, aka Mr. Mellow