jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (06/26/91)
[ Yes, this article contains a forged Approval: line. This is my first
and my last. I'll leave Pat and his ego to rule this group after this
post.]
I believe that Pat has allowed his true colors to leak through.
Reference my recent article on how we implemented an AOS system. Pat's
tactics are very interesting.
[My article about how we implemented an AOS system deleted]
[Moderator's Note: Gee whiz ... and over on eff.talk not long ago you
said ** I ** was an asshole ?? If you notice a snall difference
between what you submitted and what I printed its because I removed
your parenthetical gay-bashing remarks about AT&T employees. PAT]
Well gee, Pat, you prove my statement. You ARE an asshole for
tagging such comments onto a very non-controversial article. I
can only assume that you've now taken it upon yourself to be the
protector of all the poor little defenceless homosexuals who
can't speak themselves. Such paternalism. For the reference
of the rest of the group, here is my terrible comment that Pat
deleted. You'll also notice that Pat changed the title of the
article to make it sound inflammatory.
I haven't diff'ed the articles to see if he changed anything
else, as it does not matter. This incident alone serves to
illustrate Pat's tactics.
What I sent to the group:
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: All AOS's Aren't Scum
...
Here is the meat of the problem. AT&T was forced to adopt these policies.
While not a supporter of AT&T (especially after their announcement of
a homosexual affirmative action program) I do understand why they
have become hardnosed. Let me outline some things WE did at the AOS.
What Pat the Agitator sent out:
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS
Message-ID: <telecom11.487.1@eecs.nwu.edu>
Date: 24 Jun 91 05:53:37 GMT
...
Here is the meat of the problem. AT&T was forced to adopt these
policies. While not a supporter of AT&T I do understand why they have
become hardnosed. Let me outline some things we did at the AOS. And
we were not alone.
I'm not sure what purpose beyond agitation is served by changing
the subject line to make it look as if I operated that AOS. My
role was that of a contract consultant hired to implement the
switching system. One thing is for sure. Deleting my remarks
and then characterizing them as "gay bashing AT&T employees" is
intellectual dishonesty at its worst. My comments criticize
AT&T's _POLICY_ toward homosexuality - a quite different
subject. Would it not have been just a teeny bit more honest
to INCLUDE my original words and THEN criticize them?
While we're at it, Pat, you really should get your terminology
correct. "Gay Bashing" is planting a baseball bat firmly on the
head of a homosexual. My comments are at worst, politically
incorrect. I wear that title with honor. Complaints about my
attitude regarding homosexuality fall on very deaf ears as you
already well know. Do you really fancy yourself a PC cop? Of
course you do. These tactics not only serve to delineate your
flawed character, they serve to illustrate the intellectual
fraud that is the basis of PC thought.
This example should serve to illustrate that what things appear to be are
not necessarily what they are even in moderated groups. The next time you
see something controversial in comp.dcom.telecom, before flaming the
writer, contemplate that the article very well may have been edited by
Pat in order to start or perpetuate a fuss. A sad comentary about
our "esteemed" moderator. Unfortunately, a forged article is the
only clear channel available to rebut such actions, at least on the
Usenet side of things.
I'll leave it with you now Pat. You have to live with yourself, a fate
I'd not wish on my worst enemy. You have fun with your little group.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga |
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"