Re: A New Game for the GS!

[jlee@ics.uci.edu (Orion Pax)]

Richard King (tombo@mail.on-line.co.uk) wrote:
: I am reliably informed that I have been accused of violating netiquette,
: and that is the reason for the multitude of flames that have been
: directed against me, though I have seen none of them since my Usenet feed
: is not working.

Please find a way to read those posts.  Making an argument on information
filtered through a second-hand source makes a weak base.  Many of those
posts had valid points in their argument.

: Free speech doesn't just mean being willing to listen to people with whom
: you agree - it also means being willing to allow those with whom you
: disagree to be heard, no matter how much you may dislike what they say.
: 'I disagree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right
: to say it' - to quote Voltiare. 

Well said, now what part of my original post was not not part of free
speech to offend you so much?

: This isn't justice, and could never be described as such. It's a
: kangaroo-court, set up to protect a nasty little clique of mannerless
: oiks against justified criticism from someone who does have manners, and
: what's worse is that you're using the most transparent of tricks, which
: is to accuse the accuser. 

Because the accuser must adhere to the same standards he promotes.  Not
doing so is a double-standard.

: You accuse me, and in my absence try and convict me, of violating
: netiquette. If you look at the posting I made, it was *my* accusation
: that netiquette had been violated, and that *I* was the offended party.
: *I* was the one who was insulted, and treated with disrespect. I
: responded, making it clear that I was extremely angry, and why I felt so.
: That is my privilege. I have every right to demand that I am addressed
: with courtesy, and if I am *not* so addressed, then I have an equal right
: to retaliate. I did so, and yet *I* am the one accused of
: netiquette-violation.

You are quite right.  Therefore, I apologize for my post and that I
should taken out my personal feelings in a text circulated throughout
a public forum.  I do feel however, that the tone and expression of your
response was unwarranted as well.

: certain way - simply that if he did, I reserved the right to respond in
: kind. As you do, my little chums. But with that goes a warning - speak
: softly, or you may not get what you want. Flame someome, be ill-mannered
: to them, show enmity to them, and you cannot expect their friendship,
: support, or assistance when *you* need it. 
[...]
: On the other hand, decent manners can make you some very powerful allies.
: Isn't the choice of which is the more sensible behaviour self-evident?
: Happily, there are several people who can see the manifest injustice in
: the flames directed at me, and their words of support mean far more to me
: than gigabytes of insults could ever hurt me.

The amount of followups shows that you have violated the same rules you
want others to follow.

Joseph
--
jlee@bonnie.ics.uci.edu  | "If builders built buildings the way programmers
-------------------------+  wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that
     Creative 'Ware      |  came along would destroy civilization."
        II(><)II         |  -- Weinberg's Law