|
stevea@castlsys.demon.co.uk (Steve A) wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:49:22 GMT, Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie) wrote:
>> Didn't you yourself post ramblings about the COS in an alt.comp newsgroup, Steve? Now that's for sure is most relevant... Or are you defining "relevant" as something that suits your one-sided crusade and "irrelevant" anything that may contradict it?
>I endeavour to make sure that every group in the Newsgroups: line is valid. Occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am responding is being crossposted to; sometimes it is difficult to establish where in the list of groups a poster is posting
from. However, when this is pointed out to me, I invariably restrict X-posts.
My my my, you sure would benefit from a little bit of memory improvement session from one of the cults, Stevie.
I can hardly belief that you can cover what you did in the comp.sys.acorn.misc newsgroup with such a lame pretext as "occasionally I forget to check where a post to which I am responding is being crossposted to". What you did was nothing less than the disgusting act of trying to smear and discredit the editor of a computer magazine in the middle of the newsgroup he was posting to, for no better reason that he was a Scientologist.
Forgot it all already? Then I need to refresh your memory with some of the reactions you encountered in there:
|
how can you critise the methods of the
CoS when you are advocating similar yourself? To anyone here
in c.s.a.misc you are ridiculous. |
|
Tell me, those of you on alt.religion.scientology, do rants against individual scientologists usually spill over into newsgroups where a substantial number of people:
a) Know the individual personally
b) Frequently see postings from the individual
c) Have read editorials and articles by the individual
for about the last ten years without noticing *any* bias towards
scientological viewpoints |
|
If he doesn't use his position to promote
his views (and he doesn't), then his beliefs or affiliation
are *not* relevant to us. We are certainly *not* justified in
withdrawing support from Acorn User. |
You even made the incredible blunder to "know better" the status of the people in a newsgroup that you obvious never read. You said:
|
"> I doubt it very much. You really aren't that important, you know.
No? Given that Steve Turnbull succeeded me at Acorn User (and you seem to consider him fair game) I'd like to know how you make that decision. ;-)
(Well, actually I wouldn't, which is why I've deleted
c.s.a.misc from the newsgroup list. Come back when you've learned to argue
;-).
|
Your bigoted action of course had the exact reverse effect than the one you expected. Seems people in there are able to see through games such as yours rather well - fortunately:
|
it might cause some people to think: "Well if
*Steve Turnbull's* a scientologist, perhaps it's not so bad after
all. |
Even the guy who started it all apologized and said:
|
I've never met Steve [Turnbull], he's probably a great person - I can see that he has many friends here.
I was surprised to read the extract from Steve's
editorial about censorship. It contrasts with the actions of the CoS in trying
to muzzle a.r.s.
|
And your trip in this newsgroup had another positive effect: it provided me with an excellent .sig from someone describing your action.
|
All bigots are unequal, but some are more
unequal than others. |
>What I do NOT do is to go off at the poster who pointed my error out, insist that if he doesn't want MY posts in HIS newsgroup, he'd better damn well find himself a new one with a watertight charter, or leave Usenet altogether.
No, of course you don't...
>There IS a difference, Bernie, though I doubt that you
will ever see it. It's called "common courtesy".
How did you say it's called again?
Bernie |
