1997-01-12 - Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 7b01432ac29ac0b5a69db781a61dd4384cb7dbfb5158077a223d9719f3268d17
Message ID: <32D83D80.6517@gte.net>
Reply To: <Pine.GUL.3.95.970111132128.21586B-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-12 02:56:47 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:56:47 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:56:47 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GUL.3.95.970111132128.21586B-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <32D83D80.6517@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Rich Graves wrote:
> For example, I think this message could have been worded in such a way that
> it was on-topic. Dale really had to exert himself to make this a pure flame.
> When he doesn't put so much effort into it, he's worth reading.
> See also http://minerva.fileita.it/webitalia/netscum/gravesr0.html
> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > [snip]
> > Rich, you have to have a mind to comment on my posts.  To call my
> > posts disgusting, when I as a person am  1) Vastly more concerned
> > about justice, truth, and openness than you, and  2) Vastly more
> > intelligent than you, is pure ignorance and hypocrisy.
> > When you have nothing to say, you do the "attack against the man",
> > which is a logical fallacy.  You and Sandfort can lie in bed together
> > on that one.  Punk.

This was a rather harsh reply.  Thank you (I think) for whatever
allowance you have seen fit to give me.  OTOH, I'd suggest for Rich
and all of the pro-Sandy faction that they sit on their replies for
a couple of hours before hitting "send", just in case the emotional
(not passionate, there's a difference) content needs a little editing.