From: "Paul H. Merrill" <paulmerrill@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 23:04:01 +0800
To: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Subject: Re:
In-Reply-To: <199809270108.DAA19081@replay.com>
Message-ID: <360DE0BD.7BC844AD@acm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



<<Heavily snipped to allow for those who don't like it otherwise.>>
> 
> Whenever these people troll for flames here they get them one way or
> another. Then it seems Merrill always tries to take the moral high ground
> and show us all his bleeding heart and tell us how we should embrace the
> AOL idiots and cherish them. 

1.  As a matter of fact, I do try to take the moral high ground -- in
all things.  Sorry, it was how I was raised and I do not intend to swith
to seeking the immoral low ground.
2.  I have Never said to embrace and cherish the idiots from AOL.  Just
that some of the actions I have seen are much closer to the immoral low
ground.

> I don't think Merrill ever misses a chance to defend AOL and attack anybody who
> attacks them. 

I do not mean to Defend AOL except from misinformation -- BTW some of
the characteristics attributed to AOL and its software show a great deal
of clueneediness on the part of the "authors" or a need for
reaquaintance with the truth if the folk actually have a clue and
deciuded to spread "other stuff" instead.  OTOH I do try to defend the
innocents be they from AOL or elsewhere from the repercussions of the
spamming scum that (among other things) started the whole sixdegres
episode.

> About a week ago somebody posted a copy or parts of most AOL
> postings which were sent here in the last months. Merrill ignores the part
> about how the posts were classified

I read his classification criteria closely, and read the results of the
classification process.
> and sends back some vague flame accusing
> the author of classing posts he disagreed with as "clueless" then he quotes
> the entire thing back to the list.
> 
Then commented that he had not followed his own criteria.  

> I don't know which is worse. At least the people flaming the AOL wimps are
> funny.

If funny is all you want, may I recommend rec.humor.funny and, in case
you are up on no current events but Clinton, rec.humor.funny.reruns.

And to the brilliant person seeking muff diving pics, gee send a real
address and we'll see what we can do.  (At least he didn't want it for
pre-muff variety.)

PHM