Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6121 comp.org.eff.talk:8924 comp.unix.bsd:4540 comp.os.mach:2059 news.groups:49657 Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!speedy.acns.nwu.edu!learn From: learn@speedy.acns.nwu.edu (William J. Vajk) Subject: Re: Exercising Caution When Making Attributions (was Re: ... Boycott) Message-ID: <1992Sep4.030548.22188@news.acns.nwu.edu> Sender: usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Orgainzation References: <1992Sep2.171951.22044@gateway.novell.com> <1992Sep3.141452.6937@news.acns.nwu.edu> <1992Sep3.182039.12552@gateway.novell.com> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:05:48 GMT Lines: 49 In article <1992Sep3.182039.12552@gateway.novell.com> Terry Lambert writes: >In article <1992Sep3.141452.6937@news.acns.nwu.edu> William J. Vajk writes: >>Have you now, carelessly, atributed the entire boycott recommendation to >>be my idea? >Bill is quite correct. Due to his inability to correctly attribute quotes >within his followup posting, he appeared to be the individual under fire. Come on, Terry. The article came up with three previous inclusions, and two attributions as I received and reposted. You simply selected some handy victim for your example. Could have been anyone associated with the thread, eh? Still your error, and not excusable by this path. Excusable by apology, yes. >I am somewhat chagrined at the tone of his public posting here, >given his rather less caustic email to myself, but it fits with what he >has stated as an intent to "stir up the shit", as it were. Terry, you attribute statements you THINK I made to me, concepts with which I disagree completely, and you think I should be nice and polite and kind and wimpy in saying "oh, gee whiz, I think you might have made a mistake, would you please go back and check your attributions because I don't think I ever in my whole entire life ever stated, thought, or conveyed such an idea....indeed, I haven't even lusted......" ??? > Since this is a followup of his demand for retraction, which appears >to be a followup of my article, this will hopefully receive the same level >of distribution, as I must assume he has not editted his references yet >again, this time perhaps including the "Newsgroups:" line. Someone played nasty games with you and now you're paranoid???? Takes a smallish mind to do that stuff. On the other hand, I assume this statement to be an indication that you are unable to read or modify (perhaps you don't understand how to operate standard Usenet software???? Perhaps yop aren't using standard Usenet software ????) articles in toto and thus it would also explain other misunderstandings by extension. As far as the minor flaming you included, tis a fine flame and well worth the smile especially when one realizes dear old Jay to have scored 100% wrong again in his commentaries regarding these proceedings. Duh...Hi Jay :-) Bill Vajk