more on Drukman and vitriol

[William Tsun-Yuk Hsu <hsu@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu>]

Drukman:
>Love-Hounds was a bit too wimpy for their high-octane vitriol.  

Me:
>Oh bullkaka, Drukman. Vitriol was only a part of the whole mess.
>Hofmann and Wicinski (and many of the original gaffa-ites) left 
>because of the Trowbridge affair and people screaming to other
>people's bosses, and you were fully aware of the sordid little
>details.

Drukman:
>Yeah, I was fully aware.  You presumably weren't, as you missed the
>incredibly exciting pun in my message.  It's there, if you remember
>the quote that was largely responsible for getting them axed.  

Once again bullkaka, Drukman. Hof and Wic continued posting in
love-hounds for quite a while after the infamous quote (slightly
inaccurate version available on request). The whole mess blew
up in a completely different Usenet newsgroup, as a result of a 
later Trowbridge posting (in that newsgroup) which mentioned the 
verbal abuse she experienced in love-hounds.

Love-hounds in its early days was never too wimpy for anything (thanks
Doug). After the Trowbridge affair, most of the more interesting
posters left voluntarily to form the late great Anti-Aesthetic mailing 
list. AA had the highest signal-to-noise ratio of any newsgroup or
mailing list that I've read, despite the fact that you can be as
offensive as you want. Nobody complained, as long as you did it
with *style*.

Bill