Re: Censorship, etc., the thread goes on...

[brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)]

deadman@garnet.berkeley.EDU (Ben Haller) writes:
>  Well, I *thought* I was going to be brief.  Poor Ken, bet he's foaming
>at the mouth with his baseball bat again!  Really, Ken, get one of those
>digest processors there's been a thread on, take two aspirin with a glass
>of warm milk, you'll feel much better in the morning.

     Ba-dum*chick*.

>This is a
>discussion between several Kate fans about their interests, their politics,
>and everything else that comes to mind.  If what you want is cut-and-dried
>Kate news with no human element, nothing not directly traceable to Kate,
>nothing except new singles, tour plans, etc., why the hell are you reading
>this group?  Subscribe to a Kate mag and be done with it!  Really!  The

     That's not what I want, is that what you think I said?
     Actually, I don't get any Kate mags.  This is certainly the best of any
of them.  The "Human" element isn't just emotion, there's a lot more that
you seem to be missing.

>purpose of this group is for Kate fans to talk to each other, and I damn
>well intend to use it for that purpose over your protests.  If something
>is of limited interest, it should be conducted by e-mail.  But I've seen

     Did you notice that I posted once?  Protests?  I posted a request that
the discussion be moved.  It wasn't, and I didn't really care that much.  It
took Cynthia over a week to respond.  Over a week for what she posted, which
makes me hope she spends a lot of time on papers or debates.

>maybe ten people post to this thread, which makes it one of the highest-
>interest threads I've seen on this group, if number of posters correlates
>at all to the level of interest.  And you're the only person who has posted
>a message intended primarily as a flame, not as a discussion - which is a

     You seem to think it was a flame.  It wasn't a flame.  If you take the
message in the wrong way, and bend it to allow you to froth at the mouth and
cast little wimps back to Hell, you've messed with the wrong person.  You
can feel a certain way at your own discretion, but attacking someone because
of your individual interpretation of their opinion is quite the opposite of
what you're preaching.
     Think about it.  I'm not asking you to do anything more.
     I thought I was the youngest Love-Hound.  Oh well.

>*much* bigger breach than anything anyone else on this thread has done.
>(BTW, I should say your original article never reached my site, I only
>got Cyn's quoted version, so perhaps you did say something intelligent

     Yes, maybe I did.

>or substantial, if so I retract my accusation retroactively).
>  Jelly donut, eh?

     And willing to flame me for an edited version of my post.  Why don't you
find out exactly what I said before telling _me_ what I said.
     Hey, talk about censorship until you get blue in the face.  You seem to
think I said something vaguely related to that.

>-Ben Haller (deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu)

							Ken.
--
                                                        Ken.
KT@uiuc.edu                                 brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu