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

[deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu (Ben Haller)]

Ken sez:
> That's not what I want, is that what you think I said?
> You seem to think it was a flame.  It wasn't a flame.
> [etc., various statements indicating some confusion/misinterpretation
>  on someone's part...]
Hmm.  My only explanation for this confusion is that there are two
Kens on LH.  A person named Ken posted a message which most definitely
*was* a flame, threatening Louisville Sluggers in the backs of heads
(quite literally, he mentioned violence several times and I didn't
see any smileys or any other indication that the person wasn't serious)
and generally ranting.  Cynthia replied in a very abusive manner to
that person's post, and I agree with her reaction totally.  If you
are not that Ken, then my statements are not directed at you.  If,
on the other hand, you *are* that Ken, then you may not realize how
your post sounded to other's ears, and you should go back and read it
again.  It was a fairly authoritarian, dictatorial, abusive and violent
posting, from what I saw of it.  Perhaps Cyn or someone who got the
original could find out whether we have a multiplicity of Kens?
  I would quote more, and include proper references, if my damn news
poster could post to gaffa properly, but it's difficult to do that
stuff with the mailer I have, it doesn't quote automatically.

> 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.
  As I stated in my post, I didn't see the original posting because
it didn't reach my news server.  I could conceivably have mailed someone
and asked for a copy of it, but that seems a little extreme.  I was
replying to the parts that Cyn quoted, which I believe to have been
quoted verbatim from the original.  And I said quite clearly that there
may have been other parts of the post less offensive, and that if that
were the case I could possibly be in error.  If, in fact, the quoted
parts were correctly quoted from the original, then it seems fairly
irrelevant really whether there was more to the message or not, the
part I saw was offensive enough all by itself.

> I thought I was the youngest Love-Hound.  Oh well.
Oh please, age has nothing to do with maturity.  You don't know how
old I am, nor do I know how old you are.  If you want to accuse me of
being immature, go right ahead.  But it's quite offensive to equate
the two, I've known old men more immature than some ten year olds I've
met.  I sure hate to think about the inferiority complex you must give
your present or potential kids.  Just don't become a teacher, huh?
  In point of fact, I probably am older than you.  If you are the
original Ken who posted the flame, I'm damn sure I'm more mature than
you.

-Ben "Honorary youngest LH" Haller (deadman@garnet.berkeley.edu)