[376] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Aimee and Sourav, please do not be petty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wally)
Tue May 1 00:16:25 2001
Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 00:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wally <wally@sub-zero.mit.edu>
To: "Sourav K. Mandal" <Sourav.Mandal@ikaran.com>
cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200105010333.XAA02313@dichotomy.dyn.dhs.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0105010013090.11436-100000@sub-zero.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Care to point out any instances? If I have been so rude, I sincerely
> apologize. I have at times grown exasperated with Aimee Smith's
> off-the-handle mien, Wally's vulgarity and Presley Cannaday's strange
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Vulgarity?
You soft-shelled motherfucker, what the hell are you talking about?
W.
ps. I don't equate 'being vulgar' with 'using "profanity"', and I don't
consider it less vulgar to say 'I value people because I value profits'
than to advocate a little masturbation here and there (as in my message
about Mt Holyoke earlier this afternoon). Aimee Smith and Mike Rolish keep
lobbing words like 'leftist scum' and 'fascist' at each other, and I just
like to keep the niceties balanced with a little silliness. If that means
a li'l cussin', I'm not one to close the verb valve, ja?
pps. If you *read* the things I post, there's almost always some content
buried in there. And my grammar (in spite of my vulgarity) blows the
speckled ass off of most of the posts to this list, so what's the problem?
It's not as if I post *unreadable* unreasonableness. :)
