Some misguided soul forwarded these comments of yours to me via email.
As I have just begun what I intend to be an extended vacation from the
Wreck, I thought to simply let it go but I find too much in your
remarks that is disturbing, and simply wrong.
Let me preface my reply by saying that I have always found you to be a
reasonable and thoughtful man, not given to bombast or rants, and
always willing to lend a helpful and knowledgeable hand to those who
asked for it. Although you and I have not had much direct
interaction, I have always read your posts with pleasure and respect.
As I disagree so strongly with some of your assertions, I hope that
you will allow me to address them in an interlinear fashion and hope
that you will understand that I mean no disrespect by using this
"Sorry to see ya go but....
You denigrated others and the crowd roars..."
Aside from the mixed tense, there are factual errors in this fragment.
One who denigrates seeks to belittle and falsely accuse. My guess is
that when you speak of, "others", you are mostly talking about Bay
Area Dave. If you would look back at the posting history you would
find that I stayed out of the early pounding of BAD and only involved
myself when he unfairly and relentlessly went after some of those whom
I consider to be personal friends, such as Keith Bohn and Charlie
In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, BAD has been an incredibly
destructive force in the newsgroup. Did I seek to belittle him? Yes,
and with the intent of making him realize that his accusations were
unacceptable and that his contemptible language and behavior would be
met with proper disrespect and approbation. Did I falsely accuse? The
record is there, Bob - You might want to look it over before drawing a
"You get others to do your dirty deeds and the crowd reacts
By, "your dirty deeds", I suppose you to mean my saying that BAD
should be shunned. That was a personal opinion, Bob, and had no more
force than any other personal opinion expressed on the Wreck. If
others thought this to be an appropriate remedy to the situation
regarding BAD, what have I to do with that?
"You taunt and purposely exaberate situations so they turned nasty and
crowd thinks that's okay..."
Once again we have this tense problem. You must either be in the
present or the past. Then too, I would assume that you mean,
"exacerbate", which is a fine word, usually meaning, "aggravate". Did
I aggravate the situation, Bob, or was the situation already so
aggravated that my response was merely in kind? And, as I judge you
to be a fair-minded man, was not your response to me an attempt to
exacerbate, or, did you feel that things had come to such a point that
it was merely a response in kind?
As to the, "crowd" - what power or control do you think that I, or any
single person has over those on the Wreck? I would no more try to get
others on the Wreck to do something as a group than I would try to
involve myself in the herding of cats.
"You convinced others to do your dirty work rather than working out a
Show me where I did other than present a personal opinion, Bob.
Show me where I attempted to convince. My personal opinion on how to
deal with BAD stands. If others feel this to be a wise course, that
is their lookout. I won't say that I am unhappy with what has been a
successful muzzling of BAD, but your apparent concept of me as a
mastermind and manipulator in this regard is without merit - not to
"You didn't have the common decency to admit you made a mistake in
You weren't man enough to apologize... so you kept slinging mud..."
I see no mistake in judgement, Bob. I see no mistake. Did I
overmatch BAD in terms of vilification and disrespect? - of course -
in the same way that we must deal with all bullies by taking their
game right to them. I make no apologies for this. Make them take
their own medicine, since that is what they fear the most.
"You're now looking for sympathy...
You were called out - and you run..."
Did you misunderstand my goodbye as a plea for sympathy? Did you
misunderstand my silence for running?
What kind of schoolyard talk is this, Bob? From my cohabitation of
the Wreck with you for a number of years, I would not have thought you
capable of this - it is beneath you and you should be ashamed.
Again, you must focus on this in the future; surely you meant "ran".
"You have wreaked more havoc here than most of the trolls but since
cute stories - that's overlooked by most."
You seem to be fixated on the little blurbs that I put onto the Wreck
from time to time. I mean no harm by them. I thought that some found
them to be entertaining and, at certain times, a diversion from the
negative tone induced by trolls, homegrown and otherwise. I find your
characterization of me as having wreaked havoc, to be beyond my
understanding - and really, really funny.
"I'm certainly not winning any popularity contests by critizing your
actions - but you were dead wrong."
Wrong in what, my brother? Is it so wrong to, "take arms against a
sea of troubles and by opposing end them"? I think not. As to
popularity contests, this is not a concern of mine - I am saddened to
see that it is a consideration of yours.
"If I can make one person pause and make them realize it is not okay
things that way... I'll consider it worth the effort."
Rocinante awaits your command. I hope only that your future windmills
are more substantial than myself.
(Part The Second.)
"Trust me Bob, I knew what the crowd reaction would be if I called him
this. A popular individual - even though his actions were flat ass
would be put on a pedestal to be revered and I would become the
That's okay - the goal was accomplished."
I'm popular? I must inform them of this at my next High School
Reunion. Those that have not already died, will surely do so upon
"I considered those that signed the list to be just blind followers
pay any price to read a story - and to be part of Tom's gang."
Dearest Bob, I started no list. And, if you think that the people who
hang out on the Wreck can be influenced by my foolish stories, then
you must wear a tinfoil hat and scan the skies for black helicopters.
I have found no group of people so independent in their thinking, so
disrespectful of common action, so enamored of their own opinions,
than this group that we call the Wreck - it's why I like it here.
"That conduct was reprehensible and I wouldn't want to be associated
with anyone thatcondones that kind of moral conduct."
Now we have taken it from a social to a moral failing? I think this
is deeper than what I want to address, just now.
" And Keith... I'm really surprised that
you did his bidding for him since in the past, you had always shown
above that - or at least I thought you were."
Keith Bohn? You suggest that Keith Bohn does the "bidding" of anyone?
That is both insulting to Keith and a complete indication that this
has veered off into uncharted and imponderable waters.
"Perhaps some of you loyal followers should read his posts again - all
words this time and apply the same standard to him that you do to
else - but fairly this time."
If it so suits you, Bob, I would be happy for anyone to do as you
suggest, and read everything in context. So far as I know, I have
nothing to regret, save a certain stridency in defense of what I
thought was right. This could be construed as a stylistic flaw but
not an error in intent.
"I'm sure Tom will become very active over in
alt.stories and create quite a following shortly. Please join him
you can have your mutual admiration society meetings and gloat over
I've never been a frequenter of any other newsgroup than the Wreck. I
began lurking here in late 1994 and didn't work up the spit to say
anything until much later. I have enjoyed the group through its ups
and downs but have grown tired of the bickering, of late. Things will
settle out, as they always have.
"No guy's, I'm not going away either. The small segment that you
doesn't amount to squat in the overall picture. I can still
learn here, as well as clean house when needed - just like you but
the gangland tactics."
No need to put on the hair shirt, Bob. I think that if you took a
survey, nobody around here would give any more of a damn about what I
say than about what anyone else says. It's Usenet, Bob. There are no
segments, excepting those that go all the way down to the level of the
individual. There is no great conspiracy to drive things in any
preconceived direction. I spoke against what I perceived to be a
destructive force - as you have (now, you see, I'm allowed to get away
with that little tense change - it's a fussy sorta thing). I respect
your perception that I am a negative force, although I strongly
disagree. I am saddened that you would not show me the same courtesy.
"We're one for one.......next."
Now, this is the statement that motivated me to reply. This is the
statement of a small man. I do not speak of physical stature - I
speak of a smallness of heart, insight and intent. It further seems
vainglorious, full of personal puffery, and exactly the sort of thing
that I need a vacation from.
You have diminished yourself, Bob.
I would have put this in the form of an email but found that you no
longer use your real name or real email address in your posting. I
still do and you may reply as you see fit.
You have my mea culpa for reacting with excess to the excesses of BAD.
You can see the damage that he has caused, and continues to cause.
The rest of you have my mea culpa for mentioning his name - it is a
further indication of my need for relief.
I wish that this had not been brought to my attention.
I would appreciate it if none of you would forward other posts
regarding this or other unpleasantness.
I am going fishing tomorrow.
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)