McFly as in the wimpy dad in Back to the Future.

Knocking on the head and say 'Hello, McFly' was how the bully got his
undivided attention.

CH
----- Original Message -----
From: Reef Fish <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [SCUBA-SE] AAA (Absolutely Abysmally Asinine)


> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:33:28 -0400, Michael Doelle
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >Lee wrote:
> >
> >>>I'm sorry that Bob's Clemson E-mail address was revoked, but have no
> >>position on whether Quinn was justified or unjustified in complaining to
> >>Bob's e-mail provider.<
> >
> >What? Hello, McFly!
>
> In the voice of nilman, "what is McFly?"
> >
> >Let me refresh your memory here. Harry, or is it Quinn, stumbled into the
> >group and the first thing he did was to advise the long-time residents on
> >how things should be run in the group.
>
> Very accurate characterization, for which I said Quinn was a perfect
> example of what Internet Guru (Bob Crispen in his lesson TEXT) called
> a "clueless newbie".
> >
> >He was apparently badly briefed before doing so, obviously thinking that
> >his coming to the aid of the anti-Bob faction would be universally
welcome.
> >But Bob wasn't even "home".
>
> A small FACTUAL correction here.  I was actually home on May 21.  The
> RFD controversy was already OVER when I was home.  My own BHD (you
> can readily find in the Scuba-L web archives as well) showed:
>
> I made  4 Scuba-L postings on May 21:  two on the RFD thread.
> I made 11 Scuba-L postings on May 22:  SEVEN on the RFD thread.
>
> Quinn's letter of complaint to the President was sent on May 23,
> on which day I made 17 Scuba-L posts, nearly ALL about the RDF
> fiasco and Nick's abuse of his power.
>
> >He went ahead with the "mission" anyway and
> >wrote the slanderous mail to Clemson. From his work address no less.
>
> Quinn simply hadn't read ANY OF my 30+ posts on those three days
> when he fired off his letter!
>
>
> >On the second front, in S-L itself, something also had to be done. Since
> >Bob was away, and it wasn't even possible to MAKE UP some feeble reason
for
> >banning him, someone else was picked.
>
> Ah, this is where the FACT that I wasn't away during Nick's sudden change
> of tune and excuse, to his Tuesday Massacre, and mass Scuba-L exodus in
> protest ... all during May 21-23 when I had more than 30 posts!
>
>
> Since I was the loudmouth of the day
> >(the Monday before the famous Tuesday) I was the lucky winner. It was a
> >close race, Bjoern and Mike were serious contenders.
>
> While that's all correctly stated, Nick couldn't come up with any
> feeble excuse to "nick" ME other than using his FEEBLE EXCUSE of
> calling my use of "clueless newbie" on Quinn Harry as a "strike"
> in HIS newly self-annointed dictatorial rule!
>
> I conducted MY discussion during those 3 days in EXACTLY the same
> manner I would have conducted my discussion any time during my 13
> years on Scuba-L.  Pull no punches.  Stick with FACTS and REASONED
> arguments (nailed Nick a few times pointing out HIS fallacies in
> counting votes, justifying his dictator role, and ALL his abuses
> and violations).
>
> I didn't have to call Nick any "names" to expose him for what
> he was.  Just presenting MY case against him suffices.
>
> I didn't use any obscene language (I never do so in my arguments,
> though as a defender of free speech I have absolutely NO PROBLEM
> with anyone who chooses to use it -- I can read the SUBSTANCE of
> such messages just as well, WITH or WITHOUT the obcenities
> for embellishment or emphasis used by others.  :-))
>
> What I find extremely OFFENSIVE AND OBSCENE is the SUBSTANCE of
> Nick's messages; Hugh calling me a "hypocrite" when HE was
> the one; and Ron Lee's repeated parrotting of his senseless
> rote.
>
> What is OBSCENE language is in the eyes of the beholder.
>
> Quinn was just COMPLETELY off-target in his complaints about ME
> because he took the words of Hugh, Ron Lee, and possibly OTHER
> irresponsible netizens/discussants for granted as FACT and gospel
> truth, when he SHOULD have, and HAD plenty of reading material
> from MY postings, to ascertain the true FACTS himself.
>
>
> >Lee, if you don't want to talk about it anymore, just don't. I do notice,
> >however, that nobody on S-L ever says a peep about the whole mess. Seems
to
> >me, that the instigators of the RFD are largely ashamed of what they did
to
> >S-L. I do not intend to shut up about this just because it happened last
> >month.
> >
> >michael
>
> Well said!
>
> -- Bob.
>