[META]Attn Mike Palij
DamNam 316
>From: "Mike Kelleher" <kell...@bitstorm.net>
>Date: 4/11/99 7:17 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <RRbQ2.2702$bF.2...@newsfeed.slurp.net>
>
>Don't speak for the rest of RSPW. You tried this crap before remember? A
>total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
>compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW. That means you
>are in a MINORITY! Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>RSPW with your messages to ISP's. It is quite clear only a small minority
>feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs? I see
>a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM). Want
>to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!! You are worse than the people
>you so desperately want to get rid of. You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
>wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why then
>should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so? You
>are the biggest troll on this newsgroup. Take your little control freak self
>and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>
>Mike Kelle"SCUM"
>Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
>
>
He also uses netcom in which is way easier to get booted than it is on any
other isp.
DamNam 3:16 "I was possessed as a child, but now I have killed the devil within
me now I could see again."
"Lightening strikes me at dawn, but when I close my eyes I still see what I
have done wrong."
JHD
Kelly Vaters
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Mike Kelleher wrote:
> Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
Mike speaks for the ones in r.s.p-w who matter.
You tried this crap before remember? A
> total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
> compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW.
Remember the legal maxim: "silence gives consent." The lack of response
from those in the gallery should not be taken to mean that they disagree
with the idea. If they did, they would have most certainly spoken up.
That means you
> are in a MINORITY! Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
> RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
It's probably because he speaks for the charter of the newsgroup; yes,
that strangely lost document which everybody lived by anyway until little
childish, selfish shitheads like you decided to leave your mental feces
all over the landscape. You pathetic poseur; you're not a real wrestling
fan, are you? Admit it; you change the channel when things get a little
too "technical" for you, which I imagine in your case occurs every time
someone uses a word of more than two syllables.
It is quite clear only a small minority
> feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs? I see
> a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM). Want
> to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!! You are worse than the people
> you so desperately want to get rid of. You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
> wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why then
> should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so? You
> are the biggest troll on this newsgroup. Take your little control freak self
> and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
> posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
How about you getting lost, Mr. Kelleher, before someone construes your
message as an obvious expression of intent to disrupt this newsgroup and
reports you behaviour to Usenet?
Kelly
Darien Allen
<k.va...@chebucto.ns.ca> tried to run this line:
>
>
>On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Mike Kelleher wrote:
>
>> Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
>
>Mike speaks for the ones in r.s.p-w who matter.
Uh oh...it's that super secret society popping up again.....
-----------------------------
DRA-ICQ#2927081
tweener World order:
Cause sometimes...it's easier to play both sides.
(trWo)
Gotta remove that "takethis" stuff to reply.
The Bogus Prophet
In article <RRbQ2.2702$bF.2...@newsfeed.slurp.net> "Mike Kelleher" <kell...@bitstorm.net> writes:
>Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
I never do, I was making a request. How is making a request speaking for
the newsgroup?
>You tried this crap before remember? A
>total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
Heh, but y'know BRAH, even with 8 people, I was able to show that there
was unanimity about what a Charter for RSPW should be. Think that 8 people
is too small? Well, no one thought that rspw.mod would come into existence
because there was so little "apparent" support for it. Remember that a
hurricaine begins with a single raindrop.
>compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW.
You keeping numbers on how many people are here? Can I see them?
And are you counting people posting under several aliases as one
person or as several?
>That means you are in a MINORITY!
So? You have something against minorities? IIRC, it has been estimated
that at the time of the American Revolution, only a third of the people
were in favor of seccesion from Britain. I guess that means that either
(a) we shouldn't have had the revolution because it was promoted by a
minority of people or (b) we should rescind it, re-unite with Britain
and then hold a popular election on whether we should be separate from
it, with majority rules. Is that what you want?
>Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
Because:
(a) I am one of the oldest members of this newsgroup, few people here
have my experience with it and, I dare say, my authority here.
(b) As a co-moderator for an existing newsgroup, I have demonstrated
my ability to work within the rules and regulations of Usenet
administration.
(c) As a long-time user of Internet services (over a decade), I have
considerable knowledge and experience with the Internet.
All of those things provide me with credibility.
>It is quite clear only a small minority
>feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs?
Because Mr. Kelleher, they are not my needs, they are requests to
bring RSPW back to what it is supposed to be, namely a wrestling
discussion newsgroup. I'm just trying to get the people here to
embrace the spirit of the Charter that serves as the basis for
why RSPW came into existence in the first place. I have history
and the facts on my side.
>I see
>a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM). Want
>to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!!
My, my, my, how selective we can be. Of course, in the past few days
I've been engaged in meta-discussion here which have taken my attention
away from purely wrestling based matters. But why didn't you look in the
past week or so where I had made a concerted effort to be on-topic.
Why don't you start with the articles from the NY Times that I posted
regarding pro-wrestling? Really, Mr. Kelleher, are you bucking for
a position in the Ministry of Truth?
>You are worse than the people
>you so desperately want to get rid of.
Really, Mr. Kelleher? Do you really believe that I am worse the the
cross-posting troll Cypher? Do you think that I am worse than Icon
Smiley who threatens to "take over" RSPW and claims that he is getting
trolls from Altopia to come here and disrupt things. If you really
do believe this, then all I can say is that you are truly one
fucking idiot.
>You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
>wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why then
>should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so?
*You* don't have to. You can killfile my postings. BTW, for the record,
most if not all of my postings are ontopic, either because of their
wrestling content or their META content, y'know BRAH, like this here
posting.
>You are the biggest troll on this newsgroup.
*shrug* And, although I think the is point is arguable, you are the
biggest idiot on this newsgroup.
>Take your little control freak self
>and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
The address is ab...@netcom.com. Anyone who thinks that I'm a troll
or doing anything improper, go and contact them. Don't get angry when
they laugh in your face.
>Mike Kelle"SCUM"
>Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
BTW, I thought you had left. I'm honored to think that I matter so much
to you that I can actually force you to come back to respond to me.
--
* Mike Palij * Bok...@netcom.com * Co-Mod Rec.Sport.Pro-Wrestling.Moderated *
* Coming Soon: RSPW CLASSIC - http://www.bogusprophet.com *
* RSPW Posting Guide: http://www.mysp.com/p/chadbryant/rspw/ *
* RSPW/Pro-Wrestling FAQ: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/4693/faq.html *
* Oh? Didn't you know? Copyright 1999, Michael Palij *
Mr. Snow
>
Who would that be? I'm assuming you include yourself in that
list. How exactly do you matter? How exactly are you better than
anybody else who posts here?
>You tried this crap before remember? A
>> total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
>> compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW.
>
>Remember the legal maxim: "silence gives consent." The lack of response
>from those in the gallery should not be taken to mean that they disagree
>with the idea. If they did, they would have most certainly spoken up.
More probably, it means they're indifferent to you, or Mike
Palij, or Mike Kelleher. It's not exactly the same as consent.
>That means you
>> are in a MINORITY! Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>> RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
>
>
>It's probably because he speaks for the charter of the newsgroup; yes,
>that strangely lost document which everybody lived by anyway until little
>childish, selfish shitheads like you decided to leave your mental feces
>all over the landscape. You pathetic poseur; you're not a real wrestling
>fan, are you? Admit it; you change the channel when things get a little
>too "technical" for you, which I imagine in your case occurs every time
>someone uses a word of more than two syllables.
Ok, does it make you feel better now that you're a truer
wrestling fan than Mike Kelleher? When exactly did you turn into such
a single-minded spite box?
>It is quite clear only a small minority
>> feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs? I see
>> a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM). Want
>> to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!! You are worse than the people
>> you so desperately want to get rid of. You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
>> wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why then
>> should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so? You
>> are the biggest troll on this newsgroup. Take your little control freak self
>> and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>> posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>
>
>How about you getting lost, Mr. Kelleher, before someone construes your
>message as an obvious expression of intent to disrupt this newsgroup and
>reports you behaviour to Usenet?
>
>Kelly
>
I just don't get it.......sometimes, i see -so much- hypocrisy
among you and your 'people' Kelly, that i wonder if this entire
scenario isn't another one of those giant 'works'.
The Bogus Prophet
>>"Mike Kelleher" <kell...@bitstorm.net> writes:
>>little control freak self
>>and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>>posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>>
>
>other isp.
PeteKOF
<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:
>
> Kelly Vaters wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Mike Kelleher wrote:
> >
> >> Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
> >
> >Mike speaks for the ones in r.s.p-w who matter.
>
>
> observation from someone who only posts to tell people what to do.
>
Ya gotta love Kelly, she speaks for truth, justice, and the American
way. Yeah right.
> >
> >You tried this crap before remember? A
> >> total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
> >> compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW.
PS Mike K, I was one of the respondents and I voted no to everything.
> >
> >Remember the legal maxim: "silence gives consent."
Where did you hear this Kelly? Enlighten me please. Must be a
Canadian maxim or something.
>
> Which has been disproved time and time again through litigation. You should
> learn what you are talking about.
I agree!
>
> The lack of response
> >from those in the gallery should not be taken to mean that they disagree
> >with the idea. If they did, they would have most certainly spoken up.
>
>
> So you know exactly what opinion they held?
My thoughts exactly. Since I am the king of the trolls and their
elected representative (see, I held a vote, but no one knew about it,
and since they didn't vote, I assumed thru that proven legal maxim that
silence equals consent), I say that MY people are against a charter.
Glad to see your a psychic.
> Conventional wisdom would actually point to the "gallery" as being happy
> with things, seeing how the vote was concerning changing things. When people
> want change they speak up, something that has been shown through years and
> years of analyzing voting data for national elections.
>
Yep.
> >That means you
> >> are in a MINORITY! Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
> >> RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
> >
> >
> >It's probably because he speaks for the charter of the newsgroup; yes,
> >that strangely lost document which everybody lived by anyway until little
> >childish, selfish shitheads like you decided to leave your mental feces
> >all over the landscape.
>
> You have no argument so you must attempt childish insults. If no one has
> this charter than there is question if it even existed. That shoots the
> whole "enforcing the charter" argument straight to hell.
>
> You pathetic poseur; you're not a real wrestling
> >fan, are you? Admit it; you change the channel when things get a little
> >too "technical" for you, which I imagine in your case occurs every time
> >someone uses a word of more than two syllables.
>
>
> Anyone who has read this newsgroup knows I have posted more about WRESTLING
> than any of you so called "enforcers" who are just grandstanding morons
> looking for some kind of purpose in your pathetic lives.
>
Thats right Mike. In fact, I think I'VE posted more on topic than any
of those guys! Seriously!
> >It is quite clear only a small minority
> >> feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs? I
> see
> >> a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM).
> Want
> >> to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!! You are worse than the
> people
> >> you so desperately want to get rid of. You ask why *YOU* should be forced
> to
> >> wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why
> then
> >> should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so?
> You
> >> are the biggest troll on this newsgroup. Take your little control freak
> self
> >> and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of
> your
> >> posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
> >
> >
> >How about you getting lost, Mr. Kelleher, before someone construes your
> >message as an obvious expression of intent to disrupt this newsgroup and
> >reports you behaviour to Usenet?
>
YAAAAAWWWWN!
>
> At least I know how to use proper punctuation. Between that and you spelling
> of behavior the comment about "which I imagine in your case occurs every
> time someone uses a word of more than two syllables" applies more to you
> than anyone else on this newsgroup. If anyone is disrupting a group it is
> the wanna be mods on here.
>
HAHAHAHA!!! Rock on!
> Mike Kelle"SCUM"
>
>
>
>
--
Posted via Talkway - http://www.talkway.com
Surf Usenet at home, on the road, and by email -- always at Talkway.
The Bogus Prophet
>The Bogus Prophet wrote in message ...
>
>>Hey Mike, pass your bar exam yet?
Hmmm, silence. Tell me, Mike, are you still impersonating a lawyer?
>>In article <RRbQ2.2702$bF.2...@newsfeed.slurp.net> "Mike Kelleher"
><kell...@bitstorm.net> writes:
>>>Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
>>
>>I never do, I was making a request. How is making a request speaking for
>>the newsgroup?
Hmmm, silence again. I guess Mike doesn't like answering questions.
>>>You tried this crap before remember? A
>>>total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
>>
>>Heh, but y'know BRAH, even with 8 people, I was able to show that there
>>was unanimity about what a Charter for RSPW should be.
>
>This is a blatant lie and you know it.
Really? Prove it. I posted the results and the numbers in favor of and/or
slight change in wording were all very high.
>I replied to your vote, so you know
>there was no unanimity.
IIRC, you may have disagreed on *some* but not all. But I'll concede the
point: instead of 100%, it was closer to 90% agreement. Happier?
>When you take into account the follow-up posts to
>your results (you know the ones laughing at you because only 8 people
>replied), that proves my point even more.
Really? I don't think so. People who don't vote for, say, the President
of the United States can bitch all they want about who got into office
but if they didn't vote, their voice doesn't matter: only their vote
matters. And by not voting, their response is irrelevant.
>>You keeping numbers on how many people are here? Can I see them?
>>And are you counting people posting under several aliases as one
>>person or as several?
>
>I count 378 different names since 4-9 until right now.
You didn't answer my second question: how many of 378 come from
some orange dicked teenager posting one-handedly from AOL or Altopia?
>>>Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>>>RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
>>
>>Because:
>>
>>(a) I am one of the oldest members of this newsgroup, few people here
>>have my experience with it and, I dare say, my authority here.
>
>It is not a mod group therefore you have no authority here. Nice try though.
>Must be your desire to feel important think you have "authority here".
Guess again, Mr. Kelle"Scum". You may not like it, but learn to love it,
because people do read what I write even if they disagree me. I influence
people even if it is to cause them to do the *opposite* of what I suggest
they do. Wanna see? Please don't respond to this posting. :-)
>>(b) As a co-moderator for an existing newsgroup, I have demonstrated
>>my ability to work within the rules and regulations of Usenet
>>administration.
>
>This isn't a mod group.
*BBBRRRZZZZTTTTTTT!!!* I'm so sorry, Mr. Kelle*scum* but you forgot to
put it in the form of a question. The correct response is "Is RSPW
a part of Usenet?" The answer to which, Mr. Kelle*scum* is YES! So,
a person's knowledge and ability to work with Usenet is relevant and
important. Sorry, Mr. Kelle*scum* but it looks like you're losing
on points.
>>(c) As a long-time user of Internet services (over a decade), I have
>>considerable knowledge and experience with the Internet.
>>
>>All of those things provide me with credibility.
>
>To speak for all of RSPW. Basically you feel you should decide who should
>post and who shouldn't.
Really, Mr. Kelle*scum*, why are you acting so stupidly? *YOU* are the
one claiming that I am speaking for RSPW, not I. I have said that I only
speak for myself. Others may listen and agree with me and that may make
it seem like I speak for RSPW or at least a part of it. As for deciding
who should and shouldn't post here, I *WISH* I had that power, but I
don't. All I can do is identify instances where a person breaks the
usual and ordinary rules of Usenet and internet conduct. If their ISP
agrees with me then that *ISP* may terminate that person's account. If
that hadn't broken the rules in the first place, there'd be no problem,
right, since there would no basis for TOS'ing the person. Afterall,
you can't get TOS'ed unless you violate the Terms of Service, right?
>>>It is quite clear only a small minority
>>>feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs?
>>
>>Because Mr. Kelleher, they are not my needs, they are requests to
>>bring RSPW back to what it is supposed to be, namely a wrestling
>>discussion newsgroup. I'm just trying to get the people here to
>>embrace the spirit of the Charter that serves as the basis for
>>why RSPW came into existence in the first place. I have history
>>and the facts on my side.
>
>You have no charter.
Actually, I do. I put it up for a vote and an overwhelming majority
of the voters were in favor of it. And that's the God's honest truth.
>Where is it? Doesn't exist.
Gee, Mr. Kelle*scum, are you saying that there was no vote to create
RSPW? Are you saying that people hadn't created a Charter for this
newsgroup which was approved by a majority vote? If you are, I'd
like you to produce the evidence for this silly assertion. The long
timers I've spoken to, all confirm my presentation of the FACTS.
C'mon, Mr. Kelle*scum* let's see your facts.
>Nice try. As for "history"
>being on your side, two years of recent history are on everyone else's side.
>If anything the creation of the mod group probably HELPED the trolls.
Actually, I think that it is idiot posters like you that have helped
to make this newsgroup into a toilet. Let's face it, Mr. Kelle*scum*,
you're a liar, you've publicly admitted to faking to be a lawyer in
order to get information about DeJong situation, so why should anyone
take what you say seriously?
>>>I see
>>>a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM).
>Want
>>>to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!!
>>
>>My, my, my, how selective we can be.
>
>That was what was on my screen at the time. I can't help that.
Yes, you can, Mr. Kelle*scum*. It's called research. Don't ever make
lame ass accusations like this unless you have the facts straight. But
you're not really interested in the facts, are you Mr. Kelle*scum*.
You don't mind lying when it suits your purposes, so distorting evidence
is not such a big deal, is it?
>The day I
>make an effort to go through deja-news or whatnot, it will be for more than
>just yourself, it will be to expose who the real trolls are on RSPW.
Mr. Kelle*scum*, EVERYBODY on RSPW knows who the real trolls are: They even
self-identify themselves. Whom are you trying to kid?
>>>You are worse than the people
>>>you so desperately want to get rid of.
>>
>>Really, Mr. Kelleher? Do you really believe that I am worse the the
>>cross-posting troll Cypher?
>
>I have no messages from Cypher. I have an ISP that knows how to handle
>things I guess. Maybe you should invest in one also.
Now let me get this straight: if you don't see a problem then none exists?
Is that right, Mr. Kelle*scum*? I mean, if you live in a rich suburb and
never see a poor inner city neighborhood then urban poverty doesn't exist?
If you don't watch the killing of innocents in Kosovo, then there is no
genocide going on there? If Cypher is causing a cross-posting flood that
disrupts many newsgroups, in essence stealing service away from the people
who want to use those newsgroups for their intended purpose, then he's
not doing anything wrong?
Mr. Kelle*scum* please don't become a lawyer, because you'd be laughed
out of court on a regular basis.
> Do you think that I am worse than Icon
>>Smiley who threatens to "take over" RSPW and claims that he is getting
>>trolls from Altopia to come here and disrupt things. If you really
>>do believe this, then all I can say is that you are truly one
>>fucking idiot.
>
>However I see the whole reason WHY someone like Smiley does it. To get
>attention. The more attention you give him, the more attention he will seek.
>Only a fucking idiot couldn't figure that out.
Mr. Kelle*scum* why can't you seem to figure out that there are rules
operating here that apply to everyone. That violators of those rules
should be dealt with in a standard manner. Are you saying that we should
tolerate trolls instead of reporting them to their ISPs, especially when
they warn a newsgroup that they're going to engage in a flood of troll
postings? Really, Mr. Kelle*scum*, planet are you on?
>>>You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
>>>wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why
>then
>>>should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so?
>>
>>*You* don't have to. You can killfile my postings. BTW, for the record,
>>most if not all of my postings are ontopic, either because of their
>>wrestling content or their META content, y'know BRAH, like this here
>>posting.
>
>In your own words " Why should I be forced to use a killfile to read a
>newsgroup that should
>be devoted to the discussion of pro-wrestling? " In order to avoid all the
>META shit one would have to!
Please explain why you would want ontopic postings that are relevant to
the operation of a newsgroup to be banned while you are in favor of postings
by crossposted troll floods?
>>>You are the biggest troll on this newsgroup.
>>
>>*shrug* And, although I think the is point is arguable, you are the
>>biggest idiot on this newsgroup.
>
>I'm not the one who feels I have "authority" here.
That's good because after the DeJong incident you may have a lot of things
in people's eyes but authority isn't one of them.
>When are people going to
>realize meglo-mania is a treatable condition. I am sure you will get the
>help you need.
Well, if Altopia responds the way I'd like them to, then, yeah, I will get
all the help I need.
>>>Take your little control freak self
>>>and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>>>posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>>
>>The address is ab...@netcom.com. Anyone who thinks that I'm a troll
>>or doing anything improper, go and contact them. Don't get angry when
>>they laugh in your face.
>
>Soon enough, every real troll will be shown to their ISP, message by message
>for as long as they have been with their ISP.
Mr. Kelle*scum* what are you waiting for? BTW, do you think that an ISP
goes by only the information given to them? You think that they don't look
for corroborating and disconfirming evidence as well?
>>BTW, I thought you had left. I'm honored to think that I matter so much
>>to you that I can actually force you to come back to respond to me.
>
>No my apartment isn't going to be ready for another week. Everything packed,
>everything ready to go, so I'm like extremely bored!! Wasn't planning on
>posting for about another 2-3 weeks until I am all settled in with school,
>job and so forth, but hey that's how things work out sometimes.
Gee, that's too bad. So who's the next person you're going to try to get
fired from his/her job?
>Mike Kelle"SCUM"
JHD
news:gHrQ2.117$Ur1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> JHD wrote in message <7ertnv$r5i$1...@east43.supernews.com>...
> >I thought you were leaving, asshole.
> Moving date was pushed back by a week.
More's the pity. But hey, maybe the AG will be able to find you easier
this way.
The Bogus Prophet
>On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:34:20 -0400 "Mike Kelleher"
><kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote:
>> Kelly Vaters wrote in message ...
>> >On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Mike Kelleher wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Hear that everyone, only five people matter in the newsgroup. Great
>> observation from someone who only posts to tell people what to do.
>
>Ya gotta love Kelly, she speaks for truth, justice, and the American
>way. Yeah right.
net access is a privilege and not a right. So be a nice boy and don't
do anything to lose it again. BTW, stop posting from talkway.com.
>> >You tried this crap before remember? A
>> >> total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
>
>PS Mike K, I was one of the respondents and I voted no to everything.
to mishandling the truth. You know that you *didn't* vote no on everything.
It will take me a little longer to dig up your response to prove this,
but in the mean time, why don't I just re-post the straw poll results
so that the air of mendacity will be cleared, m'kay?
|From ix.netcom.com!bokonon Wed Feb 17 07:02:55 PST 1999
|Article: 884990 of rec.sport.pro-wrestling
|Newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling
|Path: ix.netcom.com!bokonon
|From: bok...@netcom.com (The Bogus Prophet)
|Subject: Re-Charter Straw Poll Results
|Message-ID: <bokononF...@netcom.com>
|Organization: The Republic of San Lorenzo
|Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:34:46 GMT
|Lines: 666
|Sender: bok...@netcom9.netcom.com
|Xref: ix.netcom.com rec.sport.pro-wrestling:884990
|
|To All,
|I'm gonna keep the commentary brief. If anyone has any questions
|about how to interpret things, etc., email me instead of posting
|to RSPW. Thanks for to the people who participated. The rest
|is up to you folks.
|
|-Mike
|
|*******************************************************************
|
|
|Straw Poll: Re-Charter v.1.0
|Initial analyses
|
|Below are the results of the analyses of the items from the
|proposed Re-Charter that I had posted previously and had
|requested comments on. A total of 8 people responded. The
|results are organized into three parts:
|
|A. On-topic items with "as is" and "accept but change wording"
| combined into a single category and numericly coded "1",
| "never" responses wer coded as "0" and statistics were
| computed on these dichotomous values.
|
|B. Off-topic items with "as is" and "accept but change wording"
| combined into a single category and numericly coded "1",
| "never" responses were coded as "0" and statistics were
| computed on these dichotomous values.
|
|C. All Preamble and items with frequencies for response made to
| each.
|
|=================================================================
|A. On Topic Item Analyses
|=================================================================
|A. On-topic items with "as is" and "accept but change wording"
| combined into a single category and numericly coded "1",
| "never" responses wer coded as "0" and statistics were
| computed on these dichotomous values.
|
|The actual items are provided in Section C.
|
|Notes: Values in the "Mean" column represents the proportion
|of responses made to "as is"/"accept but with change wording"
|A value of 1.00 means that 100% endorsement of the item (i.e.,
|everyone either accepted it "as is" or "accept but change
|wording". Nine out of 10 of the on-topic items had unanimous
|agreement, only item #10 had one person say "never".
|
|On Topic Valid
|Charter Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N Label
|Items
| ON.1 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.2 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.3 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.4 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.5 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.6 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.7 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.8 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.9 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| ON.10 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
|
|=================================================================
|B. Off Topic Item Analyses
|=================================================================
|B. Off-topic items with "as is" and "accept but change wording"
| combined into a single category and numericly coded "1",
| "never" responses were coded as "0" and statistics were
| computed on these dichotomous values.
|
|Notes: Values in the "Mean" column represents the proportion
|of responses made to "as is"/"accept but with change wording"
|A value of 1.00 means that 100% endorsement of the item (i.e.,
|everyone either accepted it "as is" or "accept but change
|wording".
|
|One of the off-topic items (#2) had unanimous agreement,
|seven items had 88% or 7/8 agreement, four items has 75%
|or 6/8 agreement, and two items had 50% or 4/8 agreement.
|This indicates that though there is less agreement on the
|off-topic items than the on-topic items but agreement is
|still substantial.
|Off Topic Valid
|Charter Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N Label
|Items
| OFF.1 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.2 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
| OFF.3 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.4 .75 .46 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.5 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.6 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.7 .75 .46 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.8 .75 .46 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.9 .50 .53 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.10 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.11 .75 .46 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.12 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.13 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
| OFF.14 .50 .53 .00 1.00 8
|
|=================================================================
|C. All Items Analyses
|=================================================================
|C. All Preamble and items with frequencies for response made to
| each.
|
|ON.PRE Ontopic Preamble: Rec.sport.pro-wrestling is to be a forum for
| the discussion of all aspects of professional wrestling. As such,
| all manner of discussion related to professional wrestling is
| considered to be on-topic, including but not limited to:
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|As is 1 6 75.0 75.0 75.0
|Change 3 2 25.0 25.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestion for change:
|
|(R7) ('All manner of discussion' would include the UA, wouldn't it? And talking
|about, for instance, me (or one of my friends in a cheap attempt to troll
|me) in certain aspects. Too broad. So I'm a censor. Too bad, this ain't a
|free country.)
|
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.1 1.Presentations of house show and TV show reports,
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|As is 1 7 87.5 87.5 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for change:
|
|(R4) "with appropriate spoiler protections when appropriate."
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.2 2.Discussions of match, house show, television show and PPV
| results and quality (or lack thereof),
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|As is 1 7 87.5 87.5 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for change:
|
|(R4) "with appropriate spoiler protections when appropriate."
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.3 3.Discussions of the business aspects of pro wrestling such as
| angles, booking, promoting, acquisition and development of
| talent, including speculation as to the future,
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|As is 1 8 100.0 100.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for change:
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.4 4.Discussions about the history of pro wrestling
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|As is 1 8 100.0 100.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for change:
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.5 5.Personal experiences, and anecdotes on pro-wrestling,
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|As is 1 7 87.5 87.5 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R4) "...that do not expose or intrude on the private lives of workers
|without their consent."
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.6 6.Discussion of upcoming house shows, television programs, PPVs
| and matches,
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|As is 1 7 87.5 87.5 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R6) "With appropriate spoiler space"
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.7 7.Discussion of secondary media such as tapes, newsletters, and
| websites,
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|As is 1 6 75.0 75.0 75.0
|Change 3 2 25.0 25.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R4) "...mailing lists,"
|
|(R7) Take it easy on the shills.
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.8 8.Limited announcements of upcoming shows, television/radio
| programs, PPVs and matches,
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 8 100.0 100.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for change:
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.9 9.Regularly posted FAQs and FAQ related documents,
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 7 87.5 87.5 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for change:
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|ON.10 10.All posts to Rec.Sports.Pro-Wrestling.Info ("RSPWI"), to be
| posted by the moderator of RSPWI to RSPW unless requested by the
| author that the article not be posted to RSPW,
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 7 87.5 87.5 87.5
|Never 2 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for change:
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|SUGGESTIONS FOR OTHER ON-TOPIC AREAS:
|
|Posts containing rumors so long as such posts are marked as
|rumors, report the source of the rumor and do not expose or
|intrude on the private lives or confidences of workers without
|their consent. Matters of official legal record or that directly
|impact on the performance of a pro wrestling worker would
|not be covered under the definition of private lives.
|
|
|Posts containing minimal off-topic comments in an otherwise on-topic
|thread so long as those comments don't violate any of the other
|guidelines.
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.PRE Offtopic Preamble: The following items are off-topic,
| and will result in complaints to the ISPs of posters
| who engage in posting the following:
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 1 12.5 14.3 14.3
|Change 3 6 75.0 85.7 100.0
| . 1 12.5 Missing
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 7 Missing cases 1
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R2) I would want another option (e-mailing the offender?)
|before reporting to an ISP. That's just me.
|
|(R6) "may result"
|
|(R7) Change 'will' to 'may.'
|
|(R8) Unless it is a flagrant violation after violation then an ISP should never
|be stripped. Enough people warning someone of impending ISP notification
|through private e-mail is normally sufficient
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.1 1.Encoded binaries, or requests for binaries.
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 3 37.5 37.5 37.5
|Never 2 1 12.5 12.5 50.0
|Change 3 4 50.0 50.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R4) Delete "or requests for binaries". The requests should be allowed
|with the binaries then put up in the appropriate group.
|
|(R6) Requests for binaries to be sent via e-mail are acceptable.
|
|(R8) Note: A request is not in itself bad if it asks for someone to post it on
|the binaries group. Posting binaries on here is not exactly kosher however.
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.2 2.HTML-encoded posts.
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 7 87.5 87.5 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R8) I believe this is all over USENET so acceptable, though warnings should be
|given first
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.3 3.Blank posts.
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 6 75.0 75.0 75.0
|Never 2 1 12.5 12.5 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R8) accidents happen and no real blank post floods have happened
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.4 4.Articles with all quoted text, and no original text. Such
| posts as a "me too" are also off-topic by this criteria.
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 4 50.0 50.0 50.0
|Never 2 2 25.0 25.0 75.0
|Change 3 2 25.0 25.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R4) "Me too" posts should not be disallowed. It's no original text,
|not no original thought.
|
|(R8) why netcop someone for this?
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.5 5.Duplicate posts, either by accident or design.
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 2 25.0 25.0 25.0
|Never 2 1 12.5 12.5 37.5
|Change 3 5 62.5 62.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for chage:
|
|(R2) Duplicate posts I would report by design only. Accidents happen.
|
|(R6) These three are acceptable as-is ONLY if the above general statement is
|amended to read "may be" and not "will be" (refers to items 3,4,5)
|
|(R7) I can't justify netcopping someone for a legit accident.
|
|(R8) accidents happen.
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.6 6.Spews or floods of a large number of articles from a single
| individual or group.
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 3 37.5 37.5 37.5
|Never 2 1 12.5 12.5 50.0
|Change 3 4 50.0 50.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R6) We need a definition of a flood. Some people may send a large number of
|posts because their newsreader is set to send all e-mail only upon
|logging off.
|
|(R7) Depends on the nature of the articles. If Tom Gannon decided to repost the
|first 30 issues of WAWLI, I woulnd't complain.
|
|(R8) what if they are on topic? what contitutes a flood?
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.7 7.Posts written as if the poster were a professional wrestling
| persona. Such posts include works of fiction (e.g. the RSPWWCW).
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 3 37.5 37.5 37.5
|Never 2 2 25.0 25.0 62.5
|Change 3 3 37.5 37.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R7) I agree with works of fiction, however, what if the poster *is* a
|prfessional wreslting persona? ;-)
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.8 8."News posts" that are intended to be taken seriously (not
| obviously satire) but are patently untrue. That is, any posting
| attempting to defraud the readers of rspw or intentionally mislead
| them with false info.
|
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 5 62.5 62.5 62.5
|Never 2 2 25.0 25.0 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R7) Caveat Emptor - there's a lot of subtle satire on RSPW, I woulnd't want to
|threaten it. See: US Supreme Court Def: Pornography.
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.9 9.Requests for the posting of information, when that information
| can be reasonably be expected to be posted shortly, (ex. PPV
| results, FAQs).
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 3 37.5 37.5 37.5
|Never 2 4 50.0 50.0 87.5
|Change 3 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.10 10.Posts whose primary purpose is to advertise for a web page.
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 2 25.0 25.0 25.0
|Never 2 1 12.5 12.5 37.5
|Change 3 5 62.5 62.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R2) Maybe limit web page shillers to once every two weeks? I just wouldn't
|feel right about report page shillers to ISP's. I simply don't categorize
|them with trolls and flamers.
|
|(R4) Add "mailing list or newsletter".
|
|(R6) "unless that web page is wrestling-related"
|
|(R7) Just don't overdo it. Once a week, or every couple of weeks, I could deal
|with.
|
|(R8) any not promoting a wrestling web site or item. Limited postings, 3 times a
|week maybe
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.11 11.Any advertisement for any wrestling mechandise, including
| videotapes
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 2 25.0 25.0 25.0
|Never 2 2 25.0 25.0 50.0
|Change 3 4 50.0 50.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R8) see above
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.12 12.A post, in whole or in part, that is meant to insult or anger
| any poster or reader of the newsgroup (aka a "flame"; ad homeneim
| attacks are not acceptable.)
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 4 50.0 50.0 50.0
|Never 2 1 12.5 12.5 62.5
|Change 3 3 37.5 37.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R6) This is so vague that it can be interpreted by anyone as anything.
|
|(R8) change it in whole in which nothing is added to the thread. Someone just
|posting one line insults at everyone and not posting anything else should be
|taken care of. heated discussions in which insults are thrown happen
|everywhere.
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.13 13.A post that is meant to provoke any poster or reader of the
| newsgroup (aka a "troll") is considered off topic and will
| serve as the basis for complaints to the troller's ISP.
|
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 4 50.0 50.0 50.0
|Never 2 1 12.5 12.5 62.5
|Change 3 3 37.5 37.5 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R6) "can serve"
|
|(R8) See above
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|OFF.14 14.Any post that contains little or no on-topic content, or with
| an "ObWrestling".
| Valid Cum
|Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent
|
|As is 1 2 25.0 25.0 25.0
|Never 2 4 50.0 50.0 75.0
|Change 3 2 25.0 25.0 100.0
| ------- ------- -------
| Total 8 100.0 100.0
|
|Valid cases 8 Missing cases 0
|
|
|Suggestions for Change:
|
|(R4) "...excepting minimal off-topic comments in an otherwise on-topic
|thread so long as those comments don't violate any of the other
|guidelines."
|
|- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|Suggestion(s) for other off-topic areas:
|
|(R4) Posts that expose or intrude on the private lives of workers
|without their consent. Matters of official legal record or that
|directly impact on the performance of a pro wrestling worker
|would not be covered under the definition of private lives.
|Posts that betray the confidences of a pro wrestling worker
|without their consent.
|Posts containing a poster's derogatory references to individuals
|or groups of people based on race, sex, weight, age, nationality,
|religion, diability, non-wrestling occupation, sexual orientation,
|or preferred wrestling discussion forum.
|Posts containing spoiler information without the appropriate
|spoiler protections.
|
|(R7) Off-topic spam should be prohibited. Also, cross-posting of
|non-wrestling related material from other NG's should be prohibited.
|
|********************************************************************
JHD
> >Remember the legal maxim: "silence gives consent."
> Which has been disproved time and time again through litigation. You
should
> learn what you are talking about.
You dropped out of law shool, you're no more qualified than she is to
dispense advice. And if it's been 'disproven through litigation,' how
about some cites?
> with things, seeing how the vote was concerning changing things. When
people
> want change they speak up, something that has been shown through years
and
> years of analyzing voting data for national elections.
When people speak up around here, the trolls multiply. Fairness does not
work here, nor does openness or honesty, something that's been shown
through years and years of observing the decline of this newsgroup. And
what the fuck do you care anyway, you're leaving, you're not even a
*memeber* of this community anymore for any practical purpose, so how
about you mind your own fucking business and move on?
> You have no argument so you must attempt childish insults. If no one has
> this charter than there is question if it even existed.
If it hadn't we wouldn't be here. Just because YOU don't know a fucking
thing about usenet or how it works doesn't mean nobody *else* does.
> Anyone who has read this newsgroup knows I have posted more about
WRESTLING
> than any of you so called "enforcers" who are just grandstanding morons
> looking for some kind of purpose in your pathetic lives.
First off, you DON'T post about wreslting that often and when you *do*
it's generally along the lines of a 'me too,' and second off I don't
really give a shit how you feel about what Kelly or I or anyone else has
to say because you're leaving here with, according to you, no plans to
return. So how about you go stroke yourself some more over getting me
fired and leave us the hell alone. This newsgroup and its operation is no
longer your concern.
C-Square
Prophet) wrote
>Well, if Altopia responds the way I'd like them to, then, yeah, I
>will get
>all the help I need.
[...]
Mr. Palij, (or do you prefer Mike?) if you believe you have valid
cause, why not take (or Xpost) your complaint against Altopia to
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet? Isn't that the proper venue to
accomplish your goal?
Personally, I am a killfile proponent myself, but I understand your
POV.
P.S. Why have the last 10 or so Carl Spicer posts on the Mod been
double posted to my newsfeed while none of mine make it? Any ideas?
--
C-Square
ViNNY
Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.99...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
>
>
>On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Mike Kelleher wrote:
>
>> Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
>
>Mike speaks for the ones in r.s.p-w who matter.
Mike speaks for a handful of old school RSPWers who rarely post anything
other than complaints about the other 99% of us. The people who "matter" in
RSPW are the people who post a lot and who post about wrestling. 100 posts
about Saved By The Bell and 100 posts about how you shouldn't post about
Saved By The Bell are equally a waste of time and bandwidth.
>You tried this crap before remember? A
>> total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
>> compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW.
>
>Remember the legal maxim: "silence gives consent." The lack of response
>from those in the gallery should not be taken to mean that they disagree
>with the idea. If they did, they would have most certainly spoken up.
Silence and consent only works if the silent people know what they're
consenting too. It's impractical to download and read every single message
posted to the newsgroup.
>That means you
>> are in a MINORITY! Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>> RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
>
>It's probably because he speaks for the charter of the newsgroup; yes,
>that strangely lost document which everybody lived by anyway until little
>childish, selfish shitheads like you decided to leave your mental feces
>all over the landscape. You pathetic poseur; you're not a real wrestling
>fan, are you? Admit it; you change the channel when things get a little
>too "technical" for you, which I imagine in your case occurs every time
>someone uses a word of more than two syllables.
There's no need to resort to insults, Kelly. Without a copy of the charter
in existence (if there ever was one), the most anyone can say about RSPW is
that professional wrestling is on topic and everything else is not. "It
still says headers in the wrestling."
>It is quite clear only a small minority
>> feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs? I
see
>> a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM).
Want
>> to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!! You are worse than the
people
>> you so desperately want to get rid of. You ask why *YOU* should be forced
to
>> wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why
then
>> should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so?
You
>> are the biggest troll on this newsgroup. Take your little control freak
self
>> and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of
your
>> posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>
>How about you getting lost, Mr. Kelleher, before someone construes your
>message as an obvious expression of intent to disrupt this newsgroup and
>reports you behaviour to Usenet?
And what is "Usenet" going to do about his behaviour? By replying to his
META post, you pretty much equal yourself with Mr Kelleher.
-Vin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"you're perfect, yes it's true
but without me, you're only you"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.avincent.demon.co.uk/
vi...@avincent.demon.co.uk
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Usenet: rec.sport.pro-wrestling
rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated
ICQ: 9812127
Running for Parliament, 2002 - Vote Vin
for a brighter future for YOUR children.
Rockboy
> At least I know how to use proper punctuation. Between that and you spelling
> of behavior the comment about "which I imagine in your case occurs every
> time someone uses a word of more than two syllables" applies more to you
> than anyone else on this newsgroup. If anyone is disrupting a group it is
> the wanna be mods on here.
I hate to be picky, but "behaviour" is a perfectly valid way to spell
the word.
--
Rockboy
-No Signature Needed-
JHD
> JHD wrote in message <7etrkm$jg3$1...@east43.supernews.com>...
> >Mike Kelleher <kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote in message
> And
> >what the fuck do you care anyway, you're leaving, you're not even a
> >*memeber* of this community anymore for any practical purpose, so how
> >about you mind your own fucking business and move on?
> John, when I leave it will only be until I am set with school and such
> again. You people need to learn to read.
Damn. And here I thought maybe your sorry ass was going to stay gone.
> >> You have no argument so you must attempt childish insults. If no one
has
> >> this charter than there is question if it even existed.
> >If it hadn't we wouldn't be here. Just because YOU don't know a
fucking
> >thing about usenet or how it works doesn't mean nobody *else* does.
> I am aware one EXISTED John, but where is it? No one knows what is says
> because no one knows where it IS!
Another example of your completely fucked-up way of thinking. YOU haven't
seen it, so that MUST mean nobody else has. You made a good move dropping
out of law school, Mike - you'd have been a fucking *terrible* litigator.
> >First off, you DON'T post about wreslting that often and when you *do*
> >it's generally along the lines of a 'me too,'
> Total bullshit John, and you know that.
?
> Just because you get your jollies by
> looking to get into flame wars with me does not mean I don't post about
> wrestling.
I said you posted about wrestling - just nothing worth readin, nothing of
any substance.
> and second off I don't
> >really give a shit how you feel about what Kelly or I or anyone else
has
> >to say because you're leaving here with, according to you, no plans to
> >return.
> Where did I say I had no plans to return??
Wishful thinking, I guess.
> >So how about you go stroke yourself some more over getting me
> >fired and leave us the hell alone.
> I hope you use lube as often as you wack yourself to thoughts of trying
to
> convict me.
Me, trying to convict you? No, Mike, it's not my fight anymore, I told
you that.
> Not that anyone can prove I did anything wrong.
Your public statement that you'd acquired confidential employment
information by impersonating an officer of the court is enough, Mike.
Just as your public statement that that information had been released to
you is enough to take NCSU into court and find out for sure.
> Just give up
> your obsession John,
? I've not said much of anything to you in a couple of weeks, pindick,
get over yourself. And when you get your self-righteous, hypocritical ass
out of my face and stop harassing the good and decent posters of this
newsgroup with your half-informed grandstanding bullshit and minor
threats, then I'll consider not reminding you ever chance I get that in
spite of your brief 'victory,' you're still a fucking dick that will quite
probably, given your personality defects exhibited here, come to a bad end
at the hands of a renegade band of roving nazi lunchladies or something.
And WTF is this shit, anyway? You're going to dedicate your time to
searching 5 years of archived posts frompeople you don't like in an effort
to get them thrown off the group, and *I* don't have a life? What a
complete and utter tool you are. Have you ever been touched by a woman?
Pissant
Kelly Vaters wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Mike Kelleher wrote:
>
> > Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
>
> Mike speaks for the ones in r.s.p-w who matter.
Uhm, no. That dolt doesn't speak for me.
--
You're not even interesting enough to make me sick.
You got a problem! The problem is YOU!
Fit Finlay Is My Bitch.
Rob Brownstein
"Cum Value Label" mean? Did Val Venis start up a fan club or
something? I need to stop flipping between Raw and Nitro so
much. I'm missing way too many one liners.
--
Rev. Rob
RobBro314 on AOL IM
Part of the problem
Proud to be irrelevant (Not one of the 5 who matter)
JHD
> I don't have 300 posts from Cypher, how would I know? Explain that? Go
into
> deja-news just to see if Cypher posted?? That may be your idea of fun,
but
> myself I just think it's moronic.
Right, but going to DeJaNews on some sort of crusade to rid this group of
about half of what's left of the decent posters isn't? You hypocritical
swine.
> If I wanted to be one I would have been one by now. Your getting me
confused
> with JHD, he's the moron who brings his personal life to the newsgroup
with
> him.
I bring my personal life everywhere, asshole. Don't like it? Killfile
me.
> No one else CARES! If they did they would POST!!!
Right, so some twink like you can come point out how the post *about* the
flood is just as bad as the flood. Your whole game is that no matter
whatanyone does, they're wrong, Mike, so why don't you just shut up and go
back to pimping your mother for crack money?
> Both have nothing to do with wrestling. Why you and all the other META
> freaks fail to see that is beyond me. I'm simply stating it is as
difficult
> to wade through that crap as the trolls.
Then STOP POSTING IT YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
> >That's good because after the DeJong incident you may have a lot of
things
> >in people's eyes but authority isn't one of them.
> What's the matter Mike, was John paying you to rim his ass and now that
he's
> jobless he can no longer afford it?
I'm not jobless, you idiot. What, you think I can only get one job? What
a jerk you are. I'm not limited like you are, Mike - I have choices in my
life as to what I want to do and how I want to do it. When you die a
transient railroad bum on a sewer grate, Mike, console yourself with the
fact that you put me out of work for just long enough for me to get a job
that pays nearly twice as much, has greater chance for advancement, and is
more in tune with what I want to do.
> You have this huge hang up about John.
Just because YOU don't have any friends, you stunted rectal polyp, doesn't
mean the rest of the world sucks like you do.
> Well let me say this again for the 100th TIME!! I did EXACTLY what you
are
> telling people to do.
You do realize that I now have copies of *every* e-mail that was sent to
NCSU, Mike? About 300 of those were people bitching about me posting
off-topic, including your forgeries and fraud.
The rest of them - over *10 times* the number of complaints - were in my
defense, the vast, vast majority from people I've never *heard* of. Not
that it did any good, but it sure was an eye-opener.
You oughta think about that. and while I'm thinking about it, thank you
to the incredible number of lurkers that saw fit to add their voices to
those close friends who I asked to help me out with this. I honestly
thought that people supporting me would be in the vast minority - and I
also didn't think that many people lurked my OT threads. Please don't
concern yourselves that this post, or my recent exchange with DamNam,
indicates a return to NetBastard form...you'll note that even in my anger
(and yeah, feel good, you impotent twit, I'm angry) I'm not coming
anywhere close to the volume or offensiveness of those posts.
> John was posting off topic.
There is no off-topic, according to you, becuase there's no charter. You
can't even keep your bullshit straight for ON POST, you retarded acne
scar.
> I forwarded those messages
> to the server he was POSTING FROM! Of course you like John so you view
that
> as an evil act, despite the fact it is the same thing you are telling
others
> to do.
Of course, the phrase 'I heartily recommend, Ms. Chancellor, that you
terminate this individual posthaste - as an alumnus of NCSU, I find this
an embarrassment to myself and to your institition' didn't come from YOU,
it came from some LAWYER, right? You fucking pig. You can lie about it
all you want, scum, but you and I both know the truth.
And the fact that you only enforce the 'charter' when it will hurt someone
you don't like, and any other time, the damn thing doesn't exist, is NOT
lost on anyone reading this, although it seems certain that it's lost on
YOU.
> >Mr. Kelle*scum* what are you waiting for? BTW, do you think that an
ISP
> >goes by only the information given to them? You think that they don't
look
> >for corroborating and disconfirming evidence as well?
> Why do you think I have a form letter I send to people's ISP's when
there is
> a "call" for them to be TOS'd. I kept Avenger going by sending them a
post
> including posts by John, Cain, Chad, Kelly, just about every so called
troll
> killer.
Yeah, and your little girlfriend left anyway, didn't he?
> I simply told them that these people are trying to get someone TOS'd
> for the same behavior they engage in. I do the same with AOL, with
everyone
> that was on that (shortlived) net.fbi hit list, and recently did the
same
> with alt.net.
So you're a street lawyer advocating the continued trashing of this
newsgroup becuase the way YOU see it, we're just as bad as the trolls.
Who the FUCK asked you to speak for me, dimwit, or the rest of the group?
You can't even speak for YOURSELF with any meaning, clarity, or
usefulness.
Here's an idea, you nitwit - how about the next time your local police
serve a warrant for murder, you trail behind them and insist that the cops
be arrested - after all, they kill people too. You intellectual gnat.
Send this to my fucking ISP, you tool.
> >Gee, that's too bad. So who's the next person you're going to try to
get
> >fired from his/her job?
> If someone can get fired from their job for posting off topic then that
is
> their problem, not mine. I only did what people like you ask Mike, let
ISP's
> know when their people are off topic.
You just keep telling yourself that shit, kemosabe (<--navajo for 'soggy
bush). And when you are subject to the same 'oh, but I was only doing the
right thing, after all, I *saw* him steal those paper clips, and office
theft is a crime' kind of bullshit, you remember it. "oh, i was only
doing the right thing, I mean, sure I'm the one that fucked him, but he
still cheated on his wife. I thought she should know.'
Now, if you're so interested in the health of this newsgroup, you piece of
shit, either talk about wrestling, or shut the fuck up. As of right now,
YOU are the only reason *I* am not talking about wrestling.
And a note to those who would fight this kind of terrorism and
harassment - I think it's about time we all stopped discussing this shit
here. Whether we *should* be able to or not is moot at this point - the
simple fact is that every time we do, some mentally challenged
cum-guzzling street whore like Kelleher here jumps in and stirs all kinds
of shit up. Yes, I would rather do things in the open - secrecy is the
beginning of tyranny - but the simple fact is, the idiots that pollute
this board have no appreciation for fair warning, and us talking about it
here just gives them more ammo.
So, here's my solution - I've got a message board that isn't being used,
at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you use
that for any meta discussion from now on, since *I* make the fucking rules
over there and the charter is whatever the hell I say it is. This way,
there's no secret society, anyone can participate or read it, but we're
not adding to the noise here. Let's not give these assholes any more
ammo - it's obvious that people like DamNam can't appreciate someone
trying to give them a word to the wise, and it's equally clear that an
asshole like Kelleher is spending his whole fucking life hovering over
this newsgroup to gather information about the people on his 'enemies
list.' It's obvious that trying to act in an overt and fair manner, being
sure to give fair warning to those people who's presence here is becoming
a hindrance to the free and open discussion of professional wrestling, is
neither appreciated by these mental defectives, nor will they ever make
any attempt to not be rank fucking assholes that are every bit as guilty
of the fascism, megalomania, lifelessness, and all around fuckery that
they accuse us of. Therefore, they deserve no warning. Fuck 'em. Mike
Palij, you KNOW you have my respect, I'm asking you out of that respect to
please post your abuse reports to my site instead of here - it's just as
easy for those of us who *will* complain to cut and paste from there as it
is from here, AND, given that it's not ME that's doing the talking, tripod
won't yank the site. Everyone else, including lurkers, just bookmark that
page above, and feel free to add your input when you want to, and if you
think someone here is being a pain in the ass and needs to be netcopped,
just post a note there - if you want to add your voice to the complaints
against a person, check there for abuse reports.
As for you, you lonely, pathetic farce of a human being, may you get what
you deserve out of life, no more and no less. That's the worst thing I
can think of to hope for you.
--
Bob Dole always types with one hand.
http://members.tripod.com/netbastard
http://net.bastard.somewhere.net/
http://members.tripod.com/omegapowers
Rockboy
> >I hate to be picky, but "behaviour" is a perfectly valid way to spell
> >the word.
>
> If it had been a UK server I wouldn't have said anything. Besides look
> how the U.S. villified Quayle about Potatoe.....a valid way to spell
> potato! Besides, they attempted the insults first :)
Going back to the original post, since Kelly has a Canadian email
address and the post came from a Canadian server, "behaviour" is a
perfectly valid way of spelling the word. So there!
JHD
news:371f085e...@news.bitstorm.net...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:54:17 -0400, "JHD"
> <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
> >Another example of your completely fucked-up way of thinking. YOU
haven't
> >seen it, so that MUST mean nobody else has. You made a good move
dropping
> >out of law school, Mike - you'd have been a fucking *terrible*
litigator.
> Actually John, if something can't be shown to a jury, then the correct
> procedure for the attorney to take is to bring into question it ever
> existed. It is actually a GOOD strategy to use when the situation
> arises. I wouldn't expect you to understand that however.
there's a jury here? And if the direct PRODUCT of that something CAN be
shown to a jury - if it can be reasonably stipulated that situation b
could not exist without the prior existence of event a, then it is not
only reasonable but imperative that event a be stipulated to exist.
> >Me, trying to convict you? No, Mike, it's not my fight anymore, I told
> >you that.
> And like I said your delirious.
No, Mike I'm actually clearer-headed than I've probably *ever* been since
I've been here.
> >> Not that anyone can prove I did anything wrong.
> >Your public statement that you'd acquired confidential employment
> >information by impersonating an officer of the court is enough, Mike.
> >Just as your public statement that that information had been released
to
> >you is enough to take NCSU into court and find out for sure.
> But see John, I brought into question the validity of my statement in
> my OWN post.
yeah, but these e-mails form some unknown attorney in FLA claiming to be
connected to this case certainly put that to rest, and your statement
above that you intentionally obscured your meaning so as to create
ambiguity also speaks to intent - just as your statement that you would
knowingly destry information that you had been told would be subpeonaed
for it speaks to intent.
> Besides, you know the first thing an prosecutor would do?
Fire you?
> Call NCSU and find out if it happened. Why would they waste their time
> taking someone to court when they don't even know the CRIME HAPPENED!
Ah, but you see, they do. the evidence is in the hands of the florida AG.
whether they chosse to act on it is their business.
> You must learn all your knowledge of legal matters from Judge Judy.
Who?
> Let's not forget that NCSU knows it is in their best interest not to
> talk about it, thanks to posts from you.
NCSU also knows that it's in their best interests to show that they were
decieved by you, becuase if they weren't, they'd owe me a boatload of
money for violating confidentiality laws.
> >> Just give up
> >> your obsession John,
> >? I've not said much of anything to you in a couple of weeks,
> John, every time I post you make some comment. Hell even when it's not
> me who posts, but someone else bringing up "internet is not real
> life"you have to go and bring up your sad little sob story, how
> someone did to you the same thing people like Paji are asking to be
> done to others, e-mail the posting host of off topic posters.
You fuck. You don't even belive ina charter, and then you're going to
hide behind 'off-topic?' What a complete ass you are. Do you really
think anyone around here doesn't seee through you?
> I'm the
> one who doesn't bring it up John, your the one just trying to save
> what little face you have (especially the Avenger forged posts story,
> couldn't just admit you fucked up).
What the FUCK are you talking about? You need ot lay off the cocaine,
man, it's making you nuts.
JHD
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. A guy that claims to be actin in the he
interests of a charter he doesn't even believe exists doesn't hold much
weight with me, you pedophiliac anal rapist. HAVE you stopped raping
little boys yet, Mike? You'd be AMAZED what the FOIA can provide for
someone that wants to look.
ViNNY
>
>ViNNY wrote in message
><923963594.16348.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>"It
>>still says headers in the wrestling."
>
>
>
>"It still says headers in the wrestling" -Vin
>
>So it would still be properly attributed to you.
Yeah, go for it.
The Bogus Prophet
>>will get
>>all the help I need.
>
>
>Mr. Palij, (or do you prefer Mike?)
Mr. Palij is a bit too formal but if you're in John Proulx mode, then
it's okay. Mike is acceptable.
>if you believe you have valid
>cause, why not take (or Xpost) your complaint against Altopia to
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet? Isn't that the proper venue to
>accomplish your goal?
Only partially. There are problems with dealing with this over
in nanu, including their own floods of irrelevant postings. Getting
into a long, drawn out discussion with people about how to keep a
troll flood from hitting RSPW is, I think, kind of counterproductive.
It's like discussing the philosophies for making homes fireproof while
your house is about burn down. There's a time and place for things
and nanu, I believe, is the place when there is time to think and
discuss. However, if you're threatened with a troll flood, immediate
action, either to stop it from beginning or cutting it off shortly
it begins is preferrable. Having a lot of people email Chris
Caputo copies of the troll flood postings, I believe, would make him
take this problem more seriously than he ordinarily does.
>Personally, I am a killfile proponent myself, but I understand your
>POV.
I don't like killfiles because, in addition to reading interesting
wrestling postings here, I want to monitor the overall condition of
the newsgroup so that, in situations like an imminent troll flood,
something can be done. I'm kinda like a canary in a coal mine but,
fortunately, I don't have to kick off to send a message. :-)
>P.S. Why have the last 10 or so Carl Spicer posts on the Mod been
>double posted to my newsfeed while none of mine make it? Any ideas?
Hmmmm, no. You should email Chris Zimmermand and/or Jeremy Billones
to look into it, because they're handling the technical end of things
and can try to find out what the posting software is doing. I
didn't see the double-posting of the Spicer postings, so that could
be a local news server problem for you. But Chris and/or Jeremy
might be able to figure it out for sure.
>--
>C-Square
The Bogus Sting
>
> JHD wrote:
>
> > So, here's my solution - I've got a message board that isn't being used,
> > at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you use
> > that for any meta discussion from now on, since *I* make the fucking rules
> > over there and the charter is whatever the hell I say it is. This way,
> > there's no secret society, anyone can participate or read it, but we're
> > not adding to the noise here.
>
> it's excellent.
Of course you'd like it. Since DeJong moderates the site, you and your
goose-stepping butt-buddies will undoubtedly censor out any opinions you
don't like. Any [META] discussion of any significance will take place
here where it belongs.
> > Mike
> > Palij, you KNOW you have my respect, I'm asking you out of that respect to
> > please post your abuse reports to my site instead of here - it's just as
> > easy for those of us who *will* complain to cut and paste from there as it
> > is from here, AND, given that it's not ME that's doing the talking, tripod
> > won't yank the site.
>
> Yeah, it's not like you have pics of people who don't want them used...
> :)
>
> > Everyone else, including lurkers, just bookmark that
> > page above, and feel free to add your input when you want to, and if you
> > think someone here is being a pain in the ass and needs to be netcopped,
> > just post a note there - if you want to add your voice to the complaints
> > against a person, check there for abuse reports.
>
> I just bookmarked it. Who else is with me?
Let me guess: DeJong, Palij, and Vaters. Have fun at your little
party.
The Bogus Prophet
>>How about you getting lost, Mr. Kelleher, before someone construes your
>>message as an obvious expression of intent to disrupt this newsgroup and
>>reports you behaviour to Usenet?
>
>And what is "Usenet" going to do about his behaviour?
I'm going to keep my comments here short. "Usenet", at least in the form
of Mr. Kelleher's ISP, can drop him as a customer. However, his despicable
behavior towards John DeJong notwithstanding, he has not, as far as I can
tell, engaged in a TOS'able offense. Unless, of course, his ISP considers
his masquerading as a lawyer a form of fraud that violates their TOS.
>By replying to his
>META post, you pretty much equal yourself with Mr Kelleher.
C'mon, Vin-Man. Just replying to a post does not make one equivalent to
the poster that one is responding to: it is the content and the style
in which one responds that determines that. I'm sure, for example, that
Mr. Kelleher, Mr. Icon Smiley, and Mr. Dam wish that I engage in a style
or content that would allow them to get me TOS'ed from netcom. They will
have a long wait.
In any event, Vin, I think that you should keep in mind that Kelly is
responding not only to the content that Mr. Kelleher provided (insipid
as it might be) but also to those qualities in Mr. Kelleher that has
made him persona non grata to many here.
>-Vin
Pet...@hotmail.com
"JHD" <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
> Mike Kelleher <kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote in message
>
> Lies, damn lies, and statistics. A guy that claims to be actin in the he
> interests of a charter he doesn't even believe exists doesn't hold much
> weight with me, you pedophiliac anal rapist. HAVE you stopped raping
> little boys yet, Mike? You'd be AMAZED what the FOIA can provide for
> someone that wants to look.
>
>
WTF? This CAN'T be the real John DeJong. ANyone know if this is an imposter?
--
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Gym/6850
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The Bogus Prophet
>The Bogus Prophet wrote in message ...
>>"Mike Kelleher" <kell...@bitstorm.net> writes:
>>>The Bogus Prophet wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>Hey Mike, pass your bar exam yet?
>>
>>Hmmm, silence. Tell me, Mike, are you still impersonating a lawyer?
>
It didn't? Why not edit it out then?
>I don't waste time explaining for the 100th time my personal life.
But,y'see BRAH, you do go explaining your personal life, but only when
it suits your purposes, like going on and on foolishly about how you
impersonated a lawyer to get info against John DeJong. Since you're
the one who told us this plus additional personal background info,
I thought that I'd ask the next logical question, to wit:
Hey Mike, pass your bar exam yet?
Or are you still impersonating lawyers?
>>>>Heh, but y'know BRAH, even with 8 people, I was able to show that there
>>>>was unanimity about what a Charter for RSPW should be.
>>>
>>>This is a blatant lie and you know it.
>>
>>Really? Prove it. I posted the results and the numbers in favor of and/or
>>slight change in wording were all very high.
>
>So you show your ingnorance in know what the word unanimity means! Good job
>Mike.
Aw shucks, Mr. Kelleher, if you check the re-post of the voting, for the
"On topic" items or propositions of the Charter, I believe that 9 out of 10
had 100% agreement. And for the 10th item, only one person disagreed. Seems
like I was right in that regard, correct, Mr. Kelleher?
BTW, if you're going to flame someone about the meaning of a word, please
do try to get your literary problems cleared up (e.g., the spelling of
ignorance).
>>Really? I don't think so. People who don't vote for, say, the President
>>of the United States can bitch all they want about who got into office
>>but if they didn't vote, their voice doesn't matter: only their vote
>>matters. And by not voting, their response is irrelevant.
>
>Face it Mike, they view you as an annoyance.
Well, Mr. Kelleher, I'm not here to please everyone. If I annoy the trolls,
so be it. BTW, is it correct to infer that by your statements here you are
in support of the trolls and their cross-posting flooding ways? You
certainly seem to imply this but I'd like to get an explicit statement
from you on this since you've been so intent on attacking me for preventing
an Altopia-based troll cross-posting flood to RSPW.
>I notice how after that little
>voting fiasco you didn't post your META stuff for a while. What's the matter
>Mike, were you feelings hurt?
No, Mr. Kelleher, the deed was done and it was time for people to reflect
on what I had done. I didn't want to draw attention away from the Charter.
Y'see, Mr. Kelleher, even if you don't agree, the Charter I posted and had
a straw poll on will, by default, become the de facto Charter of RSPW because
it is what will come up when people search for a Charter of RSPW. Regardless
of whether it is the "real" Charter or not, it contains the soul of RSPW's
Charter. And people will be guided by it. This will all come about informally.It will be some time before something official is actually done but, by
default, it will serve as the guide for some.
>>>>You keeping numbers on how many people are here? Can I see them?
>>>>And are you counting people posting under several aliases as one
>>>>person or as several?
>>>
>>>I count 378 different names since 4-9 until right now.
>>
>>You didn't answer my second question: how many of 378 come from
>>some orange dicked teenager posting one-handedly from AOL or Altopia?
>
>Unlike some people I don't accuse people of things I can't prove.
I don't get it, Mr. Kelleher, you said you had a list of 378 names,
people you claimed to be posting to RSPW. This McCarthy-like list,
Mr. Kelleher, contains what exactly? Are they the names of 378
different people or do they include multiple postings by one or
a few people using different names? You have claimed that you have
this list and you are saying you're using it to support your position.
Come now, you're made an accusation, now prove it.
>>>>>Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>>>>>RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
>
>Just like to point out that you didn't deny you speak for RSPW below. You
>simply stated WHY you feel you should speak for RSPW.
Actually, Mr. Kelleher, you are lying here. I had originally said that
I had made a request when I asked people to email Mr. Chris Caputo the
cross-posting troll flood postings from Altopia that Icon Smiley said he
was going to start against RSPW. I made this clear and the earlier
posting can be pulled up.
You are now lying here because you have cut out the text leading to the
following statements in which I said that I had authority on RSPW. I
provide the basis here for why I have authority.
Really, Mr. Kelleher, your smear job here was really fumbled, it certainly
isn't up to the work you did to get John DeJong fired from his job.
>>>>Because:
>>>>
>>>>(a) I am one of the oldest members of this newsgroup, few people here
>>>>have my experience with it and, I dare say, my authority here.
>>>
>>>It is not a mod group therefore you have no authority here. Nice try
>though.
>>>Must be your desire to feel important think you have "authority here".
>>
>>Guess again, Mr. Kelle"Scum". You may not like it, but learn to love it,
>>because people do read what I write even if they disagree me. I influence
>>people even if it is to cause them to do the *opposite* of what I suggest
>>they do. Wanna see? Please don't respond to this posting. :-)
>
>Influence does not equal authority.
Influence is only part of authority. Knowledge, experience, and expertise
are others, Mr. Kelleher, and I have those things too.
>>Really, Mr. Kelle*scum*, why are you acting so stupidly? *YOU* are the
>>one claiming that I am speaking for RSPW, not I
>
>You didn't deny it above.
Mr. Kelleher, are you really this stupid? Or did you misread my earlier
posting.
>>Are you saying that people hadn't created a Charter for this
>>newsgroup which was approved by a majority vote? If you are, I'd
>>like you to produce the evidence for this silly assertion. The long
>>timers I've spoken to, all confirm my presentation of the FACTS.
>>C'mon, Mr. Kelle*scum* let's see your facts.
>
>Show me the charter! SHOW IT TO ME. You can't. The one you posted was a
>STRAW POLL on a PROPOSED charter. Not the same thing.
You are denying that when this newsgroup was created there was NO Charter?
I claim that you are intentionally spreading a falsehood here. You are
simply lying.
>>>I have no messages from Cypher. I have an ISP that knows how to handle
>>>things I guess. Maybe you should invest in one also.
>>
>>Now let me get this straight: if you don't see a problem then none exists?
>
>I don't have 300 posts from Cypher, how would I know? Explain that? Go into
>deja-news just to see if Cypher posted?? That may be your idea of fun, but
>myself I just think it's moronic.
Is it possible that you have ignored the discussion about Cypher as well?
Is it possible that you really don't care about RSPW and only use it to
amuse yourself? That this attack on me by you really has nothing to do
with you wanting RSPW to be a better place, instead it is driven by a
childish, petty hatred you have of me? You really don't care about RSPW
do you, Mr. Kelleher, you're just having fun attacking people. Isn't
that the truth Mr. Kellher?
>>Mr. Kelle*scum* please don't become a lawyer, because you'd be laughed
>>out of court on a regular basis.
>
>If I wanted to be one I would have been one by now. Your getting me confused
>with JHD, he's the moron who brings his personal life to the newsgroup with
>him.
No, Mr. Kelleher, you have brought up your personal life as well. That is
why people knew about your failed attempt to become a lawyer, about where
you're going, etc. The evidence is in Dejanews, Mr. Kelleher. Really, this
is why you'd have been such a pathetically poor lawyer.
>>Are you saying that we should
>>tolerate trolls instead of reporting them to their ISPs, especially when
>>they warn a newsgroup that they're going to engage in a flood of troll
>>postings?
>
>No one else CARES!
No one? Don't you mean YOU DON'T CARE? Or are you speaking for RSPW again?
>If they did they would POST!!! When are you idiots going
>to understand that. You guys are like the right wing christian wackos who
>want to see gays dead and stuff like that!!
Mr. Kelleher, this is an offensive smear and if you don't apologize for
it I will forward it to your ISP as an example of how you are libelling
people on RSPW.
>You feel everyone thinks the
>same way as you, when in reality THEY COULD CARE LESS!! If it doesn't bother
>everyone else, why then should YOU decide what is allowed??
Mr. Kelleher, for whom are speaking: yourself or RSPW? You don't speak for
me and, because I am a promiment member of RSPW, cannot be speaking for RSPW.
>>Please explain why you would want ontopic postings that are relevant to
>>the operation of a newsgroup to be banned while you are in favor of
>>postings
>>by crossposted troll floods?
>
>Both have nothing to do with wrestling.
This is why you would want the flood? Really, Mr. Kelleher.
>Why you and all the other META
>freaks fail to see that is beyond me. I'm simply stating it is as difficult
>to wade through that crap as the trolls.
You're not making sense, Mr. Kelleher. First you attack me for trying to
stop an Altopia based troll crossposting flood attack of RSPW, and then
you make these statements. Really, Mr. Kelleher, how is an ontopic
META discussion which is confined to RSPW comparable to a crossposted
troll attack? Admit, it's not the META, it's just your hatred of
certain people.
>>>>>You are the biggest troll on this newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>*shrug* And, although I think the is point is arguable, you are the
>>>>biggest idiot on this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>I'm not the one who feels I have "authority" here.
>>
>>That's good because after the DeJong incident you may have a lot of things
>>in people's eyes but authority isn't one of them.
>
>What's the matter Mike, was John paying you to rim his ass and now that he's
>jobless he can no longer afford it?
No, Mr. Kelleher, it is my sense of justice and desire to show up lying
bastards like yourself.
>You have this huge hang up about John.
>Well let me say this again for the 100th TIME!! I did EXACTLY what you are
>telling people to do. John was posting off topic. I forwarded those messages
>to the server he was POSTING FROM! Of course you like John so you view that
>as an evil act, despite the fact it is the same thing you are telling others
>to do.
Mr. Kelleher, by this time people are aware of your lying and swerving ways.
You initiated an attack against John DeJong which led to a flood of lying
emails to the CHANCELLOR of the university he was working for. It is one
thing to email a person's system provider or postmaster, it is another to
send email to people of authority outside of Usenet and Internet culture.
That is an unpardonable sin.
>>>When are people going to
>>>realize meglo-mania is a treatable condition. I am sure you will get the
>>>help you need.
>>
>>Well, if Altopia responds the way I'd like them to, then, yeah, I will get
>>all the help I need.
Hmmm, no response.
>>Mr. Kelle*scum* what are you waiting for? BTW, do you think that an ISP
>>goes by only the information given to them? You think that they don't look
>>for corroborating and disconfirming evidence as well?
>
>Why do you think I have a form letter I send to people's ISP's when there is
>a "call" for them to be TOS'd. I kept Avenger going by sending them a post
>including posts by John, Cain, Chad, Kelly, just about every so called troll
>killer.
Oh, so you admit to supporting the trolls. So I am correct in claiming
that you're in support of the Altopia based crossposting troll flood of
RSPW that you're attacking me about. Just wanted to make clear where you
stood on all of this.
>I simply told them that these people are trying to get someone TOS'd
>for the same behavior they engage in. I do the same with AOL, with everyone
>that was on that (shortlived) net.fbi hit list, and recently did the same
>with alt.net.
Well, Mr. Kelleker, I'm still here, still stylin' and profilin'. Did you
take your shot or not?
>>Gee, that's too bad. So who's the next person you're going to try to get
>>fired from his/her job?
>
>If someone can get fired from their job for posting off topic then that is
>their problem, not mine. I only did what people like you ask Mike, let ISP's
>know when their people are off topic.
No, Mr. Kelleher, you are not like me. Your support of the trolls, your
support of the disruption of newsgroups, your attacks on the non-trolls
all put the mark of Cain on you. You are marked, Mr. Kelleher, you are
defined by your actions and they will haunt you wherever you go on Usenet
and probably in "real life" as well.
Have a nice life.
Darien Allen
<brya...@sisna.com> tried to run this line:
>Pissant wrote:
>
>> Kelly Vaters wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Mike Kelleher wrote:
>> >
>> > > Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
>> >
>> > Mike speaks for the ones in r.s.p-w who matter.
>>
>> Uhm, no. That dolt doesn't speak for me.
>
>The stupid son of a bitch/law school dropout doesn't speak for me,
>either.
LOL!
-----------------------------
DRA-ICQ#2927081
tweener World order:
Cause sometimes...it's easier to play both sides.
(trWo)
Gotta remove that "takethis" stuff to reply.
RFlagg13
more off topic messages.
>
>the newsgroup?
Well, you do seem to have this high and mighty attitude about trying to save
this newsgroup, you know, and I think that sort of qualifies.
>
>>You tried this crap before remember? A
>>total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
>
>Heh, but y'know BRAH, even with 8 people, I was able to show that there
>was unanimity about what a Charter for RSPW should be. Think that 8 people
>is too small? Well, no one thought that rspw.mod would come into existence
>because there was so little "apparent" support for it. Remember that a
>hurricaine begins with a single raindrop.
Speaking of that mod group, why do you try to save this group if a perfectly
good alternative exists?
>
>>compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW.
>
>You keeping numbers on how many people are here? Can I see them?
>And are you counting people posting under several aliases as one
>person or as several?
Damn, Mike, now you're just being a dumbass. Anyone can see that 8 people
hardly speak for a group that gets around 1000 posts a day, unless a few people
have a hell of a lot of time on their hands.
>
>>That means you are in a MINORITY!
>
>So? You have something against minorities? IIRC, it has been estimated
>that at the time of the American Revolution, only a third of the people
>were in favor of seccesion from Britain.
And is a third of RSPW in support of your actions? Are there enough people here
that seriously want to change RSPW to your idea of how it should be? Perhaps
you should take one of your famous straw polls on this subject, and see what
happens.
I guess that means that either
>(a) we shouldn't have had the revolution because it was promoted by a
>minority of people or (b) we should rescind it, re-unite with Britain
>and then hold a popular election on whether we should be separate from
>it, with majority rules. Is that what you want?
The revolution succeeded for two reasons. One, Britain clearly didn't supply
enough of their forces to quell the rebellion, which they certainly could have.
Second, the loyalists were harassed, tarred and feathered, etc. until they
either fled to Canada or started supporting the US. Oh, and France being on our
sides helped, too.
Damn, this is about as off-topic as we get around here...
>
>>Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>>RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
>
>Because:
>
>(a) I am one of the oldest members of this newsgroup, few people here
>have my experience with it and, I dare say, my authority here.
Bullshit. You have no authority over anyone here, and no one does. So stop
acting like you're trying to help us, because we don't want your "help".
>
>(b) As a co-moderator for an existing newsgroup, I have demonstrated
>my ability to work within the rules and regulations of Usenet
>administration.
Which you consistently ignore by posting at least 90 percent off-topic posts to
this newsgroup. And before you say anything, META posts are definitely not on
topic.
>
>(c) As a long-time user of Internet services (over a decade), I have
>considerable knowledge and experience with the Internet.
"Because I've been around here longer, I know what's best for this group and
you don't. Now go away, kid, you bother me."
>
>All of those things provide me with credibility.
>
Ah. (pauses) You have credibility?
>>It is quite clear only a small minority
>>feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs?
>
>Because Mr. Kelleher, they are not my needs, they are requests to
>bring RSPW back to what it is supposed to be, namely a wrestling
>discussion newsgroup. I'm just trying to get the people here to
>embrace the spirit of the Charter that serves as the basis for
>why RSPW came into existence in the first place. I have history
>and the facts on my side.
RSPW has changed, that much is obvious. However, there is still a lot of
on-topic stuff here, and I just tend to ignore the crap I don't feel like
reading. Why you can't do the same is beyond me.
>
>>I see
>>a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM). Want
>>to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!!
>
>My, my, my, how selective we can be. Of course, in the past few days
>I've been engaged in meta-discussion here which have taken my attention
>away from purely wrestling based matters. But why didn't you look in the
>past week or so where I had made a concerted effort to be on-topic.
>Why don't you start with the articles from the NY Times that I posted
>regarding pro-wrestling? Really, Mr. Kelleher, are you bucking for
>a position in the Ministry of Truth?
I checked your posting history on Dejanews. While it seems that you posted a
hell of a lot of on topic stuff a few weeks ago, it's been mostly netcopping,
insulting people, and META crap since then. I don't think I even need to
mention the bulk of your posts over the past six months...
>
>>You are worse than the people
>>you so desperately want to get rid of.
>
>Really, Mr. Kelleher? Do you really believe that I am worse the the
>cross-posting troll Cypher? Do you think that I am worse than Icon
>Smiley who threatens to "take over" RSPW and claims that he is getting
>trolls from Altopia to come here and disrupt things. If you really
>do believe this, then all I can say is that you are truly one
>fucking idiot.
Here we go with the "idiot" thing again for people that disagree with the
almighty Mike Palij. You know, if you had the slightest bit of objectivity, you
would realize that you are in some ways worse than these people. You know why?
Because your posts are almost always inflammatory, they invite a huge response
(mostly because you treat RSPW-ites like assholes), and they detract from
on-topic material. This gets some people to quit altogether or go to the mod
group...hmm.
>
>>You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
>>wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why then
>>should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so?
>
>*You* don't have to. You can killfile my postings. BTW, for the record,
>most if not all of my postings are ontopic, either because of their
>wrestling content or their META content, y'know BRAH, like this here
>posting.
Like I said before, your posts invite a large number of off-topic responses,
and you know it. In fact, I'd guess that's probably your intention.
>
>>You are the biggest troll on this newsgroup.
>
>*shrug* And, although I think the is point is arguable, you are the
>biggest idiot on this newsgroup.
And that's "idiot" number 2, folks. Never mind providing a decent argument, if
you disagree with someone, just call someone an idiot! It works for the Bogus
Prophet, it can work for you.
>
>>Take your little control freak self
>>and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>>posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>
>The address is ab...@netcom.com. Anyone who thinks that I'm a troll
>or doing anything improper, go and contact them. Don't get angry when
>they laugh in your face.
Well, we can always dream of the day when you get netcopped, Mike.
Unfortunately, that will probably never happen.
>
Randall Flagg
"Abandon all hope ye who enter here. If ye have already abandoned all hope,
please disregard this notice."
5-3 in GWA competition
Current GWA Continental Champion
John Proulx
>
> C-Square <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
> >bok...@netcom.com (The Bogus Prophet) wrote
> >
> >>will get
> >>all the help I need.
> >
> >
> >Mr. Palij, (or do you prefer Mike?)
>
> Mr. Palij is a bit too formal but if you're in John Proulx mode, then
> it's okay. Mike is acceptable.
>
See this? I try my darnedest to stay out of this [META] stuff and
_still_ my name comes up...geez, I can't escape it!
BTW, Mr. Palij, if you want me to stop calling you "Mr. Palij" all you
need to do is say so.
J. Proo
Gentleman Diogenes
The Bogus Prophet
> Forgive me for sounding like a mark, but what exactly does
>"Cum Value Label" mean? Did Val Venis start up a fan club or
>something? I need to stop flipping between Raw and Nitro so
>much. I'm missing way too many one liners.
Well, y'know BRAH, "Cum Value Label" can mean a lot of different
things. I might mean one thing to a Val Venis mark, it might
mean something else to a stats mark. To a stats mark, it means
"Cumulative Value" with label referring to the a side area for
names of different levels of a variable (the levels for which
the frequencies are being provided for). Nothing more,
nothing less.
>--
>Rev. Rob
>RobBro314 on AOL IM
>Part of the problem
>Proud to be irrelevant (Not one of the 5 who matter)
C-Square
wrote
>C-Square <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>>bok...@netcom.com (The Bogus Prophet) wrote
>>
>>>Well, if Altopia responds the way I'd like them to, then, yeah, I
>>>will get
>>>all the help I need.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>Mr. Palij, (or do you prefer Mike?)
>
>Mr. Palij is a bit too formal but if you're in John Proulx mode, then
>it's okay. Mike is acceptable.
Mike it is, then.
>>if you believe you have valid
>>cause, why not take (or Xpost) your complaint against Altopia to
>>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet? Isn't that the proper venue to
>>accomplish your goal?
>
>Only partially. There are problems with dealing with this over
>in nanu, including their own floods of irrelevant postings. Getting
>into a long, drawn out discussion with people about how to keep a
>troll flood from hitting RSPW is, I think, kind of counterproductive.
>It's like discussing the philosophies for making homes fireproof while
>your house is about burn down. There's a time and place for things
>and nanu, I believe, is the place when there is time to think and
>discuss.
Well, what you say WRT nanau is largely true, but despite the noise,
that seems to be where pushes are made to depeer/UDP rogue providers.
Of course, since my posts often get fed through news.alt.net, I can't say
I'm thrilled at the prospect. But, if they are guilty of serious
violations, so be it.
>However, if you're threatened with a troll flood, immediate
>action, either to stop it from beginning or cutting it off shortly
>it begins is preferrable. Having a lot of people email Chris
>Caputo copies of the troll flood postings, I believe, would make him
>take this problem more seriously than he ordinarily does.
Possibly. Or, it might make him more resolute to fight for
his concept of free speech. Depeering/UDP (if warranted)
is far more likely to get his attention, IMO.
>>Personally, I am a killfile proponent myself, but I understand your
>>POV.
>
>I don't like killfiles because, in addition to reading interesting
>wrestling postings here, I want to monitor the overall condition of
>the newsgroup so that, in situations like an imminent troll flood,
>something can be done. I'm kinda like a canary in a coal mine but,
>fortunately, I don't have to kick off to send a message. :-)
I'm sure some here wish you analogy was far more literal. :-)
Personally, since upgrading to a better newsreader, I find RSPW
very readable. I haven't seen a R*b Cy**er or an I*on S*iley
posting in quite some time, and I like it that way.
I understand you have your own reasons for not going the
killfile route.
>>P.S. Why have the last 10 or so Carl Spicer posts on the Mod been
>>double posted to my newsfeed while none of mine make it? Any ideas?
>
>Hmmmm, no. You should email Chris Zimmermand and/or Jeremy Billones
>to look into it, because they're handling the technical end of things
>and can try to find out what the posting software is doing. I
>didn't see the double-posting of the Spicer postings, so that could
>be a local news server problem for you. But Chris and/or Jeremy
>might be able to figure it out for sure.
A couple of my posts just showed up, including a followup
to you on the WWF anti-wrestling thread.
If the Spicer doubles persist, I will do as you suggest.
Thanks for the tips.
--
C-Square
The Bogus Prophet
>Mike Kelleher<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote nothing of interest and got snipped:
John, I will give the matter some thought. In mean time, I think there
is no further point in showing what a lying bastard Mr. Kelleher is. So,
I'm out the off-topic thread he started about me.
>As for you, you lonely, pathetic farce of a human being, may you get what
>you deserve out of life, no more and no less. That's the worst thing I
>can think of to hope for you.
I wholeheartedly agree.
>--
>Bob Dole always types with one hand.
>http://members.tripod.com/netbastard
>http://net.bastard.somewhere.net/
>http://members.tripod.com/omegapowers
The Bogus Prophet
>The Bogus Prophet wrote:
>> C-Square <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> writes:
>> >bok...@netcom.com (The Bogus Prophet) wrote
>> >
>> >>Well, if Altopia responds the way I'd like them to, then, yeah, I
>> >>will get
>> >>all the help I need.
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >Mr. Palij, (or do you prefer Mike?)
>>
>> Mr. Palij is a bit too formal but if you're in John Proulx mode, then
>> it's okay. Mike is acceptable.
>>
>
>_still_ my name comes up...geez, I can't escape it!
What can I say, Mr. Proulx, REALITY IS GONNA GET YA! :-)
>BTW, Mr. Palij, if you want me to stop calling you "Mr. Palij" all you
>need to do is say so.
No problem, Mr. Proo. It may come as a bit of a surprise to some
people but I cam quite flexible and adaptable, and can handle change
very well. Switching between formal and semi-formal and informal modes
is no problem and serves as a useful exercise in broadening one's
use of expression in a limited context like RSPW. So no, you can
continue to call me Mr. Palij.
Just stop calling me shithead, okay? :-)
> J. Proo
> Gentleman Diogenes
The Bogus Prophet
rfla...@aol.com (RFlagg13) writes:
>The interruption of RSPW can only mean one thing: Mike Palij must have posted
>more off topic messages.
>>"Mike Kelleher" <kell...@bitstorm.net> writes:
>>>Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
>>
>>I never do, I was making a request. How is making a request speaking for
>>the newsgroup?
>
>Well, you do seem to have this high and mighty attitude about trying to save
>this newsgroup, you know, and I think that sort of qualifies.
Come off it. I never claimed to speak for RSPW and none of this swerving
is going to work. Deal with it.
>>>You tried this crap before remember? A
>>>total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
>>
>>Heh, but y'know BRAH, even with 8 people, I was able to show that there
>>was unanimity about what a Charter for RSPW should be. Think that 8 people
>>is too small? Well, no one thought that rspw.mod would come into existence
>>because there was so little "apparent" support for it. Remember that a
>>hurricaine begins with a single raindrop.
>
>Speaking of that mod group, why do you try to save this group if a perfectly
>good alternative exists?
I leave this as a question for you to answer, keeping in mind that I am a
long time poster to rspw, I have helped in the creation of all of the rspw
spin-offs (i.e., rspw.fantasy, rspw.info, and rspw.mod), I understand how
the internet and Usenet works, and I understand that the purpose of a
newsgroup is to focus on a particular topic and that attempts to thwart
that prupose should be stopped.
>>>compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW.
>>
>>You keeping numbers on how many people are here? Can I see them?
>>And are you counting people posting under several aliases as one
>>person or as several?
>
>Damn, Mike, now you're just being a dumbass. Anyone can see that 8 people
>hardly speak for a group that gets around 1000 posts a day, unless a few people
>have a hell of a lot of time on their hands.
It depends upon the number of people who are actually posting, doesn't it?
It also depends upon who is here for the long run, and who is here just to
disrupt things or take a figurative dump on the newsgroup. As for people
who have too much time on their hands, I give you Cypher.
>>>That means you are in a MINORITY!
>>
>>So? You have something against minorities? IIRC, it has been estimated
>>that at the time of the American Revolution, only a third of the people
>>were in favor of seccesion from Britain.
>
>And is a third of RSPW in support of your actions?
I don't know, I haven't taken a serious poll. But you never know.
>Are there enough people here
>that seriously want to change RSPW to your idea of how it should be?
Not the way *I* want it to be, the way it is *supposed* to be.
Do you have any understanding of what Usenet is supposed to be?
Try reading a few chapters from Spencer & Lawrence's "Managing
Usenet".
>Perhaps
>you should take one of your famous straw polls on this subject, and see what
>happens.
If it came down to a vote, there are formal mechanisms to get all of these
things done. Believe it or not, there are all sorts of rules and regulations
about newsgroup operation that have to be obeyed. Don't be surprised if
some time in the future a formal vote for a re-chartering is done. My
earlier straw poll showed that, for the people who voted, the problem was
not with what should be considered "on-topic" but what should be considered
"off-topic". This is where the remaining dispute is, how much off-topicness
should be allowed.
> I guess that means that either
>>(a) we shouldn't have had the revolution because it was promoted by a
>>minority of people or (b) we should rescind it, re-unite with Britain
>>and then hold a popular election on whether we should be separate from
>>it, with majority rules. Is that what you want?
>
>The revolution succeeded for two reasons. One, Britain clearly didn't supply
>enough of their forces to quell the rebellion, which they certainly could have.
>Second, the loyalists were harassed, tarred and feathered, etc. until they
>either fled to Canada or started supporting the US. Oh, and France being on our
>sides helped, too.
>
>Damn, this is about as off-topic as we get around here...
Wanna bet? What do you think of Chomsky's position on the Palestinians vis a
vis Israel? :-)
>>>Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>>>RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
>>
>>Because:
>>
>>(a) I am one of the oldest members of this newsgroup, few people here
>>have my experience with it and, I dare say, my authority here.
>
>Bullshit. You have no authority over anyone here, and no one does. So stop
>acting like you're trying to help us, because we don't want your "help".
*shrug* Y'know BRAH, sometimes a person has authority and never realizes
it because the authority comes from people who quietly agree with what
that person is saying or doing. BTW, since I "outrank" you here, BRAH,
cut this "we" shit. You don't talk for me and you don't speak for RSPW.
>>(b) As a co-moderator for an existing newsgroup, I have demonstrated
>>my ability to work within the rules and regulations of Usenet
>>administration.
>
>Which you consistently ignore by posting at least 90 percent off-topic posts to
>this newsgroup. And before you say anything, META posts are definitely not on
>topic.
I don't know where you got that idea. META postings, because they are about
the nature and the operation of a newsgroup, because they are self-referential,
are always on-topic unless they are outlawed by a newsgroup's Charter, which
would be an odd thing to do since there would be no other place to
letigitmately review and discuss the problems of a newsgroup.
>>(c) As a long-time user of Internet services (over a decade), I have
>>considerable knowledge and experience with the Internet.
>
>"Because I've been around here longer, I know what's best for this group and
>you don't. Now go away, kid, you bother me."
Heh, that's funny. Not very credible, no intelligence, and it shows a
reluctance to face reality. Still, its kind of funny.
>>All of those things provide me with credibility.
>
>Ah. (pauses) You have credibility?
Yeah. Who'da thunk it.
>>>It is quite clear only a small minority
>>>feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs?
>>
>>Because Mr. Kelleher, they are not my needs, they are requests to
>>bring RSPW back to what it is supposed to be, namely a wrestling
>>discussion newsgroup. I'm just trying to get the people here to
>>embrace the spirit of the Charter that serves as the basis for
>>why RSPW came into existence in the first place. I have history
>>and the facts on my side.
>
>RSPW has changed, that much is obvious. However, there is still a lot of
>on-topic stuff here, and I just tend to ignore the crap I don't feel like
>reading. Why you can't do the same is beyond me.
How long have you been here, if I may ask? The reason why I ask is because
most people who have spent significant amounts of time here have seen how
badly things are here. Newbies typically ask the kind of question you're
just asked, and they've been answered many times in the past. Look it up.
>>>I see
>>>a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM). Want
>>>to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!!
>>
>>My, my, my, how selective we can be. Of course, in the past few days
>>I've been engaged in meta-discussion here which have taken my attention
>>away from purely wrestling based matters. But why didn't you look in the
>>past week or so where I had made a concerted effort to be on-topic.
>>Why don't you start with the articles from the NY Times that I posted
>>regarding pro-wrestling? Really, Mr. Kelleher, are you bucking for
>>a position in the Ministry of Truth?
>
>I checked your posting history on Dejanews. While it seems that you posted a
>hell of a lot of on topic stuff a few weeks ago, it's been mostly netcopping,
>insulting people, and META crap since then. I don't think I even need to
>mention the bulk of your posts over the past six months...
My posting of the NY Times articles and subsequent discussions was netcopping,
insulting people, and META crap? My real time match by match results from
Wrestlemania was netcopping, insulting people, and META crap? Perhaps you
and your friend Mr. Kelleher should get jobs in the Ministry of Truth.
>>>You are worse than the people
>>>you so desperately want to get rid of.
>>
>>Really, Mr. Kelleher? Do you really believe that I am worse the the
>>cross-posting troll Cypher? Do you think that I am worse than Icon
>>Smiley who threatens to "take over" RSPW and claims that he is getting
>>trolls from Altopia to come here and disrupt things. If you really
>>do believe this, then all I can say is that you are truly one
>>fucking idiot.
>
>Here we go with the "idiot" thing again for people that disagree with the
>almighty Mike Palij. You know, if you had the slightest bit of objectivity, you
>would realize that you are in some ways worse than these people. You know why?
>Because your posts are almost always inflammatory, they invite a huge response
>(mostly because you treat RSPW-ites like assholes), and they detract from
>on-topic material.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying here because I think it's
important for everyone to know how biased you are in your presentation:
(1) Since John DeJong's firing which was initiated by Michael Kelleher,
I publicly said that I would try to be on-topic here. I was think I was
succeeding in that until...
(2) DamNam got into a flamewar with Tehawk and started to threaten to
release personal information about Tehawk. Not that it really matters,
but it is clear that DamNam had learned nothing from the DeJong episdoe.
I interjected, along with several other people who did so independently,
that this bullshit should stop. You probably saw this posting in your
DejaNews review, it had "SHUT THE FUCK UP, thank you" in the subject
line. It took a while but that thread died out as did my involvement
in it. Things would have gone back to normal except for...
(3) Icon Smiley comes back and gets invovled in the crap and warns
RSPW that he is going to start a troll flood of RSPW. His "buddies"
show up and claim that they're taking over RSPW and everyone will
be held hostage (BTW, why are you going after these guys instead of
me? Oh, I forgot, double standard). I come back and ask RSPW to
respond to the Altopia based trall attack by emailing all postings
from the Alt.net trolls to the cap...@tofu.alt.net, that is,
the president of Altopia, Chris Caputo who doesn't care what trolls
do on Usenet or how other members of the Usenet community are
inconvienenced by users of his service. That seemed to put a halt
to the uTr (of course, other people were doing other things to
help bring this to a stop) and things were quieting down until...
(4) Michael Kelleher makes a posting with the subject header of
"[attn] Mike Palij" where he goes off on a bitter, hateful screed
about me. This liar and fraudulent lawyer continued this thread
until John DeJong entered it and I decided to drop out of it until...
(5) Some person named Randall Flagg pops in and demonstrates his
need to get his two cents in. Well, Randall, you've gotten your
two cents in, you've gotten my reply, and you can take it from
there. I won't respond to anything you say, so you can have the
last word on this.
>This gets some people to quit altogether or go to the mod
>group...hmm.
Actually, the current troll infested state of RSPW naturally
drives serious wrestling fans to rspw.mod. The mods don't have
to do anything to encourage it. Thanks to all of the phony
role-playing trolls and fantasy groupings, few serious wrestling
see little point to stay here.
>>>You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
>>>wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why then
>>>should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so?
>>
>>*You* don't have to. You can killfile my postings. BTW, for the record,
>>most if not all of my postings are ontopic, either because of their
>>wrestling content or their META content, y'know BRAH, like this here
>>posting.
>
>Like I said before, your posts invite a large number of off-topic responses,
>and you know it. In fact, I'd guess that's probably your intention.
*shrug* You can ascribe to me whatever intention you want, but why did you
respond? Examine the reasons for that and then respond.
>>>You are the biggest troll on this newsgroup.
>>
>>*shrug* And, although I think the is point is arguable, you are the
>>biggest idiot on this newsgroup.
>
>And that's "idiot" number 2, folks. Never mind providing a decent argument, if
>you disagree with someone, just call someone an idiot! It works for the Bogus
>Prophet, it can work for you.
Y'know BRAH, you're really being silly here.
>>>Take your little control freak self
>>>and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>>>posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>>
>>The address is ab...@netcom.com. Anyone who thinks that I'm a troll
>>or doing anything improper, go and contact them. Don't get angry when
>>they laugh in your face.
>
>Well, we can always dream of the day when you get netcopped, Mike.
>Unfortunately, that will probably never happen.
That is true. You see, you may not like me, you may wish me away, but,
clearly, YOU can't ignore me. It may have something to do with that
authority thing, y'know BRAH. In any event, even if you don't like what
I post, I'm not a troll nor do I engage in activities that are TOS'able.
You may disagree, but if I'm wrong then why am I still here?
>Randall Flagg
>"Abandon all hope ye who enter here. If ye have already abandoned all hope,
>please disregard this notice."
>5-3 in GWA competition
>Current GWA Continental Champion
J. Stearns
>
> Chad Bryant wrote:
> >
> > JHD wrote:
> >
> > > at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you use
> > > that for any meta discussion from now on, since *I* make the fucking rules
> > > over there and the charter is whatever the hell I say it is. This way,
> > > there's no secret society, anyone can participate or read it, but we're
> > > not adding to the noise here.
> >
> > it's excellent.
>
> Of course you'd like it. Since DeJong moderates the site, you and your
> goose-stepping butt-buddies will undoubtedly censor out any opinions you
> don't like. Any [META] discussion of any significance will take place
> here where it belongs.
>
I can't speak for John, but I doubt messages will be yanked based on the
POV of the writer. "Goose-steping-butt-buddies," some type of musical
group perhaps? Give it a try Bogus Sting, I've yet to see much good come
out of [META] discussion in this newsgroup, it generally only adds to the
noise.
> > > Mike
> > > Palij, you KNOW you have my respect, I'm asking you out of that respect to
> > > please post your abuse reports to my site instead of here - it's just as
> > > easy for those of us who *will* complain to cut and paste from there as it
> > > is from here, AND, given that it's not ME that's doing the talking, tripod
> > > won't yank the site.
> >
> > Yeah, it's not like you have pics of people who don't want them used...
> > :)
> >
> > > Everyone else, including lurkers, just bookmark that
> > > page above, and feel free to add your input when you want to, and if you
> > > think someone here is being a pain in the ass and needs to be netcopped,
> > > just post a note there - if you want to add your voice to the complaints
> > > against a person, check there for abuse reports.
> >
> > I just bookmarked it. Who else is with me?
>
> Let me guess: DeJong, Palij, and Vaters. Have fun at your little
> party.
Again, give it a try before you condem it as a failure.
Jim Stearns
--
- StearJas on AOL's IM
"Wise sayings often fall on barren ground; but a kind word
is never thrown away." - Sir Arthur Helps
JHD
> WOW John, you wanna talk about a lawsuit!! If I were you I'd stop
> right now, before you really get in some trouble.
Fuck you. Sue me. Make my fucking day, pal. I can think of NOTHING I'd
like more.
JHD
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 05:55:51 -0400, "JHD"
> <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
> >there's a jury here? And if the direct PRODUCT of that something CAN
be
> >shown to a jury - if it can be reasonably stipulated that situation b
> >could not exist without the prior existence of event a, then it is not
> >only reasonable but imperative that event a be stipulated to exist.
> Try using that line of thought in a civil trial against a tobacco
> company or any other trial involving public safety at risk.
Not that you're a tobacco company, and not that this is anything
approaching any kind of legal action on MY part, let alone a class-action
suit in the billions of dollars, but aren't the victories against them
based on this very thing? that without the presence of cancer-causing
agents in processed tobacco (which the companies claimed weren't there),
there would be no cancer in the cases tried? Who knows, I didn't (don't)
follow the cases - I chose to smoke, it's not up to the tobacco companies
to bail my ass out for it.
> What you
> state is good for bush leauge stuff like muder cases, assault cases,
This would actually be a criminal action over impersonating an officer of
the court, which *can* be a federal felony in this case; I don't know, I'm
not a lawyer. All I know is that I've surrenderd all my documentation to
the Florida State Atttorney General, and they will do with it as they see
fit. Probably nothing - but it's fun watching your sorry ass try the case
in front of me worrying about it.
> so on and so forth, but in any white collar crime or civil suit you
> MUST show documents, papers, so on and so forth, or the defendants
> lawyer will tear you to shreds.
Right, so all I have to do is get my archived copy of your post, maybe
back it up with one from DeJaNews, if you didn't cancel it or set your
no-archive header, and a corroborating copy of the e-mails you sent, which
happen to completely exonerate NCSU from responsibility *if* they
released any information to you, compare the headers, take a look at the
situation as a whole, and ask a simple question - would anyone *else* in
your neighborhood have done this? What are the chances of that? Without
even tracing it back to your home, what are the chances?
I might lose it in front of a judge, Mike, but in front of a jury? I'm a
rich man. Not that any of that matters, since this has NOTHING to do with
me suing you. I'm not petty enough for that kind of thing.
> >> But see John, I brought into question the validity of my statement in
> >> my OWN post.
> >yeah, but these e-mails form some unknown attorney in FLA claiming to
be
> >connected to this case certainly put that to rest,
> Proof your lying right here John.
You're a legal expert that can't form a proper contraction of 'you are.'
Yeah. Mmm hmm.
> You know it and I know it. Why would
> someone use a FLA lawyer when the person is in NJ?
You're in NJ? I'm confused. And I didn't say that they CLAIMED to be in
FLA, I'm just saying that's where the e-mails in question came from.
Interestingly enough, there were three different ISPs used to request
information on this matter; three different names were used - one before
your admission, two after. Perhaps you have a clone? Or are you lifeless
enough to have dialed long distance just to fuck with me? If you shut up
and talk about wrestling, the world may never know.
> Thanks for being
> such an idiot and proving your lying about the whole damn thing.
Thanks for jumping to conclusions and shoving your own head up your ass,
Mike. One day, you WILL learn to read what I *write*, instead of what you
want to see.
> Anything else you want to recant John?
Yeah, I had nothing to do with the Nicole Simpson murder.
> >NCSU also knows that it's in their best interests to show that they
were
> >decieved by you, becuase if they weren't, they'd owe me a boatload of
> >money for violating confidentiality laws.
> John your a fucking liar.
Stopped screwing little boys yet, Mike?
> You just proved it above!!!
You're a fool, a buffoon, and a mentally stunted blowhard. Find a hobby
already. I've proven nothing that would benefit you, Mike...I just want
you to think I have so that when you write some crowing grandstanding ego
trip like this, I can calmly show you why you're a fucking idiot without
any chance in hell of ever having a redeeming quality.
> Why don't you
> get out of here, before I decide to say fuck it and expose the truth
> behind every other lie you have made involving this!
Why don't you blow me?
> >You fuck. You don't even belive ina charter, and then you're going to
> >hide behind 'off-topic?' What a complete ass you are. Do you really
> >think anyone around here doesn't seee through you?
> Just pointing out hypocrisy (also like to point out how John quickly
> dropped his "I've not said much of anything" comment", I love to see
> people caught in their own lies.)
I hadn't. And I KNOW I'm a hypocrite, and I've never claimed to be
anything BUT. Dumbass.
> >What the FUCK are you talking about? You need ot lay off the cocaine,
> >man, it's making you nuts.
> No John, you are the one lying about the situation to the newsgroup.
> You KNOW the reason you were fired had nothing at all to do with any
> "supposed" forged posts.
I was fired for improper use of state equipment, I've said as much
repeatedly, not that I think you are actually capable of *reading* it.
That doens't change the fact that forged e-mails were made, and that
someone claiming to be an attorney and in your neck of the woods e-mailed
NCSU several times asking for information under the guise of being an
attorney connected with the case.
> You fucked up and won't admit it.
I've admitted it LOTS of times, Mike. You just WISH I hadn't.
> You just
> keep trying to get over on the newsgroup because it's the only life
> you have.
LOL sure, man, if that's what it takes to get you through the night.
BTW, Mike - I'm making money writing this. Do something about it.
And stop arguing with me about it - YOU impersonated an attorney, YOU
admitted you knew it was illegal, and YOU are the one that shall have to
face whatever consequences do or do not arise as a direct result of that.
See, in case you forgot, this isn't about civil action over you costing me
a job - you didn't, and I don't claim you did...and even if you *did* play
a part in it, I have forgiven you. It is up the Florida Attorney General
to determine if a crime has been committed, who committed it, and what
they want to do about it. Chances are nothing, and if anything, a light
fine or other slap on the wrist. But it's just so goddamned funny
watching you forget conversations that took place less than 2 weeks ago
and completely ignore or disregard several key points that I've made
repeatedly, just so you can come out here and break your arm patting
yourself on the back for shit that never happened and argue against things
I never said, that I just can't resist. You can't buy entertainment like
this. You think you're Jericho, but you're really Lenny Lane.
And so there's no confusion, were you going to talk about wrestling now?
Because you're chewing up MY very limited time to talk about it, and I
really don't appreciate it.
JHD
news:37133F...@erols.com...
> Of course you'd like it. Since DeJong moderates the site, you and your
> goose-stepping butt-buddies will undoubtedly censor out any opinions you
> don't like.
1) MY site. My goose-stepping little buddies have no say whatsoever in
it's content.
2) Try it sometime, you might be surprised. After all, the more of your
ad the other trolls time I can chew up by responding and trolling there,
the less time you'll have for it here.
> Any [META] discussion of any significance will take place
> here where it belongs.
You should take this up with kellescum, since he's the one bitching about
all the meta discussions going on here. He's of the opinion that they
*don't* belong, and ina quite literal step of speaking for the group, he
is even now, between strokes, researching the posting histories of several
RSPW'ers, will undoubtedly pull the 15 or 20 least on-topic, most 'adult'
material form those posters he doesn't like, and forward them to whomever
he thinks are the proper authorities. All in effort to uphold a charter
that he doesn't believe exists, and if it did it doesn't matter anyway
since the groups not moderated. i think your real difference here is with
Mr. Kelleher.
The Bogus Sting
>
> The Bogus Sting wrote:
> >
> > Chad Bryant wrote:
> > >
> > > JHD wrote:
> > >
> > > > at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you use
> > > > that for any meta discussion from now on, since *I* make the fucking rules
> > > > over there and the charter is whatever the hell I say it is. This way,
> > > > there's no secret society, anyone can participate or read it, but we're
> > > > not adding to the noise here.
> > >
> > > it's excellent.
> >
> > goose-stepping butt-buddies will undoubtedly censor out any opinions you
> > here where it belongs.
> >
>
> POV of the writer.
You haven't been here very long have you!? John will deny it, but if I
were to post a SINGLE SOLITARY THING on his website it'd be yanked ASAP,
regardless of content. We've had a two-year long viscious flamewar.
> "Goose-steping-butt-buddies," some type of musical
> group perhaps? Give it a try Bogus Sting, I've yet to see much good come
> out of [META] discussion in this newsgroup, it generally only adds to the
> noise.
I won't give John the satisfaction, and it shows amazing ignorance on
your part to even suggest such a thing. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly
about [META] crap being counterproductive, but it's mostly because
assholes like Palij, Bryant, DeJong, and Vaters tend to monopolize them
and insult anyone who doesn't agree with their POV.
> > > > Mike
> > > > Palij, you KNOW you have my respect, I'm asking you out of that respect to
> > > > please post your abuse reports to my site instead of here - it's just as
> > > > easy for those of us who *will* complain to cut and paste from there as it
> > > > is from here, AND, given that it's not ME that's doing the talking, tripod
> > > > won't yank the site.
> > >
> > > Yeah, it's not like you have pics of people who don't want them used...
> > > :)
> > >
> > > > Everyone else, including lurkers, just bookmark that
> > > > page above, and feel free to add your input when you want to, and if you
> > > > think someone here is being a pain in the ass and needs to be netcopped,
> > > > just post a note there - if you want to add your voice to the complaints
> > > > against a person, check there for abuse reports.
> > >
> > > I just bookmarked it. Who else is with me?
> >
> > Let me guess: DeJong, Palij, and Vaters. Have fun at your little
> > party.
>
> Again, give it a try before you condem it as a failure.
No thanks.
The Bogus Sting
> > goose-stepping butt-buddies will undoubtedly censor out any opinions you
> > don't like.
>
> it's content.
Stipulated & understood. However, if I posted something you found
inflammatory (which is about 99% of my posts, given your track record in
RSPW), would you allow it to remain on your site? I think not.
> 2) Try it sometime, you might be surprised. After all, the more of your
> ad the other trolls time I can chew up by responding and trolling there,
> the less time you'll have for it here.
So your true intentions come clear--to get _ME_ off RSPW. So you see ME
as part of the problem!? I thought we were enjoying a nice truce,
John. Shall I fire another proverbial shot across your bow!?
> > Any [META] discussion of any significance will take place
> > here where it belongs.
> You should take this up with kellescum, since he's the one bitching about
> all the meta discussions going on here. He's of the opinion that they
> *don't* belong, and ina quite literal step of speaking for the group, he
> is even now, between strokes, researching the posting histories of several
> RSPW'ers, will undoubtedly pull the 15 or 20 least on-topic, most 'adult'
> material form those posters he doesn't like, and forward them to whomever
> he thinks are the proper authorities. All in effort to uphold a charter
> that he doesn't believe exists, and if it did it doesn't matter anyway
> since the groups not moderated. i think your real difference here is with
> Mr. Kelleher.
Actually, unless I'm misunderstanding, he has the EXACT same beef with
Mike Palij that I've had for years. [META] threads attract you & Palij
like flies to shit.
Rockboy
> >Going back to the original post, since Kelly has a Canadian email
> >address and the post came from a Canadian server, "behaviour" is a
> >perfectly valid way of spelling the word. So there!
>
Quite happy. Now if only I can get Americans to start spelling the
words properly...
JHD
> > I can't speak for John, but I doubt messages will be yanked based on
the
> > POV of the writer.
> You haven't been here very long have you!? John will deny it, but if I
> were to post a SINGLE SOLITARY THING on his website it'd be yanked ASAP,
> regardless of content. We've had a two-year long viscious flamewar.
Here long or not, he seems to know me better than you do, for all your
involvement with me. TRY IT, Stink.
> No thanks.
Then honestly, Stink, don't speak on it.
JHD
> > 1) MY site. My goose-stepping little buddies have no say whatsoever
in
> > it's content.
> Stipulated & understood. However, if I posted something you found
> inflammatory (which is about 99% of my posts, given your track record in
> RSPW), would you allow it to remain on your site? I think not.
Try it, Stink.
> > 2) Try it sometime, you might be surprised. After all, the more of
your
> > ad the other trolls time I can chew up by responding and trolling
there,
> > the less time you'll have for it here.
> So your true intentions come clear--to get _ME_ off RSPW. So you see ME
> as part of the problem!? I thought we were enjoying a nice truce,
> John. Shall I fire another proverbial shot across your bow!?
Uh, if you want, but you misunderstood - this was directed more towards
the general 'you,' and to off-topic discussion. I would rather that, if
you want to talk about me, or something else unrelated to the main focus
of the group, you do it there, instead of here. i could care if you're
here or not, really, as long as you're not on my ass. It's not YOU
(general you) that I want off RSPW (and I'm sure that I am a part of that
'you' for everyone here, for posts like the miles-long tirade that I'm in
the middle of writing to Mr. Kelleher, which may or may not make it to
final posting, and may or may not be here or on my site), it's the crap -
the off-topic shit, the nonsense, the flamewars that have nothing to do
with wrestling. Come to that, I'd rather that Damnam or Mr. Sexy or
kelleher or whomever that wants to get in a flamewar with someone else
here do it on my site, than in this newsgroup.
And in case I'm not clear, I *will* delete messages, but in chronological
order and solely for space considerations.
> > > Any [META] discussion of any significance will take place
> > > here where it belongs.
> > since the groups not moderated. i think your real difference here is
with
> > Mr. Kelleher.
> Actually, unless I'm misunderstanding, he has the EXACT same beef with
> Mike Palij that I've had for years. [META] threads attract you & Palij
> like flies to shit.
I disagree. I tend to believe that, in all but a few cases, it's
uneducated pricks like Mr. Kelleher who think that Usenet and RSPW are
their playground to do with as they wish, that draw heat from such as me
and Mike. That, and people that are unnecessarily disruptive to the
group. I fully expect that your opinion on this will differ; we shall
agree to disagree on this point. However, it can NOT be said that I
haven't done everything I could think of to improve this place, including
risking the loss of my own site.
JHD
The Bogus Sting
> > > I can't speak for John, but I doubt messages will be yanked based on
> the
> > > POV of the writer.
>
> > You haven't been here very long have you!? John will deny it, but if I
> > were to post a SINGLE SOLITARY THING on his website it'd be yanked ASAP,
> > regardless of content. We've had a two-year long viscious flamewar.
>
> Here long or not, he seems to know me better than you do, for all your
> involvement with me.
No, he just gives you more 'benefit of the doubt' than I do. I speak
from experience.
> TRY IT, Stink.
>
> > No thanks.
>
> Then honestly, Stink, don't speak on it.
Hey, I basically said to go have your little party. But, I predict if
anybody actually DOES use your site, it's going to be a name-the-names
organized bashing of other posters. Is that really what you want,
particularly in light of how such bashing & complaining to sysadmins
effected YOUR life!? Remember John, I was on _YOUR_ side in that whole
affair.
JHD
> No, he just gives you more 'benefit of the doubt' than I do. I speak
> from experience.
And bias.
> Hey, I basically said to go have your little party. But, I predict if
> anybody actually DOES use your site, it's going to be a name-the-names
> organized bashing of other posters.
Matter of definition. If you wanted to call it that, I stated right up
front that would be a purpose - post the abuse reports there, and maybe a
pointer here for the fist month or so until people get used to the new
'system'.
> Is that really what you want,
> particularly in light of how such bashing & complaining to sysadmins
> effected YOUR life!?
What *I* want, Stink, is a nice little community that is about
pro-wrestling that is moderated only by the self-control and respect for
the business and the group of it's participants. That's all I've *ever*
wanted. Things here to be the way they were designed to be. I still have
no idea why that makes me, Mike, Chad, or anyone else the asshole.
> Remember John, I was on _YOUR_ side in that whole
> affair.
I remember fully, and I will not forget. I think perhaps you're sensing
more confrontation in my words than I'm actually putting into them. We
stand on opposite sides of several issues on this whole debate, Stink, but
in spite of all the tangents, rants, and bullshit, that's all I've ever
wanted out of this deal - for RSPW to be what it was intended to be by the
people that put it here.
The Bogus Prophet
all, but you really take the cake here. Just so everyone's on the
same page here, I broke down the results for the suggested Charter
into two parts: Charter items concerned with acceptable or "on-topic"
issues and Charter items concerned with unacceptable or "off-topic"
issues. Mr. Kelleher, in his stinking, lying bastard way, of course
cut out the "on-topic" portion of my repost. Let me provide here
so we can see what was going on. Text with a "|" in the first
column was the original text. I've added the wording of each
item so that it is clearer what each person voted for.
|=================================================================
|A. On Topic Item Analyses
|=================================================================
|A. On-topic items with "as is" and "accept but change wording"
| combined into a single category and numericly coded "1",
| "never" responses wer coded as "0" and statistics were
| computed on these dichotomous values.
| Valid
|Variable Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N Label
ON.1 1.Presentations of house show and TV show reports,
|ON.1 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
[NOTE: The above mean of 1.00 means 100% "accept as is" or with "change"]
ON.2 2.Discussions of match, house show, television show and PPV
results and quality (or lack thereof),
|ON.2 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
ON.3 3.Discussions of the business aspects of pro wrestling such as
angles, booking, promoting, acquisition and development of
talent, including speculation as to the future,
|ON.3 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
ON.4 4.Discussions about the history of pro wrestling
|ON.4 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
ON.5 5.Personal experiences, and anecdotes on pro-wrestling,
|ON.5 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
ON.6 6.Discussion of upcoming house shows, television programs, PPVs
and matches,
|ON.6 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
ON.7 7.Discussion of secondary media such as tapes, newsletters, and
websites,
|ON.7 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
ON.8 8.Limited announcements of upcoming shows, television/radio
programs, PPVs and matches,
|ON.8 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
ON.9 9.Regularly posted FAQs and FAQ related documents,
|ON.9 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
ON.10 10.All posts to Rec.Sports.Pro-Wrestling.Info ("RSPWI"), to be
posted by the moderator of RSPWI to RSPW unless requested by the
author that the article not be posted to RSPW,
|ON.10 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
|
Hmmm, for 9 out of the 10 "on topic" statements of the proposed
RSPW charter, people either accepted the state "as is" or with
minor change in wording. Only one person said that they would
never accept the 10th "on topic" statement.
CONCLUSION: for the people voting in this straw poll,
including Pete "King of Flames" Panaro and Mr. Kelleher,
there was little disagreement about what is supposed to
be ON TOPIC for RSPW. There is UNANIMOUS agreement on
9 out of 10 items for what constitutes an on-topic posting.
Below is a comparable layout for items in the proposed Charter
that would be considered "off-topic"
|=================================================================
|B. Off Topic Item Analyses
|=================================================================
|B. Off-topic items with "as is" and "accept but change wording"
| combined into a single category and numericly coded "1",
| "never" responses were coded as "0" and statistics were
| computed on these dichotomous values.
|
|One of the off-topic items (#2) had unanimous agreement,
|seven items had 88% or 7/8 agreement, four items has 75%
|or 6/8 agreement, and two items had 50% or 4/8 agreement.
|This indicates that though there is less agreement on the
|off-topic items than the on-topic items but agreement is
|still substantial.
| Valid
|Variable Mean Std Dev Minimum Maximum N Label
OFF.1 1.Encoded binaries, or requests for binaries.
|OFF.1 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
[NOTE: A mean of .88 indicates 88% acceptance of the statement]
OFF.2 2.HTML-encoded posts.
|OFF.2 1.00 .00 1.00 1.00 8
OFF.3 3.Blank posts.
|OFF.3 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
OFF.4 4.Articles with all quoted text, and no original text. Such
posts as a "me too" are also off-topic by this criteria.
|OFF.4 .75 .46 .00 1.00 8
OFF.5 5.Duplicate posts, either by accident or design.
|OFF.5 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
OFF.6 6.Spews or floods of a large number of articles from a single
individual or group.
|OFF.6 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
OFF.7 7.Posts written as if the poster were a professional wrestling
persona. Such posts include works of fiction (e.g. the RSPWWCW).
|OFF.7 .75 .46 .00 1.00 8
OFF.8 8."News posts" that are intended to be taken seriously (not
obviously satire) but are patently untrue. That is, any posting
attempting to defraud the readers of rspw or intentionally mislead
them with false info.
|OFF.8 .75 .46 .00 1.00 8
OFF.9 9.Requests for the posting of information, when that information
can be reasonably be expected to be posted shortly, (ex. PPV
results, FAQs).
|OFF.9 .50 .53 .00 1.00 8
OFF.10 10.Posts whose primary purpose is to advertise for a web page.
|OFF.10 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
OFF.11 11.Any advertisement for any wrestling mechandise, including
videotapes
|OFF.11 .75 .46 .00 1.00 8
OFF.12 12.A post, in whole or in part, that is meant to insult or anger
any poster or reader of the newsgroup (aka a "flame"; ad homeneim
attacks are not acceptable.)
|OFF.12 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
OFF.13 13.A post that is meant to provoke any poster or reader of the
newsgroup (aka a "troll") is considered off topic and will
serve as the basis for complaints to the troller's ISP.
|OFF.13 .88 .35 .00 1.00 8
OFF.14 14.Any post that contains little or no on-topic content, or with
an "ObWrestling".
|OFF.14 .50 .53 .00 1.00 8
CONCLUSIONS: From the straw poll, it is clear that the participants
could come to a high degree of agreement over what constitutes an on-topic
posting for RSPW. There is less consensus on what constitutes an off-topic
posting, but there still is a substantial degree of agreement with the
the statements as presented in the proposed Charter.
As for Mr. Kelleher, if you had tried this kind of trick in a courtroom
you'd have been disbarred.
Bob Barnett
You spend all day rehashing this drivel.
Why don't you all move in together and spare us this shit?
The Bogus Sting
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 08:59:17 -0400, The Bogus Sting <St...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Chad Bryant wrote:
> >>
> >> JHD wrote:
> >>
> >> > So, here's my solution - I've got a message board that isn't being used,
> >> > at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you use
> >> > that for any meta discussion from now on, since *I* make the fucking rules
> >> > over there and the charter is whatever the hell I say it is. This way,
> >> > there's no secret society, anyone can participate or read it, but we're
> >> > not adding to the noise here.
> >>
> >> This is a great idea. I have a few concerns about it, but otherwise,
> >> it's excellent.
> >
> >goose-stepping butt-buddies will undoubtedly censor out any opinions you
> >don't like.
>
No doubt.
The Bogus Sting
>
> The Bogus Sting <St...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3713CF...@erols.com...
> > No, he just gives you more 'benefit of the doubt' than I do. I speak
> > from experience.
>
> And bias.
>
> > Hey, I basically said to go have your little party. But, I predict if
> > anybody actually DOES use your site, it's going to be a name-the-names
> > organized bashing of other posters.
>
> Matter of definition. If you wanted to call it that, I stated right up
> front that would be a purpose - post the abuse reports there, and maybe a
> pointer here for the fist month or so until people get used to the new
> 'system'.
>
> > Is that really what you want,
> > particularly in light of how such bashing & complaining to sysadmins
> > effected YOUR life!?
>
> What *I* want, Stink, is a nice little community that is about
> pro-wrestling that is moderated only by the self-control and respect for
> the business and the group of it's participants. That's all I've *ever*
> wanted. Things here to be the way they were designed to be. I still have
> no idea why that makes me, Mike, Chad, or anyone else the asshole.
It's simple actually. You're offering your site to be a staging point
to get people you don't like kicked off the internet. When Kelleher did
precisely the same thing to you, _YOU_ were the one making the big
scene. And look at what happened to you. I suggest you rethink things
before you start a big TOS'sing campaign.
> > Remember John, I was on _YOUR_ side in that whole
> > affair.
>
> I remember fully, and I will not forget. I think perhaps you're sensing
> more confrontation in my words than I'm actually putting into them.
Okay...then forgive me for going back to the same-old-same-old.
> We
> stand on opposite sides of several issues on this whole debate, Stink, but
> in spite of all the tangents, rants, and bullshit, that's all I've ever
> wanted out of this deal - for RSPW to be what it was intended to be by the
> people that put it here.
And like I've said before, I agree with your goal, just not with your
methods. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, but I will
continue to believe that the best way to clean up RSPW is to IGNORE
TROLLS and engage in quality wrestling conversation, not by bullying
people who are obviously starving for attention.
JHD
news:3713D9...@beachnet.com...
> You clowns are friggin' anal retentive lunatics.
No, we just play one on the internet.
> You spend all day rehashing this drivel.
No, only an hour or so.
> Why don't you all move in together and spare us this shit?
Cuz Palij is a skinflint, he won't pay my rent.
PS - I'm not even responding to Kelleher's crap here - thanks for the kind
words, but you're a day late. My response - and it's a final response -
to his latest 300-line strokefest is on my message board. RSPW doesn't
need it.
And since I've got your attention anyway, Mr. Bob, I have been wanting to
ask you about something and haven't had the chance because I've been
wrapped up in other shit. But what I'd like, if you have the time and
inclination, would be for you to make a brief (not too brief ;-))
comparison of independent wrestling in MX and the US, since you're
probably the only one here that I *know* has experience in both countries'
indy scenes. is it harder to get paid fairly, etc, in MX than here, are
the bookers more or less dictatorial in general, what are you rimpressions
of the differences between the wrestling business on the indy level in the
two countries? I, for one, would LOVE to hear you speak on that for a few
paragraphs, and I bet the rest of RSPW (the wrestling fans, anyway) would,
too. If you get a chance. Thanks, man.
JHD
news:3717dc4e...@news.microserve.net...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:57:49 GMT, Pet...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >WTF? This CAN'T be the real John DeJong. ANyone know if this is an
imposter?
> Anyone with a clue can see that it's not. Perhaps you should get one
> Petey...
Wow. I feel REALLY bad for this, but it's me. And yeah, I'd love to see
Mike try and sue me for asking if he's stopped buggering baby boys yet.
Similar cases have only been thrown out consistently since the founding of
the American judicial system, and in the meantime, maybe his ignorance can
put me on the front cover of the Enquirer or something. I'd LOVE for him
to sue me.
J. Stearns
>
> J. Stearns wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Chad Bryant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JHD wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So, here's my solution - I've got a message board that isn't being used,
> > > > > at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you use
> > > > > that for any meta discussion from now on, since *I* make the fucking rules
> > > > > over there and the charter is whatever the hell I say it is. This way,
> > > > > there's no secret society, anyone can participate or read it, but we're
> > > > > not adding to the noise here.
> > > >
> > > > This is a great idea. I have a few concerns about it, but otherwise,
> > > > it's excellent.
> > >
> > > Of course you'd like it. Since DeJong moderates the site, you and your
> > > goose-stepping butt-buddies will undoubtedly censor out any opinions you
> > > here where it belongs.
> > >
> >
> > I can't speak for John, but I doubt messages will be yanked based on the
> > POV of the writer.
>
> You haven't been here very long have you!? John will deny it, but if I
> were to post a SINGLE SOLITARY THING on his website it'd be yanked ASAP,
> regardless of content. We've had a two-year long viscious flamewar.
>
No I have not been here long at all. 1994 seems just like yesterday to me,
which should place me in the long term readership position. I think you might
just be a little paranoid about his Web Site. And I've read most of those
disagreements, along with the ones you have had with Mike Palij as well.
> > "Goose-steping-butt-buddies," some type of musical
> > group perhaps? Give it a try Bogus Sting, I've yet to see much good come
> > out of [META] discussion in this newsgroup, it generally only adds to the
> > noise.
>
> I won't give John the satisfaction, and it shows amazing ignorance on
> your part to even suggest such a thing. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly
> about [META] crap being counterproductive, but it's mostly because
> assholes like Palij, Bryant, DeJong, and Vaters tend to monopolize them
> and insult anyone who doesn't agree with their POV.
>
I always enjoy it when you kids have to resort to "name" calling to get your
point across. Tell me Bogus Sting just which of us is truly the
"ignorant" one,
me for being open-minded, or yourself for being closed minded? Calling
Palij, Bryant, DeJong, and Vatters assholes only drops us to flame
level, and
this is what becomes counter-productive, at which point reason jumps out
of the window. Both sides will LOSE, and the newsgroup suffers yet again
in a never ending viscous cycle of endless flamewars and net.coping.
>
> > > > > Mike
> > > > > Palij, you KNOW you have my respect, I'm asking you out of that respect to
> > > > > please post your abuse reports to my site instead of here - it's just as
> > > > > easy for those of us who *will* complain to cut and paste from there as it
> > > > > is from here, AND, given that it's not ME that's doing the talking, tripod
> > > > > won't yank the site.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's not like you have pics of people who don't want them used...
> > > > :)
> > > >
> > > > > Everyone else, including lurkers, just bookmark that
> > > > > page above, and feel free to add your input when you want to, and if you
> > > > > think someone here is being a pain in the ass and needs to be netcopped,
> > > > > just post a note there - if you want to add your voice to the complaints
> > > > > against a person, check there for abuse reports.
> > > >
> > > > I just bookmarked it. Who else is with me?
> > >
> > > Let me guess: DeJong, Palij, and Vaters. Have fun at your little
> > > party.
> >
> > Again, give it a try before you condem it as a failure.
>
> No thanks.
Not a problem, it is after all a matter of choice.
J. Stearns
>
> JHD wrote:
> >
[...]
> >
> > What *I* want, Stink, is a nice little community that is about
> > pro-wrestling that is moderated only by the self-control and respect for
> > the business and the group of it's participants. That's all I've *ever*
> > wanted. Things here to be the way they were designed to be. I still have
> > no idea why that makes me, Mike, Chad, or anyone else the asshole.
>
> It's simple actually. You're offering your site to be a staging point
> to get people you don't like kicked off the internet. When Kelleher did
> precisely the same thing to you, _YOU_ were the one making the big
> scene. And look at what happened to you. I suggest you rethink things
> before you start a big TOS'sing campaign.
>
> > > Remember John, I was on _YOUR_ side in that whole
> > > affair.
> >
> > I remember fully, and I will not forget. I think perhaps you're sensing
> > more confrontation in my words than I'm actually putting into them.
>
> Okay...then forgive me for going back to the same-old-same-old.
>
I'll forgive both of you.
> > We
> > stand on opposite sides of several issues on this whole debate, Stink, but
> > in spite of all the tangents, rants, and bullshit, that's all I've ever
> > wanted out of this deal - for RSPW to be what it was intended to be by the
> > people that put it here.
>
> And like I've said before, I agree with your goal, just not with your
> methods. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, but I will
> continue to believe that the best way to clean up RSPW is to IGNORE
> TROLLS and engage in quality wrestling conversation, not by bullying
> people who are obviously starving for attention.
Some folks should just agree to disagree on a lot of issues, RSPW will be
all the better for it. For the record, I'm also in favor of the IGNORE or
for those of us that can, the killfile option. I just wish a few basically
well meaning people would jump back on the QUIET bandwagon for
the GOOD of this NEWSGROUP, period.
The Bogus Sting
Then you understand how any input _I_ might have in a [META] debate
hosted by JHD might very likely be put under vigorous censorship. John
denies it, but if I told Palij where to go over there I think he might
have problems with it. Nevertheless, I won't be posting on his site, so
this is all moot.
> > > "Goose-steping-butt-buddies," some type of musical
> > > group perhaps? Give it a try Bogus Sting, I've yet to see much good come
> > > out of [META] discussion in this newsgroup, it generally only adds to the
> > > noise.
> >
> > I won't give John the satisfaction, and it shows amazing ignorance on
> > your part to even suggest such a thing. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly
> > about [META] crap being counterproductive, but it's mostly because
> > assholes like Palij, Bryant, DeJong, and Vaters tend to monopolize them
> > and insult anyone who doesn't agree with their POV.
> >
>
> I always enjoy it when you kids have to resort to "name" calling to get your
> point across. Tell me Bogus Sting just which of us is truly the
> "ignorant" one,
> me for being open-minded, or yourself for being closed minded?
Well, considering you're classifying me as being closed minded, I'd
continue to call you the ignorant one. Be that as it may, I originally
called you ignorant for suggesting that I join the TOS'sing crew at
JHD's website. If what you said above is true (that you suffered
through all my flamewars with JHD and Palij), then you're not ignorant,
you're just a fool. Either that, or you want another fireworks show.
Any suggestions I might have as far as [META] issues go will continue to
be done here in RSPW, not at JHD's net.fbi site.
> Calling
> Palij, Bryant, DeJong, and Vatters assholes only drops us to flame
> level, and
> this is what becomes counter-productive, at which point reason jumps out
> of the window. Both sides will LOSE, and the newsgroup suffers yet again
> in a never ending viscous cycle of endless flamewars and net.coping.
Nobody said I was going to be 100% objective in my input. If you can't
read past that petty insult I included, then I suggest you aren't really
searching for meaning.
> >
> > > > > > Mike
> > > > > > Palij, you KNOW you have my respect, I'm asking you out of that respect to
> > > > > > please post your abuse reports to my site instead of here - it's just as
> > > > > > easy for those of us who *will* complain to cut and paste from there as it
> > > > > > is from here, AND, given that it's not ME that's doing the talking, tripod
> > > > > > won't yank the site.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, it's not like you have pics of people who don't want them used...
> > > > > :)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Everyone else, including lurkers, just bookmark that
> > > > > > page above, and feel free to add your input when you want to, and if you
> > > > > > think someone here is being a pain in the ass and needs to be netcopped,
> > > > > > just post a note there - if you want to add your voice to the complaints
> > > > > > against a person, check there for abuse reports.
> > > > >
> > > > > I just bookmarked it. Who else is with me?
> > > >
> > > > Let me guess: DeJong, Palij, and Vaters. Have fun at your little
> > > > party.
> > >
> > > Again, give it a try before you condem it as a failure.
> >
> > No thanks.
>
> Not a problem, it is after all a matter of choice.
Exactly.
JHD
> >Fuck you. Sue me. Make my fucking day, pal. I can think of NOTHING
I'd
> >like more.
> John, why would you want you daughter to starve because you lost
> everything you ever owned and ever will own in a libel suit??
Libel? i could only hope you'd be stupid enough to actually fall for
this. And you never answered my question. And my daughter's assests are
not in my name.
JHD
> It's simple actually. You're offering your site to be a staging point
> to get people you don't like kicked off the internet. When Kelleher did
> precisely the same thing to you, _YOU_ were the one making the big
> scene. And look at what happened to you. I suggest you rethink things
> before you start a big TOS'sing campaign.
Big TOSsing campaign? I don't think I said anything like that - please
don't insert your suppositions into my reality, it confuses things.
I said, if people want to talk freely about things that would add to the
noise here, such as abuse reports, general bitching, flamewars, whatever,
use my site for it instead of doing it here.
A note if you post the same thing here *and* there, I'll wipe it. no
sense if wasting *twice* the space.
> > I remember fully, and I will not forget. I think perhaps you're
sensing
> > more confrontation in my words than I'm actually putting into them.
> Okay...then forgive me for going back to the same-old-same-old.
Absolutely.
> And like I've said before, I agree with your goal, just not with your
> methods. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, but I will
> continue to believe that the best way to clean up RSPW is to IGNORE
> TROLLS and engage in quality wrestling conversation, not by bullying
> people who are obviously starving for attention.
"not respond to' is different than 'ignore.' If you 'ignore,' then the
problem remains. if you are vigilant and do what you can *without* adding
lines of text that will only serve to stir up more trolls here, then the
problem may find a solution. We can't discuss this in private because
then we're being elitist nazis, and we can't discuss it here because it's
a waste of space and even the vast majority of what I term 'good' posters
really don't care to see these long meta discussions here. So, for those
that *do*, they are at my website, for those that *don't,* the newsgroup
isn't covered in metashit. I figure it's a reasonable compromise.
Not that I expect any of the trolls to actually appreciate it.
The Bogus Sting
>
> The Bogus Sting <St...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > And like I've said before, I agree with your goal, just not with your
> > methods. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, but I will
> > continue to believe that the best way to clean up RSPW is to IGNORE
> > TROLLS and engage in quality wrestling conversation, not by bullying
> > people who are obviously starving for attention.
>
> "not respond to' is different than 'ignore.' If you 'ignore,' then the
> problem remains. if you are vigilant and do what you can *without* adding
> lines of text that will only serve to stir up more trolls here, then the
> problem may find a solution.
Is that what you think you've done here in RSPW!?!?
> We can't discuss this in private because
> then we're being elitist nazis, and we can't discuss it here because it's
> a waste of space and even the vast majority of what I term 'good' posters
> really don't care to see these long meta discussions here. So, for those
> that *do*, they are at my website, for those that *don't,* the newsgroup
> isn't covered in metashit. I figure it's a reasonable compromise.
>
> Not that I expect any of the trolls to actually appreciate it.
That's pretty much my point. The people who actually trust you to
moderate appropriately (...don't count me in this group...) would most
likely be your close circle of friends. That same circle consists
largely of people you sarcastically refer to above as the 'elitist
nazis'. Draw your own conclusions.
Why can't you just quietly send abuse reports to the TRUE offender's
sysadmins and then not publically gloat & threaten? Oh, and by TRUE
offenders I mean people who flood & troll, not people you DON'T LIKE.
J. Stearns
Do you understand the words NO CENSORSHIP? I'm not always the brightest
bulb on the tree, but lately I'm begining to wonder about the rest of
you. John
has stated publicly via this thread how posts will get deleted, posts
with your
name on it wasn't an option that I recall.
> > > > "Goose-steping-butt-buddies," some type of musical
> > > > group perhaps? Give it a try Bogus Sting, I've yet to see much good come
> > > > out of [META] discussion in this newsgroup, it generally only adds to the
> > > > noise.
> > >
> > > I won't give John the satisfaction, and it shows amazing ignorance on
> > > your part to even suggest such a thing. BTW, I agree wholeheartedly
> > > about [META] crap being counterproductive, but it's mostly because
> > > assholes like Palij, Bryant, DeJong, and Vaters tend to monopolize them
> > > and insult anyone who doesn't agree with their POV.
> > >
> >
> > I always enjoy it when you kids have to resort to "name" calling to get your
> > point across. Tell me Bogus Sting just which of us is truly the
> > "ignorant" one,
> > me for being open-minded, or yourself for being closed minded?
>
> Well, considering you're classifying me as being closed minded, I'd
> continue to call you the ignorant one.
I classified you as close minded for YOUR response.
>
Be that as it may, I originally
> called you ignorant for suggesting that I join the TOS'sing crew at
> JHD's website.
Nobody asked anyone to join anything. A proposal was made to move
[META], Troll Reports, Abuse Reports, etc...out of RSPW proper, is this
a problem?
> If what you said above is true (that you suffered
> through all my flamewars with JHD and Palij), then you're not ignorant,
> you're just a fool. Either that, or you want another fireworks show.
>
Cool, more name calling, feel better? Wouldn't another fireworks show
just be even more counter-productive?
> Any suggestions I might have as far as [META] issues go will continue to
> be done here in RSPW, not at JHD's net.fbi site.
>
Understood.
JHD
news:3713ED...@erols.com...
> > "not respond to' is different than 'ignore.' If you 'ignore,' then
the
> > problem remains. if you are vigilant and do what you can *without*
adding
> > lines of text that will only serve to stir up more trolls here, then
the
> > problem may find a solution.
> Is that what you think you've done here in RSPW!?!?
Nope, but I hope that I'm making progress. I strive for perfection,
knowing that it is unattainable.
> > really don't care to see these long meta discussions here. So, for
those
> > that *do*, they are at my website, for those that *don't,* the
newsgroup
> > isn't covered in metashit. I figure it's a reasonable compromise.
> That's pretty much my point. The people who actually trust you to
> moderate appropriately (...don't count me in this group...) would most
> likely be your close circle of friends. That same circle consists
> largely of people you sarcastically refer to above as the 'elitist
> nazis'. Draw your own conclusions.
I'm actually hoping that the idea that someone's talking about them will
draw the trolls over there. And my 'moderation' will consist solely of me
cleaning out old posts when necessary.
> Why can't you just quietly send abuse reports to the TRUE offender's
> sysadmins and then not publically gloat & threaten? Oh, and by TRUE
> offenders I mean people who flood & troll, not people you DON'T LIKE.
Stink, I haven't ever even tried to netcop you, ttbomr. If I *did* it was
wayyyy back when shit first started between me and flux. It's NOT about
people I 'don't like.' It never HAS been, any more than it's been about
'what I want.' it's about the way things are As to 'quietly sending
abuse reports,' well, that's all well and good, but for 2 main arguments.
1, a single person sending complaints will likely get no results,
therefore, a 'team effort' is necessary. 2, the discussion allows
external input from other posters - for instance, let's say that Kelly
Vaters wants to netcop you. And lets' say that I don't believe that you
need to be netcopped, because you're not that much of a nuisance to anyone
but me and mike, and if we keep the meta shit off here, you usually stay
quite. So we discuss it, pro and con. Perhaps She will convince me of
her position, perhaps I will convince her of mine (and this is all
hypothetical, but you get the point), but either way, now instead of a
unilateral decision made by one poster, as in the ongoing crusade by Mr.
Scum against various members of the group, you have a debated position in
which as many different opinions are factored in as care to make their
voices heard. If someone like DamNam or Ace at his 'peak' or Pete or
whomever cared to drop in, present a rational opinion on the matter that
didn't consist of 'you can't do shit,' 'you're a nazi,' 'it's an
unmoderated group so fuck you,' or 'dejong's mom blows goats,' then
perhaps they could present their case for not being netcopped, and
whomever is advocating action could present our case as to why the
behavior of the individual in question is unacceptable, and why it is in
their best interests and the group's best interests for them to stop
acting like dicks.
the problem arises in this when an individual begins creating lame-brained
excuses for being too damned lazy to go to alt.troll or alt.flame for
their nonsense, and babbling on a bout how us 'censors' are 'oppressing'
their 'right to free speech.' I've said it a million times, hey, if you
(general you) want to talk about Zak Arnold, there's a newsgroup for it.
if you want to call me a dickhead, there's a newsgroup for that, too. But
that arrangement seems to be too complex for some folks to grasp, and so,
instead of just doing the right thing and being cool, they stick around
here, insist on their 'right' to inflict their nonsense on the rest of us,
and bitch about how we're censors because we ask them to use Usenet in t
he way it was intended. That attitude can pretty well occlude any
reasonable conversation, as well as drive any valid point out the window
in a mass of flames, in about 2 posts. I freely admit that I've been just
as bad as some of the other people here, but I'm trying to improve, and at
the same time try to offer a reasonable alternative that neither detracts
from RSPW (as I feel the mod has done, even though I voted for it), nor
creates a bigger mess than it sets out to cure.
Trial and error, man. You try and you fail, you try and you fail, you try
and you get somewhere. So you keep what worked, and try again, and try
again, and try again, and something else stick. Eventually, you have a
workable set of procedures or steps to take and a clearly defined concept
of what constitutes a minor pain in the ass, and what constitutes
legitimate reason to have someone TOSsed. If Pete, or whomever, wants to
have a voice in t hat, all they have to do is be reasonable, mature, and
realize that just because they THINK things ought to be a certain way and
aren't knowledgeable enough about Usenet to realize that what they want
sometimes isn't what is supposed to be, and for good reason, then they're
welcome to add their voice to the debate. The problem is, they never come
up with anything reasonable, just 'you suck, you're a nazi, stop trying to
tell me what to do.'
Every single person that's been singled out on this newsgroup for being a
'nazi' or a 'mod' or whatever is perfectly capable of reasonable
discussion - this post is all the proof anyone should need of that, given
the long-standing animosity between us. You speak to me with respect, I
speak to you with that same respect. if you had responded to my last post
on this thread with 'screw you, dejong, you're just another nazi control
freak,' then my response would have likely been much more vitriolic. Now,
I realize that some of the anti-trolls can become emotional, I'm certainly
one of them, and I'll cheerfully concede that when that happens, the
group's better health is shunted off for the benefit of the good feeling
or emotional release of the poster, who is now angered because when asked
politely to chill the hell out, some drooling fuckwit replied with YER NOT
MY MOM D00D AND THERZ NO MODREATER SO YOU CANT MAKE ME DOO SHITE OH AND
YOUR KID IS A FAG AND YOUR MOMS A NIGGER AND YOUR DADS A PIMP TOO
AHHAHHHAHAHA I'M SO WITTY YOUHATE ME NOW I HAVE HEAT. And I'll cheerfully
concede that that emotionally charged response that will ensue from the
(ordinarily reasonable) target does nothing to help RSPW, either.
So I say, you (general you) wanna dump crap on me, what better place than
my message board? And at the same time, the proponents of trying to keep
things at least marginally on-topic here can post their thought there as
well, instead of here, and thus, with time, the arguments move from here,
to there, in toto.
No dogophile jokes.
Anyway, I've gone far afield as usual, in summation, the need for
discussion is there to a) ensure a united effort from more than just one
or 2 people, and b) provide a check/balance for those who might be tempted
to act on personal feelings, rather than legitimate abuses. Mike Palij
will NOT endorse me trying to netcop you just because I don't like you, in
spite of what others may think, and I would similarly discourage him. We
all would. And that lack of endorsement form (again, hypothetically) Mike
would cause me to say 'hey, wait, this guy respects me, I respect him,
we're on the same page, so maybe I need to think about this.'
Just my take on it, or my thought processes behind the whole thing. I
wholeheartedly agree that arguing with the trolloftheweek here serves no
useful function, fun as it can be sometimes to vent your spleen in the
general direction of some moron that really deserves to be bashed, and I
also agree that, right or wrong, talking about anyone around here being
'better' than anyone else, or having 'authority' irritates trolls very
badly. I consider Mike Palij an authority on both Usenet and P-W, but
then, I also realize there is more than one definition of 'authority.'
Apparently, many don't. It really isn't about what 'I want' or about me
'controlling' anyone.' If Troll X wants the world to think he's an idiot,
it's no skin off my nose. But when he wants to convince us of that at the
expense of messages that wrestling fans actually want to read that are
about wrestling, then I have a problem with that, personally and in the
bigger picture.
Well, anyway, I've gone on long enough, and I think I've made my thoughts
clear, but please, if you have any questions or interesting counterpoints,
I'm all ears. Arguing constructively with someone with a brain beats the
hell out of trading mom jokes with the likes of Mr. Scum anyday. And you
know I'm not intractable in any opinion - if you can show me a good reason
that I may be wrong, I'll happily listen and consider it, and then call
you a bunch of names and insult your mom ;-)
Rory B. Bellows
John "Gatorade" Wilcox aka Rory B. Bellows
Rob Blake
Bob Barnett wrote:
>
> You clowns are friggin' anal retentive lunatics.
> You spend all day rehashing this drivel.
Bairman
>WTF? This CAN'T be the real John DeJong. ANyone know if this is an imposter?
Anyone with a clue can see that it's not. Perhaps you should get one
Petey...
-- Bairman
_______________________________
http://www.geocities.com/~bairman
RSPW, the game of human cesspool
Bairman
wrote:
>Chad Bryant wrote:
>>
>> JHD wrote:
>>
>> > So, here's my solution - I've got a message board that isn't being used,
>> > at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you use
>> > that for any meta discussion from now on, since *I* make the fucking rules
>> > over there and the charter is whatever the hell I say it is. This way,
>> > there's no secret society, anyone can participate or read it, but we're
>> > not adding to the noise here.
>>
>> This is a great idea. I have a few concerns about it, but otherwise,
>> it's excellent.
>
>Of course you'd like it. Since DeJong moderates the site, you and your
>goose-stepping butt-buddies will undoubtedly censor out any opinions you
>don't like.
Starting with yours...
[RUDO] K. Canzanella
>You clowns are friggin' anal retentive lunatics.
>You spend all day rehashing this drivel.
>Why don't you all move in together and spare us this shit?
Second the notion. And put it on TV. Add some juice, logofixions and
boobies and watch a new talk show smoke RAW on monday nights.
Mr K Canzanella
El Numero Uno Rudo de RSPW y el Cruiserweight Campeon de RSPWWCW
"And you know, even the bombs, bullets and shells are shaped like the penis.
It's part of a subconscious need to inject the penis into another's affairs.
It's called Fucking with people"- George Carlin comparing war to a prick fight.
The Bogus Prophet
>You clowns are friggin' anal retentive lunatics.
>You spend all day rehashing this drivel.
>Why don't you all move in together and spare us this shit?
Bob, ya need a nice, cold beer and to sit back and relax.
Allan J. Benson
Pissant (bb...@rocketmail.com) writes:
> Kelly Vaters wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Mike Kelleher wrote:
>>
>> > Don't speak for the rest of RSPW.
>>
>> Mike speaks for the ones in r.s.p-w who matter.
Nobody matters? Perhaps to you.
--
* "There's no way out of here, when you come in you're in for good." *
* - David Gilmour - *
* Allan J. Benson (cc...@freenet.carleton.ca) *
Allan J. Benson
The Bogus Prophet (bok...@netcom.com) writes:
> "JHD" <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> writes:
>>Mike Kelleher<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote nothing of interest and got snipped:
>>
>>So, here's my solution - I've got a message board that isn't being used,
>>at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you use
>>that for any meta discussion from now on,
I concur. For 2 weeks since my return, I've been watching RSPW waiting for
the Bogus Prophet to take the advice he gave everyone else: Shut the hell
up and talk about wrestling.
If someone flames you, don't reply, damn it. I though you people learnt your
lessons when that debacle with John Henry losing his job happened. Report
privately, don't post about it. It's really quite simple.
> John, I will give the matter some thought. In mean time, I think there
> is no further point in showing what a lying bastard Mr. Kelleher is. So,
> I'm out the off-topic thread he started about me.
I think that anyone with common sense could garner their own opinion weeks
ago.
>>As for you, you lonely, pathetic farce of a human being, may you get what
>>you deserve out of life, no more and no less. That's the worst thing I
>>can think of to hope for you.
>
> I wholeheartedly agree.
So what did you gentlemen think of RAW this week? I thought it was quite
excellect, storyline wise. The ending was weak (with the Stone Cold dummy
being thrown off the bridge) and the wrestling was kind of sparse, but I
didn't notice it that much, the storyline was so strong, IMO it managed to
carry the show to an above average grade.
BTW, I love the Vince/Shamrock face turn. Well played.
The Bogus Sting
> > sysadmins and then not publically gloat & threaten? Oh, and by TRUE
> > offenders I mean people who flood & troll, not people you DON'T LIKE.
>
>
> abuse reports,' well, that's all well and good, but for 2 main arguments.
> 1, a single person sending complaints will likely get no results,
> therefore, a 'team effort' is necessary.
This is where I begin to disagree with your proposal(s). What you're
basically saying is that ONLY a net.posse of some sort is going to be
effective. This REALLY rubs me the wrong way. My thinking is that if
the offender has truly and maliciously damaged the newsgroup, the
sysadmin most likely is not going to ignore the complaint(s). As to
only a mass-mailing being effective, I would think if the offender is
truly deserving of being TOS'sed, enough good intentioned people are
going to complain anyway. What I don't like to see is a small group of
people donning net.badges and parading around threatening people--and
don't say that won't or hasn't happen(ed).
> 2, the discussion allows
> external input from other posters
I've snipped your long explanation of your thinking here. If person X
feels somebody is damaging the group, it shouldn't matter whether person
Y agrees. Send the complaint and let the sysadmin decide. Person X
shouldn't necessarily need a concensus, and certainly not a public
discussion or vote. If the complaint has merit, trust the powers that
be to take appropriate action. If they aren't willing to do that
without an organized mass-mailing, then let the trolls stay & use a
killfile.
> Well, anyway, I've gone on long enough, and I think I've made my thoughts
> clear, but please, if you have any questions or interesting counterpoints,
> I'm all ears. Arguing constructively with someone with a brain beats the
> hell out of trading mom jokes with the likes of Mr. Scum anyday. And you
> know I'm not intractable in any opinion - if you can show me a good reason
> that I may be wrong, I'll happily listen and consider it, and then call
> you a bunch of names and insult your mom ;-)
LOL! Fair enough.
JHD
news:7f132v$q...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
> The Bogus Prophet (bok...@netcom.com) writes:
> > "JHD" <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> writes:
> >>Mike Kelleher<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote nothing of interest and got
snipped:
> >>So, here's my solution - I've got a message board that isn't being
used,
> >>at http://members.tripod.com/netbastard/disc.htm. I propose that you
use
> >>that for any meta discussion from now on,
> I concur. For 2 weeks since my return, I've been watching RSPW waiting
for
> the Bogus Prophet to take the advice he gave everyone else: Shut the
hell
> up and talk about wrestling.
> If someone flames you, don't reply, damn it.
Ah, hell, Allan - sometimes it's fun. I consider it an interesting mental
exercise to pick apart the inconsistencies, half-truths, and
self-deception of the type of isiot that would pride himself on pointing
out the patently obvious.
> I though you people learnt your
> lessons when that debacle with John Henry losing his job happened.
Report
> privately, don't post about it. It's really quite simple.
> > John, I will give the matter some thought. In mean time, I think
there
> > is no further point in showing what a lying bastard Mr. Kelleher is.
So,
> > I'm out the off-topic thread he started about me.
> I think that anyone with common sense could garner their own opinion
weeks
> ago.
That covers about 10% of the newsgroup....
> So what did you gentlemen think of RAW this week? I thought it was quite
> excellect, storyline wise.
I didn't see it, but I read the review - sounds like the main angles have
taken some very interesting turns, and per usual, the WWF entertained
well. It also sounded a little light on the wrestling, but unlike several
years ago when I stopped watching for awhile because I couldn't stand
Hogan and the same rehashed storylines anymore, along with the pandering
nonsense that was being passed off as 'plot,' this time the lack of
wreslting is being *helped* by the external happenings. I also dig the
Brood turn, and any RAW in which I get to see Ryan Shamrock and Stef
McMahon is a good one ;-)
> The ending was weak (with the Stone Cold dummy
> being thrown off the bridge)
They fluffed it? That's a damn shame - it was dark out, they could have
had Austin on a bungee cord or something to cover it.
> and the wrestling was kind of sparse, but I
> didn't notice it that much, the storyline was so strong, IMO it managed
to
> carry the show to an above average grade.
It soudns like BOTH companies are really improving. Even though the total
ratings were down this week, both companies had a strong showing, and both
have been getting more and more positive feedback here and elsewhere on
the net. From what I've seen (I've not seen the entirety of either show
in a couple of weeks, due to time constraints - new job, couple of new web
development contracts, etc. etc), it really looks like the feds are
starting to listen to the fans again in a lot of cases, and that can ONLY
be a good thing for us netmarks, since we do the bulk of the talking.
> BTW, I love the Vince/Shamrock face turn. Well played.
Yeah, it sounds like it was really well done, although I haven't seen the
tape yet and at the rate I'm going, probably never will. Also, Nash is
jobbing himself out, which is quite the opposite pattern than predicted;
DDP has a title, which, while I think it's about 18 months too late, is
still pretty cool. Sounds like wCW's workrate *and* the quality and
consistency of their angles and off-ring antics have improved, and I've
been happy, basically, with the WWF product for several months, other than
the fact that they're not pushing my peeps fast enough ;-) Hopefully, now
that Jason's in the Dojo, the OmegaPowers will get some character
development up there, and perhaps WWF can pick up some of the other guys
that don't have commitments down south. I think Otto Schwanz would
develop well at Titan as a big guy, and Joey Matthews, Cham Pain, Shannon
Moore, and Christian York would shore up a rather weak LHW division very
nicely, while the Serial Thrillaz would make an *excellent* addition to
the tag ranks. Additionally, since the WWF seems to be pushing the women,
Foxy Lady would make a great addition to that roster as well, she's a
great worker, dedicated, athletically gifted, and very attractive as
well - all the necessary components for a successful woman wrestler.
Not to leave anyone out or anything.
The Bogus Prophet
>So basically Mike, to YOU every change vote was a YES vote?? What
>people wanted to change doesn't matter to you, their opinion must be
>invalid.
Mr. Kelleher, can I ask why you're behaving so stupidly? Do you really
want to continue a flamewar with me or are you really as dumb as you're
portraying yourself here? I'll give you that benefit of the doubt and
assume that you really are this dumb and explain to you what I did.
In general, one can think of a vote of endorsement for somethings, like
a Charter item or proposition, as basically being either "Pro" or "Con".
One can go one step further, recognizing that a person may be ambivalent
about an item as it is "presently" written, but is still in support fo
the basic idea embodied in the item. That is why I gave people three
response options:
"as is": accept the item as is present written
"Change": accpet but with revision
"Never": do not accept the item
In my original posting and re-posting I provided two forms of analyses:
(1) the "as is" and "change" responses are combined to form a
general "Pro" category (this kind of thing is done all the time in
survey research) and the "Never" were left alone. Numerically
coding the "Never" with a value of zero (0) and a the "Pro" with
a value of one (1) allows one to calculate the proportion or precentage
of people who are "Pro" for the item. This numerically dichotomization
is common is social research (often referred to as "dummy coding")
and facilitiates statistical analysis of responses. So, what I was
doing with the response in this type of analysis is common practice.
(2) in this analysis, I just provided the raw frequencies and percentage
associated with each type of response made to each of the items and the
preambles to the "On Topic" and "Off Topic" sections. Included along
with this frequency information was a listing of the suggestions for
changes that people made (if they made any) if they had selected a
"change" response. This means that all readers of the analysis could
see for themselves what sorts of changes were suggested, moreover, it
also so that people were, in fact, in favor of the item but wanted
some aspect changed (e.g., made more general or sensitive to specific
situations).
Mr. Kelleher, you may not be able to appreciate it, but my analysis
of the responses to the proposed Charter was quite in keeping with
standard practices in this area, it was comprehensive, it strived
for "complete disclosure" of the responses made, and it presented
the results with embellishment, trickery, or fakery. You do
realize that it would have been ridiculously easy for me to have
made up the results, that I could have made up data. I didn't,
even though I knew that with only 8 people responding, people would
not be that impressed with it. But, in keeping with your nature,
you could not see this honesty inherent in the presentation.
Instead, all you seem able to do is take things out of context
and try to ridicule them for your own petty purposes.
Mr. Kelleher, all I can say is, good luck in your studies. You'll
need it.
>Mike Kelle"SCUM"
RFlagg13
>This is the last one in this thread folks, I promise.
>
>rfla...@aol.com (RFlagg13) writes:
>>The interruption of RSPW can only mean one thing: Mike Palij must have
>posted
>>more off topic messages.>>>I never do, I was making a request. How is making a request speaking for
>>>the newsgroup?
>>
>>Well, you do seem to have this high and mighty attitude about trying to save
>>this newsgroup, you know, and I think that sort of qualifies.
>
>Come off it. I never claimed to speak for RSPW and none of this swerving
>is going to work. Deal with it.
You did claim to have authority over us. Whether this constitutes speaking for
the group is a matter of interpretation.
>
>>>>You tried this crap before remember? A
>>>>total of EIGHT people replied to your call for a new charter or whatever,
>>>
>>>Heh, but y'know BRAH, even with 8 people, I was able to show that there
>>>was unanimity about what a Charter for RSPW should be. Think that 8 people
>>>is too small? Well, no one thought that rspw.mod would come into existence
>>>because there was so little "apparent" support for it. Remember that a
>>>hurricaine begins with a single raindrop.
>>
>>Speaking of that mod group, why do you try to save this group if a perfectly
>>good alternative exists?
>
>I leave this as a question for you to answer, keeping in mind that I am a
>long time poster to rspw, I have helped in the creation of all of the rspw
>spin-offs (i.e., rspw.fantasy, rspw.info, and rspw.mod), I understand how
>the internet and Usenet works, and I understand that the purpose of a
>newsgroup is to focus on a particular topic and that attempts to thwart
>that prupose should be stopped.
You're correct, as much as it pains me to admit it. Do you really think,
though, that anyone can stop the off-topic posts here? The people that remain
on topic just ignore the trolls and go on with their posts, keeping this group
the way it should be. The trolls will never go away, and I've accepted that.
Hell, I rarely post here anyway, but I find it preferable to the mod group.
It's a hell of a lot more entertaining here...
>
>>>>compare that to the number of posters and lurkers in RSPW.
>>>
>>>You keeping numbers on how many people are here? Can I see them?
>>>And are you counting people posting under several aliases as one
>>>person or as several?
>>
>>Damn, Mike, now you're just being a dumbass. Anyone can see that 8 people
>>hardly speak for a group that gets around 1000 posts a day, unless a few
>people
>>have a hell of a lot of time on their hands.
>
>It depends upon the number of people who are actually posting, doesn't it?
>It also depends upon who is here for the long run, and who is here just to
>disrupt things or take a figurative dump on the newsgroup. As for people
>who have too much time on their hands, I give you Cypher.
There are also people here for the long run that mostly troll, and there's no
way to get rid of them. I give you Damnam, Alex Cain, PeteKOF, etc.
>
>>>>That means you are in a MINORITY!
>>>
>>>So? You have something against minorities? IIRC, it has been estimated
>>>that at the time of the American Revolution, only a third of the people
>>>were in favor of seccesion from Britain.
>>
>>And is a third of RSPW in support of your actions?
>
>I don't know, I haven't taken a serious poll. But you never know.
>
>>Are there enough people here
>>that seriously want to change RSPW to your idea of how it should be?
>
>Not the way *I* want it to be, the way it is *supposed* to be.
>Do you have any understanding of what Usenet is supposed to be?
>Try reading a few chapters from Spencer & Lawrence's "Managing
>Usenet".
>
Trust me, Mike, I know what Usenet is supposed to be. What it is is a different
story, however. In theory, communism worked, appeasement was a good way to deal
with Hitler (whoops, Godwin's Law), and supply side economics wouldn't send the
US into a recession. Of course, things worked out differently, same as they
have here. You think most of Usenet is working, especially the alt hierarchy?
Think again.
>>Perhaps
>>you should take one of your famous straw polls on this subject, and see what
>>happens.
>
>If it came down to a vote, there are formal mechanisms to get all of these
>things done. Believe it or not, there are all sorts of rules and regulations
>about newsgroup operation that have to be obeyed. Don't be surprised if
>some time in the future a formal vote for a re-chartering is done. My
>earlier straw poll showed that, for the people who voted, the problem was
>not with what should be considered "on-topic" but what should be considered
>"off-topic". This is where the remaining dispute is, how much off-topicness
>should be allowed.
I believe the thing about the rules and regulations. One of my friends has been
going through a lot of crap trying to put the misc.facts.straightdope newsgroup
together. Also, just how do you plan on enforcing this charter, and why will it
work out better than the netcopping you've been doing before? Common sense
would tell you that a wrestling newsgroup is supposed to be about wrestling,
anyway.
>
>> I guess that means that either
>>>(a) we shouldn't have had the revolution because it was promoted by a
>>>minority of people or (b) we should rescind it, re-unite with Britain
>>>and then hold a popular election on whether we should be separate from
>>>it, with majority rules. Is that what you want?
>>
>>The revolution succeeded for two reasons. One, Britain clearly didn't supply
>>enough of their forces to quell the rebellion, which they certainly could
>have.
>>Second, the loyalists were harassed, tarred and feathered, etc. until they
>>either fled to Canada or started supporting the US. Oh, and France being on
>our
>>sides helped, too.
>>
>>Damn, this is about as off-topic as we get around here...
>
>Wanna bet? What do you think of Chomsky's position on the Palestinians vis a
>vis Israel? :-)
>
Ah, I'll pass on that one. ~_^
>>>>Why do you continue to feel that you should speak for
>>>>RSPW with your messages to ISP's.
>>>
>>>Because:
>>>
>>>(a) I am one of the oldest members of this newsgroup, few people here
>>>have my experience with it and, I dare say, my authority here.
>>
>>Bullshit. You have no authority over anyone here, and no one does. So stop
>>acting like you're trying to help us, because we don't want your "help".
>
>*shrug* Y'know BRAH, sometimes a person has authority and never realizes
>it because the authority comes from people who quietly agree with what
>that person is saying or doing. BTW, since I "outrank" you here, BRAH,
>cut this "we" shit. You don't talk for me and you don't speak for RSPW.
Hold on a second. You outrank me how, exactly? As I understand it, Usenet is a
place where no one (well, except mods, but you're not modding RSPW) has any
more power than anyone else. I'll cut out the "we" thing, since neither of us
speaks for the group. Hint, hint...
>
>>>(b) As a co-moderator for an existing newsgroup, I have demonstrated
>>>my ability to work within the rules and regulations of Usenet
>>>administration.
>>
>>Which you consistently ignore by posting at least 90 percent off-topic posts
>to
>>this newsgroup. And before you say anything, META posts are definitely not
>on
>>topic.
>
>I don't know where you got that idea. META postings, because they are about
>the nature and the operation of a newsgroup, because they are
>self-referential,
>are always on-topic unless they are outlawed by a newsgroup's Charter, which
>would be an odd thing to do since there would be no other place to
>letigitmately review and discuss the problems of a newsgroup.
Look, it's just my opinion that the META thing is off topic, but should be
tolerated occasionally. Key word being occasionally. Judging from what I've
seen, one of these damn threads pops up at least every few weeks here, and
pisses a number of people off who like this place the way it is. Sometimes it's
needed, of course. For example, related newsgroup proposals are fine with me,
and probably a lot of other people. Listing how many posts RSPW.mod gets (Wow,
we're up to 25,000 now!) is just annoying, and serves no purpose here. I could
go into more detail, but I think you get the idea.
>
>>>(c) As a long-time user of Internet services (over a decade), I have
>>>considerable knowledge and experience with the Internet.
>>
>>"Because I've been around here longer, I know what's best for this group and
>>you don't. Now go away, kid, you bother me."
>
>Heh, that's funny. Not very credible, no intelligence, and it shows a
>reluctance to face reality. Still, its kind of funny.
Reluctance to face reality, huh? Maybe you should face the fact that you have
no power over anyone here, despite how long you've been on Usenet, or your
being a mod. Perhaps you deserve respect, but I think that's about it.
>
>>>All of those things provide me with credibility.
>>
>>Ah. (pauses) You have credibility?
>
>Yeah. Who'da thunk it.
>
>>>>It is quite clear only a small minority
>>>>feels the way you do, so why change the group to fit only YOUR needs?
>>>
>>>Because Mr. Kelleher, they are not my needs, they are requests to
>>>bring RSPW back to what it is supposed to be, namely a wrestling
>>>discussion newsgroup. I'm just trying to get the people here to
>>>embrace the spirit of the Charter that serves as the basis for
>>>why RSPW came into existence in the first place. I have history
>>>and the facts on my side.
>>
>>RSPW has changed, that much is obvious. However, there is still a lot of
>>on-topic stuff here, and I just tend to ignore the crap I don't feel like
>>reading. Why you can't do the same is beyond me.
>
>How long have you been here, if I may ask? The reason why I ask is because
>most people who have spent significant amounts of time here have seen how
>badly things are here. Newbies typically ask the kind of question you're
>just asked, and they've been answered many times in the past. Look it up.
I've been lurking here for a while, and I've seen the flamewars, the incident
with Dejong getting fired, the harassment thing with Choad Bryant, etc. And you
know what? Through all that, there's been a lot of wrestling discussion. This
group ain't dead yet, you know. We just have to deal with the trolls in
whatever way we feel like. Ignore them, netcop them, whatever.
>
>>>>I see
>>>>a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM).
>Want
>>>>to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!!
>>>
>>>My, my, my, how selective we can be. Of course, in the past few days
>>>I've been engaged in meta-discussion here which have taken my attention
>>>away from purely wrestling based matters. But why didn't you look in the
>>>past week or so where I had made a concerted effort to be on-topic.
>>>Why don't you start with the articles from the NY Times that I posted
>>>regarding pro-wrestling? Really, Mr. Kelleher, are you bucking for
>>>a position in the Ministry of Truth?
>>
>>I checked your posting history on Dejanews. While it seems that you posted a
>>hell of a lot of on topic stuff a few weeks ago, it's been mostly
>netcopping,
>>insulting people, and META crap since then. I don't think I even need to
>>mention the bulk of your posts over the past six months...
>
>My posting of the NY Times articles and subsequent discussions was
>netcopping,
>insulting people, and META crap? My real time match by match results from
>Wrestlemania was netcopping, insulting people, and META crap? Perhaps you
>and your friend Mr. Kelleher should get jobs in the Ministry of Truth.
>
>>>>You are worse than the people
>>>>you so desperately want to get rid of.
>>>
>>>Really, Mr. Kelleher? Do you really believe that I am worse the the
>>>cross-posting troll Cypher? Do you think that I am worse than Icon
>>>Smiley who threatens to "take over" RSPW and claims that he is getting
>>>trolls from Altopia to come here and disrupt things. If you really
>>>do believe this, then all I can say is that you are truly one
>>>fucking idiot.
>>
>>Here we go with the "idiot" thing again for people that disagree with the
>>almighty Mike Palij. You know, if you had the slightest bit of objectivity,
>you
>>would realize that you are in some ways worse than these people. You know
>why?
>>Because your posts are almost always inflammatory, they invite a huge
>response
>>(mostly because you treat RSPW-ites like assholes), and they detract from
>>on-topic material.
>
>Let me see if I understand what you're saying here because I think it's
>important for everyone to know how biased you are in your presentation:
>
>(1) Since John DeJong's firing which was initiated by Michael Kelleher,
>I publicly said that I would try to be on-topic here. I was think I was
>succeeding in that until...
>
>(2) DamNam got into a flamewar with Tehawk and started to threaten to
>release personal information about Tehawk. Not that it really matters,
>but it is clear that DamNam had learned nothing from the DeJong episdoe.
>I interjected, along with several other people who did so independently,
>that this bullshit should stop. You probably saw this posting in your
>DejaNews review, it had "SHUT THE FUCK UP, thank you" in the subject
>line. It took a while but that thread died out as did my involvement
>in it. Things would have gone back to normal except for...
>
>(3) Icon Smiley comes back and gets invovled in the crap and warns
>RSPW that he is going to start a troll flood of RSPW. His "buddies"
>show up and claim that they're taking over RSPW and everyone will
>be held hostage (BTW, why are you going after these guys instead of
>me? Oh, I forgot, double standard). I come back and ask RSPW to
>respond to the Altopia based trall attack by emailing all postings
>from the Alt.net trolls to the cap...@tofu.alt.net, that is,
>the president of Altopia, Chris Caputo who doesn't care what trolls
>do on Usenet or how other members of the Usenet community are
>inconvienenced by users of his service. That seemed to put a halt
>to the uTr (of course, other people were doing other things to
>help bring this to a stop) and things were quieting down until...
>
>(4) Michael Kelleher makes a posting with the subject header of
>"[attn] Mike Palij" where he goes off on a bitter, hateful screed
>about me. This liar and fraudulent lawyer continued this thread
>until John DeJong entered it and I decided to drop out of it until...
>
>(5) Some person named Randall Flagg pops in and demonstrates his
>need to get his two cents in. Well, Randall, you've gotten your
>two cents in, you've gotten my reply, and you can take it from
>there. I won't respond to anything you say, so you can have the
>last word on this.
>
>>This gets some people to quit altogether or go to the mod
>>group...hmm.
>
>Actually, the current troll infested state of RSPW naturally
>drives serious wrestling fans to rspw.mod. The mods don't have
>to do anything to encourage it. Thanks to all of the phony
>role-playing trolls and fantasy groupings, few serious wrestling
>see little point to stay here.
>
>>>>You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
>>>>wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why
>then
>>>>should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so?
>>>
>>>*You* don't have to. You can killfile my postings. BTW, for the record,
>>>most if not all of my postings are ontopic, either because of their
>>>wrestling content or their META content, y'know BRAH, like this here
>>>posting.
>>
>>Like I said before, your posts invite a large number of off-topic responses,
>>and you know it. In fact, I'd guess that's probably your intention.
>
>*shrug* You can ascribe to me whatever intention you want, but why did you
>respond? Examine the reasons for that and then respond.
>
>>>>You are the biggest troll on this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>*shrug* And, although I think the is point is arguable, you are the
>>>biggest idiot on this newsgroup.
>>
>>And that's "idiot" number 2, folks. Never mind providing a decent argument,
>if
>>you disagree with someone, just call someone an idiot! It works for the
>Bogus
>>Prophet, it can work for you.
>
>Y'know BRAH, you're really being silly here.
>
>>>>Take your little control freak self
>>>>and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>>>>posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>>>
>>>The address is ab...@netcom.com. Anyone who thinks that I'm a troll
>>>or doing anything improper, go and contact them. Don't get angry when
>>>they laugh in your face.
>>
>>Well, we can always dream of the day when you get netcopped, Mike.
>>Unfortunately, that will probably never happen.
>
>That is true. You see, you may not like me, you may wish me away, but,
>clearly, YOU can't ignore me. It may have something to do with that
>authority thing, y'know BRAH. In any event, even if you don't like what
>I post, I'm not a troll nor do I engage in activities that are TOS'able.
>You may disagree, but if I'm wrong then why am I still here?
Randall Flagg
"Abandon all hope ye who enter here. If ye have already abandoned all hope,
please disregard this notice."
5-4 in GWA competition
Current GWA Continental Champion
RFlagg13
We continue with the exploits of Mike Palij:
>>>>I see
>>>>a total of 8 messages from you for 4-11-99 ( from 6:15PM till 8:21 PM).
>Want
>>>>to know how many are about wrestling? NONE!!!
>>>
>>>My, my, my, how selective we can be. Of course, in the past few days
>>>I've been engaged in meta-discussion here which have taken my attention
>>>away from purely wrestling based matters. But why didn't you look in the
>>>past week or so where I had made a concerted effort to be on-topic.
>>>Why don't you start with the articles from the NY Times that I posted
>>>regarding pro-wrestling? Really, Mr. Kelleher, are you bucking for
>>>a position in the Ministry of Truth?
>>
>>I checked your posting history on Dejanews. While it seems that you posted a
>>hell of a lot of on topic stuff a few weeks ago, it's been mostly
>netcopping,
>>insulting people, and META crap since then. I don't think I even need to
>>mention the bulk of your posts over the past six months...
>
>My posting of the NY Times articles and subsequent discussions was
>netcopping,
>insulting people, and META crap? My real time match by match results from
>Wrestlemania was netcopping, insulting people, and META crap? Perhaps you
>and your friend Mr. Kelleher should get jobs in the Ministry of Truth.
>
the worthwhile stuff, which seems rare for you, you started in with the
netcopping and flaming. Let's not, of course, forget the META crap...
>>>>You are worse than the people
>>>>you so desperately want to get rid of.
>>>
>>>Really, Mr. Kelleher? Do you really believe that I am worse the the
>>>cross-posting troll Cypher? Do you think that I am worse than Icon
>>>Smiley who threatens to "take over" RSPW and claims that he is getting
>>>trolls from Altopia to come here and disrupt things. If you really
>>>do believe this, then all I can say is that you are truly one
>>>fucking idiot.
>>
>>Here we go with the "idiot" thing again for people that disagree with the
>>almighty Mike Palij. You know, if you had the slightest bit of objectivity,
>you
>>would realize that you are in some ways worse than these people. You know
>why?
>>Because your posts are almost always inflammatory, they invite a huge
>response
>>(mostly because you treat RSPW-ites like assholes), and they detract from
>>on-topic material.
>
>Let me see if I understand what you're saying here because I think it's
>important for everyone to know how biased you are in your presentation:
>
>(1) Since John DeJong's firing which was initiated by Michael Kelleher,
>I publicly said that I would try to be on-topic here. I was think I was
>succeeding in that until...
You were, and I commend you for it. Didn't stick with it very long, though.
>
>(2) DamNam got into a flamewar with Tehawk and started to threaten to
>release personal information about Tehawk. Not that it really matters,
>but it is clear that DamNam had learned nothing from the DeJong episdoe.
>I interjected, along with several other people who did so independently,
>that this bullshit should stop. You probably saw this posting in your
>DejaNews review, it had "SHUT THE FUCK UP, thank you" in the subject
>line. It took a while but that thread died out as did my involvement
>in it. Things would have gone back to normal except for...
Not that I'm faulting you for getting involved, but you do realize you could
have stayed out of it.
>
>(3) Icon Smiley comes back and gets invovled in the crap and warns
>RSPW that he is going to start a troll flood of RSPW. His "buddies"
>show up and claim that they're taking over RSPW and everyone will
>be held hostage (BTW, why are you going after these guys instead of
>me? Oh, I forgot, double standard).
Double standard my ass. I don't like them either, but I can tolerate them. For
some reason, I'm drawn to your trolling. Call it a weakness.
I come back and ask RSPW to
>respond to the Altopia based trall attack by emailing all postings
>from the Alt.net trolls to the cap...@tofu.alt.net, that is,
>the president of Altopia, Chris Caputo who doesn't care what trolls
>do on Usenet or how other members of the Usenet community are
>inconvienenced by users of his service. That seemed to put a halt
>to the uTr (of course, other people were doing other things to
>help bring this to a stop) and things were quieting down until...
Well, this wouldn't do anything, you know. I think Caputo has only backed down
once, and he pretty much relaxed his newly imposed standards once everyone
decided to drop the alt.net subject and move on.
>
>(4) Michael Kelleher makes a posting with the subject header of
>"[attn] Mike Palij" where he goes off on a bitter, hateful screed
>about me. This liar and fraudulent lawyer continued this thread
>until John DeJong entered it and I decided to drop out of it until...
>
I don't even remember the beginning of this, but I do know that Dejong has been
acting like an asshole through the whole thing. He also ignores the reasons why
he was fired, and his hypocrisy on not thinking the same rules apply to him as
they do to everyone else.
>(5) Some person named Randall Flagg pops in and demonstrates his
>need to get his two cents in. Well, Randall, you've gotten your
>two cents in, you've gotten my reply, and you can take it from
>there. I won't respond to anything you say, so you can have the
>last word on this.
Very gracious of you, by the way.
>
>>This gets some people to quit altogether or go to the mod
>>group...hmm.
>
>Actually, the current troll infested state of RSPW naturally
>drives serious wrestling fans to rspw.mod. The mods don't have
>to do anything to encourage it. Thanks to all of the phony
>role-playing trolls and fantasy groupings, few serious wrestling
>see little point to stay here.
Um, actually, there are quite a few people here who post regularly about
wrestling. Even the trolls occasionally discuss it, a fact which you continue
to ignore.
>
>>>>You ask why *YOU* should be forced to
>>>>wade through messages about "Saved by the Bell" and so forth, well why
>then
>>>>should *I* have to wade through crap from you yelling about so and so?
>>>
>>>*You* don't have to. You can killfile my postings. BTW, for the record,
>>>most if not all of my postings are ontopic, either because of their
>>>wrestling content or their META content, y'know BRAH, like this here
>>>posting.
>>
>>Like I said before, your posts invite a large number of off-topic responses,
>>and you know it. In fact, I'd guess that's probably your intention.
>
>*shrug* You can ascribe to me whatever intention you want, but why did you
>respond? Examine the reasons for that and then respond.
I felt like it. Plus, I'm drawn to flame wars like a moth to a...flame. Could
have worded that better, maybe.
>
>>>>You are the biggest troll on this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>*shrug* And, although I think the is point is arguable, you are the
>>>biggest idiot on this newsgroup.
>>
>>And that's "idiot" number 2, folks. Never mind providing a decent argument,
>if
>>you disagree with someone, just call someone an idiot! It works for the
>Bogus
>>Prophet, it can work for you.
>
>Y'know BRAH, you're really being silly here.
Silly, yeah, but I'm trying to be. It's a literary trick called exaggeration,
ya know.
>
>>>>Take your little control freak self
>>>>and get lost, before people decide to contact YOUR SERVER for 100% of your
>>>>posts having NOTHING to do with wrestling.
>>>
>>>The address is ab...@netcom.com. Anyone who thinks that I'm a troll
>>>or doing anything improper, go and contact them. Don't get angry when
>>>they laugh in your face.
>>
>>Well, we can always dream of the day when you get netcopped, Mike.
>>Unfortunately, that will probably never happen.
>
>That is true. You see, you may not like me, you may wish me away, but,
>clearly, YOU can't ignore me. It may have something to do with that
>authority thing, y'know BRAH. In any event, even if you don't like what
>I post, I'm not a troll nor do I engage in activities that are TOS'able.
>You may disagree, but if I'm wrong then why am I still here?
You feel a need to hang around a group that you've decried several times in the
past, and you have a perfectly good mod group that you can go to. Who the hell
knows why you're still here? One word: troll.
EvWill
"JHD" <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
> Additionally, since the WWF seems to be pushing the women,
>Foxy Lady would make a great addition to that roster as well, she's a
>great worker, dedicated, athletically gifted, and very attractive as
>well - all the necessary components for a successful woman wrestler.
...most of which has little relevance to the WWF Women's division
whatsoever. Malia Hosaka and Brandy Alexander had a great
dark match on a WWF card recently and fans screamed "boring".
Women's wrestling as an athletic enterprise is wasted there.
Physical features are all that matter to the WWF.
Side note:
Lexie Fyfe does have a website now:
http://www.alamancecounty.com/lexie/lexie.htm
JHD
news:19990414114332...@ng-fp1.aol.com...
> You did claim to have authority over us. Whether this constitutes
speaking for
> the group is a matter of interpretation.
You *do* realize that there are multiple definitoins for 'authority?' And
at least one of them has nothing to do with having anything 'over' anyone
else, other than experience and expertise?
Geez, some people in here are so damn afraid of being controlled (as if
they aren't) that's all they can see when anyone talks about anything.
Kell Vaters says we're not all equal, and everyone calls her an elitist,
but she's still right - Jeff Amdur is NOT equal to PeteKOF. Jeff has
authority on the subject matter at hand. Pete barely has authority OVER
his hand.
> >the internet and Usenet works, and I understand that the purpose of a
> >newsgroup is to focus on a particular topic and that attempts to thwart
> >that prupose should be stopped.
> You're correct, as much as it pains me to admit it. Do you really think,
> though, that anyone can stop the off-topic posts here?
Sure - the ones that post it can, and the ones that dont' want it here can
complain to individual ISPs. If this wee being done with any coherence,
we might be getting somewhere. hell, we *are* getting somewhere.
> There are also people here for the long run that mostly troll, and
there's no
> way to get rid of them. I give you Damnam, Alex Cain, PeteKOF, etc.
Pete is the first troll that's stayed for any length of time and not
changed his ways, unless you count Zoogz.
> have here. You think most of Usenet is working, especially the alt
hierarchy?
> Think again.
So something needs to be done about it.
> work out better than the netcopping you've been doing before? Common
sense
> would tell you that a wrestling newsgroup is supposed to be about
wrestling,
> anyway.
Look around - you see a whole passel of common sense here? People like
Panaro and Smiley woulnd't know common sense if it anally raped them.
> Hold on a second. You outrank me how, exactly? As I understand it,
Usenet is a
> place where no one (well, except mods, but you're not modding RSPW) has
any
> more power than anyone else. I'll cut out the "we" thing, since neither
of us
> speaks for the group. Hint, hint...
You understand incorrectly. Nobody has more 'power' or influence BY
DEFAULT, but as time goes on, people emerge as being more knowledgable
than average about the topic at hand. This gives them more influence.
Equality is a fallacy perpetuated by a criminal government trying to
mollycoddle those who don't enjoy certain advantages. I hold this truth
to be self-evident; all men are NOT created equal, at least, not in the
eyes of men. In the eyes of the LAW, it should be that way, and in the
eyes of God it is that way theoretically, but I don't believe for one
second that Bairman and Smiley are equal. Bairman is FAR superior,
although I know it'll make him blush for me to say so out loud.
It's not polite, and it pisses people off, and it's not politically
correct, and I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. There is not a person
in the newsgroup that considers everyone here equal, including you.
> Look, it's just my opinion that the META thing is off topic, but should
be
> tolerated occasionally.
And it is my opinion, whichhappens to concur with established protocol,
that META is ON-topic, but still should be used sparingly.
> Reluctance to face reality, huh? Maybe you should face the fact that you
have
> no power over anyone here, despite how long you've been on Usenet, or
your
> being a mod. Perhaps you deserve respect, but I think that's about it.
If I respect someone, I give them a certain degree of power over me to
influence the way I think. So do you. I appreciate your attempt to make
your points with intelligence and civility, but I have to say that I don't
think you've thought many of these concepts like authority and equality
out completely.
> I've been lurking here for a while, and I've seen the flamewars, the
incident
> with Dejong getting fired, the harassment thing with Choad Bryant, etc.
And you
> know what? Through all that, there's been a lot of wrestling discussion.
This
> group ain't dead yet, you know. We just have to deal with the trolls in
> whatever way we feel like. Ignore them, netcop them, whatever.
That is something a lot of 'us' ('us' being the people that take a
proactive stance in the content of this group) tend to miss - the volume
here is higher than it's ever been, of course the trolls are going to
increase - everything else has. And there is a damn nice chunk of
wrestling-related discussion, debate, humor, parody, and information here.
It's just hard to find sometimes.
JHD
> I don't even remember the beginning of this, but I do know that Dejong
has been
> acting like an asshole through the whole thing. He also ignores the
reasons why
> he was fired, and his hypocrisy on not thinking the same rules apply to
him as
> they do to everyone else.
See, THIS is why I get so nuts about trolls, because they say shit and
ignorant people BELIEVE it. If we were all smart enough to know the
fucking truth when it's right in front of us, *I* wouldn't be highly irate
and on the verge of flaming you right now. But, just to clarify for those
of you who may have missed it, let's get something straight -
1 - I am an asshole to people that either trash me, or this newsgroup.
2- I was fired because I misused state property. I have said that over
andover and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
over and over and over and over and over, and you STILL have the colossal
lack of wit to say that I *ignore* this? And then you're going to wonder
why I call you a fucking idiot. No question about that at all, and I've
not claimed otherwise. Whether Mr. Kelleher's actions were precipitate to
me losing my job at NCSU is a moot point - if I hadn't been posting from
there, I wouldn't have lost my job.
3 - In STARK contrast to your assertion that I 'ignore...[my] hypocrisy,'
I have stated maybe 300 or 400 times that I am a hypocrite. At least I'm
an HONEST hypocrite, which is a helluva lot better than you're going to
get from the likes of Kelleher.
If your'e going to judge me, fucker, get your goddamned facts straight.
You'll notice that again, I didn't get rude with you until you insulted me
with your base ignorance and presumptuous decision to completely disregard
every word I've said just so that you could reiterate a batch of lies that
Kelleher is feeding this group. The fact that you actually BELIEVE this
garbage is PLENTY of justification for my continued ranting and raving
when I see such bullshit being promulgated. It's OBVIOUS that there is a
segment of this newsgroup that need someone to point out the truth to
them, because they'll believe any damned thing they're told otherwise.
With your paragraph above, you've shown me that you are extremely
ignorant, see only what you want to see, and will disregard any fact that
stands inconveniently in the way of your jumping to judgement of someone
else. You want to convince me otherwise, it's up to you, but frankly,
until you learn to think for yourself instead of just believing whatever
some dipshit wannabe tells you, I just don't see it happening.
When you can be bothered to actually read what *I* have to say, then you
may feel free to comment on what *I* have to say. Until then, you may
not.
JHD
news:19990414115800...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> "JHD" <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
> > Additionally, since the WWF seems to be pushing the women,
> >Foxy Lady would make a great addition to that roster as well, she's a
> >great worker, dedicated, athletically gifted, and very attractive as
> >well - all the necessary components for a successful woman wrestler.
> ...most of which has little relevance to the WWF Women's division
> whatsoever. Malia Hosaka and Brandy Alexander had a great
> dark match on a WWF card recently and fans screamed "boring".
> Women's wrestling as an athletic enterprise is wasted there.
> Physical features are all that matter to the WWF.
I *did* say she was attractive, didn't I?
;-)
EvWill
>This is quite a flame-war.
>
This thread is the best argument for a rec.sport.pro-wrestling.meta
group that I have ever seen.
Speaking as someone who reached my own quota of meta posts
once, I say enough of this. Get it out of here.
Everett W.
Bairman
<lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
>Bairman <b...@microserve.net> wrote in message
>news:3717dc4e...@news.microserve.net...
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:57:49 GMT, Pet...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> >WTF? This CAN'T be the real John DeJong. ANyone know if this is an
>imposter?
>
>> Anyone with a clue can see that it's not. Perhaps you should get one
>> Petey...
>
>Wow. I feel REALLY bad for this, but it's me. And yeah, I'd love to see
>Mike try and sue me for asking if he's stopped buggering baby boys yet.
>Similar cases have only been thrown out consistently since the founding of
>the American judicial system, and in the meantime, maybe his ignorance can
>put me on the front cover of the Enquirer or something. I'd LOVE for him
>to sue me.
Okay, well, the fact that I also need a clue doesn't change the fact
that Petey still needs one.
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
JHD
> Okay, well, the fact that I also need a clue doesn't change the fact
> that Petey still needs one.
;-)
> The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Mmmm hmm....
Bairman
<lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
>You understand incorrectly. Nobody has more 'power' or influence BY
>DEFAULT, but as time goes on, people emerge as being more knowledgable
>than average about the topic at hand. This gives them more influence.
>Equality is a fallacy perpetuated by a criminal government trying to
>mollycoddle those who don't enjoy certain advantages. I hold this truth
>to be self-evident; all men are NOT created equal, at least, not in the
>eyes of men. In the eyes of the LAW, it should be that way, and in the
>eyes of God it is that way theoretically, but I don't believe for one
>second that Bairman and Smiley are equal. Bairman is FAR superior,
>although I know it'll make him blush for me to say so out loud.
Not necessarily. I am well aware of who and what I am, including my
particular blend of humility and conceit. The reason I might squirm a
little in this particular instance is because I've been away from RSPW
for awhile and am not familiar with this Smiley person. (However, in
the week or so that I've been reading RSPW again, the references I've
seen to Smiley from people I respect have been, shall we say, less than
favorable.)
[Shit. I'm not doing too well at staying on-topic, am I? Oh well --
fuck it. Tomorrow's a new day to try again...]
Allan J. Benson
"JHD" (lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom) writes:
> Allan J. Benson <cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>> The Bogus Prophet (bok...@netcom.com) writes:
>> > "JHD" <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> writes:
>> >>Mike Kelleher<kell...@bitstorm.net> wrote nothing of interest and got
> snipped:
>
>
> Ah, hell, Allan - sometimes it's fun.
I bet Rob Cypher considers spamming several newsgroups into oblivion "fun"
too, but I can't see the point of that either.
> I consider it an interesting mental
> exercise to pick apart the inconsistencies, half-truths, and
> self-deception of the type of isiot that would pride himself on pointing
> out the patently obvious.
Certain people keep telling me this newsgroup is supposed to be about
wrestling, so post about wrestling. You're a tad better at it than Palij,
but you both seem to post very few and far between wrestling posts and many,
_many_ META and flame posts (from my observation).
Like Vince McMahon said on RAW, you have to earn power with respect, but be
careful that you don't lose that respect once you have it.
And don't bother replying to this on the newsgroup because I won't answer
and IMO discussion of this is pointless since all our minds were made up
long ago. There's a better chance of freezing rain in hell than one of us
changing our minds about our methods. I'm just here to have pleasant
discussion about with wrestling fans about wrestling or the occasional
polite off-topic exchange.
That's all I have to say about that.
>> I think that anyone with common sense could garner their own opinion
> weeks
>> ago.
>
> That covers about 10% of the newsgroup....
You give lurkers too little credit, IMO.
>> So what did you gentlemen think of RAW this week? I thought it was quite
>> excellect, storyline wise.
>
> I didn't see it, but I read the review - sounds like the main angles have
> taken some very interesting turns, and per usual, the WWF entertained
> well. It also sounded a little light on the wrestling,
It was, but it didn't bother me too much because the storyline was fairly
strong.
> but unlike several
> years ago when I stopped watching for awhile because I couldn't stand
> Hogan and the same rehashed storylines anymore, along with the pandering
> nonsense that was being passed off as 'plot,'
Was that around the first King of the Ring? I think the low point,
storyline-wise, was about 93-95.
> wreslting is being *helped* by the external happenings. I also dig the
> Brood turn, and any RAW in which I get to see Ryan Shamrock and Stef
> McMahon is a good one ;-)
Definitely. :-)
And the Brood turn was a long time coming, too.
>> The ending was weak (with the Stone Cold dummy
>> being thrown off the bridge)
>
> They fluffed it? That's a damn shame - it was dark out, they could have
> had Austin on a bungee cord or something to cover it.
It looked like a dummy to me. But I could be wrong.
>> and the wrestling was kind of sparse, but I
>> didn't notice it that much, the storyline was so strong, IMO it managed
> to
>> carry the show to an above average grade.
>
> It soudns like BOTH companies are really improving.
WCW was quite good this week. My brother and I were discussing how Scott
Steiner's character would fit in well in the WWF. It's really working
wonders for him (I, personally, enjoy watching Big Poppa Pump more than
the face Buff Bagwell). He put on an entertaining match with Page.
Hell, even Sting-Flair (which I've seen a 100 times before, but not in
years) was really strong wrestling, considering Sting's layoff and Flair's
age.
I enjoyed Piper's commentary. That's a good fit for WCW, a guy who calls
it like he sees it. No trying to fit everyone into black or white hats.
> it really looks like the feds are
> starting to listen to the fans again in a lot of cases, and that can ONLY
> be a good thing for us netmarks, since we do the bulk of the talking.
I don't know about that. The fans are pretty foolish, IMO. I mean, they
cheer Hogan over Flair? I know Flair's supposed to be the heel, but just
mere _weeks_ ago, Hogan and a gang of thugs were beating the hell out of
Flair in a field after stealing his son from him.
Back at the Survivor Series I believe I said that Shane turning heel was a
mistake. What if the WWF listened to me? Then Shane wouldn't have become
the fantastic heel he is today.
> Additionally, since the WWF seems to be pushing the women,
Yeah, maybe, but can any of them _wrestle_? I fear watching Nichole Bass
in the ring. She looks like she moves like a cripple.
Allan J. Benson
I concur. And from the looks of this thread, so do serveral others. Do us
all a favour and stop replying to each other unless it has to do with
actual wrestling.
> Bob Barnett wrote:
>>
>> You clowns are friggin' anal retentive lunatics.
>> You spend all day rehashing this drivel.
>> Why don't you all move in together and spare us this shit?
Pet...@hotmail.com
b...@microserve.net (Bairman) wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:57:49 GMT, Pet...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >WTF? This CAN'T be the real John DeJong. ANyone know if this is an imposter?
>
> Anyone with a clue can see that it's not. Perhaps you should get one
> Petey...
>
Read the next post in the thread. I'll be expecting your full apology in my
mailbox tomorrow. Thanks very much and please drive thru.
> _______________________________
> http://www.geocities.com/~bairman
> RSPW, the game of human cesspool
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stands/6475
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JHD
news:7f5352$nkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> Read the next post in the thread. I'll be expecting your full apology
in my
> mailbox tomorrow. Thanks very much and please drive thru.
Hey, Pete? Barry rules, always has (another name I forgot on my list).
He thought it wasn't me because of the e-mail address; not exactly a
terrible assumption to make, especially since I think I sent the e-mail
bout it to his old address. You don't - you're an impotent dweeb with no
life who's greatest accomplishment in life is pissing people off on a
newsgroup. Wake up thinking about that at 3am. If I were Barry, my
'apology' to you would consist of a hearty FUCK YOU.'
What you need, Pete, is some Good Orderly Direction.
Anyone know what's on deck for tonights' Thunder besides the Vampiro
match?
Rob Hill
(The Bogus Prophet) is cooking on rec.sport.pro-wrestling, what a rudy
poo candy ass jabroni :
>In article <3713D9...@beachnet.com> jap...@beachnet.com writes:
>>You clowns are friggin' anal retentive lunatics.
>>You spend all day rehashing this drivel.
>>Why don't you all move in together and spare us this shit?
>
>Bob, ya need a nice, cold beer and to sit back and relax.
Hey why just Bob, WHAT ABOUT ME, WHAT ABOUT RAVEN.
-----------
Supporter of choice for the consumer in the marketplace for Television
Abolish the license fee, give the consumer freedom.
http://welcome.to/ALFA
---------------------------------
"THE ROCK is checking his monkey ass into the Smack Down Hotel and
with each visit you get a complimentary FIST in your MOUTH and
FOOT in your ASS!!!" - The Rock
"I am the Ayatollah of Rock N Rolla" - Chris Jericho
Allan J. Benson
"JHD" (lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom) writes:
> <Pet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7f5352$nkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>> Read the next post in the thread. I'll be expecting your full apology
> in my
>> mailbox tomorrow. Thanks very much and please drive thru.
>
> Hey, Pete? Barry rules, always has (another name I forgot on my list).
> He thought it wasn't me because of the e-mail address; not exactly a
> terrible assumption to make, especially since I think I sent the e-mail
> bout it to his old address. You don't - you're an impotent dweeb with no
> life who's greatest accomplishment in life is pissing people off on a
> newsgroup. Wake up thinking about that at 3am. If I were Barry, my
> 'apology' to you would consist of a hearty FUCK YOU.'
I thought it wasn't you because you just accused someone of doing
something very illegal without providing a shred of evidence.
> Anyone know what's on deck for tonights' Thunder besides the Vampiro
> match?
Not a clue.
I do want to say that I've been wondering what's up about Hogan actually
working the past month or so. Is he finally trying to make up for those
WCW title reigns where he held onto the belt for upwards of six months at
a time and wrestled once or twice?
I have been surprisingly impressed with Hogan lately. His match with DDP a
few weeks ago was actually enjoyable, which was the first time I could say
that about a Hogan match for as long as I can remember.
Rory B. Bellows
Bairman= The Disco Inferno of the Mod Squad!?!
John "Gatorade" Wilcox aka Rory B. Bellows
JHD
news:%kwR2.3751$U5....@typhoon-sf.pbi.net...
> Bairman, you are seriously kissing some moddies asses around here.
correction - some moddies, if anything, are kissing his. Bairman rules.
> Bairman= The Disco Inferno of the Mod Squad!?!
No, that's proo. Pay attention
Bairman
<lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
[I'm responding to John's message because Pete's didn't show up on my
news server...]
><Pet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7f5352$nkh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>> Read the next post in the thread. I'll be expecting your full apology
>in my
>> mailbox tomorrow. Thanks very much and please drive thru.
Pete, as usual, you are deluded. The fact that I was wrong about John
does not preclude the fact that you need a clue. But to show you just
how benevolent I can be, as soon as I figure out how to e-mail a turd,
you'll get your apology...
-- Bairman
The Bogus Prophet
>Can you smell-el-el-el-el-el-el-el-el-el-el-el what bok...@netcom.com
>(The Bogus Prophet) is cooking on rec.sport.pro-wrestling, what a rudy
>poo candy ass jabroni :
>
>>In article <3713D9...@beachnet.com> jap...@beachnet.com writes:
>>>You clowns are friggin' anal retentive lunatics.
>>>You spend all day rehashing this drivel.
>>>Why don't you all move in together and spare us this shit?
>>
>>Bob, ya need a nice, cold beer and to sit back and relax.
>
>Hey why just Bob, WHAT ABOUT ME, WHAT ABOUT RAVEN.
bai...@my-dejanews.com
"Rory B. Bellows" <ro...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> Bairman, you are seriously kissing some moddies asses around here.
>
>
If returning to the group after an extended absence and picking up where I
left off with my old mates is "seriously kissing some moddies asses" then I
guess I'm Guilty As Charged (notice the clever wrestling reference). But
since you haven't been here long enough to presume anything about me, I'll
let it slide until you've done your homework...
-- Bairman
_________________________________
http://www.geocities.com/~bairman
RSPW, the game of human cesspool
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
bai...@my-dejanews.com
"JHD" <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
> Rory B. Bellows <ro...@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:%kwR2.3751$U5....@typhoon-sf.pbi.net...
>
> > Bairman, you are seriously kissing some moddies asses around here.
>
I rule? Cool. *clap, clap* Summon the harem!
> > Bairman= The Disco Inferno of the Mod Squad!?!
>
> No, that's proo. Pay attention
Really. I'm more like Jim Cornette, but with fashion sense...
Rob Hill
(EvWill) is cooking on rec.sport.pro-wrestling, what a rudy poo candy
ass jabroni :
>
>"JHD" <lizazar...@gizeocizities.cizom> wrote:
>
>> Additionally, since the WWF seems to be pushing the women,
>>Foxy Lady would make a great addition to that roster as well, she's a
>>great worker, dedicated, athletically gifted, and very attractive as
>>well - all the necessary components for a successful woman wrestler.
>
>...most of which has little relevance to the WWF Women's division
>whatsoever. Malia Hosaka and Brandy Alexander had a great
>dark match on a WWF card recently and fans screamed "boring".
>Women's wrestling as an athletic enterprise is wasted there.
>Physical features are all that matter to the WWF.
The same goes for mens wrestling, however for physical features
substitute ability on the mic.
JHD
news:371b768b...@news.demon.co.uk...
> The same goes for mens wrestling, however for physical features
> substitute ability on the mic.
Excellent point, Rob.