: In <4nsnl8$...@daily-planet.nodak.edu> curr...@plains.nodak.edu (Robert
: W Current) writes:
: > : >STOP YOUR SPAM IDIOT! This doesn't not belong on a Jeep group!!! : > : >Vince Gambino (vgambin...@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : >: Grow up , boy! : >: And when you do, use your real name! : >: Until then , : >: Goodby Wotan-boy!
: There is a lesson for everyone in the recent : Wotan tragedy. He represented a perfect example : of someone who became so deluded by his own : blather that he finally began to imagine : that others not only enjoyed reading--but : in fact actually BELIEVED--his outpourings of : mendacious drivel. What was worse, being the : archetypical troll, he harmed Net communication : because instead of helping dialogue on any issue, : he would merely insult and antagonize. He indulged : in this horrid behavior so frequently against those : whose opinions rankled him that it became a de : facto form of censorship. On top of that, his : infernal crossposting with no regard to "newsgroup : relevancy" greatly added to his unpopularity. : To turn to his less morally offensive (yet equally : annoying) faults, it can be noted that he was : inherently lazy: He refused to work on improving : his writing--even though USENET is essentially a : medium for written communication. In his great : arrogance, he used the Net like a telephone into : which he endlessly babbled (though never : listened) to the parties on the other end. : These flaws combined to bring about Wotan's : disgrace and eventual ruin in the minds of : all thoughtful newsgroup readers.
->Of course you're deliberately hiding the truth: -> ->A rogue user 'ell...@netcom.com' issued a few 100 newgroups for groups ->that were being voted on, including this one. Tale then rmgrouped all ->of those, since they were not valid. rec.music.classical.contemporary
>Not valid? What the hell do you mean by "not valid"? Who are you to decide >which groups valid or not?
There's a voting process, nobody decides anything for someone else. This process works well, and there's no reason to avoid it.
->had been voted on already then, and it was scheduled to be created the ->14th (those things have a waiting period between vote results are final ->and creation). So to obey to the rules, Tale did the right thing, ->rmgroup it when it was bogus, and create it when the day had come to ->create it, even though this was a day later.
>There are no bogus groups! All the groups should be created on a personal >decision basis. Who's tale to rmgroup? Did I, as a person who uses newsgroups, >approve him to decide what's legal here? Did Dr. Vulis appointed Lawrence >to control Usenet? Go away man.
->Dr. Vulis was behind ell...@netcom.com, who did various abusive things, ->like newgrouping unwanted groups and cancelling thousands of articles ->while pretending to be associated with Chris Lewis/John Milburn, in ->order to cast a shadow on their services. Now that he was discovered ->and booted from Netcom, he's trying to blame his own net-abuse on ->Dave Laurence, based on evidence he created himself.
>Of course, tale's main argument for deleteing groups is they waste bandwidth.
Strange, I've NEVER seen tale post anything, except sometimes something of an administrative nature, like that he accidentally rmgrouped some rec.* erotica group. Apart from that, the 'tale' account posts only automated things. He's NEVER used an argument, never entered into any discussion. His integrity is beyond any doubt.
>But don't they waste bandwidth by issuing their illegal cancels of groups and >messages? Something was posted, damage has been done, bandwidth's been >wasted. All they do is to add more to the waste. If I create misc.pot.activism >and it waste *your bandwidth* do not carry it. I don't give a damn! Let System >Administrators choose what they want to carry. Not all of them are dancing >under Lawrence's tunes. Or do you, Cabal supporters have some special >man-to-man relationships with each other and cover each other asses?
You seem to be rather homophobic, maybe you had a bad anal experience when you were younger ? Besides, I'm not in the Cabal (there is no cabal anyway).
->I nominate Dr. Vulis as kook of the month this month.
>I nominate Nauta as KOTM of the Month. I nominate Lawrence as kook. >What the hell, I nominate the whole Cabal team as the bloody kooks of >the year and century. >All heil Rob Nauta! He wants gay rights now!
Haha I am saving this in my collection of humorous posts by absolute lunatics.
R -- ~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~ Rob J. Nauta Linux: putting power in the wrong hands r...@pobox.com
In article <gazissaxDrtrKw....@netcom.com>, gazis...@netcom.com (Lynn
Diana Gazis) wrote: >Dr. Dimitri Vulis (d...@bwalk.dm.com) wrote: >: I hereby nominate David C Lawrence (spit), also known as tale (spit) and >: t...@uunet.uu.net (spit), for Usenet Kook of the Month for May 1996.
>[lots of stuff deleted]
>: Is David C Lawrence suffering from the multiple personality disorder? >: As my friend Serdar Argic would have said, "one of them must be lying".
>I must say, having Serdar Argic cited in an argument that David Lawrence >is a kook and a spammer is priceless. I'd thank Dimitri Vulis for the >entertainment, if only he hadn't crossposted it quite so widely :-).
And this charge of "multiple personality disorder" coming from a guy who's posting under at least three different names. :-)
-- KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair> Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U? If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
So, any bets on how long will it take Robert W Current to invest in a good header trimmer? There's some great shareware header trimmers at ftp://127.0.0.1
Also, he keeps on forgetting to properly locate Perth.
Robert W Current wrote:
> STOP YOUR SPAM IDIOT! This doesn't not belong on a Jeep group!!!
> STOP YOUR SPAM IDIOT! This doesn't not belong on a Jeep group!!!
So, any bets on how long will it take Robert W Current to invest in a good header trimmer? There's some great shareware header trimmers at ftp://127.0.0.1
Also, he keeps on forgetting to properly locate Perth.
In article <Pine.OSF.3.92.960524005422.17159C-100...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>, Michael Warner <war...@wsunix.wsu.edu> wrote:
>On 20 May 1996, Michael Hucka wrote:
>> *plonk*
>> Whoppee! Another one!
>> I'm having fun.
>Just out of curiosity, in the spirit of cultural inquiry, is there a >rationale for the announcement of kill-file actions?
<TelevisionPopPsychiatrist> Purely egotistical on the plonker's part, I say, but for a good reason. However, the message you're sending out is "You suck, plonkee, I am not going to bother myself with you or your words anymore." The plonkee might feel bad about it, but it's only one person acting as a plonker in a sea of many. </TelevisionPopPsychiatrist>
>The expectation that upon being so soundly chastised, the kill-filed >individuals will see the light and mend their ways?
>Surely not....
It never stopped Mancini McElwaine Speedbump arTHra McGatney <#include "and-the-rest.k">
>RFD: alt.announce.killfile
Unfortunately, I have a bleak vision of the future wherein alt.announce.killfile would contain 570 messages, all in one thread, labelled "*plonk*".
- spatch, so i'm a dystopian, so sue me -
-- tv's Spatch, MSTie #43790 and undisputed something-or-other Pick Up The Phone Booth and Die: http://www.javanet.com/~spatula/booth.html "DRIVING DOWN HIGHWAY 40 IN MY BIG OL' PICKUP TRUUCK!" - Brak "Every day they get more violent, every day they get more nude." - Peter Cook
>>Dr. Vulis was behind ell...@netcom.com, who did various abusive things, >>like newgrouping unwanted groups and cancelling thousands of articles >>while pretending to be associated with Chris Lewis/John Milburn, in >>order to cast a shadow on their services. Now that he was discovered >>and booted from Netcom, he's trying to blame his own net-abuse on >>Dave Laurence, based on evidence he created himself.
>>I nominate Dr. Vulis as kook of the month this month.
>>Rob
>A warranted nomination, perhaps. However, with only 9 days left in the month, >it may be hard for him to build up the kind of vote base he deserves. Perhaps >waiting until June is in order.
Well, nominations can be made at any time, and the voting has been pretty darn strong for both Vilus and Lawrence (gads! a horserace!).
: There are no bogus groups! All the groups should be created on a personal : decision basis. Who's tale to rmgroup? Did I, as a person who uses newsgroups, : approve him to decide what's legal here? Did Dr. Vulis appointed Lawrence : to control Usenet? Go away man. A breaf history of the usenet (correct me if I'm wrong) peaple saw that the newsgroups where becoming horrably messy so the News admins got togethere and sead "This is not good there should be a system." So thay desidered that when ever a new newsgroup was to be created there was to be a vote, if the newsgroup passed the vote everyone would carry it else no-one would. So a group of vote takes was created (UVV). And the newsadmins decided that thay would honour all newgroup and rmgroup from them. The newsadmins decided that tale was an honarble person set out the laws he was to be govened by and everybody was happy. Well not every body a cuppole of malcontents where unhappy about this system and liked the old one, so thay created "alt" where everthing was was allowed.
[...] : Of course, tale's main argument for deleteing groups is they waste bandwidth. No his main argument is that he must follow the rules set down for him.
[...] : and it waste *your bandwidth* do not carry it. I don't give a damn! Let System : Administrators choose what they want to carry. Thay do thay choose to cary the ones that Tale newgroups. By allowing the system to be automatic thay save themselfs a lot of time and effort.
[...] : What the hell, I nominate the whole Cabal team as the bloody kooks of : the year and century. There is no Cabal.
-- If Prince can call himself an unpronounceable symbol why can't I? Please excuse my spelling as I am agraphic. dform...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Its Lucky to be Ducky "Like be one with your oneness"-Shirley McLoon "I don't know Tommy"-Chucky
In article <Pine.OSF.3.92.960524005422.17159C-100...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>, Michael Warner <war...@wsunix.wsu.edu> wrote:
>On 20 May 1996, Michael Hucka wrote:
>> *plonk*
>> Whoppee! Another one!
>> I'm having fun.
>Just out of curiosity, in the spirit of cultural inquiry, is there a >rationale for the announcement of kill-file actions?
Yes--the purpose is to encourage others to do so--those who publically *plonk* never really do so--in fact more often than not they become obsessed with the one they claim to have killfiled. Some have actually publically killfiled me over a half dozen times and t they're still following up on my posts!
>The expectation that upon being so soundly chastised, the kill-filed >individuals will see the light and mend their ways?
>: There are no bogus groups! All the groups should be created on a personal >: decision basis. Who's tale to rmgroup? Did I, as a person who uses newsgroups, >: approve him to decide what's legal here? Did Dr. Vulis appointed Lawrence >: to control Usenet? Go away man. > A breaf history of the usenet (correct me if I'm wrong) peaple >saw that the newsgroups where becoming horrably messy so the News admins >got togethere and sead > "This is not good there should be a system."
yes, there should be one. The question is, which one?
>So thay desidered that when ever a new newsgroup was to be created there was >to be a vote, if the newsgroup passed the vote everyone would carry it >else no-one would.
Not a good idea. What if 100 people want to create comp.be-box.advocacy or comp.be-box.misc, for example, and 200 people do not want it? The group doesn't pass CFV. And the users of Be-box architecture are deprived of their group just because UNIX and Windowz users who hates PowerPC computers (Be-box is partially PPC-based) got together to vote NO. Another problem is that anybody can create 50 fake users on his system and send 50 votes; then tell 20 friends who will also send thier votes just because they are friends although they'll never use be-box (they don't even know what it is). Want an example from the real world? When soc.culture.russian.moderated was voted for, among the voters I found lots of non-fingerable, non-tracerouted, "non-nslookupable" addresses. UUCP? Fake? You never know.
> So a group of vote takes was created (UVV). And the newsadmins >decided that thay would honour all newgroup and rmgroup from them. The >newsadmins decided that tale was an honarble person set out the laws he >was to be govened by and everybody was happy.
Power spoils people. Lawrence is a *honourable* person?? Don't make us laugh!
> Well not every body a cuppole of malcontents where unhappy about this >system and liked the old one, so thay created "alt" where everthing was >was allowed.
The system Dr. Grubor is suggesting to establish, gives you more freedom of speech than in "severely" moderated groups and less anarchy than there's currently in alt* hierarchy.
>: Of course, tale's main argument for deleteing groups is they waste bandwidth. >No his main argument is that he must follow the rules set down for him. >: and it waste *your bandwidth* do not carry it. I don't give a damn! Let System >: Administrators choose what they want to carry. >Thay do thay choose to cary the ones that Tale newgroups. By allowing >the system to be automatic thay save themselfs a lot of time and effort.
More and more system administrators must say NO to Cabal. Lawrence's days are over. He might use the power to decide for others what groups they are to have, but he abused this power.
>: What the hell, I nominate the whole Cabal team as the bloody kooks of >: the year and century. >There is no Cabal.
You know what I mean by "Cabal", don't you?
--
please send e-mail to the official self-appointed Usenet Kook of the Month volunteer votetaker:
On Thu, 23 May 1996, Charles Oriez wrote: > A warranted nomination, perhaps. However, with only 9 days left in the month, > it may be hard for him to build up the kind of vote base he deserves.
As a kook with legacy surpassing most others' combined, he's got the voter base. It's just something that slipped thru the cracks - many of us believed that he must have gotten voted in a long time ago (I am still getting letters saying so, but this doesn't seem to be the case).
- -- Zoli fek...@bc.edu, keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/> <'finger hungarian-faq-poin...@www.hix.com'> KC2: (NAME_WITHELD+)X2 (Grubor+)*2 (Fomin+++)/3 (cjames++)*3 Iatskovski-+ (Petersen--)/2 Personal PGP: 0x3B339A21 = AF 35 25 A2 FA 65 AC E5 48 91 AD 42 6C 84 4B 05
In article <31A19888.6...@ix.netcom.com>, Vince Gambino <vgambin...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Grow up , boy! : : And when you do, use your real name!
you could call him billy.
: Until then , : : Goodby Wotan-boy!
>oh billy, didn't you also threaten to kill me? Why yes I did. --wmccl...@gmu.edu <3j0uq3$...@portal.gmu.edu>
"If I saw you, the first thing I would do would be to geld you." -wmccl...@osf1.gmu.edu (Bill McClatchie) <3i15dp$...@portal.gmu.edu>
"It made as much sense as you assine alterations. Actually, it made a little bit more sense since this was mildly amusing. ...And if this is the first alteration of mine you have noticed, you are even more dense that I origonally thought." -William J. McClatchie, <3h3luh$...@portal.gmu.edu> explaining why he forged.
>: There are no bogus groups! All the groups should be created on a personal >: decision basis. Who's tale to rmgroup? Did I, as a person who uses newsgroups, >: approve him to decide what's legal here? Did Dr. Vulis appointed Lawrence >: to control Usenet? Go away man. > A breaf history of the usenet (correct me if I'm wrong) peaple >saw that the newsgroups where becoming horrably messy so the News admins >got togethere and sead > "This is not good there should be a system." >So thay desidered that when ever a new newsgroup was to be created there was >to be a vote, if the newsgroup passed the vote everyone would carry it >else no-one would. > So a group of vote takes was created (UVV). And the newsadmins >decided that thay would honour all newgroup and rmgroup from them. The >newsadmins decided that tale was an honarble person set out the laws he >was to be govened by and everybody was happy. > Well not every body a cuppole of malcontents where unhappy about this >system and liked the old one, so thay created "alt" where everthing was >was allowed.
But there is another issue being ignored (esp. since NSF is no longer in the middle).
That is the issue of "common carrier" like in the telephone companies. They MUST carry anything offered for transport unless ordered by a court.
UUnet wants the best of both worlds, being exempt from copyright/libel/other actions that by carrying news they might be liable for if they were not a common carrier but they also want to set policy (through tale - if it weren't tale it would be another employee) as to what is "proper" and will be "allowed" to be carried.
And they have the gaul to mask this as "just trying to run an orderly operation."
I am not opposed to most of what has grown up on the net for proceedures, only in the arbitary actions of a few and the sometimes "godlike" pronnouncements from on high that retro-actively attempt to change things around when they are acting without prior discussion. (The thread about alt.music.+live+ for example)
{talk.abortion mercifully dropped} On Thu, 23 May 1996 the forger formerly known as Vlad Petersen (or someone
impersonating him) wrote: > [samples of illegal cancels
Oh, my irony-meter just went boink (despite your mispillink rmgroup for cancel above) ;-(. Just how many accounts have you lost yet due to your rogue cancels? - - -- Zoli fek...@bc.edu, keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/> <'finger hungarian-faq-poin...@www.hix.com'> KC2: (NAME_WITHELD+)X2 (Grubor+)*2 (Fomin+++)/3 (cjames++)*3 Iatskovski-+ (Petersen--)/2 Personal PGP: 0x3B339A21 = AF 35 25 A2 FA 65 AC E5 48 91 AD 42 6C 84 4B 05
soundb...@sound-by-design.com (Allen Schaaf) writes: >UUnet wants the best of both worlds, being exempt from copyright/libel/other >actions that by carrying news they might be liable for if they were not a >common carrier but they also want to set policy (through tale - if it weren't >tale it would be another employee) as to what is "proper" and will be >"allowed" to be carried.
UUNet does not want to run Usenet. UUNet merely has an employee that helps take care of Usenet, by accurately reporting the results of a commonly agreed upon voting system.
>>UUnet wants the best of both worlds, being exempt from copyright/libel/other >>actions that by carrying news they might be liable for if they were not a >>common carrier but they also want to set policy (through tale - if it weren't >>tale it would be another employee) as to what is "proper" and will be >>"allowed" to be carried.
That's right. They issue rmgroups for forums where UUNet gets flamed. Even AOL carries alt.aol-sucks. UUNet sucks more than AOL.
> UUNet does not want to run Usenet. UUNet merely has an employee >that helps take care of Usenet, by accurately reporting the results of a >commonly agreed upon voting system.
soc.sex passed the vote, but UUNet refused to create it.
soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir did not pass the vote, according to its votetaker, but UUNet created it anyway.
UUNet considers itself the final authority, and the vote as only "advisory".
UUNet states that it wants to run Usenet in their 10Q filing with the SEC.
> That's pretty much the whole story.
Please send e-mail to mleg...@wetware.com and say:
: In article <Pine.OSF.3.92.960524005422.17159C-100...@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>, : Michael Warner <war...@wsunix.wsu.edu> wrote: : >On 20 May 1996, Michael Hucka wrote: : > : >> : >> *plonk* : >> : >> Whoppee! Another one! : >> : >> I'm having fun. : > : > : >Just out of curiosity, in the spirit of cultural inquiry, is there a : >rationale for the announcement of kill-file actions? : >
: Yes--the purpose is to encourage others to do so--those who : publically *plonk* never really do so--in fact more often than not : they become obsessed with the one they claim to have killfiled. Some : have actually publically killfiled me over a half dozen times and t : they're still following up on my posts!
: >The expectation that upon being so soundly chastised, the kill-filed : >individuals will see the light and mend their ways? : > : >Surely not....
Keep in mind that killfiled posts will still be seen by the killfilers in other posters' followups. The killfilers may be unable to resist the temtation to post additional followups. I killfile mostly to save myself the trouble of stumbling onto and wasting time reading posts that, from experience, are going to be worthless to me. -- feus...@netcom.com Dave Feustel N9MYI - NRA Life Fort Wayne, IN For PGP Public Key, finger feus...@netcom.com 219-483-1857 Or else access http://www.mixi.net/~feustel/
Allen Schaaf <soundb...@sound-by-design.com> wrote:
>But there is another issue being ignored (esp. since NSF is no longer in the >middle).
>That is the issue of "common carrier" like in the telephone companies. They >MUST carry anything offered for transport unless ordered by a court.
>UUnet wants the best of both worlds, being exempt from copyright/libel/other >actions that by carrying news they might be liable for if they were not a >common carrier but they also want to set policy (through tale - if it weren't >tale it would be another employee) as to what is "proper" and will be >"allowed" to be carried.
>And they have the gaul to mask this as "just trying to run an orderly >operation."
Yes--what bothers me most about UUNET/David Lawrence is that they are taking advantage of being built in as a software default from the days prior to them going public--they are essentially trying to gain a monopoly on Newsgroup creation, removal, moderation, etc. They are obligate morally and legally to compete with--not control--the primary product of the Usenet--newsgroups. Fortuantly more and more providers are now rejecting UUNET and David Lawrences rmgrups including the largest provider in the world--AOL.
>I am not opposed to most of what has grown up on the net for proceedures, >only in the arbitary actions of a few and the sometimes "godlike" >pronnouncements from on high that retro-actively attempt to change things >around when they are acting without prior discussion. (The thread about >alt.music.+live+ for example)
Tim Skirvin <tskir...@uiuc.edu> wrote: >soundb...@sound-by-design.com (Allen Schaaf) writes:
>>UUnet wants the best of both worlds, being exempt from copyright/libel/other >>actions that by carrying news they might be liable for if they were not a >>common carrier but they also want to set policy (through tale - if it weren't >>tale it would be another employee) as to what is "proper" and will be >>"allowed" to be carried.
> UUNet does not want to run Usenet. UUNet merely has an employee >that helps take care of Usenet, by accurately reporting the results of a >commonly agreed upon voting system.
Nonsense. I've a collection of David Lawrence/UUNETs messages sent out--rmgroups, etc. He clearly states he is acting on behalf of UUNET.
> That's pretty much the whole story.
Dishonest as usual time. Please vote for David C Lawrence as kook of the month.
Michael Warner <war...@wsunix.wsu.edu> writes: > On 20 May 1996, Michael Hucka wrote: > The expectation that upon being so soundly chastised, the kill-filed > individuals will see the light and mend their ways?
It does alert other people to potential subjects to killfile.
> RFD: alt.announce.killfile
There is/was a group called alt.killfiles. An excellent idea: share kill file ideas, subjects, patterns, etc. Oddly enough, in a matter of weeks after the group's creation, it became a flame pit. Odd that such a great group would itself require the cleverest of killfiles to read.
-- "Don't, however, expect me or any of the five billion other people on this planet to swallow the UNIX religion anytime near... life is way too short." - Bob Allisat
>>>UUnet wants the best of both worlds, being exempt from copyright/libel/other >>>actions that by carrying news they might be liable for if they were not a >>>common carrier but they also want to set policy (through tale - if it weren't >>>tale it would be another employee) as to what is "proper" and will be >>>"allowed" to be carried.
>That's right. They issue rmgroups for forums where UUNet gets flamed. >Even AOL carries alt.aol-sucks. UUNet sucks more than AOL.
>> UUNet does not want to run Usenet. UUNet merely has an employee >>that helps take care of Usenet, by accurately reporting the results of a >>commonly agreed upon voting system.
>soc.sex passed the vote, but UUNet refused to create it.
>soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir did not pass the vote, according to >its votetaker, but UUNet created it anyway.
>UUNet considers itself the final authority, and the vote as only "advisory".
>UUNet states that it wants to run Usenet in their 10Q filing with the SEC.
Their television advertising is quite telling. I saw the following recently in one of their promotions:
"We are only concerned with your businesses needs" ^^^^ Of course, many of us know what THAT means.
Allen Schaaf (soundb...@sound-by-design.com) wrote:
: But there is another issue being ignored (esp. since NSF is no longer in the : middle).
: That is the issue of "common carrier" like in the telephone companies. They : MUST carry anything offered for transport unless ordered by a court.
Except for one thing: You don't get to be a common carrier just by declaring yourself to be one. Phone companies have this status because congress decreed it. It may be that UUNET would like to be a common carrier, but at present they are not, and are thus potentially liable for what they transmit.
Also, do you have even a single example of UUNET refusing traffic? They wouldn't even boot Serdar Argic, arguably the most annoying person/bot in the history of Usenet, even after years of complaints and requests. The newsgroup control messages are advisory; if you don't like them, don't follow them.
: UUnet wants the best of both worlds, being exempt from copyright/libel/other : actions that by carrying news they might be liable for if they were not a : common carrier but they also want to set policy (through tale - if it weren't : tale it would be another employee) as to what is "proper" and will be : "allowed" to be carried.
Get a clue. Lawrence's actions with regard to newsgroup creation are not part of UUNET policy; he does it on his own, and they let him use their machines to do it. It's not "policy" so much as it is "opinion", since every site that chooses is entirely free to ignore Lawrence completely. Neither Lawrence nor UUNET is forcing his group creation and removal messages on anyone; if people don't like it, they don't have to listen. Dave Hayes is aparently already doing this. There is no authority; there is no control; there is only a lot of suggestions that most people follow.
: And they have the gaul to mask this as "just trying to run an orderly : operation."
When have you heard this stated as UUNET policy? Could it be that you're just imagining this?
-- Tom Harrington --------- t...@rmii.com --------- http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph --------==========> KOOK CODE: (Grubor+)*2 Fomin+ KC: 3 <==========-------- The trouble is that you haven't added anything except 'it won't work'. That means you know what does work. Okay. Let's hear it. -Shawn "logic" Berry (sbe...@ivory.trentu.ca) ---> Visit CONSPIRACY ONLINE: http://rainbow.rmii.com/~tph/bunker.html <----
|
