(OT) A Little Perspective
Brian Hampton
normally do. This was partly a result of a private conversation I had
with Brooks Simpson, who made some rather insightful observations
about the group, its history, its current tendencies. This discussion
was the result of a mild disagreement he and I had. Like gentlemen
do, we took (well, he was kind enough to instigate it) a potentially
volatile subject into private and found we agreed more than we
disagreed. The devil, as usual, was in the details.
After this, I made a conscious effort to contribute more to this group
than I had in some time. That is, I looked for subjects on which I
could comment and remain clearly on-topic, clearly civil, clearly
meaningful. For several weeks I don't think I failed in that mission.
I had a few distinct disagreements with certain individuals about
specific personalities and subjects that threatened to go off kilter,
and while these tangents were not strictly topical -- that is, they
were the result of topical discussions and related to them, but not
strictly associated with the war itself -- they were mostly civil, if
pointed.
At the same time, without any behind-the-scenes cooperation between
us, several others began making similar contributions. One could and
I think should conclude several people were inspired and thus
motivated to contribute. For several days this group became almost
like it once was, that is a group that inspired me and others to
download messages multiple times per day so that I did not miss out on
a particular line of discussion that was developing. Brooks himself
had much to do with this. His submission of several questions on
which many of us commented was the start of it. Those who chose to
offer insightful commentary and points from which interesting
discussions could emerge continued it.
Brooks, Brad Meyer, Raymond O'Hara, Bob Tiernan, Dennis Maggard, Dave
Smith, James Epperson, Walt Appel, Robert Willett, Bruce Smith, Bert,
Dimitri, scott s., Scribe -- I'm sure I left some people out, but
those are the names I remember clearly, and I'm writing this without
consulting archives -- carried on genuine discussions centered on the
topic of this group. I'm also not including certain people who seemed
to show up because the group was running on a more even keel. Their
emergence was very welcome from my perspective, but for this, I am
focusing on those who started, continued, and inspired the
discussions.
And then it all fell apart. When? Why? Who? Check that list of
names, organize your messages by date, and do a little exercise in
compare and contrast. I'll leave the rest up to the reader to decide.
As Brooks and I discussed, it was not the result of any one
individual, but a group of individuals who seem bent on using this
group to carry on personal squabbles they likely would not have the
guts to continue in the "real world." I do, however, want to make
note of one thing: Look at those names again. Compare it to the list
of names being used by others as examples of those who are bad
influences. Ask yourself this question: Who really belongs here?
Of course I realize nothing of what I've said here means anything in
the long run, and those it is intended to give pause likely won't
cease from their steam-rolling trip into baseless nonsense. That's
not the point. The point is a personal one. This group once meant
something to me. It no longer does. I enjoy it when things are like
they were a few weeks back. I hate it when it is like it is now. So,
I'll let it be what it will be and stop bothering to try so hard or be
troubled so much..
--
"Strength and Wisdom are Not Opposing Values" - WJ Clinton
W. G. Davis
"Brian Hampton" <bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3vobg05beuoie9t92...@4ax.com...
> Lately I've made more of a study of this newsgroup's dynamics than I
> normally do. This was partly a result of a private conversation I had
> with Brooks Simpson, who made some rather insightful observations
> about the group, its history, its current tendencies. This discussion
> was the result of a mild disagreement he and I had. Like gentlemen
> do, we took (well, he was kind enough to instigate it) a potentially
> volatile subject into private and found we agreed more than we
> disagreed. The devil, as usual, was in the details.
>
> After this, I made a conscious effort to contribute more to this group
> than I had in some time. That is, I looked for subjects on which I
> could comment and remain clearly on-topic, clearly civil,
Not clearly civil
clearly
> meaningful. For several weeks I don't think I failed in that mission.
> I had a few distinct disagreements with certain individuals about
> specific personalities and subjects that threatened to go off kilter,
didn't think you gave a rats ass about that!
> and while these tangents were not strictly topical -- that is, they
> were the result of topical discussions and related to them, but not
> strictly associated with the war itself -- they were mostly civil, if
> pointed.
But off topic! Just like epperson the Ethicless's thread.
>
> At the same time, without any behind-the-scenes cooperation between
> us, several others began making similar contributions. One could and
> I think should conclude several people were inspired and thus
> motivated to contribute.
Oh, spare us, Brian. There's already enough bull shit flowing on this newsgroup from you and the other moderators. You're turning this into the Augean Stables!
For several days this group became almost
> like it once was, that is a group that inspired me and others to
> download messages multiple times per day so that I did not miss out on
> a particular line of discussion that was developing.
You mean traffic was so missing on the moderated group you and Jim and Mike decided to come over here and stir things up again.
Brooks himself
> had much to do with this. His submission of several questions on
> which many of us commented was the start of it. Those who chose to
> offer insightful commentary and points from which interesting
> discussions could emerge continued it.
Boy, you are really reaching now. That was weeks ago.
>
> Brooks, Brad Meyer, Raymond O'Hara, Bob Tiernan, Dennis Maggard, Dave
> Smith, James Epperson, Walt Appel, Robert Willett, Bruce Smith, Bert,
> Dimitri, scott s., Scribe -- I'm sure I left some people out,
Oh, pointedly.
but
> those are the names I remember clearly, and I'm writing this without
> consulting archives -- carried on genuine discussions centered on the
> topic of this group. I'm also not including certain people who seemed
> to show up because the group was running on a more even keel. Their
> emergence was very welcome from my perspective, but for this, I am
> focusing on those who started, continued, and inspired the
> discussions.
>
> And then it all fell apart. When?
When epperson the Ethicless started a stupid and wholly off topic thread. I shouldn't tell you this, but the SCV IS off topic.
Why?
Because he wasn't generating any traffic on the moderated group and you were all bored to tears.
Who?
Epperson the Ethicless.
Check that list of
> names, organize your messages by date, and do a little exercise in
> compare and contrast. I'll leave the rest up to the reader to decide.
Oh, and they do, Brian, they do.
> As Brooks and I discussed, it was not the result of any one
> individual,
You are correct. It was Epperson the Ethicless, Saddam Huey, Denise the Maggot, and Scibller the Racist who jumped depserately into Epperson the Ethicless's thread and ran the Hell out of it. But, I forget...you don't give a rats ass, do you. That's why you are making this post.
but a group of individuals who seem bent on using this
> group to carry on personal squabbles they likely would not have the
> guts to continue in the "real world."
Says who. Telling lies again Brian? You don't know squat. And you just proved it again.
I do, however, want to make
> note of one thing: Look at those names again. Compare it to the list
> of names being used by others as examples of those who are bad
> influences. Ask yourself this question: Who really belongs here?
You obviously don't, nor does Jum, Tiernan, Huey, Denise, Scribbler, barry, Furlan.
The fiunny thing about the moderators is this: If it is on topic for the Moderated group it is on topic for this group. When we can see it there, we can see it here. And the reverse is true. What is off topic there, is off topic here.
I don't see you discussing the SCV on the moderated group, Brian.
>
> Of course I realize nothing of what I've said here means anything in
> the long run,
Mainly because it is simply dishonest, disingenuous and patronizing.
and those it is intended to give pause likely won't
> cease from their steam-rolling trip into baseless nonsense.
Try this Brian. Post civilly on topic. You have NOT done so. Just tonight, you posted a personal troll. And you posted it with no provocation from anyoine here.
All anyone needs to see is your personal posting history to see the lie you yourself put to your post here.
That's
> not the point. The point is a personal one. This group once meant
> something to me. It no longer does.
Good,, don't let the door hit you in the rat's ass on the way out!
I enjoy it when things are like
> they were a few weeks back. I hate it when it is like it is now. So,
> I'll let it be what it will be and stop bothering to try so hard or be
> troubled so much..
Maybe you can find peace elsewhere. With your attitude, you will NOT find it here.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"Nothing stings so fiercely as the truth!"
--W. G. Jeff Davis
Brian Hampton
<je...@pa7MAPSON9th.org> wrote:
[snip]
>The fiunny thing about the moderators is this: If it is on topic for the Moderated
> group it is on topic for this group.
No, here's the thing. Nothing that has been posted in this group by
those who moderate the the SOC group in recent weeks would have been
rejected in that group. Of course I'm not including my recent
comments to you since I've just recently decided that if you're going
to insist on being a terminal idiot, I'll play your game with you. I
have other places I can go to dicuss subjects intelligently with
reasonable people, and I don't really care what happens here as long
as you and a few others are still around. You and those others (and
I'm not naming them because I didn't name you either in my previous
message, but if they choose to speak up in response to any of this,
I'll pile on them as well) have made this group trash.
When in Rome...
Now, the insane rant you tried to post to the moderated group about
one of the moderators -- that was certainly rejected. Of course you
knew it would be. Or did you make a "mistake" again? Yeah, I still
have those e-mails. I have a lot of e-mails I've kept for a very long
time.
>All anyone needs to see is your personal posting history to see the lie you yourself put to your post here.
Oh do spare me.
I'll stack my posting history against your imbecilic rants any damn
day of the week. Bring. It. On.
>Good,, don't let the door hit you in the rat's ass on the way out!
Oh, no. You miss my point. I'm not leaving. I just don't care. I'm
here for the long haul. I no longer give a crap about trying to make
this group a pleasant place to be and so will not exert any extra
effort to do so. In practical terms, this means I'm no longer
ignoring you and biting my tongue when you pretend to own the place.
I have no compulsion to get into a never-ending shouting match with
you, but my filters are off, and the bullshit detector is on. I've
been lumped with you merely for responding to you in a rational
manner, so what's the point of even trying to be a decent person?
None. So, here I am, guy. Down at your level. Hit me.
Now, why don't you just cut to the chase and generate one of your
patented ALL CAPS rants for me. You're going to need it.
>Maybe you can find peace elsewhere. With your attitude, you will NOT find it here.
No, with your attitude, which is little different than a child pissed
off and jealous that that the cool kids won't play with him.
There are people in this group who like you or at least tolerate you.
I don't get that, but whatever. Takes all kinds. But most of the
people that made this group what is was for so long hate your guts
because of what you, personally, did to it. Not all of them are
willing to say it so openly, for many reasons, some good, some not so
good. But they feel it. You know it. It pisses you off. And what's
funny is that we know that too.
Have a nice day.
W. G. Davis
"Brian Hampton" <bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9atbg0thu2hrom5j2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 01:38:10 -0400, "W. G. Davis"
> <je...@pa7MAPSON9th.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >The fiunny thing about the moderators is this: If it is on topic for the Moderated
> > group it is on topic for this group.
>
> No, here's the thing. Nothing that has been posted in this group by
> those who moderate the the SOC group in recent weeks would have been
> rejected in that group.
Show us the SCV thread, and if it was on topic, then why didn't Jim post it there.
Forget it Brian. Your position is indefensible. So is his.
Of course I'm not including my recent
> comments to you since I've just recently decided that if you're going
> to insist on being a terminal idiot, I'll play your game with you. I
> have other places I can go to dicuss subjects intelligently with
> reasonable people,
Then stop gassing about it and go. May you find fulfillment there. I wish you nothing but the best, and I mean that sincerely. As long as its there and not here. You are not honest...with others, or with yourself.
and I don't really care what happens here as long
> as you and a few others are still around. You and those others (and
> I'm not naming them because I didn't name you either in my previous
> message, but if they choose to speak up in response to any of this,
> I'll pile on them as well) have made this group trash.
I thought you didn't care? See? Another lie, eh Brian, in a sea of lies.
>
> When in Rome...
This is not Rome.
>
> Now, the insane rant you tried to post to the moderated group about
> one of the moderators -- that was certainly rejected.
But why, Brian, it was no more off topic than what Jim posted here, or your troll earlier tonight? Indefensible.
Of course you
> knew it would be. Or did you make a "mistake" again? Yeah, I still
> have those e-mails. I have a lot of e-mails I've kept for a very long
> time.
As do I. No, I made no mistake. I posted it on purpose. One difference between us, Brian: I don't lie. I've already caught you in a few tonight, a couple already in this post.
>
> >All anyone needs to see is your personal posting history to see the lie you yourself put to your post here.
>
> Oh do spare me.
No, I'll not spare you Brian. Who the hell do you think you are to get a free pass you arrogant ass!
>
> I'll stack my posting history against your imbecilic rants any damn
> day of the week. Bring. It. On.
You mean your trolls, and your deconstruction" posts? Your lies and whoppers that you've told? That you chose to take something personal when it was not intended to be personal, and made a huge thing out of it for years here? That posting record, Brian?
>
> >Good,, don't let the door hit you in the rat's ass on the way out!
>
> Oh, no. You miss my point.
I miss nothing.
I'm not leaving. I just don't care. I'm
> here for the long haul. I no longer give a crap about trying to make
> this group a pleasant place to be and so will not exert any extra
> effort to do so.
An implied lie. You never cared. This was your personal playground, and you are still trying to make the rules.
You aren't qualified to do that. You lie too much. You troll, like you did tonight. And as I have been pointing out for wuite a while, you are one of the moderators who comes here to stir up troule, exactly as you did tonight. That's some posting record, Brian. Who is it you think you impress with this sdog and pony show you're trying to run here?
In practical terms, this means I'm no longer
> ignoring you and biting my tongue when you pretend to own the place.
Making up another lie, Brian. I have never claimed to own this newsgroup any more than anyone else, except those who seek to damage it. You, on the other hand, thing and claim you are God's gift to usenet, and arbiter of all things newsgroup! Guess again Bubby!
> I have no compulsion to get into a never-ending shouting match with
> you,
Of course you do! That why you came here tonight to post your troll! Another lie, Brian? What arte we up to now, a half-dozen? Why would you try this? You simply are not equipped for it.
but my filters are off, and the bullshit detector is on.
No, your filters have not been on. That is another lie. And the bullshit is on, that's for sure. Your hwhole post is riddled with it. You're stinking the place up again, Brian.
You might want to start by being honest with yourself. You can't be honest with anyone else until you do that. Try it.
I've
> been lumped with you merely for responding to you in a rational
> manner, so what's the point of even trying to be a decent person?
You? When did you try to be a decent person? You are decent only to your friends, and never to anyone who challenges you. Your technique is to deconstruct your "opponent's" posts and parse them down to the most minute detail, long past any semblence of meaning from the other person.
You are, simply put, not a nice person, rather you are one of the nastiest people on this newsgroup. Absolutely and without a doubt the nastiest.
You have not a hint of a clue what nice is.
> None. So, here I am, guy. Down at your level. Hit me.
No, you seek your own level and drag those around you down.
>
> Now, why don't you just cut to the chase and generate one of your
> patented ALL CAPS rants for me. You're going to need it.
Why would I need it, Brian. Are you intending a campaign of off topic posts?
>
> >Maybe you can find peace elsewhere. With your attitude, you will NOT find it here.
>
> No, with your attitude, which is little different than a child pissed
> off and jealous that that the cool kids won't play with him.
Ahhh, a glimmer of honesty. Brian admits the "cool kids" won't play with me. I'm crushed. Oh heavens! What ever shall I do! The "cool kids" won't play with me. You, Brian? I guess you're saying your one of the "cool kids". What in the world makes you think I want anything to do with you or the other "cool kids". Ain't none of you wroth a fart in a windstorm! I wouldn't be causght dead playing with the likes of you. And I'm not playing now. I am deadly serious. You far, far over-estimate your own value here. You don't know right from wrong, a clear and simple trait missing in so many who try to post here. You have no moral compass. You make up and tell lies about people.
But you are one of the "cool kids"! How simply arrogant!
> There are people in this group who like you or at least tolerate you.
Frankly my dear, I don't much give a damn for your assessment. It is meaningless. You've exposed yourself up above, and to all the world to see that you are exactly what I've said you are. But you don't give a rat's ass, you're a "cool kid"!
> I don't get that, but whatever.
Of course you don't! I already told you that you don't have a clue what nice is. You've been nasty to folks here as long as I can remember posting here. And you've been dishonest that long, too.
Takes all kinds. But most of the
> people that made this group what is was for so long hate your guts
> because of what you, personally, did to it.
Of course they do, and I am frankly quite proud of that. They made it into a dumping ground for the moderators. The moderators came here to play their games and post crap they couldn't post on the soc. group.
Not any more. No more! This is a Civil War group. It has a charter. If you post in violation of the charter, I will let you know. Keep doing it and I will expose you for the weak, ethicless, morally bankrupt person that you are. Its that simple Brian. Since neither you, nor Epperson the Ethicless, or Furlan have the self discipline, restraint and common sense to keep from soiling this newsgroup you force me to be your conscience. I have friends here. And I have enemies here. People don't like their feet being held to the fire when they've misbehaved. And I give a lot of leeway to folks who post here...until they do not get the message.
There is no excuse for what you and the other "cool kids" have done to this newsgroup.
It is no longer your private playground. This exists as a non-moderated alternative to the soc. group. Treat it with the respect it deserves and you will live in peace.
Not all of them are
> willing to say it so openly, for many reasons, some good, some not so
> good. But they feel it. You know it. It pisses you off.
You really think that pisses me off? See, Brian, you really don't know squat! And you know even less about me. I could care less who I piss off. Post according to the charter and you post in peace. Lie, deceive, post off topic, and you do not post in peace. People make their own choices here, Brian. You don't make them for them any more.
You're a "cool kid" and they don't reign here any more. Get a grip. Live with it.
Want to know what really pisses me off, Brian? I'll tell you. It pisses me off when supposed adults don't have enough self respect to abide by the rules. When they display a selfish bent for disrespectfully abusing the rules, and continue to do so even after (at first) gentle proding to re-evaluate, and when that fails, being told in no uncertain terms that their posting behavior is unacceptable. Like when someone comes in here cold and trolls for a fight, like you did tonight.
You get no free pass because you are a "cool kid" Brian. You get held to a higher standard.
If you can't cut it...
And what's
> funny is that we know that too.
Well, if you are wrong, then you don't know, do you? Now you're just talking to make yourself sound like one of the "cool kids" again. "We know, too!" The trouble is, you aren't "cool", your're not a "kid", so you have no excuse for your nasty behavior and your lies; and YOU DON'T KNOW SQUAT!
> Have a nice day.
Every day is a nice day, Brian. I have a great home, a lovely family, wonderful friends, both on this newsgroup and off. Life is good. Life is wonderful inspite of what you and the "cool kids" purposely do to this newsgroup.
Sorry for the letdown, but you ain't in charge here any more, no matter how badly you want it to be "like it used to be" (when you were in charge!).
Here's a chance for you Brian. A challenge, if you will. You own as much of this newsgroup as I do. What are you going to do to make this a peaceful, productive informational, on topic newsgroup?
Hugh Lawson
> After this, I made a conscious effort to contribute more to this group
> than I had in some time. That is, I looked for subjects on which I
> could comment and remain clearly on-topic, clearly civil, clearly
> meaningful.
I noticed that Brian, and appreciated it. Your posts exemplified what
I'd like to see more of.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
James F. Epperson
> Show us the SCV thread, and if it was on topic, then why didn't Jim post
> it there.
Lots of reasons. First, I simply reject your notion that what is
on/off-topic in one group is on/off-topic in the other. (Consider
two taverns: One is upscale and tony, the other is a student dive bar.
The notions of acceptable behavior would be vastly different between
the two, even though they have essentially the same menu.) Second, I
wanted a response from people like Allen and Dennis, and they do not
inhabit the moderated group much. Third, I knew I would reach a wider
audience over here, and I wanted the information to have as wide
a dissemination as possible.
[large snip]
> Not any more. No more! This is a Civil War group. It has a charter.
> If you post in violation of the charter, I will let you know.
Who died and appointed you the keeper of all that is on-topic? What
gives you the right to abuse the entire community over your standards
of on/off-topic? Where is your authorization?
I've already explained, many times, that I happen to think discussions
of the sort you are complaining about are on-topic for this NG. I think
they are within the bounds of the charter. So learn to deal with some
disagreement.
[snip]
> There is no excuse for what you and the other "cool kids" have done to
> this newsgroup.
The only person who has harmed this NG is you, Jeff. Neither Brian
nor I have ever flooded the group with campaigns of scatological
invective. Neither Brian nor I have ever tried to drive off other
participants by following up their every post with a barrage of
insults. Those are your tactics, and they are shameful.
JFE
James F. Epperson
> You mean traffic was so missing on the moderated group you and Jim and
> Mike decided to come over here and stir things up again.
This is one of the more bizarre theories I've seen put forth. For
the record, I don't give a damn about traffic volume on either
group compared to the other. It doesn't mean a damn thing to me.
JFE
W. G. Davis
"James F. Epperson" <j...@ams.org> wrote in message news:3ee7efa6.04072...@posting.google.com...
SNIP OF OFF TOPIC IDIOCY THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CIVIL WAR!
READ THE CHARTER IDIOT!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"When looking for a clue as
to why something goes wrong,
never rule out sheer stupidity."
--Groucho Marx
W. G. Davis
"James F. Epperson" <j...@ams.org> wrote in message news:3ee7efa6.04072...@posting.google.com...
SNIP OF OFF TOPIC IDIOCY THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CIVIL WAR!
READ THE CHARTER IDIOT!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
W. G. Davis
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:87d62he...@desktop.xx.yy...
GET OUT NOW! STAY OUT! YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
-- Saddam "Red Huey" Lawson
December 18th, 2001
in message: <news:slrna1u60q....@localhost.localdomain>
Brian Hampton
> "W. G. Davis" <je...@pa7MAPSON9th.org> wrote
>>You mean traffic was so missing on the moderated group you and Jim and
>>Mike decided to come over here and stir things up again.
>
> This is one of the more bizarre theories I've seen put forth. For
> the record, I don't give a damn about traffic volume on either
> group compared to the other. It doesn't mean a damn thing to me.
It's so absurd I barely know how to react to it.
I sometimes barely realize which group I'm reading. The way I have
Agent set up to navigate these groups, I just read a long string of
messages starting at the top and working my way down. Often the only
clear indication I have I've even changed groups is the result of the
different set of people who post in them or sometimes because of a
thread I'm following closely and know to be in one other the other.
If there was some organized desire to generate traffic for the moderated
group, it'd be easy enough to do so. I don't see that it's all that
necessary. Hell, my life is easier when traffic is low over there and
I'm not having to wade through the predictable submissions by a very few
individuals who still try to sneak flames past us like it's some sort of
game. In any case, "stirring up trouble" in awcusa isn't even on the
list of things that might be done. That, as I said, is just absurd.
Scribe7716
> In any case, "stirring up trouble" in awcusa isn't even on the
>list of things that might be done. That, as I said, is just absurd.
>
"Stirring up trouble" in awcusa would, indeed, be the proverbial coals to
Newcastle. There are already enough troubles here to make Job give it up.
W. G. Davis
"Brian Hampton" <bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:LhvNc.16268$%p4.4302@okepread04...
> James F. Epperson wrote:
>
> > "W. G. Davis" <je...@pa7MAPSON9th.org> wrote
> >>You mean traffic was so missing on the moderated group you and Jim and
> >>Mike decided to come over here and stir things up again.
> >
> > This is one of the more bizarre theories I've seen put forth. For
> > the record, I don't give a damn about traffic volume on either
> > group compared to the other. It doesn't mean a damn thing to me.
>
> It's so absurd I barely know how to react to it.
It is absurd only because you say it is, eh "cool kid". Yet I have pointed out this pattern repeatedly over the past four months. So you go right ahead and keep calling it absurd if it makes you feel more like a "cool kid" to do so. It must be important to you.
>
> I sometimes barely realize which group I'm reading.
That much is obvious.
The way I have
> Agent set up to navigate these groups, I just read a long string of
> messages starting at the top and working my way down. Often the only
> clear indication I have I've even changed groups is the result of the
> different set of people who post in them or sometimes because of a
> thread I'm following closely and know to be in one other the other.
Maybe if you got a decent news reader you wouldn't have that problem. But you "cool kids" are traditionalists if nothing else, and are brand loyal to anything that existed before Microsoft came along.
>
> If there was some organized desire to generate traffic for the moderated
> group, it'd be easy enough to do so.
It IS easy. ANd you ARE doing it. Note how traffic there has picked up in the last day after going almost three days with nothing!
I don't see that it's all that
> necessary.
You are correct. Not only is it unneccesary, it is unethical.
Hell, my life is easier when traffic is low over there and
> I'm not having to wade through the predictable submissions by a very few
> individuals who still try to sneak flames past us like it's some sort of
> game. In any case, "stirring up trouble" in awcusa isn't even on the
> list of things that might be done. That, as I said, is just absurd.
Of course it is, Brian. And your record here makes your credibility so....so...hmmmm....doubtful?
--
Regards,
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"Evolution is a harsh mistress."
--anon
>
W. G. Davis
"Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040727122529...@mb-m05.aol.com...
SNIP OF SCRIBBLER'S DRIBBLINGS
GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP.
YOU AREN'T FIT TO POST HERE!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Brian Hampton
> Maybe if you got a decent news reader you wouldn't have that problem.
It's actually not a problem. I have it set up that way on purpose.
I've considered moving to Thunderbird, which is sort of an OE clone,
only without the bugs or massive security holes. That's what I'm using
right now, in fact. But, I don't like the limitations it places on
threading.
Anyway, you're the person who can't figure out word wrap.
> And your record here
As I said, bring it on, bud. My record against yours, message for
message, week for week, year for year.
W. G. Davis
"Brian Hampton" <bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:k5xNc.16270$%p4.7687@okepread04...
> W. G. Davis wrote:
>
> > Maybe if you got a decent news reader you wouldn't have that problem.
>
> It's actually not a problem. I have it set up that way on purpose.
Then stop complaining about it.
> I've considered moving to Thunderbird, which is sort of an OE clone,
> only without the bugs or massive security holes. That's what I'm using
> right now, in fact. But, I don't like the limitations it places on
> threading.
>
> Anyway, you're the person who can't figure out word wrap.
??? You have your setting wrong.
>
> > And your record here
>
> As I said, bring it on, bud. My record against yours, message for
> message, week for week, year for year.
Your record here is one of dishonesty, bullying, and arrogance. You are one of the "cool kids" remember?
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Brian Hampton
> Then stop complaining about it.
I wasn't complaining, dimwit.
> ??? You have your setting wrong.
Yes, you're right. I have my "read Davis' messages" setting all fouled up.
Actually, it's a setting you have in OE that causes it, and it's only
certain versions of OE. I know this because I played around with OE
trying to duplicate it to figure out just what it was since I didn't see
a pattern other than the OE X-Newsreader header. It doesn't show up in
your ALL-CAPS rants, but does in those messages you type out. I could
work around it, but I don't choose to because it is only your messages
and the occasional newbie that are affected.
> Your record here is one of dishonesty, bullying, and arrogance.
My record against yours. Build an argument. Work those brain cells.
I'm waiting.
W. G. Davis
"Brian Hampton" <bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:YvxNc.16272$%p4.1897@okepread04...
> W. G. Davis wrote:
>
> > Then stop complaining about it.
>
> I wasn't complaining, dimwit.
Indeed you were, you were lamenting the time it took to download all those messages.
Seems to me the dimwit is the one who doesn't rmember what he posts.
>
> > ??? You have your setting wrong.
>
> Yes, you're right. I have my "read Davis' messages" setting all fouled up.
No news there.
>
> Actually, it's a setting you have in OE that causes it, and it's only
> certain versions of OE. I know this because I played around with OE
> trying to duplicate it to figure out just what it was since I didn't see
> a pattern other than the OE X-Newsreader header. It doesn't show up in
> your ALL-CAPS rants, but does in those messages you type out. I could
> work around it, but I don't choose to because it is only your messages
> and the occasional newbie that are affected.
Poor baby. Complaining again. Seems that's all you ever do is complain. Not a good thing for one of the "cool kids".
>
> > Your record here is one of dishonesty, bullying, and arrogance.
>
> My record against yours. Build an argument. Work those brain cells.
> I'm waiting.
Anyone who can use google can see your record of dishonesty, bullying, and arrogance. Anyone with a single working brain cell can see the arrogance behind claimed membership in the "cool kids".
Unarguable, Brian. Sunk by your own words and posts. Your history is there for all to see.
I do hope you learn the efficacies of the options for setting line length at 80 versus 72 characters. Has as much to do with one's video settings than anything else.
You're the only person to ever complain about if Brian. Must be the only person it bothers.
2of3
JEFFY - YOU ARE SUCH A WASTE OF O2!!
"W. G. Davis" <je...@pa7MAPSON9th.org> wrote in message news:<Jv6dndw7x4l...@adelphia.com>...
> AND YOU HAVE BECOME THE VILLAGE IDIOT! GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP SCUMBAG!
> YOU HAVE NO MORAL INTELLECTUAL, OR ETHICAL STANDING TO POST HERE. YOU
> ARE FOSTERING THE PRESENCE OF A RACIST. CONSIDER WHAT THAT MAKES YOU.
> AFTER HAVING PASSED UP A CHANCE TO CLEAN UP YOUR ACT, YOUR CONTINUED
> FOSTERING OF THE PRESENCE OF A RACIST HERE LEADS ANYONE TO THE
> CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE A RACIST YOURSELF.
> "Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040727122529...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> SNIP OF SCRIBBLER'S DRIBBLINGS
> GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP.
> YOU AREN'T FIT TO POST HERE!
you aren't fit to breath the air on this good earth!!
> "Nothing stings so fiercely as when I abuse myself!"
> -- W G. Jeff Davis
Brad Meyer
<bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>At the same time, without any behind-the-scenes cooperation between
>us, several others began making similar contributions. One could and
>I think should conclude several people were inspired and thus
>motivated to contribute.
I must confess in my case it was having "always on" access again after
six months without regular access at all.
>For several days this group became almost
>like it once was . . .
Indeed. The signal to noise ratio was fabulous! Seventy plus messages
in a day and sixty plus of those something relating to the ACW.
>And then it all fell apart. When? Why? Who? Check that list of
>names, organize your messages by date, and do a little exercise in
>compare and contrast. I'll leave the rest up to the reader to decide.
>As Brooks and I discussed, it was not the result of any one
>individual, but a group of individuals who seem bent on using this
>group to carry on personal squabbles they likely would not have the
>guts to continue in the "real world." I do, however, want to make
>note of one thing: Look at those names again. Compare it to the list
>of names being used by others as examples of those who are bad
>influences. Ask yourself this question: Who really belongs here?
I respectfully submeit that, with the last question, you have (IMO)
crossed the line and essentially joined hands with those you seek to
castigate. Everyone who can get access to the internet and has
something to say belongs here. No, that's not what I mean either. I
guess what I really mean is that it is not for me (or anyone else IMO)
to say who really belongs here. Once any of us opine "who really
belongs" we take a step and a half towards the people we seem to think
are at fault for tellings others to "get off this NG".
>Of course I realize nothing of what I've said here means anything in
>the long run, and those it is intended to give pause likely won't
>cease from their steam-rolling trip into baseless nonsense. That's
>not the point. The point is a personal one. This group once meant
>something to me. It no longer does. I enjoy it when things are like
>they were a few weeks back. I hate it when it is like it is now. So,
>I'll let it be what it will be and stop bothering to try so hard or be
>troubled so much..
See, your advantage seems to me to be that you (now?) understand that
the NG has no requirement to correspond to your particular notions of
the fitness of things. Some people haven't gotten to that point of
view yet, and the fall out from that is redily recognizable.
Brad Meyer
<bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I sometimes barely realize which group I'm reading. The way I have
>Agent set up to navigate these groups, I just read a long string of
>messages starting at the top and working my way down. Often the only
>clear indication I have I've even changed groups is the result of the
>different set of people who post in them or sometimes because of a
>thread I'm following closely and know to be in one other the other.
Same same for me. The only time I've paid particular attention is when
I've had a message kicked back from the moderated group (maybe eight
in nine years). I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that part
of the problem is that some folks can't deal with the moderation (with
any moderation?) and use this group for long posts that add up to sour
grapes.
Dave Smith
snips
>
> Of course I realize nothing of what I've said here means anything in
> the long run, and those it is intended to give pause likely won't
> cease from their steam-rolling trip into baseless nonsense. That's
> not the point. The point is a personal one. This group once meant
> something to me. It no longer does. I enjoy it when things are like
> they were a few weeks back. I hate it when it is like it is now. So,
> I'll let it be what it will be and stop bothering to try so hard or be
> troubled so much..
It may not mean much in the long run, but the thoughts are
appreciated.
I noted, with interest, who immediately responded with an ad hominem
attack, but, oh well.
We'll try to keep that Civil War discussion going ...
Dave
W. G. Davis
"Dave Smith" <dmsmi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:707e7d28.04072...@posting.google.com...
Gee, Dave, I guess you think that his post wasn't pointed at me, and I don't have a right to defend myself.
He came here with the express purpose of trolling for a fight with me.
I guess that cuts it for us, Dave. You used to show some ethics. I guess that's gone.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"Nothing stings so fiercely as the truth!"
--W. G. Jeff Davis
>
Brian Hampton
wrote:
[snip]
>Ask yourself this question: Who really belongs here?
>
>I respectfully submeit that, with the last question, you have (IMO)
>crossed the line and essentially joined hands with those you seek to
>castigate. Everyone who can get access to the internet and has
>something to say belongs here. No, that's not what I mean either. I
>guess what I really mean is that it is not for me (or anyone else IMO)
>to say who really belongs here. Once any of us opine "who really
>belongs" we take a step and a half towards the people we seem to think
>are at fault for tellings others to "get off this NG".
Thank you for responding, as I think this is an important point.
I will suggest that you are possibly misinterpreting my remarks and in
so doing at least partly making my case for me. When I ask "Who
really belongs here?" I am inviting those who have been subjected to
the continued demands that certain individuals leave to look at those
people and determine whether they belong here. I submit that during
that period of an excellent signal/noise ratio, the very people who
had been told to get out repeatedly were the ones driving the
discussions. Many of those discussions would not have continued
without you and Jim Epperson in particular. Dennis, Bob T., Bert,
Raymond, and I (I'm sure I'm forgetting someone) had a brief, but
interesting discussion about Civil War fiction and a movie. Most of
those people in that discussion have been told, at various times, to
get out, that they do not belong here. Do Jim, you and those others
really belong here? I say that you and they do. That was my point.
Some will read my remarks as a suggestion that certain people do not
belong here, which is what I believe you did. I am saying that this
is a misinterpretation of my remarks. The reason, in my view, that
this misinterpretation comes so naturally and easily is because we
have been subjected to several years of this campaign of purges
instigated primarily by Mr. Davis. We think negatively first. The
positive way of thinking sometimes never comes.
I don't seek to purge this group of anyone. I would be perfectly
happy to co-exist with Mr. Davis if he followed his own advice and
rules. As I indicated in my other message, I'd even be willing to
follow his rules if he were willing to submit to an equal exchange.
That he does not, moves me to keep him ignored via my filters most of
the time, at least until the bleed-over caused by others responding to
him or the necessity of my using Google to read the group all but
forces his words in my face. As you say elsewhere, we all choose how
and whether we react to trolls and other disruptive influences, and I
have chosen to react at this moment to several of them in this way.
Because Mr. Davis hijacked this thread and made it about him
exclusively, the larger message I was attempting to convey got lost in
the personal dispute I have long had with him.
>See, your advantage seems to me to be that you (now?) understand that
>the NG has no requirement to correspond to your particular notions of
>the fitness of things. Some people haven't gotten to that point of
>view yet, and the fall out from that is redily recognizable.
A lot of this is personal. I've met a number of people from here that
I consider very good friends, people with whom I've broken bread,
watched their children grow from a distance, suffered through the
tragedies in their lives, and enjoyed many of the happiest moments as
well. These people have become as much a part of my life as the
friends I have who live a couple miles away, and in some cases they
are a better part. These are friendships that will continue regardless
of whether this group continues to exist.
The result of this, though, is that my mind developed an image of this
group as a special place that could help people's lives in positive
ways. I dare say the Longstreet Chronicles, my website that has
brought me so much joy and for which others have expressed their ample
appreciation, would not exist without this group. It certainly
wouldn't have the home it has today, donated by yet another person who
supposedly doesn't belong. This place had its ample faults, yes, but
on the whole, it was a nice place to be, warts and all. I'm not
intending to be too melodramatic with that, although I realize that
may be the way it comes across. Compare it to a "Cheers" bar. That's
what this was for me, at one time.
And then, one by one, a number of the people whose presence I most
enjoyed started disappearing. Those with whom I have maintained
contact have all told me similar things about why they left it, and it
has a lot to do with the things I've discussed here. Imagine, if you
will, Norm getting up and leaving Cheers forever because of a small
group that sat in that table behind him and just annoyed him so much
the unlimited beer tab he was allowed to keep no longer was enough
motivation for him to stay. If you were Cliff or Sam or Woody, would
that not irritate you just a little bit, and would you not express
your irritation occasionally when that group kept showing up, day
after day, running more and more people away? (Note I call this a
"group." I am NOT blaming Mr. Davis exclusively for this.)
No one, of course, is under any obligation to think this way, and I
doubt anyone really does. But, I'm allowed my perspective as well.
I occasionally express my irritation at a few people because they ran
off Norm, and then Carla, and the Cliff, and Woody, and Sam, and ... I
am, to be blunt, pissed about that.
--
"We cannot have a free government without elections;
and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or
postpone, a national election, it might fairly
claim to have already conquered us." - A Lincoln
W. G. Davis
"Brian Hampton" <bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7jffg01fcmgrm02i8...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 21:27:26 -0700, Brad Meyer <brad...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Ask yourself this question: Who really belongs here?
> >
> >I respectfully submeit that, with the last question, you have (IMO)
> >crossed the line and essentially joined hands with those you seek to
> >castigate. Everyone who can get access to the internet and has
> >something to say belongs here. No, that's not what I mean either. I
> >guess what I really mean is that it is not for me (or anyone else IMO)
> >to say who really belongs here. Once any of us opine "who really
> >belongs" we take a step and a half towards the people we seem to think
> >are at fault for tellings others to "get off this NG".
>
> Thank you for responding, as I think this is an important point.
>
> I will suggest that you are possibly misinterpreting my remarks and in
> so doing at least partly making my case for me. When I ask "Who
> really belongs here?" I am inviting those who have been subjected to
> the continued demands that certain individuals leave to look at those
> people and determine whether they belong here. I submit that during
> that period of an excellent signal/noise ratio, the very people who
> had been told to get out repeatedly were the ones driving the
> discussions.
That is simply not true, Brian. It was Brooks, Walter, Randy, Dave, Will Keene, myself and a few others who were "driving the discussions. The folks you refer to: Saddam Huey, Denise, Sribbler and a few others were nowhere to be found. Neither were you, Epperson (small contribution) or Furlan.
Many of those discussions would not have continued
> without you and Jim Epperson in particular. Dennis, Bob T., Bert,
> Raymond, and I (I'm sure I'm forgetting someone) had a brief, but
> interesting discussion about Civil War fiction and a movie. Most of
> those people in that discussion have been told, at various times, to
> get out, that they do not belong here. Do Jim, you and those others
> really belong here? I say that you and they do. That was my point.
And we disagree.
>
> Some will read my remarks as a suggestion that certain people do not
> belong here, which is what I believe you did. I am saying that this
> is a misinterpretation of my remarks. The reason, in my view, that
> this misinterpretation comes so naturally and easily is because we
> have been subjected to several years of this campaign of purges
> instigated primarily by Mr. Davis. We think negatively first. The
> positive way of thinking sometimes never comes.
>
> I don't seek to purge this group of anyone. I would be perfectly
> happy to co-exist with Mr. Davis if he followed his own advice and
> rules.
I do indeed. I do not instigate off topic threads, and my off topic posts are limited to the pointing out of other's off topic, racist, or lying behaviors. Strictly! (One exception: Tiernan, who is so anti-American he doesn't even desrve to be in this country, let alone on this newsgroup.)
Google does not lie on this. Nobody else better, either. On the other hand, I do, frequently, start on topic threads. When was the last time you did, Brian?
I will reiterate this again, and for the last time: If you want me to stop, then get the rest either off the group or on topic, no more lies, and no racists.
Do you think Saddam Huey's gratuitous political BS is on topic? Yet you say nothing to him.
Do you understand what that says about your integrity? You come after me about off topic posts when all I do is mark others who post off topic! Yet you will not say boo to someone who has posted off topic over 90% of the time FOR YEARS! What does that say about your integrity, Brian?
As I indicated in my other message, I'd even be willing to
> follow his rules if he were willing to submit to an equal exchange.
I am. With you.
> That he does not,
Ah, careful. Here is an untruth. Do not start that again. I weary of your distortion and will extend no more leeway there.
moves me to keep him ignored via my filters most of
> the time, at least until the bleed-over caused by others responding to
> him or the necessity of my using Google to read the group all but
> forces his words in my face. As you say elsewhere, we all choose how
> and whether we react to trolls and other disruptive influences, and I
> have chosen to react at this moment to several of them in this way.
> Because Mr. Davis hijacked this thread and made it about him
> exclusively, the larger message I was attempting to convey got lost in
> the personal dispute I have long had with him.
Another ditortion. Shame on you Brian. Here you are telling lies again.
How can I believe you are sincere about changing the newsgroup, and changing your posting behavior when you continually lie?
You have no credibility!
>
> >See, your advantage seems to me to be that you (now?) understand that
> >the NG has no requirement to correspond to your particular notions of
> >the fitness of things. Some people haven't gotten to that point of
> >view yet, and the fall out from that is redily recognizable.
>
> A lot of this is personal. I've met a number of people from here that
> I consider very good friends, people with whom I've broken bread,
> watched their children grow from a distance, suffered through the
> tragedies in their lives, and enjoyed many of the happiest moments as
> well. These people have become as much a part of my life as the
> friends I have who live a couple miles away, and in some cases they
> are a better part. These are friendships that will continue regardless
> of whether this group continues to exist.
>
> The result of this, though, is that my mind developed an image of this
> group as a special place that could help people's lives in positive
> ways. I dare say the Longstreet Chronicles, my website that has
> brought me so much joy and for which others have expressed their ample
> appreciation, would not exist without this group. It certainly
> wouldn't have the home it has today, donated by yet another person who
> supposedly doesn't belong. This place had its ample faults, yes, but
> on the whole, it was a nice place to be, warts and all. I'm not
> intending to be too melodramatic with that, although I realize that
> may be the way it comes across. Compare it to a "Cheers" bar. That's
> what this was for me, at one time.
But is not a Cheers bar, and should not be. This is NOT a social newsgroup. This is a history newsgroup. You insist on dragging your personal life onto this newsgroup, AD NAUSEAM, and it simply does not belong here. Denise does the same thing. It's not the business of the newsgroup to know your business. If you feel compelled to share your life story, then put up a website, go to email, or set up a chatrooom on Yahoo or MSN.
>
> And then, one by one, a number of the people whose presence I most
> enjoyed started disappearing. Those with whom I have maintained
> contact have all told me similar things about why they left it, and it
> has a lot to do with the things I've discussed here. Imagine, if you
> will, Norm getting up and leaving Cheers forever because of a small
> group that sat in that table behind him and just annoyed him so much
> the unlimited beer tab he was allowed to keep no longer was enough
> motivation for him to stay. If you were Cliff or Sam or Woody, would
> that not irritate you just a little bit, and would you not express
> your irritation occasionally when that group kept showing up, day
> after day, running more and more people away? (Note I call this a
> "group." I am NOT blaming Mr. Davis exclusively for this.)
I am humbled by your largesse.
>
> No one, of course, is under any obligation to think this way, and I
> doubt anyone really does. But, I'm allowed my perspective as well.
You are correct. On both counts.
>
> I occasionally express my irritation at a few people because they ran
> off Norm, and then Carla, and the Cliff, and Woody, and Sam, and ... I
> am, to be blunt, pissed about that.
Again, your personal life does not belong here.
--
Regards,
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOEVILMAIL9th.org
"The true worth of a man is to be
measured by the objects he pursues."
-- Marcus Aurelius
Brian Hampton
<je...@pa7MAPSON9th.org> wrote:
>Show us the SCV thread
Just for the record ...
What follows are the Message-ID's pointing to a number of threads in
soc.history.war.us-civil-war in which various subjects have been
discussed that some have claimed are or should be off-topic for this
group. These ID's point to individual messages, but in some cases it
is the thread as a whole that should be considered. I looked
specifically for threads in which various aspects of the SCV were
discussed, which includes the SCV position on certain historical
matters, display of the battle flag, the organization itself, its
historical roots, etc.
I would also note that there were one or two of these individual
messages that I personally would have rejected, not for the subject
matter, but for the "flame factor" of the words being used. I'm not
sure why these messages were not rejected. I'll leave that
determination up to anyone who is bored enough to follow these
threads.
Note: There is no particular order to these. I picked almost at
random. That one of these messages showed up in my search was an
ironic happenstance, but I won't go into a discussion of it here.
Message-ID: <19970112224...@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1
Message-ID: <3D60DE36...@att.net>
Message-ID: <35d5dcec.01061...@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: <b21hc0hdvauca3v5f...@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <390DF716...@earthlink.net>#1/1
Message-ID: <0RT+OGzHm1vjPp...@4ax.com>#1/1
Message-ID: <3DF75763...@worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <76ejqd$bvdo$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>
Message-ID: <363c642b....@news.agoron.com>#1/1
Message-ID: <b21hc0hdvauca3v5f...@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <6rkhe3$9...@s10.math.uah.edu>#1/1
Message-ID: <3528EF3D...@backroads.net>#1/1
Message-ID: <5snl5u$f...@s10.math.uah.edu>#1/1
W. G. Davis
"Brian Hampton" <bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:llnfg0poqbenhuti6...@4ax.com...
James F. Epperson
news:llnfg0poqbenhuti6...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 03:32:33 -0400, "W. G. Davis"
> <je...@pa7MAPSON9th.org> wrote:
>
> >Show us the SCV thread
>
> Just for the record ...
>
> What follows are the Message-ID's pointing to a number of threads in
> soc.history.war.us-civil-war in which various subjects have been
> discussed that some have claimed are or should be off-topic for this
> group.
[snips]
A similar search for this group would turn up numerous lengthy and
vigorous discussions of the SCV, the Rebel flag, etc., throughout
the years. It is only recently that anyone --- well, one particular
someone --- has argued they were off-topic. Many people prefer
the more traditional "bugles and bullets" kinds of threads, and that's
fine, no one is forcing anyone to participate in any discussions.
JFE
W. G. Davis
"James F. Epperson" <j...@ams.org> wrote in message news:3ee7efa6.04072...@posting.google.com...
SNIP OF OFF TOPIC IDIOCY THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CIVIL WAR!
READ THE CHARTER IDIOT!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Brad Meyer
<bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thank you for responding, as I think this is an important point.
You are welcome. I thought I had something worth saying on the subject
(but, to borrow from the book of Ed, ohters' milage may vary).
>I will suggest that you are possibly misinterpreting my remarks and in
>so doing at least partly making my case for me. When I ask "Who
>really belongs here?" I am inviting those who have been subjected to
>the continued demands that certain individuals leave to look at those
>people and determine whether they belong here.
That was my understanding. My point was that the question is, IMO,
backwards and should be, IMO, "Who do I choose to engage with?". When
turned that way, it becomes a question I can not only answer, but I
can implement my answer as well. No matter what opinion you or I or
anyone else might have about WGD's posts, the reasons end up boiling
down to some variation of "I don't like his posting habits". Whether
your opinion of his posting habits has any more objective validity
then his opinion of yours is nothing more then personal opinion. I may
agree with you, and everyone from Aaron to Zebulon may agree with us,
but that does not make our view any more (or less) correct.
>I submit that during
>that period of an excellent signal/noise ratio, the very people who
>had been told to get out repeatedly were the ones driving the
>discussions.
Agreed!
>Many of those discussions would not have continued
>without you and Jim Epperson in particular.
<blush>
>Dennis, Bob T., Bert,
>Raymond, and I (I'm sure I'm forgetting someone) had a brief, but
>interesting discussion about Civil War fiction and a movie. Most of
>those people in that discussion have been told, at various times, to
>get out, that they do not belong here. Do Jim, you and those others
>really belong here? I say that you and they do. That was my point.
Agreed. I just go on to say that anyone who can pony up the ante
belongs (even if not universally welcomed). I may not choose to engage
given individuals for whatever reason I choose, but the action is
mine. IMO no one should not belong because I think them a jerk any
more then they should not belong because WGD thinks them a jerk.
>Some will read my remarks as a suggestion that certain people do not
>belong here, which is what I believe you did.
Less that then to get the idea across that IMO the question has no
meaning as framed other then as a point of rant.
>I don't seek to purge this group of anyone.
The thought never crossed my mind that you did. The fact that it never
did is, I suppose, a (partial) measure of the difference I see between
you and WGD.
>I would be perfectly
>happy to co-exist with Mr. Davis if he followed his own advice and
>rules.
I am perfectly willing to coexist with him just as he is, provided I
retain the freedom to read only those posts I choose to read.
I am fully aware that this is easy for me to say, as I have yet to be
immortalized in an all caps header. OTOH, several years ago I had a
fairly acrimonious debate about something with someone that got to the
point of him posting a F*** Y**. I replied that if he ever got the
chance he would never go back to dead sheep, he plonked me, end of
problem.
> As I indicated in my other message, I'd even be willing to
>follow his rules if he were willing to submit to an equal exchange.
I wouldn't be willing to follow his rules no matter what he was
willing or not willing to submit to.
>That he does not, moves me to keep him ignored via my filters most of
>the time, at least until the bleed-over caused by others responding to
>him or the necessity of my using Google to read the group all but
>forces his words in my face. As you say elsewhere, we all choose how
>and whether we react to trolls and other disruptive influences, and I
>have chosen to react at this moment to several of them in this way.
I honest to God do not understand why. I'm not being flip here, or
suggesting that you are somehow wrong. I really don't understand why
so many people find him so hard to ignore. If you believe that his
posting habits are lower then whale poop on the bottom of the ocean,
why does it matter to you what he says? Now if you or Jim or Dave or
Ed Frank were to attack my character in a post I would be concerned,
in part because I respect your judgement and in part because you all
have a track record that would make such an action exceptional. OTOH,
were WGD to unplonk me and go after me in the typical manner, I would
be comforted in the knowledge that I have been lumped with the likes
of y'all. Followoing this and related threads, I almost begin to think
it some defect in my character that I find him as much amusing as
annoying.
>Because Mr. Davis hijacked this thread and made it about him
>exclusively, the larger message I was attempting to convey got lost in
>the personal dispute I have long had with him.
Well, he had to have a certain amount of cooperation in the effort. My
interest is less in WGD then in trying to fathom why he has the effect
on others that he does.
Snippage
>And then, one by one, a number of the people whose presence I most
>enjoyed started disappearing. Those with whom I have maintained
>contact have all told me similar things about why they left it, and it
>has a lot to do with the things I've discussed here. Imagine, if you
>will, Norm getting up and leaving Cheers forever because of a small
>group that sat in that table behind him and just annoyed him so much
>the unlimited beer tab he was allowed to keep no longer was enough
>motivation for him to stay.
I think a better anology would be a group in the back room that Norm
just had to stick his head in to see every time he came. No one has to
open anyone else's posts, they choose to do so. I think it a pity that
anyone would fell they had to ignore the entire group in order to
ignore WGD.
>No one, of course, is under any obligation to think this way, and I
>doubt anyone really does. But, I'm allowed my perspective as well.
Certainly. If I question it, the reason is not that I think you are
wrong or mistaken, but rather an attempt to understand why what he
says matters to you.
Hugh Lawson
> I honest to God do not understand why. I'm not being flip here, or
> suggesting that you are somehow wrong. I really don't understand why
> so many people find him so hard to ignore. If you believe that his
> posting habits are lower then whale poop on the bottom of the ocean,
> why does it matter to you what he says? Now if you or Jim or Dave or
> Ed Frank were to attack my character in a post I would be concerned,
> in part because I respect your judgement and in part because you all
> have a track record that would make such an action exceptional. OTOH,
> were WGD to unplonk me and go after me in the typical manner, I would
> be comforted in the knowledge that I have been lumped with the likes
> of y'all. Followoing this and related threads, I almost begin to think
> it some defect in my character that I find him as much amusing as
> annoying.
Hello Brad,
You've done well; you see a puzzle. You don't understand why people
"find him hard to ignore." (I've just been reading philosopher Karl
Popper who says the greatest contribution one can make to the growth
of knowledge is to identify a puzzle that others overlooked.)
Here is my version of the question: why does it take a while to learn
to not to reply to repeated insults? Targets of long standing, for
example Maggard, Marshall, and Teasley pretty consistently avoid
replying to the calumnies directed against them.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
W. G. Davis
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:87r7qt8...@desktop.xx.yy...
Get off this newsgroup you yellow bellied cowardly lying fraud. You couldn't make it in the Navy, and you couldn't make it in Academia! You are a life-failure!
You are a moral eunuch. You are scum.
Get out now! Do not come back!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
-- Hugh "Red Huey" Lawson
Brooks D. Simpson
"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1mnjg0t56pkusia5d...@4ax.com...
> Certainly. If I question it, the reason is not that I think you are
> wrong or mistaken, but rather an attempt to understand why what he
> says matters to you.
Why all this drivel? Really.
Brian Hampton
> Why all this drivel? Really.
I started the drivel, at least this tangent of it, so if anyone should
be burdened with answering that question it should be me. Brad is just
carrying on a conversation I started.
I'm replying to him, but via e-mail.
As for why, I don't know, not completely. This isn't based in logic or
empirical observations or anything like that. I'm not perfect and never
claimed to be so. I sometimes do things that don't make much sense to
anyone but me.
(To those who will use it against me, consider that last comment a freebie.)
Brad Meyer
?? Could you rephrase the question?
Brooks D. Simpson
I'll rephrase it as an observation that discussions about discussions about
posters that point out how folks are wasting their time or making errant
decisions are themselves a waste of time and by the same logic constitute an
errant decision. This I have come to realize through experience. Please
understand it's not a flame directed as either one of you.
Moreover, these observations on the state of the NG or various posters tend
to do two things:
1. They open the door for commentary by people who find it hard to
contribute anything original or worthwhile on their own.
2. Comments by those highlighted in [1] and others tend to fan the very
flames they describe. I'll go back to Brian's original post about group
dynamics and repeat that blasting one person does not solve the problem that
people complain about, because there's more to it than that, as even you
recognize when you ask why people reply. I can think of a particularly
obnoxious poster who suddenly disappeared, and yet things are not that much
different.
Thankfully, killfiles reduce my exposure to this sort of stuff, although
they also have tended to cut out some interesting stuff. Usually when I go
to Google to pick up what I've missed I'm able to sidestep certain posters,
except when I think something deserves a reply. We all have our weaknesses
in that regard. :) But having tried to arrange several settlements of
outstanding rivalries, I have learned the hard way that the participants
have to come to that point of undersanding that further comment is futile in
terms of changing the behavior of a target; at that point, the comments are
for others or to scratch some itch of the poster. As NG veterans have a
pretty good idea of the dynamics, reminders of who doesn't like whom
irritate more than they inform.
I think the saddest thing is how many relationships have unravelled here in
the past several years, and how rare it is for a hostile relationship to
evolve into a friendly one. I've been fortunate in the latter regard.
Thanks for indulging me. :)
Dennis Maggard
Ah, Brian, you need to have more confidence in yourself!! When people
criticize you for commenting on news group dynamics, it's almost
always because you've hit a nerve. And I do believe there is at least
a master's thesis in a thorough going analysis of this news group's
group dynamics and of the propagandistic techniques employed here.
Dennis
W. G. Davis
DENISE, IN ADDITION TO BEING AN ETHICLESS SLUT WHO DOESN'T KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG, YOU ARE A SPINELESS INTELLECTUAL COWARD, AND ARE MORALLY BANKRUPT. GET OUT NOW! STAY OUT! YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO POST ON THIS GROUP WITH YOUR STUPIDITY AND HYPOCRITICAL POISON. DO NOT EVER COME BACK.
"Dennis Maggard" <dmag...@MAPSONjuno.com> wrote in message news:qj7ng0pgh7mvogaes...@4ax.com...
OFF TOPIC DRIVEL SNIPPED
GET OUT NOW!
STAY OUT!
YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Brooks Simpson
Dennis Maggard <dmag...@MAPSONjuno.com> wrote in message news:<qj7ng0pgh7mvogaes...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:00:09 -0500, Brian Hampton
> <bdham...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Brooks D. Simpson wrote:
> >
> >> Why all this drivel? Really.
> >
> >I started the drivel, at least this tangent of it, so if anyone should
> >be burdened with answering that question it should be me. Brad is just
> >carrying on a conversation I started.
To Brian: I realize this, and we recall the discussion that started
your inquiry. I'm just wondering why it continues.
> >I'm replying to him, but via e-mail.
To Brian: Thanks. The more this sort of stuff recedes into the
background, the better.
> >As for why, I don't know, not completely. This isn't based in logic or
> >empirical observations or anything like that. I'm not perfect and never
> >claimed to be so. I sometimes do things that don't make much sense to
> >anyone but me.
> >
> >(To those who will use it against me, consider that last comment a freebie.)
To Brian: Nah. Many of us feel compelled to advance such
speculations. I just believe that the utility for them is declining.
:)
> Ah, Brian, you need to have more confidence in yourself!! When people
> criticize you for commenting on news group dynamics, it's almost
> always because you've hit a nerve.
To Dennis: Perhaps you need to understand that a question is not
necessarily a criticism. Brian's not hit a nerve in my case. Nor, as
he has said, is this all about Jeff. You might want to check the list
to see about other worthies who are not mentioned among the worthwhile
(you were recognized for your efforts, but your sidekick was not).
Brian knows something about the war. Some other people who comment on
newsgroup dynamics do so because they really have very little of
substance to contribute to the group, but much to say about other
people.
> And I do believe there is at least
> a master's thesis in a thorough going analysis of this news group's
> group dynamics and of the propagandistic techniques employed here.
To Dennis: I'm sure you believe this, and I'm sure your sidekick does
as well -- he's referred to the ng as some sort of experiement that he
observes. Best of luck to both of you in your research.
Brad Meyer
<bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:um8lg01u25mbdibr1...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:31:25 -0700, "Brooks D. Simpson"
>> <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1mnjg0t56pkusia5d...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> Certainly. If I question it, the reason is not that I think you are
>> >> wrong or mistaken, but rather an attempt to understand why what he
>> >> says matters to you.
>> >
>> >Why all this drivel? Really.
>>
>> ?? Could you rephrase the question?
>
>I'll rephrase it as an observation that discussions about discussions about
>posters that point out how folks are wasting their time or making errant
>decisions are themselves a waste of time and by the same logic constitute an
>errant decision. This I have come to realize through experience. Please
>understand it's not a flame directed as either one of you.
>
>Moreover, these observations on the state of the NG or various posters tend
>to do two things:
>
>1. They open the door for commentary by people who find it hard to
>contribute anything original or worthwhile on their own.
Who the hell died and left you in charge of judging what is worthwhile
to others. What is worthwhie to you is your own affair, but the fact
that you fail to find worth is not the final word in the matter for
anyone but you. It would seem that from the replies he generates,
someone finds it worthwhile to reply to WDG. My interest in finding
out why they do may not strike you as worthwhile, but I have a
different opinion about the matter.
>2. Comments by those highlighted in [1] and others tend to fan the very
>flames they describe.
Declaritory staements on any subject in this NG, ACW related or not,
ten to fan flames for someone. Please don't tell me you're getting set
to climb on the "no ACW content" bandwagon. I doubt you would find a
seat far enough removed from some already on board.
>I'll go back to Brian's original post about group
>dynamics and repeat that blasting one person does not solve the problem that
>people complain about, because there's more to it than that, as even you
>recognize when you ask why people reply. I can think of a particularly
>obnoxious poster who suddenly disappeared, and yet things are not that much
>different.
I agree with this, which is why I find the "Who should be here"
question so interesting and indicative.
>Thankfully, killfiles reduce my exposure to this sort of stuff, although
>they also have tended to cut out some interesting stuff.
Although I haven't found the need to killfile, there are lots of
threads I flag with "ignore thread". I expect I have missed some
interesting stuff as well. Part of the price we pay for the choices we
make. Tanstaafl.
>Usually when I go
>to Google to pick up what I've missed I'm able to sidestep certain posters,
>except when I think something deserves a reply. We all have our weaknesses
>in that regard. :)
I don't know why, if you have something to say, saying it is a
weakness.
>But having tried to arrange several settlements of
>outstanding rivalries . . .
To what end? Are you a peacemaker by nature?
>I think the saddest thing is how many relationships have unravelled here in
>the past several years, and how rare it is for a hostile relationship to
>evolve into a friendly one.
I have more mixed emotions. That sort of thing is part of the life
process. It happens outside this NG as easily as it happens inside.
>Thanks for indulging me. :)
Thaks for indulging me. I was the one who asked you to rephrase. You
obviously put time and effort into a post on a thread you do not seem
to see as worthwhile. If it was a case of having something to say I'm
glad you took the time. If it was a favor to me, thank you very much.
Brooks D. Simpson
> Who the hell died and left you in charge of judging what is worthwhile
> to others.
Temper, temper, Brad. Hey, if you find such drivel worthwhile, all power to
you. Whatever turns you on. I used to think this was of more interest, and
now I don't. Maybe you'll reach that point someday.
> >But having tried to arrange several settlements of
> >outstanding rivalries . . .
>
> To what end? Are you a peacemaker by nature?
Hey, I think the NG would be a better place without some of the mindless
squabbles I see here. But to each his own. Blessed are the peacemakers.
:)
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Blessed are the peacemakers.
>:)
Only when manufactured by Colt Revolving Arms Co.
W. G. Davis
SNIP OF SCRIBBLER'S DRIBBLINGS
GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP.
YOU AREN'T FIT TO POST HERE!
--
Brad Meyer
<bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:mmpog0t4uvc8ji8ce...@4ax.com...
>
>> Who the hell died and left you in charge of judging what is worthwhile
>> to others.
>
>Temper, temper, Brad. Hey, if you find such drivel worthwhile, all power to
>you. Whatever turns you on. I used to think this was of more interest, and
>now I don't. Maybe you'll reach that point someday.
Possibly. You may also do an about face on the idea yourself, but your
calling it drivel today does not, in and of itself, make it such to
anyone but you.
>> >But having tried to arrange several settlements of
>> >outstanding rivalries . . .
>>
>> To what end? Are you a peacemaker by nature?
>
>Hey, I think the NG would be a better place without some of the mindless
>squabbles I see here.
I see . . . making over the NG in yor own image, or at least your
image of whatyou think it ought to be..
Brooks D. Simpson
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:42:33 -0700, "Brooks D. Simpson"
> <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:mmpog0t4uvc8ji8ce...@4ax.com...
> >
> >> Who the hell died and left you in charge of judging what is worthwhile
> >> to others.
> >
> >Temper, temper, Brad. Hey, if you find such drivel worthwhile, all power
to
> >you. Whatever turns you on. I used to think this was of more interest,
and
> >now I don't. Maybe you'll reach that point someday.
>
> Possibly. You may also do an about face on the idea yourself, but your
> calling it drivel today does not, in and of itself, make it such to
> anyone but you.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. In any case, it would seem that what's amusing is
that you ranted at me for supposedly attempting to dictate something ...
which indicates that you are playing hall monitor. :)
Trust me, I have no desire to control anyone's behavior here. Nor do I
particularly care what they post about. I just offered an observation, and
if that hurts, so be it. But I'm as entitled to my observations as anyone
else. You should get used to that idea.
> >> >But having tried to arrange several settlements of
> >> >outstanding rivalries . . .
> >>
> >> To what end? Are you a peacemaker by nature?
> >
> >Hey, I think the NG would be a better place without some of the mindless
> >squabbles I see here.
>
> I see . . . making over the NG in yor own image, or at least your
> image of whatyou think it ought to be..
There you go again, Brad. I make an observation, you assume someone wants
to control the place. And so you try to shout that person down. Why? Do
*you* feel the need to control it?
If saying that the NG would be a better place sans the mindless squabbles
that happen here constitutes a desire to control the NG, then I would call
that logic bizarre, and risk the retort from you that by making that
characterization I was also trying to control the NG.
Jeff says Hugh's out to control the NG. I seriously doubt that (and I feel
sorry for Hugh if he ever had such designs ... :)) Now here you are,
offering a less than skilled mimicry of Jeff. I guess I wonder why you are
so worried about these sorts of things.
Ky Pot Rebel
W. G. Davis
"Ky Pot Rebel" <Bobe...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:23398-410...@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
Lynn
Whichever. It was a great exchange and I wish I could communicate
like either one of you. Or Brian either sometimes.
W. G. Davis
"Lynn" <lportisda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:426a1f70.04080...@posting.google.com...
Get off this newsgroup dipwad!
You haven't contributed anything constructive and on topic in years.
Get out and stay out! You have no business here!
Brad Meyer
<bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:qedrg01vq1ceu89ln...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:42:33 -0700, "Brooks D. Simpson"
>> <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>> >news:mmpog0t4uvc8ji8ce...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> Who the hell died and left you in charge of judging what is worthwhile
>> >> to others.
>> >
>> >Temper, temper, Brad. Hey, if you find such drivel worthwhile, all power
>to
>> >you. Whatever turns you on. I used to think this was of more interest,
>and
>> >now I don't. Maybe you'll reach that point someday.
>>
>> Possibly. You may also do an about face on the idea yourself, but your
>> calling it drivel today does not, in and of itself, make it such to
>> anyone but you.
>
>Perhaps. Perhaps not. In any case, it would seem that what's amusing is
>that you ranted at me for supposedly attempting to dictate something ...
>which indicates that you are playing hall monitor. :)
In the first place, I most certainly ranted. I've been reflecting on
that the last few days. I'd like to apologize for that. I do
apologize. There was nothing in the exchange that deservied a rant and
I dumped on you unfairly. Sorry.
In the second place, I was not ranting at you "for supposedly
attempting to dictate something ...". I was ranting in frustration at
attempting to understand why anyone would impose, or even want to
impose, any sort of organization whatsoever beyond the minimum
required to post to the group.
No one, so far as I know, has ever suggested posting guidelines
because they want to control some flaw in their own posting habits.
Nothing of the "Stop me before I post again" variety. Everyone, so far
as I can see, who suggests any sort of code wants to exert control
over the postings of others. Why? Variations on the theme of "WGDs
posts are disruptive" may or may not be true, but are not responsive
to the question. Why should he be forced to change his behavior at the
direction of another? By what right does one claim that power over
WGD?
Those questions are my only interest in the topic anyway. IMO they
loop back around to the ACW in a way. Something alone the lines of
what right does the abolitionists clim over the slaveholder that the
slaveholder does not equally claim over the slave? I think the mindset
is somehow common.
>Trust me, I have no desire to control anyone's behavior here. Nor do I
>particularly care what they post about. I just offered an observation, and
>if that hurts, so be it. But I'm as entitled to my observations as anyone
>else. You should get used to that idea.
Absolutely!
>> >> >But having tried to arrange several settlements of
>> >> >outstanding rivalries . . .
>> >>
>> >> To what end? Are you a peacemaker by nature?
>> >
>> >Hey, I think the NG would be a better place without some of the mindless
>> >squabbles I see here.
>>
>> I see . . . making over the NG in yor own image, or at least your
>> image of whatyou think it ought to be..
>
>There you go again, Brad. I make an observation, you assume someone wants
>to control the place.
You miss the point. Let me try again. Why would the NG be "a better
place" without "mindless squabbles"? More narrowly, what, in this
instance, constitutes your definition of "better"? (And is it possible
that "better" could be strongly linked to "I'd like it more"?)
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>Whichever. It was a great exchange and I wish I could communicate
>like either one of you. Or Brian either sometimes.
<blush>
FWIW I've been posting for nine years now, and I'd like to think I'm
better at it now then I was when I started.
What do you make of all this? You get harassed much more then I? Can
you view it dispassionately or does your irritation overcome you at
times?
Hugh Lawson
[concerning speech control in Awcusa]
> Why should [anybody] be forced to change his behavior at the
> direction of another? By what right does one claim that power over
> [somebody].
Nobody has this power. Consider the vain commands issued here: "Shut
up!" ... "Grow up!"..."Don't flatter yourself!" "Take your
meds!"..."Seek help!"... etc. These go ignored, flouted, and
sometimes ridiculed.
Anybody can post what he likes, and nobody can stop him. It's idle to
defend this as a right, because it isn't a right; it's an absolute
power, or maybe a prerogative. Somebody who wishes to change the way
one posts can post anything he likes in an effort to do this. That is
also the exercise of a progative, as is mocking and ridiculing the one
who does it, etc., etc.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
W. G. Davis
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:87r7qi4...@desktop.xx.yy...
GET OUT NOW! STAY OUT! YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
-- Saddam "Red Huey" Lawson
W. G. Davis
raymond o'hara
a fine statement of the obvious.
Hugh Lawson
> a fine statement of the obvious.
What a devastating put-down! ray is excellent at that.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
W. G. Davis
W. G. Davis
Run Saddam Huey! Run boy! Run!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"Nothing stings so fiercely as the truth!"
--W. G. Jeff Davis
"W. G. Davis" <je...@pa7MAPSON9th.org> wrote in message news:erGdnZ8usbs...@pghconnect.com...
Brooks D. Simpson
> You miss the point. Let me try again. Why would the NG be "a better
> place" without "mindless squabbles"?
I think the bitter personal feuds detract from the group and send people off
on tangents -- their choice, to be sure.
> More narrowly, what, in this
> instance, constitutes your definition of "better"?
Start with no Barry. :) Continue with an end to the Jeff as central
demon/Jeff as guardain nonsense.
>(And is it possible
> that "better" could be strongly linked to "I'd like it more"?)
In some ways, yes, but in some ways, I'd rather the community that's been
here at times go off on other issues which are off-topic because it tends to
create other ways for people to open up and feel better about other folks
... things aren't so one-dimensional.
Is there anyone here who would not like the NG more if these petty feuds
ceased? Having offered that question, however, I have no desire to control
anything or to make anyone else comply with my wishes. I just figure out
what I want to do, and do it. That doesn't always please everyone, but
that's okay. I stay out of some on-topic discussions because I'm curious as
to what people think (Pope and Stanton are two recent examples).
Brooks D. Simpson
"raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:43eRc.263425$Oq2.187197@attbi_s52...
Hugh excels at this. :)
Brooks Simpson
> "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > a fine statement of the obvious.
>
> What a devastating put-down! ray is excellent at that.
I think it was a fine statement of the obvious. :)
Brooks Simpson
[snip]
Apology accepted.
> I was ranting in frustration at
> attempting to understand why anyone would impose, or even want to
> impose, any sort of organization whatsoever beyond the minimum
> required to post to the group.
But I don't want to impose anything. :)
Nor do I want to force anyone to do anything. I would hope that calm,
sweet reason might be useful. Call me a utopian. :)
> Those questions are my only interest in the topic anyway. IMO they
> loop back around to the ACW in a way. Something alone the lines of
> what right does the abolitionists clim over the slaveholder that the
> slaveholder does not equally claim over the slave? I think the mindset
> is somehow common.
That's a bit more challenging, but obviously it has to do with notions
of relativism versus absolutes.
W. G. Davis
"Brooks Simpson" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b1e50bb3.04080...@posting.google.com...
Do you really thing that? 8^)#
Dave Smith
snips
>
> Is there anyone here who would not like the NG more if these petty feuds
> ceased? Having offered that question, however, I have no desire to control
> anything or to make anyone else comply with my wishes.
There is probably no one who would not want this quibbling and dumping
to cease. I'd love to log in on Google and not see a plethora of
CAP-only, blatantly off-topic subject headers staring me in the face.
What's truly sad seeing grown adults act like five year olds who
didn't get to eat the entire bag of M & M's.
> I just figure out
> what I want to do, and do it. That doesn't always please everyone, but
> that's okay. I stay out of some on-topic discussions because I'm curious as
> to what people think (Pope and Stanton are two recent examples).
I've done that many times, especially going back to some of the older
discussions (like Mark and Linda's debates on the Freedman Bureau).
And I *never* jump in the middle of a Gary Charbanneau (sp?)
discussion on the Constitutin. :-)
Speaking of the Stanton / Pope thread, I wish I could figure out
exactly what is trying to be concluded, other than arguing over
definitions of whether we're looking at a blended view (four years of
war) of Stanton, or a snapshot one.
That's where the mileage varies, of course.
Dave
W. G. Davis
"Dave Smith" <dmsmi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:707e7d28.04080...@posting.google.com...
> "Brooks D. Simpson" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> snips
> >
> > Is there anyone here who would not like the NG more if these petty feuds
> > ceased? Having offered that question, however, I have no desire to control
> > anything or to make anyone else comply with my wishes.
>
> There is probably no one who would not want this quibbling and dumping
> to cease. I'd love to log in on Google and not see a plethora of
> CAP-only, blatantly off-topic subject headers staring me in the face.
> What's truly sad seeing grown adults act like five year olds who
> didn't get to eat the entire bag of M & M's.
Well Dave, there's an answer. THose CAP-onlyu off topic subject headers will stop when the morons who post off topic to incur those posts stop doing so, and the liars and racistrs leave. Now, what can YOU do to achieve that end?
>
> > I just figure out
> > what I want to do, and do it. That doesn't always please everyone, but
> > that's okay. I stay out of some on-topic discussions because I'm curious as
> > to what people think (Pope and Stanton are two recent examples).
>
> I've done that many times, especially going back to some of the older
> discussions (like Mark and Linda's debates on the Freedman Bureau).
> And I *never* jump in the middle of a Gary Charbanneau (sp?)
> discussion on the Constitutin. :-)
Sound advice.
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"As a rule, there is no surer way
to the dislike of men than to behave
well where they have behaved badly."
- Lew Wallace
Brian Hampton
>And I *never* jump in the middle of a Gary Charbanneau (sp?)
>discussion on the Constitutin. :-)
Oh, come on. Embrace your inner masochist. :-) You haven't lived
until Gary has ripped one of your arguments to shreds without even
breaking a sweat ... and all the while sticking to the topic.
>Speaking of the Stanton / Pope thread, I wish I could figure out
>exactly what is trying to be concluded, other than arguing over
>definitions of whether we're looking at a blended view (four years of
>war) of Stanton, or a snapshot one.
I've read the whole thing now, and I can't figure it out.
--
"We cannot have a free government without elections;
and if the rebellion could force us to forgo, or
postpone, a national election, it might fairly
claim to have already conquered us." - A Lincoln
Hugh Lawson
Dave Smith:
> >Speaking of the Stanton / Pope thread, I wish I could figure out
> >exactly what is trying to be concluded, other than arguing over
> >definitions of whether we're looking at a blended view (four years of
> >war) of Stanton, or a snapshot one.
>
> I've read the whole thing now, and I can't figure it out.
Here are some questions unresolved for me.
1. Was radical Republican a common term in 1862, or is it a
retrospective historian's term, like say feudalism wrt the
middle ages, or racism as a term applied to the acw era?
2. If Stanton was a radical, does that mean he supported Pope for
factional political reasons?
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
W. G. Davis
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:87k6w9x...@desktop.xx.yy...
Get off this newsgroup you yellow bellied cowardly lying fraud. You couldn't make it in the Navy, and you couldn't make it in Academia! You are a life-failure!
You are a moral eunuch. You are scum.
Get out now! Do not come back!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
-- Hugh "Red Huey" Lawson
Brian Hampton
wrote:
>Here are some questions unresolved for me.
>
>1. Was radical Republican a common term in 1862, or is it a
> retrospective historian's term, like say feudalism wrt the
> middle ages, or racism as a term applied to the acw era?
The term "radical" was common, and it was almost exculsively applied
to Republicans.
>2. If Stanton was a radical, does that mean he supported Pope for
> factional political reasons?
I don't know. I'd say that's the basic question under discussion, but
the answer doesn't seem clear one way or the other.
Lynn
That's it. I lurk and read and as Jeff points out, don't post much.
But, even lurkers don't want to read grown men and women being called
filthy and humiliating names. It finally bothers me so I post O.T.
again and get kicked off the ng again and so it goes.
It is really worth it all seeing the good posters however.
W. G. Davis
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
W. G. Davis
You haven't contributed anything constructive and on topic in years.
Get out and stay out! You have no business here!
James F. Epperson
> Let me try again. Why would the NG be "a better
> place" without "mindless squabbles"? More narrowly, what, in this
> instance, constitutes your definition of "better"? (And is it possible
> that "better" could be strongly linked to "I'd like it more"?)
I'm sure that for almost all of us, "better" very closely corelates with
"I'd like it more." And I frankly don't see anything wrong with
that.
If the "mindless squabbles" ended the NG would be better because
there would be less personal acrimony and more time spent on
discussing history and its ramifications.
My personal definition of "better" would involve (a) an end to
the "mindless squabbles" and, (b) the return of folks like
Chuck Ten Brink, Justin Sanders, Steve Schmidt, Mark Pitcavage,
Mark Grimsley, Kathie Watson, Jamie Adams, Joel Craig, and numerous
others I've neglected to mention.
Just my $0.02 worth.
JFE
W. G. Davis
"James F. Epperson" <j...@ams.org> wrote in message news:3ee7efa6.04080...@posting.google.com...
SNIP OF OFF TOPIC IDIOCY THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CIVIL WAR!
READ THE CHARTER IDIOT!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"When looking for a clue as
to why something goes wrong,
never rule out sheer stupidity."
--Groucho Marx
Scribe7716
wrote:
>Here are some questions unresolved for me.
>
>1. Was radical Republican a common term in 1862, or is it a
> retrospective historian's term, like say feudalism wrt the
> middle ages, or racism as a term applied to the acw era?
Per Hans Trefousse, _The Radical Republicans_, early on the words radical and
Republican weren't joined at the hip. The New York Barnburber Democrats of
1848 were called "Radical Democracy." Samuel Chase in 1851 called for "a
convention of Radicals Democrats."
Once Kansas-Nebraska brought the Barnburner Democrats and Conscience Whigs
under the Republican banner radical became a Republican sole propritorship.
Trefousse says "By 1858 the expression had become fairly common. 'I think the
radical Republicans are rapidly concentrating on you,' wrote [Joshua] Gidding
to [Samuel] Chase in Fenruary of that year; the New York _Evening Post_
endorsed the 'Radical Democratic Republican' platform in July, and Martin F.
Conway, an antislavery leader in Kansas, reported in November that the 'Radical
or _real_ Republicans' of the territory outnumbered all others at least three
to one."
So yes, by 1862 Radical Republican was a common term.
W. G. Davis
NEWSGROUP SCUMBAG! YOU HAVE NO MORAL INTELLECTUAL, OR
ETHICAL STANDING TO POST HERE. YOU ARE FOSTERING THE
PRESENCE OF A RACIST. CONSIDER WHAT THAT MAKES YOU. AFTER
HAVING PASSED UP A CHANCE TO CLEAN UP YOUR ACT, YOUR
CONTINUED FOSTERING OF THE PRESENCE OF A RACIST HERE LEADS
ANYONE TO THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE A RACIST YOURSELF.
"Scribe7716" <scrib...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20040809114447...@mb-m19.aol.com...
SNIP OF SCRIBBLER'S DRIBBLINGS
GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP.
YOU AREN'T FIT TO POST HERE!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Hugh Lawson
> So yes, by 1862 Radical Republican was a common term.
Thanks to the Scribal One for that interesting clarification.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
W. G. Davis
GET OUT NOW! STAY OUT! YOU ARE NOT MORALLY, ETHICALLY, OR INTELLECTUALLY EQUIPPED TO POST HERE.
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
-- Saddam "Red Huey" Lawson
Brad Meyer
<bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:5mfah0dtf1rn0k4oe...@4ax.com...
>
>> You miss the point. Let me try again. Why would the NG be "a better
>> place" without "mindless squabbles"?
>
>I think the bitter personal feuds detract from the group and send people off
>on tangents -- their choice, to be sure.
I don't disagree. I would even go so far as to say that without "the
bitter personal fueds" etc., I would enjoy the NG more. Where I have
the problem is with the leap from "I'd enjoy it more" to "better".
>> More narrowly, what, in this
>> instance, constitutes your definition of "better"?
>
>Start with no Barry. :) Continue with an end to the Jeff as central
>demon/Jeff as guardain nonsense.
I sympathize with your position, but don't see how you link it to
"better".
>Is there anyone here who would not like the NG more if these petty feuds
>ceased?
If the answer to this were yes then the moderated group would have the
traffic instead of this one, yet such is not the case.
Brad Meyer
>"Brooks D. Simpson" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>snips
>>
>> Is there anyone here who would not like the NG more if these petty feuds
>> ceased? Having offered that question, however, I have no desire to control
>> anything or to make anyone else comply with my wishes.
>
>There is probably no one who would not want this quibbling and dumping
>to cease.
I'll make the same case that I made to Brooks: If what you say is
really true, then the moderated group would get all the business, yet
it doesn't. I think there are those of us who view some of the goings
on here with the sort of horrid fascination usually reserved for
watching a grade crossing accident.
Brad Meyer
wrote:
I think it reveals that there are no absolutes, but duced if I can
demonstrate what I mean.
Brad Meyer
>Brad Meyer <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:<5mfah0dtf1rn0k4oe...@4ax.com>...
>
>> Let me try again. Why would the NG be "a better
>> place" without "mindless squabbles"? More narrowly, what, in this
>> instance, constitutes your definition of "better"? (And is it possible
>> that "better" could be strongly linked to "I'd like it more"?)
>
>I'm sure that for almost all of us, "better" very closely corelates with
>"I'd like it more." And I frankly don't see anything wrong with
>that.
I sure do. IMO it is amonst the rankest form of intellectual
dishonesty. I would find it hard, for instance, to credit the notion
that you applied the same rule to evaluating source when doing
reserach. "I like this qoulte so it must be 'better' then another I do
not like so much".
>If the "mindless squabbles" ended the NG would be better because
>there would be less personal acrimony and more time spent on
>discussing history and its ramifications.
Then why isn't that happening on the moderated group?
Brad Meyer
wrote:
So far as I am concerned, you are welcome to respond to anything I
post or ask any question that occurs. I doubt that there is anyone who
would qualify on your list of "good posters" who wouldn't make the
same offier. I think it a shame that people harass your posting and
even more of a shame that it bothers you so much.
James F. Epperson
> On 9 Aug 2004 05:59:30 -0700, j...@ams.org (James F. Epperson) wrote:
>
> >Brad Meyer <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
> >news:<5mfah0dtf1rn0k4oe...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >> Let me try again. Why would the NG be "a better
> >> place" without "mindless squabbles"? More narrowly, what, in this
> >> instance, constitutes your definition of "better"? (And is it possible
> >> that "better" could be strongly linked to "I'd like it more"?)
> >
> >I'm sure that for almost all of us, "better" very closely corelates with
> >"I'd like it more." And I frankly don't see anything wrong with
> >that.
>
> I sure do. IMO it is amonst the rankest form of intellectual
> dishonesty. I would find it hard, for instance, to credit the notion
> that you applied the same rule to evaluating source when doing
> reserach. "I like this qoulte so it must be 'better' then another I do
> not like so much".
You are conflating two different situations. Matters of preference are,
well, matters of preference. I can explain *why* I like something better,
but since it boils down to what *I* like, and what *I* like may well be
different from what *you* like, there is no absolute notion of what
is better. In the example you brought up, there are quasi-objective
standards which I (or my critics) can appeal to. And the fact remains
that different scholars will look at the same set of quotes and
consider different ones the most significant and/or most truthful.
They're not being dishonest (well, not always), they're simply
putting more or less emphasis on different aspects of scholarly
standards.
Specific example: There is a quote from Robert Stiles's memoirs
which several writers (including Rhea) have interpreted to mean
that Ewell was ordered by Lee to proceed down the road and
attack the Federals in the Wilderness. I don't accept that quote
at face value, for what I think are very good reasons. Now, am I
being dishonest? Is Rhea? I don't think so. One of us is probably
wrong, but we are "honestly" wrong.
> >If the "mindless squabbles" ended the NG would be better because
> >there would be less personal acrimony and more time spent on
> >discussing history and its ramifications.
>
> Then why isn't that happening on the moderated group?
Lots of reasons, I would speculate. There is a delay factor which slows
down the conversation. Some people simply object to having to have
their posts "approved." Stuff like that.
JFE
W. G. Davis
POST HERE. YOU ARE NOT UP TO IT ETHICALLY, OR
INTELLECTUALLY.
SNIP OF OFF TOPIC IDIOCY THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE CIVIL WAR!
READ THE CHARTER IDIOT!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
Brooks D. Simpson
> I think it a shame that people harass your posting and
> even more of a shame that it bothers you so much.
I hope you aren't trying to control the NG, Brad. :)
The vast majority of Lynn's posts offer commentary on the posting behavior
of others. Thus it is no surprise to me that she gets the same in return.
It's often frustrating to see how many times she comments on something
without knowing much about it, and one wonders whethr it is worth the effort
to set her straight (or to at least offer a different perspective) knowing
full well that there's no long term impact, because she will make the same
sort of mistake again.
Perhaps Lynn should not harass others if she does not want to be harassed.
It's her choice, and she has to accept the consequences. You, in turn,
should accept that, and broaden your notion of shame, for why isn't is a
shame that Lynn harasses people but a shame that people in turn harass her?
Isn't that sexist? Or just uninformed?
On the other hand, I'd be unaware of her posts if Jeff simply decided to
leave her alone. I've asked Jeff not to reply to such people, but he does,
which should offer ample evidence on which to judge exactly how much
influence I have over his posting behavior. :)
W. G. Davis
"Brooks D. Simpson" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cfauq9$17q$1...@news.asu.edu...
They still don't get it, do they?
--
Regards,
William G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"Where apathy is master, all men are slaves."
- Anonymous
>
>
Brooks D. Simpson
[snip]
I guess that in this instance I see better as more on-topic, less nasty,
etc. Just my predispositions. You may disagree, and that's fine.
> >Is there anyone here who would not like the NG more if these petty feuds
> >ceased?
>
> If the answer to this were yes then the moderated group would have the
> traffic instead of this one, yet such is not the case.
I think this has to do with the mechanics of moderation and the challenges
moderators face. Here you can get that instant reply. I also think that
some of the off-topic chatter here that I think establishes bridges where
none exists (I didn't know you knew something about hockey) is to the good
in creating a more tolerant and less personal atmosphere. Same goes for
actually meeting people who post her (as well as chatting with lurkers).
I happen to think those are good things and that embracing them makes the NG
better in an absolute as well as a relative sense, but I understand you
disagree with that premise. That's okay -- it doesn't bother me and I feel
no need to seek agreement, as in fact the distance between us is rather
small on these issues, if you think about it. That's why one of the
subthemes of this NG is the structure and dynamics of a virtual community.
Brooks D. Simpson
> I'll make the same case that I made to Brooks: If what you say is
> really true, then the moderated group would get all the business, yet
> it doesn't. I think there are those of us who view some of the goings
> on here with the sort of horrid fascination usually reserved for
> watching a grade crossing accident.
Perhaps. I don't particularly care for it, however, and I work on the
killfile as a result. I miss about 50-60% of the traffic here. However, I
am looking into a better newsreader, because in some cases I don't get posts
from good posters, and of course sometimes curiosity (in the form of a reply
to a post) gets the better of me ... thus a visit to Google, which is like
going to a rather wild zoo or a Rangers-Flyers game (there's a much higher
skill level in an Avs-Red Wings contest).
Brooks D. Simpson
> I sure do. IMO it is amonst the rankest form of intellectual
> dishonesty.
Brad, do you realize how anyone would take that phrasing?
Jim's not practicing a rank form of intellectual dishonesty ... he just
disagrees with you. Several of us agree with him. Are you ready to go out
there and call us all intellectually dishonest because we don't agree with
you?
I think you read too many of Wayne Elliott's posts. :)
HWAYNE
take on yet another person who you perceive as an enemy. A simple request
made of a very simple minded fool. But then,
What a fool!!
"Brooks D. Simpson" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
[deleted, the fool]
Brooks Simpson
> Now, fool, please leave me of of this latest descent into Simpsonia as you
> take on yet another person who you perceive as an enemy.
I don't perceive Brad as an enemy. Why would you think so? Perhaps
you are letting your paranoia show. After all, you are the sole
resident of Simpsonia.
And, no ... I won't leave you "out." I'll post about you whenever I
want. I'll use you as an example of stupidity and idiocy whenever I
want. At least that way you serve a constructive purpose in life.
And I'll certainly do it if the result is that you whine about it.
If you want to come out, do it on your own time.
HWAYNE
deranged to avoid doing so. At least you now admit it.
What a fool!! What a paranoid fool!
"Brooks Simpson" <bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Brad Meyer
<bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:5ilgh0tsrafcbr9i6...@4ax.com...
>
>> I'll make the same case that I made to Brooks: If what you say is
>> really true, then the moderated group would get all the business, yet
>> it doesn't. I think there are those of us who view some of the goings
>> on here with the sort of horrid fascination usually reserved for
>> watching a grade crossing accident.
>
>Perhaps. I don't particularly care for it, however, and I work on the
>killfile as a result. I miss about 50-60% of the traffic here.
I wouldn't doubt that being typical. I wonder who else posts to both
groups and killfiles in this group.
Hugh Lawson
> I wouldn't doubt that being typical. I wonder who else posts to both
> groups and killfiles in this group.
I read the mod group, post their occasionally and killfile in this
group, screening out about 50% of the posts here.
--
Hugh Lawson
hla...@triad.rr.com
W. G. Davis
"Hugh Lawson" <hla...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:87acx2z...@desktop.xx.yy...
Get off this newsgroup you yellow bellied cowardly lying fraud. You couldn't make it in the Navy, and you couldn't make it in Academia! You are a life-failure!
You are a moral eunuch. You are scum.
Get out now! Do not come back!
--
W. G. Jeff Davis
je...@pa7NOSPAM9th.org
"If people like me had more unchallenged influence, which must be the
case in lots of countries, then the mutinous populists would have fewer
chances to get their way."
-- Hugh "Red Huey" Lawson
Brad Meyer
<bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:g5lgh0p4gkj3ube7d...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>I guess that in this instance I see better as more on-topic, less nasty,
>etc. Just my predispositions. You may disagree, and that's fine.
My agreement is not especially material here. What I am finding
interesting is how easily some of us seem to bulr the line between
what we like beeter and what we view as better in some objective
sense. In fact, there seems to be little objectivity at all on the
issue. I'd very much like "more on-topic, less nasty, etc.," but I am
not so vain as to believe that just because I'd like it more that that
would automatically constitute a better NG.
>> >Is there anyone here who would not like the NG more if these petty feuds
>> >ceased?
>>
>> If the answer to this were yes then the moderated group would have the
>> traffic instead of this one, yet such is not the case.
>
>I think this has to do with the mechanics of moderation and the challenges
>moderators face.
I think it has at least as much to do with people finding the
moderated group too tame.
> Here you can get that instant reply. I also think that
>some of the off-topic chatter here that I think establishes bridges where
>none exists (I didn't know you knew something about hockey) . . .
I spent my highscool years living across the street from Stan Mikita
and was a huge Blackhawks fan. I kind of lost interest when the league
expanded from the six teams I grew up with. If you want to argue the
game is better today, I won't dispute it, but I don't enjoy it as
much.
>I happen to think those are good things and that embracing them makes the NG
>better in an absolute as well as a relative sense, but I understand you
>disagree with that premise.
Only to the extent that it is not capable of demonstration.
>That's okay -- it doesn't bother me and I feel
>no need to seek agreement, as in fact the distance between us is rather
>small on these issues, if you think about it.
Yes.
>That's why one of the
>subthemes of this NG is the structure and dynamics of a virtual community.
Or any other community for that matter. I find it a wonderful lab for
observing various forms of social interaction.
Brad Meyer
<bdsim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Brad Meyer" <brad...@juno.com> wrote in message
>news:vmmgh019fqcelf8s6...@4ax.com...
>
>> I think it a shame that people harass your posting and
>> even more of a shame that it bothers you so much.
>
>I hope you aren't trying to control the NG, Brad. :)
Naw, the fact that I think it a shamedoesn't mean I think anyone ought
to do things differently. Not even Lynn.
>The vast majority of Lynn's posts offer commentary on the posting behavior
>of others.
I'll have to take your word for this. I haven't seen all that many of
her posts and she has never commented on my posting habits to my
knowledge (other then appluading you and I above).
>Thus it is no surprise to me that she gets the same in return.
It is no surprise to me that anyone gets it for any reason (or no
reason) whatsoever.
>It's often frustrating to see how many times she comments on something
>without knowing much about it, and one wonders whethr it is worth the effort
>to set her straight (or to at least offer a different perspective) knowing
>full well that there's no long term impact, because she will make the same
>sort of mistake again.
I can see your point. Since I'm largely ignorant of this background
I'll take the chance and find out for myself. Pig headed I guess.
>On the other hand, I'd be unaware of her posts if Jeff simply decided to
>leave her alone. I've asked Jeff not to reply to such people, but he does,
>which should offer ample evidence on which to judge exactly how much
>influence I have over his posting behavior. :)
I figured you were all different creations of Ed anyway ;-).
raymond o'hara
"Brad Meyer" >
> My agreement is not especially material here. What I am finding
> interesting is how easily some of us seem to bulr the line between
> what we like beeter and what we view as better in some objective
> sense. In fact, there seems to be little objectivity at all on the
> issue. I'd very much like "more on-topic, less nasty, etc.," but I am
> not so vain as to believe that just because I'd like it more that that
> would automatically constitute a better NG.
everybody is always talking about the weather but nobody does anything
about it.
> >I think this has to do with the mechanics of moderation and the
challenges
> >moderators face.
>
> I think it has at least as much to do with people finding the
> moderated group too tame.
no one minds the moderators squelching flame , it's their other editing that
drove me off.
> > Here you can get that instant reply. I also think that
> >some of the off-topic chatter here that I think establishes bridges where
> >none exists (I didn't know you knew something about hockey) . . .
>
> I spent my highscool years living across the street from Stan Mikita
> and was a huge Blackhawks fan. I kind of lost interest when the league
> expanded from the six teams I grew up with. If you want to argue the
> game is better today, I won't dispute it, but I don't enjoy it as
> much.
>
> >I happen to think those are good things and that embracing them makes the
NG
> >better in an absolute as well as a relative sense, but I understand you
> >disagree with that premise.
>
> Only to the extent that it is not capable of demonstration.
>
> >That's okay -- it doesn't bother me and I feel
> >no need to seek agreement, as in fact the distance between us is rather
> >small on these issues, if you think about it.
>
> Yes.
>
> >That's why one of the
> >subthemes of this NG is the structure and dynamics of a virtual
community.
>
> Or any other community for that matter. I find it a wonderful lab for
> observing various forms of social interaction.
>
personally like I like the stuff that fleshes out and humanizes the members
of our little community. while my killfile is full that is because of mark b
many names , davis , barryand wayne make it too. but i try to limit it's use
narrl...@hotmail.com
> I figured you were all different creations of Ed anyway ;-).
WHOA!
Don't go trying to pin this stuff on me!
I don't have nearly the creativity (or the time)
to invent characters like some of our more vocal
Awcusans. It would take the epic imagination of
a Faulkner, the psychological insight of a Kipling,
and the nuanced concision of a Nabokov.
Thanks for the compliment, though ;-)
E "call me Avatar" F