RFD: aus.history
brian
presently running.
----------------------------------------------------------
REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
unmoderated group aus.history
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of an
Australian unmoderated Usenet newsgroup aus.history. This is not a Call
for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are
below.
Newsgroup line:
aus.history Discussion of all aspects of Australian history
RATIONALE: aus.history
The newsgroup aus.history is intended to provide a forum for the
discussion of all issues about and arising from Australia's rich and
diverse history.
At present, there is no other newsgroup which caters specifically for
this unique history as a forum dedicated to discussing it. Historical
discussions have quite often taken place in other forums, such as
aus.politics and soc.culture.australia(n) but neither is really
appropriate as a newsgroup for such discussions, as neither was intended
to cover it. While aus.general is intended for discussion of
_everything_ which does not fit into the other newsgroups and as such
historical discussion could
take place there but it would be easily sidetracked or swamped IMO by
the
interference of people who are interested in matters not specifically
historical so it is not an appropriate forum.
This new newsgroup is therefore intended to foster discussion amongst
primarily Australian readers about Australian history. It would also
fulfil a missing gap in the aus.* heirachy by creating a newsgroup,
where meta-discussions about Australian history could take place.
While
there could be a need at a later date for more specific historical
discussion groups, such as those dedicated to social, industrial or
economic history, they can be created at a later date, once sufficient
interest and hence net traffic has been shown to exist.
While its difficult to get anything concrete in the way of traffic stats
before the creation of the newsgroup, I can only point out that
according to a simple Dejanews search, that there appears to be in
aus.politics and aus.general well over 7300+ postings which mention
history or some form of historical concepts since the start of the
year. Whilst a great deal of it may well be crossposts and as
historical references are quite often used as a term of insult by some
(ie "Nazi"), it shows IMO that there is more than sufficient interest in
the matter of a newsgroup which is dedicated to the discussion of
matters historical.
CHARTER: aus.history
An unmoderated newsgroup which would provide a forum for the discussion
of Australia's unique history. It will include all aspects of
Australian history, from all viewpoints, including oral, written or
electronic formats, as well as any other which can be thought
of/developed. It will provide a forum for which the particularly
Australian viewpoint on history can be expressed and maintained.
Possible points of discussions are, but not limited to:
- history, historiography;
- traditions;
- customs;
- folklore.
In addition, all disciplines of history will be open for discussion,
including but not limited to:
- Migration History;
- Labor History;
- Military History;
- Feminist History;
- Religious History;
- Famous or not-so-famous Australians;
- Pre-Colonial History;
- Natural History;
- Economic History;
- Oral History;
And all formats, including oral, written or electronic formats, as well
as any other which can be thought of/developed will be utilised where
possible.
This group will be unmoderated.
Binary postings, chain letters and unrelated commercial advertisements
are prohibited.
Discussions about current issues will be discouraged, as other
mainstream newsgroups already exist to cover that aspect of Australian
life, although this will admittedly always remain a bit of a grey area.
Cross-postings between this newsgroup and others will be discouraged.
END CHARTER.
PROPOSER: Brian <bria...@tower.net.au>
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase of
the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups should
be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a
minimum
of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is posted
to
aus.net.news), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by the
aus.* administration team (See http://aus.news-admin.org/ for further
information). Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to aus.net.news.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined at http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq. Please
refer to that document if you have any questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
aus.general
aus.net.news
aus.politics
aus.culture.true-blue
soc.culture.australian
Proponent: Brian <bria...@tower.net.au>
--
"It is the knowledge of the mechanics of war, not of the
principles of strategy, that distinguishes a good leader
from a bad [one]."
Archibald Wavell, Generals and Generalship
CandL Garrett
would participate.
--
Lena G
brian <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in article
<39770C9A...@tower.net.au>...
David Bromage
level hierarchy.
Cheers
David
Gary Meadows
"brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> presently running.
Just a reminder that you have done nothing that even closely resembles
justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate to
the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty of
discussion about Australian history.
S.Benedikt
many individuals airing their living experiences that otherwise would never
come to notice.
brian wrote in message <39770C9A...@tower.net.au>...
stereotype
Bromage) wrote:
>I still disagree with the name. There is no case for creating a new second
>level hierarchy.
I agree with the name. Like aus.politics, history deserves its own
hierarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your disagreement seems to
stem from the fact that history is rarely compartmentalised when it is
discussed (except by historians)? So it's unlikely we would require 10
different groups under the aus.history hierarchy and all discussion on
australian history could take place in the same group (meaning it
doesn't need a hierarchy)? Correct?
My understanding (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that we create
the hierarchy, then if someone wants to create aus.history.genaeology
we would have a separate vote. I think History is its own area of
study and public discussion, as such it requires its own hierarchy.
The name of this group makes absolutely clear what the group is for.
regards
dougie.
snail
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:58:18 GMT, dbro...@fang.omni.com.au (David
>Bromage) wrote:
>>I still disagree with the name. There is no case for creating a new second
>>level hierarchy.
>I agree with the name. Like aus.politics, history deserves its own
Nope, aus.politics was created back when there were a lot less
groups in aus.* and hyraky placement didn't have the same significance.
The guidelines for creating new groups have changed substantially since
then.
>hierarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your disagreement seems to
>stem from the fact that history is rarely compartmentalised when it is
>discussed (except by historians)? So it's unlikely we would require 10
Sounds like you're wrong :) David's point is that it belongs under
a 2nd level hyraky (my own argument is for aus.arts.history) rather
than as a 2nd level hyraky. Its placement in the hyraky doesn't affect
how many groups it may or may not have hanging off it. However, if
there is an appropriate 2nd level node to put it under then I think
it should be placed there. I happen to think aus.arts.* is the
appropriate node.
>My understanding (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that we create
>the hierarchy, then if someone wants to create aus.history.genaeology
>we would have a separate vote.
That's correct.
>I think History is its own area of
>study and public discussion, as such it requires its own hierarchy.
>The name of this group makes absolutely clear what the group is for.
That's certainly an argument in favour of it, I imagine David's, and
I know my own, disagreement is where in the hyraky we put history's
hyraky :-)
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Sky_Rider
>> Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
>> presently running.
>Just a reminder that you have done nothing that even closely resembles
>justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate to
>the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty of
>discussion about Australian history.
but it is still a good idea.... and if a pathetic troll group like
"true-blue" can get the go ahead... then this one SURELY must!!
--
Sky Rider
----------------------------------
Want to make money off the web? Check out
http://cash4u2.cjb.net
----------------------------------
Che Guava
CandL Garrett wrote:
> I agree that there is a need for a specific ng to discuss aus history... I
> would participate.
> --
> Lena G
Yes indeed, a worthy addition to the NG heirarchy.
BTW, because it doesn't exist yet.. is their anyone who knows
an online source for the The Bulletin debates between Lawson and
Patterson?
I doubt there is one yet, but as Blanche says in that
Tennessee Williams play:
"I have always relied on the kindness of strangers" ;-)
> brian <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in article
> <39770C9A...@tower.net.au>...
brian
>
> "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > presently running.
>
> justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate to
> the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty of
> discussion about Australian history.
Gary, you know, do you really have to work at being this stupid or does
it come naturally?
aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it is
for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
difference, then thats your problem.
I have justified the number of posts before. If you failed to read and
understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
Now, why don't you go back to what you're good at - Sniping at Che.
Dave Proctor
> Gary Meadows wrote:
> >
> > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > presently running.
> >
> > justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate
to
> > the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty
of
> > discussion about Australian history.
>
> Gary, you know, do you really have to work at being this stupid or does
> it come naturally?
>
> aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it is
> for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
> difference, then thats your problem.
>
> I have justified the number of posts before. If you failed to read and
> understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
>
> Now, why don't you go back to what you're good at - Sniping at Che.
Ok, so explain it to me - You say that it is for "Australian discussion
about history". Does that mean it is for Australians to discuss the Boer
War, the French Revolution, the English Civil War, the Crusades - all of
this is history, and as long as it is discussed by Australians, it falls
within your remit for what is on topic for aus.history.
Now if, for a moment, you will consider that it is actually for the
alternative, i.e. the discussion of "Australian history", then perhaps you
will see where Gary is coming from.
I am not agreeing, or disagreeing here, all I am doing is trying to
illustrate the lunacy of your position. If Gary wants to defend his own
position, that is up to him.
But you cannot defend your own position by knocking the position of others,
and that is what you have been doing.
Dave
brian
>
> I still disagree with the name. There is no case for creating a new second
> level hierarchy.
And what would you suggest as an alternative name then, David?
brian
>
> Hi,
>
> I came in a little late. My apologies if what I have to say is old-hat
> or irrelevant. If it's either (or more likely both), feel free to flame
> me stupid, I can take it. (At least it's guaranteed to be quick).
No, you're never too late. Just a little slower than others and you
raise some interesting points.
> Technically, what would be off-topic on aus.history? Surely every
> Australian event or piece of writing is on topic, having
> by definition happened in the past and forming part of Australian
> history? Should / can a charter specifically list topics that are
> considered best discussed elsewhere - for example, political
> discussion, while on-topic in aus.history may be better
> located elsewhere (for example aus.politics). I don't know whether
> such information is appropriate in a newsgroup charter, but it seems
> like it would give some rationale for limiting inappropriate
> discussion should it get over the line.
Well, basically the intent is not for just discussion of Australian
history but rather the Australian view of history. Therefore, in part
you're correct, virtually anything could be construed as being on topic
but in reality most people who consider events greater than a few
seconds old to be "history" whilst those which aren't, are "current
events". While thats flippant, its essentially correct. Rather than
trying to over define something I'd rather let the group define itself.
All I've attempted to do is set out a set of guidelines for discussion,
nothing more.
> "Discussions about current issues will be discouraged" - should there
> be some stronger definition of "current" issues? I guess most traffic
> would be discussing Australian history in relation to topical events
> of the day, so I understand you have to be a little careful not to
> kill the group before it starts.
Can you supply such a definition?
> Are the following issues on-topic (try to ignore the troll like
> nature of the topics to answer yes or no - If these areas are
> blurred now, all hell will break loose later!):
> - What did One Nation do wrong? (Are they history?)
What they _did_ is history.
> - Aboriginal reconciliation - What do we have to reconcile?
The process is not history, yet but the events which brought about a
need for reconciliation are, by and large, history.
> - Immigration policy, the good old days.
Well, which "good old days" are these? The ones where the immigrants
were shipped out in chains or the ones where they arrived after we paid
most of the cost for their passage?
> What will prevent aus.history from becoming aus.general sans personal
> ads?
Basically because the intent and emphasis will be on the discussion of
matters historical, rather than matters necessarily general.
aus.general has by and large been invaded and its raison de'entre
destroyed because far too many people assume they should be crossposting
to it, when in reality anything which appears in another newsgroup
should _not_ appear in aus.general.
> Just my brass razoo's worth,
More worth as a contribution to the RFD than some I could name. ;-)
brian
>
> stereotype <stere...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >hierarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your disagreement seems to
> >stem from the fact that history is rarely compartmentalised when it is
> >discussed (except by historians)? So it's unlikely we would require 10
>
> Sounds like you're wrong :) David's point is that it belongs under
> a 2nd level hyraky (my own argument is for aus.arts.history) rather
> than as a 2nd level hyraky. Its placement in the hyraky doesn't affect
> how many groups it may or may not have hanging off it. However, if
> there is an appropriate 2nd level node to put it under then I think
> it should be placed there. I happen to think aus.arts.* is the
> appropriate node.
Whereas in reality, the concept of the "arts" as embodied in aus.arts is
about the expressive arts, not the contemplative ones, Snail. aus.arts
is about the stuff you see in galleries, theatres and so on, not what is
taught as "arts" at university.
> >My understanding (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that we create
> >the hierarchy, then if someone wants to create aus.history.genaeology
> >we would have a separate vote.
>
> That's correct.
>
> >I think History is its own area of
> >study and public discussion, as such it requires its own hierarchy.
> >The name of this group makes absolutely clear what the group is for.
>
> That's certainly an argument in favour of it, I imagine David's, and
> I know my own, disagreement is where in the hyraky we put history's
> hyraky :-)
At its own level.
brian
> "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > > presently running.
> > >
> > > justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate
> to
> > > the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty
> of
> > > discussion about Australian history.
> >
> > Gary, you know, do you really have to work at being this stupid or does
> > it come naturally?
> >
> > aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it is
> > for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
> > difference, then thats your problem.
> >
> > I have justified the number of posts before. If you failed to read and
> > understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
> >
> > Now, why don't you go back to what you're good at - Sniping at Che.
>
> Ok, so explain it to me - You say that it is for "Australian discussion
> about history". Does that mean it is for Australians to discuss the Boer
> War, the French Revolution, the English Civil War, the Crusades - all of
> this is history, and as long as it is discussed by Australians, it falls
> within your remit for what is on topic for aus.history.
>
> Now if, for a moment, you will consider that it is actually for the
> alternative, i.e. the discussion of "Australian history", then perhaps you
> will see where Gary is coming from.
I can see Gary attempting to try and put up rather fatuous arguments
against the creation of a new newsgroup because he dislikes me, nothing
else. Essentially I find it astounding that we don't have a newsgroup
dedicated to the discussion of history from an Australian perspective.
I take it you have no problems with the idea of a newsgroup which is
dedicated to the discussion of politics from an Australian perspective?
What about films, aviation, aerospace, radio, railways and the list goes
on for quite a way yet you appear to have some sort of problem with the
idea that there could well be an Australian perspective on the topic of
history.
> I am not agreeing, or disagreeing here, all I am doing is trying to
> illustrate the lunacy of your position. If Gary wants to defend his own
> position, that is up to him.
How is proposing a new newsgroup "lunacy", David?
>
> But you cannot defend your own position by knocking the position of others,
> and that is what you have been doing.
I could suggest that in fact that is exactly what you've done here,
David but I won't harp on it. Gary has set out from the start to try and
use his personal antipathy towards me as a reason to sabotage anything
which I propose. If you cannot percieve that then I really am worried.
Basically he's a voice crying in the wilderness and should be treated as
such.
Dave Proctor
> Dave Proctor wrote:
> > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> > > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > > > presently running.
> > > >
Agreed - so should something related to Australian railway history be
discussed in aus.history or aus.rail - should something realated to
Australian aircraft history be discussed in aus.history or aus.aviation.?
If there is a perceived need for other groups, should there be
aus.history.rail or aus.rail.history? Or maybe aus.aviation.history or
aus.history.aviation?
You can see where the perceived problems lie. Note, I said "perceived"
problems - the only reason why they are "perceived" problems, is because
nobody has made any attempt to address them. They remain "perceived"
problems, and until they are addressed, they will remain as such (once they
are addressed, they will become either "actual" problems, or they will be
solved.)
> > I am not agreeing, or disagreeing here, all I am doing is trying to
> > illustrate the lunacy of your position. If Gary wants to defend his own
> > position, that is up to him.
>
> How is proposing a new newsgroup "lunacy", David?
I was not referring to that, I was referring to your arguments. Do try to
keep up.
btw, it is Dave, not David. The only person that calls me David is my
mother. You are not my mother, so do not call me David.
[...drivel snipped...]
Dave
Neville Duguid
> Dave Proctor wrote:
> > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> > > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > > > Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> > > > > presently running.
> > > >
"Fatuous" is the word that comes to my mind too, Brian. You are now
saying aus.history is intended as a newesgroup for Australians to
discuss anything to do with the history of anything at all. You damn
well know the title of a newsgroup does not specify who is allowed to
post there. The title describes the topic that *anyone* interested in
the topic looks for when they want to discuss *that topic*.
If people want to discuss other countries' history, they have the whole
of usenet to find an alternative forum, and there are heaps of
newsgroups already in existence to choose from. If aus.history doesn't
mean Australian history in your view, then it is just another tactic to
play dog-in-the-manger and stuff around with anyone looking for a
newsgroup where they can discuss Australian history.
You are doing the same thing as the ABC has done here with this pathetic
excuse for a website:
http://www.abc.net.au/btn/austs.htm
They pretend to have lists of "Australian heroes".
As a typical example, they displace our genuine "War Heroes" with a list
of people who never faught a battle and never won won a fight, when
there are plenty of people who have been awarded medals for bravery in
action they could just as easily have have chosen instead.
Sure the people they put there are worthy in their own fields of
endeavour, but it is false labelling to claim they are our "war heroes",
thereby displacing our real war heroes from getting the recognition they
deserve.
Under "Justice" the ABC site similarly gives the impression that the
only fair and impartial judges we have ever had were women judges..
That is the same tack YOU are trying here, Brian. I have come across
lots of people who think a group called 'aus.history' is a good idea,
because there is nowhere else to discuss AUSTRALIAN HISTORY. You are
just setting it up as another decoy for your mate "Che Guava" to attack
anyone attempting to discuss non-politically-correct "history cleared
for Australian discussion". And then, if anyone else tries to claim
that what *you* want them to discuss is not from an Australian
perspective, Che (or you) will accuse them of implying someone is "not a
real Australian" because they choose to discuss (eg) Latvian history
from their own foreign-born parents' perspective.
You guys forget. You now have a track record. We've all seen you try
this sort of caper before - trying to turn usenet into a one-way channel
of party-approved propaganda dissemenation, with no interjections from
the public gallery allowed. (If you're reading this, Lena G, that means
your every attempt to discuss what you naively think Brian is
establishing this group for, will end in an interminable sh*t-fight as
you try to justify and apologize for even daring to open your mouth.
These are words of wisdom from someone who has been in that situation,
and knows only too well who the usenet control freaks really are.)
You are not interested in preserving anything Australian, Brian. All you
want to do is block anyone else's attempts to discuss Australian history
in situations where you can't control what's being discussed.
> I take it you have no problems with the idea of a newsgroup which is
> dedicated to the discussion of politics from an Australian perspective?
> What about films, aviation, aerospace, radio, railways and the list goes
> on for quite a way yet you appear to have some sort of problem with the
> idea that there could well be an Australian perspective on the topic of
> history.
>
> > I am not agreeing, or disagreeing here, all I am doing is trying to
> > illustrate the lunacy of your position. If Gary wants to defend his own
> > position, that is up to him.
>
> How is proposing a new newsgroup "lunacy", David?
>
> >
> > But you cannot defend your own position by knocking the position of others,
> > and that is what you have been doing.
>
> I could suggest that in fact that is exactly what you've done here,
> David but I won't harp on it. Gary has set out from the start to try and
> use his personal antipathy towards me as a reason to sabotage anything
> which I propose. If you cannot percieve that then I really am worried.
> Basically he's a voice crying in the wilderness and should be treated as
> such.
--
Neville Duguid * "If work were good for you, the rich *
nevi...@bigpond.net.au * would leave none for the poor." *
Spare me, spam me not * - Haitian proverb. *
brian
> > Dave Proctor wrote:
> > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> > > > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > > > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > > > > presently running.
> > > > >
> > dedicated to the discussion of politics from an Australian perspective?
> > What about films, aviation, aerospace, radio, railways and the list goes
> > on for quite a way yet you appear to have some sort of problem with the
> > idea that there could well be an Australian perspective on the topic of
> > history.
>
> discussed in aus.history or aus.rail - should something realated to
> Australian aircraft history be discussed in aus.history or aus.aviation.?
We've discussed this before, Dave. I'd say that either or both is
possible. Personally, I'd suggest that if you were discussing the
technical history of the railways or aviation you'd do it in the
newsgroup dedicated to it but if you were discussing it in a historical
context, you'd do it in the historical newsgroup. So, in otherwords, if
someone asked the question, "I'd like to know when the DH Drover
aircraft was introduced and why the hell did it have three engines?"
You'd should see it in aus.aviation. However, if someone posed the
question, "What role did the DH Drover aircraft play in the
establishment of the Royal Flying Doctor Service?" You'd see it in
aus.history.
> If there is a perceived need for other groups, should there be
> aus.history.rail or aus.rail.history? Or maybe aus.aviation.history or
> aus.history.aviation?
I'd cross that bridge when I came to it, Dave and leave it up to the
people who are interested in the subject. I see no reason as to why we
should get our knickers in a twist over a problem which IMO will more
than likely never eventuate.
> You can see where the perceived problems lie. Note, I said "perceived"
> problems - the only reason why they are "perceived" problems, is because
> nobody has made any attempt to address them. They remain "perceived"
> problems, and until they are addressed, they will remain as such (once they
> are addressed, they will become either "actual" problems, or they will be
> solved.)
I can see where you're coming from but as I've said, and you seem to be
agreeing with, this is a percieved rather than an actual problem and
should IMO at least, provide no real basis for an objection to the
creation of the new newsgroup. Are you going to suggest that we should
have had "aus.guns.politics" instead of "aus.politics.guns"?
> > > I am not agreeing, or disagreeing here, all I am doing is trying to
> > > illustrate the lunacy of your position. If Gary wants to defend his own
> > > position, that is up to him.
> >
> > How is proposing a new newsgroup "lunacy", David?
>
> I was not referring to that, I was referring to your arguments. Do try to
> keep up.
*SIGH*, then is why is my argument "lunacy", Dave?
> btw, it is Dave, not David. The only person that calls me David is my
> mother. You are not my mother, so do not call me David.
Apologies, Dave.
brian
Excuse me, Neville but out of a matter of interest, since when did
aus.politics only refer to Australian politics, as a counter example?
You're right that the main thrust of the newsgroup would be towards
discussion of Australian history but that does not preclude Australians
presenting to other Australians a discourse on a uniquely Australian
viewpoint on history, now does it?
> If people want to discuss other countries' history, they have the whole
> of usenet to find an alternative forum, and there are heaps of
> newsgroups already in existence to choose from. If aus.history doesn't
> mean Australian history in your view, then it is just another tactic to
> play dog-in-the-manger and stuff around with anyone looking for a
> newsgroup where they can discuss Australian history.
Climb down off your high horse (or should that be out of your high
dudgeon? :-), Nev. You're attempting to paint a position for me which
I've never applied for, thank'ee very much!
[diatribe against the ABC snipped as being immaterial to the RFD]
brian
> "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > > presently running.
> > >
> > > justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate
> to
> > > the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty
> of
> > > discussion about Australian history.
> >
> > Gary, you know, do you really have to work at being this stupid or does
> > it come naturally?
> >
> > aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it is
> > for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
> > difference, then thats your problem.
>
> is justification for a new newsgroup to house them is an absolute ball
> tearing piece of bullshit then that's your problem.
OK, explain why its "bullshit", Gary or is stringing more than two
sentences together without resorting to ad hominem impossible for you?
As they say, when you resort to ad hominem in usenet debate its obvious
you've already lost the argument.
> Again, I bet 7250+ of
> them relate to the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there
> is plenty of discussion about Australian history.
Immaterial. The raison de'entre of aus.culture.true-blue is discussion
of matters cultural, not matters historical. Appears you need to go
back and read the RFD or should I direct you to one of the competing set
of FAQ's?
> If you can't justify your false claim so be it.
Already have. I even supplied you with the search parameters. QED.
> > I have justified the number of posts before. If you failed to read and
> > understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
>
> No it aint gumby. It's yours. You're the one tasked with the
> justification...and IMO you haven't done that.
Nope, Gary, I've already justified it. Looks like your the voice in the
wilderness. To your one set of objections, based around personal
antipathy rather than reality, there have been half a dozen public and
private messages of support since I reposted the RFD.
> > Now, why don't you go back to what you're good at - Sniping at Che.
>
> Awww have a sook Dead Loss. Poor Che huh. Just think...whilst I am sweeping
> his politically infested crap out of aus.culture.true-blue I am leaving you
> alone.
Keep it up, Gary, the only person who looks like a fool is yourself.
Neville Duguid
> Excuse me, Neville but out of a matter of interest, since when did
> aus.politics only refer to Australian politics, as a counter example?
*********************************************************************
> You're right that the main thrust of the newsgroup would be towards
> discussion of Australian history
*********************************** - Brian Ross, 21-7-2000, during
aus.history RFD.
You're on record with that, Brian. Deliver what you're advertising and
there'll be nothing left for anyone to gripe about, will there?
> but that does not preclude Australians
> presenting to other Australians a discourse on a uniquely Australian
> viewpoint on history, now does it?
That is also true. But some people seem to have a remarkable talent for
exploiting loopholes. It is your unstated real intentions for the
newsgroup that I was querying.
This is quoted from your RFD proposal's "RATIONALE":
"At present, there is no other newsgroup which caters specifically for
this unique history as a forum dedicated to discussing it."
As that seems in accord with your more recent statement which I've just
hilighted with asterisks above, I think I can let it go at that for now.
It will be interesting to see how close it lives up to that ideal in
practice however, given the form of some of the "debaters" who like to
use new aus.* newsgroups to practice their Leninist "How to Seize Power
in an Organization" theory.
> > If people want to discuss other countries' history, they have the whole
> > of usenet to find an alternative forum, and there are heaps of
> > newsgroups already in existence to choose from. If aus.history doesn't
> > mean Australian history in your view, then it is just another tactic to
> > play dog-in-the-manger and stuff around with anyone looking for a
> > newsgroup where they can discuss Australian history.
>
> Climb down off your high horse (or should that be out of your high
> dudgeon? :-), Nev. You're attempting to paint a position for me which
> I've never applied for, thank'ee very much!
Let's call it a prediction, Brian. That way you will have the
satisfaction of proving me wrong if I do in fact turn out to be wrong.
You couldn't get a better offer than that if you're on the level, could
you now?
> [diatribe against the ABC snipped as being immaterial to the RFD]
That ABC site is a very good example of something pretending to be one
thing, but in reality being quite the opposite to what it appears. I.e.,
it is there to hide what it pretends to there to publicise.
http://www.abc.net.au/btn/austs.htm
--
Neville Duguid * Talk sense to a fool and *
nevi...@bigpond.net.au * he calls you foolish!! *
Spare me, spam me not * - Euripides *
Gary Meadows
"Sky_Rider" <ODPS@(remove this and the brackets)Cyberscriber.com> wrote in
message news:2ubgnsg4vtr0vl7tl...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:46:47 +1000, someone let "Gary Meadows" write:
>
> >> presently running.
>
> >justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate
to
> >the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty
of
> >discussion about Australian history.
>
> "true-blue" can get the go ahead... then this one SURELY must!!
Nothing "troll" about true-blue except for Che the Pig.
Gary Meadows
"brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> Gary Meadows wrote:
> >
> > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > presently running.
> >
> > justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate
to
> > the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty
of
> > discussion about Australian history.
>
> it come naturally?
I see you forgot about your fairyland killfile huh gumby. Liar.
> aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it is
> for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
> difference, then thats your problem.
If you can't work out that your claim to 7300 odd postings, since Christmas,
is justification for a new newsgroup to house them is an absolute ball
tearing piece of bullshit then that's your problem. Again, I bet 7250+ of
them relate to the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there
is plenty of discussion about Australian history.
If you can't justify your false claim so be it.
> I have justified the number of posts before. If you failed to read and
> understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
No it aint gumby. It's yours. You're the one tasked with the
justification...and IMO you haven't done that.
> Now, why don't you go back to what you're good at - Sniping at Che.
Awww have a sook Dead Loss. Poor Che huh. Just think...whilst I am sweeping
his politically infested crap out of aus.culture.true-blue I am leaving you
alone.
> --
Gary Meadows
> Dave Proctor wrote:
> > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> > > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > > > presently running.
> > > >
resembles
> > > > justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them
relate
> > to
> > > > the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is
plenty
> > of
> > > > discussion about Australian history.
> > >
> > > Gary, you know, do you really have to work at being this stupid or
does
> > > it come naturally?
> > >
is
> > > for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
> > > difference, then thats your problem.
> > >
and
> > > understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
> > >
> >
> > about history". Does that mean it is for Australians to discuss the Boer
> > War, the French Revolution, the English Civil War, the Crusades - all of
> > this is history, and as long as it is discussed by Australians, it falls
> > within your remit for what is on topic for aus.history.
> >
> > Now if, for a moment, you will consider that it is actually for the
> > alternative, i.e. the discussion of "Australian history", then perhaps
you
> > will see where Gary is coming from.
>
> I can see Gary attempting to try and put up rather fatuous arguments
> against the creation of a new newsgroup because he dislikes me, nothing
> else.
I don't have to like you to ask that you justify your false claims. Quit
your sooking. All the "noise" you are referring to..as "justification" for
your proposal, is simply the long winded and mostly idiotic drivel we had to
endure from you and your cronies during the true-blue RFD's and CFV's. Now
since "all" that traffic has gone to true-blue, and there's plenty of
discussion happening about Australian history in there, I find it amusing
that you're trying to falsely capitalize on that noise.
> Essentially I find it astounding that we don't have a newsgroup
> dedicated to the discussion of history from an Australian perspective.
> I take it you have no problems with the idea of a newsgroup which is
> dedicated to the discussion of politics from an Australian perspective?
> What about films, aviation, aerospace, radio, railways and the list goes
> on for quite a way yet you appear to have some sort of problem with the
> idea that there could well be an Australian perspective on the topic of
> history.
aus.films
aus.aviation
aus.rail
Any of these ring a bell? And you'd discourage cross postings? lol
> > I am not agreeing, or disagreeing here, all I am doing is trying to
> > illustrate the lunacy of your position. If Gary wants to defend his own
> > position, that is up to him.
>
> How is proposing a new newsgroup "lunacy", David?
7300 postings...all strictly about history...Australian or otherwise...since
Christmas...none of which already belong in an existing group? I'd say
you're a lunatic.
> >
> > But you cannot defend your own position by knocking the position of
others,
> > and that is what you have been doing.
>
> I could suggest that in fact that is exactly what you've done here,
> David but I won't harp on it. Gary has set out from the start to try and
> use his personal antipathy towards me as a reason to sabotage anything
> which I propose.
I wish you'd stop referring to our personal differences as the reason why
you are having so much trouble answering some simple questions about your
proposal. You really do have it in for me don't you? lol
> If you cannot percieve that then I really am worried.
> Basically he's a voice crying in the wilderness and should be treated as
> such.
Why? Because "you" don't have any reasonable answers? Child.
Gary Meadows
> Gary Meadows wrote:
> > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> > > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > > > presently running.
> > > >
resembles
> > > > justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them
relate
> > to
> > > > the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is
plenty
> > of
> > > > discussion about Australian history.
> > >
> > > Gary, you know, do you really have to work at being this stupid or
does
> > > it come naturally?
> > >
> > > aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it
is
> > > for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
> > > difference, then thats your problem.
> >
Christmas,
> > is justification for a new newsgroup to house them is an absolute ball
> > tearing piece of bullshit then that's your problem.
>
> sentences together without resorting to ad hominem impossible for you?
When it comes to the likes of you Brian, yes it is very hard to refrain.
I have already explained why it's bullshit IMO. It has nothing to do with
what I think of you. Your use of that little escape clause is ridiculous.
You are making a wild claim about there having been 7300 odd posts that
justify your proposal. Of these, I maintain that most (read 7250+) were just
the noise being made by those against aus.culture.true-blue such as
yourself. Now since all this "historical" dicussion has ended (read:
aus.culture.true-blue got up), where has all your "historical" discussion
gone? Surely it shouldn't have just disappeared because a "cultural" group
has been raised? Or is that there is simply no basis whatsoever to your
claims?
There you go gumby. There's a few sentences for you. You can stop sooking
now.
> As they say, when you resort to ad hominem in usenet debate its obvious
> you've already lost the argument.
I can't lose an argument with you Brian, because you can't present one.
> > Again, I bet 7250+ of
> > them relate to the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where
there
> > is plenty of discussion about Australian history.
>
> Immaterial.
That 95% of the traffic you claim should justofy your proposal has
absolutely nothing to do with your proposal? Well why didn't you say that
before! Gumby.
> The raison de'entre of aus.culture.true-blue is discussion
> of matters cultural, not matters historical.
Funny...it seemed to draw a quick close to all the traffic you are trying to
say is still alive and kicking and can be put to use by your proposal.
But...that's immaterial isn't it...
> Appears you need to go
> back and read the RFD or should I direct you to one of the competing set
> of FAQ's?
Not at all. There's hardly any competition between Che the Pig's politically
infested and censored crap and Lisa's Official FAQ.
> > If you can't justify your false claim so be it.
>
> Already have. I even supplied you with the search parameters. QED.
You think that you have justified your false claim by making a wild grab for
all the noise you and your cronies made during the a.c.t-b discussion, now
that it has all gone quite on the homefront? I don't think so Tim. All
you've done is confirmed the fact that a.c.t-b was a worthwile proposal.
> > > I have justified the number of posts before. If you failed to read
and
> > > understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
> >
> > No it aint gumby. It's yours. You're the one tasked with the
> > justification...and IMO you haven't done that.
>
> Nope, Gary, I've already justified it. Looks like your the voice in the
> wilderness. To your one set of objections, based around personal
> antipathy rather than reality, there have been half a dozen public and
> private messages of support since I reposted the RFD.
What...with all the hustle and bustle of discussion going on...in accordance
of course with your statistical claims...do you mean to tell me that the RFD
was almost forgotten about? Surely not! lol
Your misconception that my dislike for you alters the fact that your claims
are false is your problem.
> > > Now, why don't you go back to what you're good at - Sniping at Che.
> >
> > Awww have a sook Dead Loss. Poor Che huh. Just think...whilst I am
sweeping
> > his politically infested crap out of aus.culture.true-blue I am leaving
you
> > alone.
>
> Keep it up, Gary, the only person who looks like a fool is yourself.
Whatever.
Gary Meadows
> You're attempting to paint a position for me which I've never applied for,
thank'ee very much!
Yeah! The cheek of it. Fancy...calling you to task on something you yourself
said. lol
You've painted your own position Brian. Live with it.
> [diatribe against the ABC snipped as being immaterial to the RFD]
Just like your jovial traffic statistics huh.
Peter Mackay
says...
> From: "S.Benedikt" <benedik...@hotkey.net.au>
> Newsgroups: aus.net.news, aus.politics, aus.general, soc.culture.australian, aus.culture.true-blue
> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:47:56 +1000
>
> I like this proposal. It would or could become the recorded history from
> many individuals airing their living experiences that otherwise would never
> come to notice.
>
>
> brian wrote in message <39770C9A...@tower.net.au>...
> |Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> |presently running.
>
history than we've seen before.
--
Cheers! Peter Mackay
peter....@bigpond.com
personal opinion only
Sky_Rider
<snip>
>Agreed - so should something related to Australian railway history be
>discussed in aus.history or aus.rail - should something realated to
>Australian aircraft history be discussed in aus.history or aus.aviation.?
>
>If there is a perceived need for other groups, should there be
>aus.history.rail or aus.rail.history? Or maybe aus.aviation.history or
>aus.history.aviation?
>
>You can see where the perceived problems lie. Note, I said "perceived"
>problems - the only reason why they are "perceived" problems, is because
>nobody has made any attempt to address them. They remain "perceived"
>problems, and until they are addressed, they will remain as such (once they
>are addressed, they will become either "actual" problems, or they will be
>solved.)
I thought we'd had this discussion weeks ago... and resolved it?
<snip>
>btw, it is Dave, not David. The only person that calls me David is my
>mother. You are not my mother, so do not call me David.
hey David... does this mean alt.ozdebate is your mother??
Sky_Rider
<snip>
>> Agreed - so should something related to Australian railway history be
>> discussed in aus.history or aus.rail - should something realated to
>> Australian aircraft history be discussed in aus.history or aus.aviation.?
>We've discussed this before, Dave. I'd say that either or both is
>possible. Personally, I'd suggest that if you were discussing the
>technical history of the railways or aviation you'd do it in the
>newsgroup dedicated to it but if you were discussing it in a historical
>context, you'd do it in the historical newsgroup. So, in otherwords, if
>someone asked the question, "I'd like to know when the DH Drover
>aircraft was introduced and why the hell did it have three engines?"
>You'd should see it in aus.aviation. However, if someone posed the
>question, "What role did the DH Drover aircraft play in the
>establishment of the Royal Flying Doctor Service?" You'd see it in
>aus.history.
which summarises neatly what was discussed a couple of weeks ago.
>> If there is a perceived need for other groups, should there be
>> aus.history.rail or aus.rail.history? Or maybe aus.aviation.history or
>> aus.history.aviation?
>I'd cross that bridge when I came to it, Dave and leave it up to the
>people who are interested in the subject. I see no reason as to why we
>should get our knickers in a twist over a problem which IMO will more
>than likely never eventuate.
For a start I can see that there would be so little interest in the
history of the individual areas that they could be easily catered for
in the general history group. But IF a demand or interest was such
that a separate group needed to be created, then it would be up to the
proposers to make the case for where they think the new group should
be placed in the hierarchy.
>> You can see where the perceived problems lie. Note, I said "perceived"
>> problems - the only reason why they are "perceived" problems, is because
>> nobody has made any attempt to address them. They remain "perceived"
>> problems, and until they are addressed, they will remain as such (once they
>> are addressed, they will become either "actual" problems, or they will be
>> solved.)
>I can see where you're coming from but as I've said, and you seem to be
>agreeing with, this is a percieved rather than an actual problem and
>should IMO at least, provide no real basis for an objection to the
>creation of the new newsgroup. Are you going to suggest that we should
>have had "aus.guns.politics" instead of "aus.politics.guns"?
If there was sufficient interest in the subject of "guns" then yes a
group dedicated could or even SHOULD be created. However , the current
and ongoing area of interest is in the political machinations of the
topic and therefore aus.politics.guns is in its correct place.
Aus.history is simply fulfilling a need that should have been
addressed when the hierarchy was created!
Sky_Rider
>> aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it is
>> for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
>> difference, then thats your problem.
>If you can't work out that your claim to 7300 odd postings, since Christmas,
>is justification for a new newsgroup to house them is an absolute ball
>tearing piece of bullshit then that's your problem. Again, I bet 7250+ of
>them relate to the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there
>is plenty of discussion about Australian history.
but "true-blue" is dedicated to the white supremacist view of
Australian history!! I'm sure there are other more "academic"
approaches that might be of interest?
Sky_Rider
that approach really isn't worth following up. This sort of thing
happens with nearly all groups and yet they inevitably settle down in
time. The purpose of the group is what is important and the underlying
idea is sound.
the new group would be a place to discuss history..... but there WOULD
be occasions when another countries history so directly impinges on
that of australia that it would have to be "on-topic".... as a gross
example, an on topic post would be a discussion on how the development
of the structure of the uk army led to a situation in Gallipoli where
australian soldiers were sent to die for no good reason....
... discussing the development of the uk armed forces up to 1914 COULD
be seen as off topic... if it wasn't for the close relationship
between the two countries...
Che Guava
If you have disagreed with his views he will brand you as unter mensch
and vilify you with ad hom and bile forever. B^p
Poor fellow, perhaps his dummy was removed in infancy? B^D
Now that is understood we can deal with the fallacies in his current post.
brian wrote:
> Gary Meadows wrote:
> >
> > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> > > presently running.
> >
> > Just a reminder that you have done nothing that even closely resembles
> > justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate to
> > the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty of
> > discussion about Australian history.
Gary neglects to mention that if you are not of his political persuasion, then
even discussion about core elements of Australian history, such as Gallipoli,
and the inventiveness of digger cooks.. will be branded (arbitrarily and
foolishly)
by him as 'political' B^p
So it is hypocritical in the extreme for Gary to suggest aus.culture.true-blue
as a venue for 'discussion about Australian history' when, in his narrow view at
least,
POLITICAL HISTORY would be off charter! B^D
Others have taken a more reasonable view, noting that there is no clear and fixed
boundary between disciplines, and that someoverlap will always occur..
Gary's definition of *ANZAC biscuits* being off charter for aus.culture.true-blue
gives you some idea of the depths of idiocy some will descend to, but then his
motives
are blatant; political control of the NG his cronies have designated as a One
Nation
stronghold (sic) B^D
> Gary, you know, do you really have to work at being this stupid or does
> it come naturally?
he works at it. ;-)
> aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it is
> for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
> difference, then thats your problem.
one of many he exhibits, i'm afraid.
> I have justified the number of posts before. If you failed to read and
> understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
>
> Now, why don't you go back to what you're good at - Sniping at Che.
touche!
His reputation precedes him!
I regard it as flattering in the extreme;
Nev 'Dobber' Duigood is making vexatious complaints to his ISP, seeking
legal advice, and threatening to petition Richard 'Censor the Net' Alston! B^D
(While his mate Ned extols the evils of the Australian legal system and the
persecution
of Ned Kelly at the hands of the traps and the dobbers! B^D B^D B^D )
Lance is issuing challenges that I post more of the Australiana pieces I have
already posted! B^D
Lisa has been put to sleep by the Townsville Taliban puppeteers, along with her
Faux FAQ
that they duffed! B^D
Spamgroupie occasionally raises himself from his armchair and re-inserts his
teeth
for a spluttering and incoherent denunciation! B^D
They collectively accuse me of being HALF OF USENET! B^D B^D
(How else can they remain in denial about the growing number
of posters who criticise their disgraceful tactics! B^)
And Gary.. my pet.. follows me everywhere YAPPING! B^D B^D
I said it weeks ago:
"HEEEEEEEEEERE BLUE........ COOOOOOOME BEHIND!"
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAA!
Every cockie knows EXACTLY what it means.. but the Townsville
Taliban just don't get it....
Like the politically motivated sheep they are, they keep jumping,
and tripping, over the same invisible hurdle... their total failure
to understand, let alone demonstrate.. what it means to give....
A FAIR GO **FOR ALL** !!!!!!!
Che
------
The one the dogs-in-the-manger and pack hunting jackals thought
was another sacrificial lamb... but, with their fur shredded and their
throats torn open, they now see as the wily old sheepdog.. with fangs. ;-)
(Ah, political theatre.. the smell of grease paint mingled with opponents fear,
the bouquets and brickbats, the snarling of the critics and the wild applause
of the crowd, the hush when great ideas are simply and beautifully presented,
the lingering sense that our culture is carried by the stories we weave...
more exciting than football, deeper than chess, faster than fencing, ( the one
with rapier wit, not posthole diggers ;-) more satisfying than sex...
(ooops, sorry dear..just kidding ;-)
I have to go and do the dishes as pennance for my art, now.... )
brian
>
> In article <3977...@news.iprimus.com.au>, benedik...@hotkey.net.au
> says...
> > From: "S.Benedikt" <benedik...@hotkey.net.au>
> > Newsgroups: aus.net.news, aus.politics, aus.general, soc.culture.australian, aus.culture.true-blue
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:47:56 +1000
> >
> > I like this proposal. It would or could become the recorded history from
> > many individuals airing their living experiences that otherwise would never
> > come to notice.
> >
> >
> > brian wrote in message <39770C9A...@tower.net.au>...
> > |presently running.
> >
> history than we've seen before.
Perhaps because, Peter, Australian discussion about history is not just
confined to Australian history?
actb's purpose is to discuss cultural matters, not specifically
historical ones.
Let me provide you with an example from the recent press. It was
announced in The Australian this week that someone is claiming to have
discovered Pheonician ruins in far north Queensland. Pray tell, how
would a discussion of the likelihood of Pheonician settlement of
Australia, approximate 3,000 years before the arrival of the First Fleet
fit into actb?
Che Guava
Dave Proctor wrote:
> "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> news:397838AA...@tower.net.au...
> > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > >
> > > "brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> > > news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> > > > Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> > > > presently running.
> > >
> > > Just a reminder that you have done nothing that even closely resembles
> > > justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate
> to
> > > the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty
> of
> > > discussion about Australian history.
> >
> > Gary, you know, do you really have to work at being this stupid or does
> > it come naturally?
> >
> > aus.history is _not_ just for discussion about Australian history, it is
> > for Australian discussion about history. If you can't work out the
> > difference, then thats your problem.
> >
> > I have justified the number of posts before. If you failed to read and
> > understand what was said thats again your problem, not our's.
> >
> > Now, why don't you go back to what you're good at - Sniping at Che.
>
> Ok, so explain it to me - You say that it is for "Australian discussion
> about history".
IN ADDITION TO the discussion of Australian History is the clear reading
from the words "not_just_for..."
> Does that mean it is for Australians to discuss the Boer
> War, the French Revolution, the English Civil War, the Crusades - all of
> this is history, and as long as it is discussed by Australians, it falls
> within your remit for what is on topic for aus.history.
Yes, it seems better to have a broader, rather than a narrow
terms of reference, allowing for the free ranging debate such a discipline
demands.
(even in the unlikely case there are already specific forums for each of those
topics.)
> Now if, for a moment, you will consider that it is actually for the
> alternative,
But Dave.. it was Gary presenting the *EITHER/OR* 'alternative view.
Brian suggested BOTH!
Please pay attention.
> i.e. the discussion of "Australian history", then perhaps you
> will see where Gary is coming from.
Gary is coming from a point of complete hypocrisy...
I posted the following short historical piece on the
origin of ANZACS and Gary attacked it's presence in the
NG he now suggests be used for aussie history! B^D
If the Gallipoli cooks who created our quintessential cuisine
are NOT PART OF OUR DINKUM HISTORY in Gary
Goebbles view.. one would have to ask him.. WHAT IS!! B^D
___________________________________________
Subject:
Re: The True Blue Aussie Cook Book
Date:
Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:21:21 +1000
From:
"Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com>
Organization:
Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct
Newsgroups:
aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
References:
1 , 2 , 3
CandL Garrett wrote in message <01bfecc4$5ef31f80$e97936cb@default>...
>yes... great idea, but everything I have thought of so far is ex- Pommy
>food. The ties are deep..!!
The June copy of 'Mufti' lists the quintessential true-blue fare:
"ANZACs"
(Or, as they are now often known.. the ANZAC Biscuit!
This is one recipe which belongs in the FAQ!
"Biscuits! Army biscuits! Consider the hardness of them. Remember the
cracking of your plate, the breaking of this tooth, the splintering of that.
Call to mind how your finest gold crown weakened, wobbled, and finally
shrivelled under the terrific strain of masticating Puntley and Chalmer's
No. 5's...
Do we percieve a delicate flavouring of ferro-concrete with just a dash
of scraped iron railings? ...
Well Clazed, they would make excellent tiles or flagstones..."
-[Army Biscuits The ANZAC Book written during the Gallipoli
campaign by O.E. Burton, N.Z.M.C]
>
>Exactly what is dinkum aussie food?
Mate, It doesn't come any more dinkum than this!
Because Army biscuits were designed by enemy agents to
destroy morale by cracking teeth and gums.. ;-)
... "the cooks at Gallipoli, being primarily shearers cooks and
masters of improvisation, took advantage of goods shipped in
to cook their own style of (for a change, edible) biscuit." - Mufti.
"Any pieces of flat iron found were used as hot plates and ingredients,
subject to availability, were:
1. Tinned butter or dripping.
2. Bicarbonate of Soda
3. Treacle
4. Salt.
5. Scottish Oatmeal
6. Coconut
7. Malt shortening
> Is it somewhere between char-grilled
>python and spaghetti bolognaise or are they dinkum too? LOL. Oh well
>I'll dig out me Mum's old recipe book... that will have to do for *my*
>contribution source. :-)........ or maybe me Dad's... ??? he was more of
>a 'Bushie' (?!?!?!?)
"A similar form of recipe was later used to bake the ANZAC's by
female relatives of the Diggers." (After the blokes had taught them ;-)
Che
------
Trueblue BBQ God, ANZACS Emporor, and YoYo King. ;-)
("The only way to have cream is straight from the seperator,
so thick the knife stands up in it" ....yum! 8^)
_______________end historical/ culinary post_________________
Gary's response: "Piss off you politically motivated moron" 8^o
> I am not agreeing, or disagreeing here, all I am doing is trying to
> illustrate the lunacy of your position. If Gary wants to defend his own
> position, that is up to him.
Gary want's to, but is incapable.
> But you cannot defend your own position by knocking the position of others,
ridiculous.. if Gary's attack is absurd and hypocritical, as it clearly is,
but likely to influence those not fully apprised of the facts, such as yourself,
then making them aware that Gary's suggestion of a.c.tb as a history venue
is a hypocritical fraud, is very pertinant and even a civic responsibility.
;-)
> and that is what you have been doing.
Naturally.. Brian is a very responsible Usenet citizen..
Gary is a hypocrite and liar.
> Dave
As for you, "I am not agreeing, or disagreeing here,
all I am doing is trying to illustrate the lunacy of your position. " B^D
B^D
Gary Meadows
"Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:39790174...@my-deja.com...
Bullshit ya lying little gumby. I presented my view that Brian's outlandish
claim to all the traffic stats that he, you and the rest of your cronies
caused trying to call a stop to ac.c.t-b is bullshit. Nothing more. Nothing
less.
> Brian suggested BOTH!
Brian suggests a lot of things. Shame he can't justify his suggestions.
> Please pay attention.
Pot, kettle..black. Gumby.
> > i.e. the discussion of "Australian history", then perhaps you
> > will see where Gary is coming from.
>
> Gary is coming from a point of complete hypocrisy...
> I posted the following short historical piece on the
> origin of ANZACS and Gary attacked it's presence in the
> NG he now suggests be used for aussie history! B^D
1) Anything you post is politically infested crap
2) I never suggested true-blue be used for aussie history...just that all
the traffic the RFD created is harldy still sitting around in limbo waiting
for somewhere to go.
At least try to keep up and stop lying.
> Naturally.. Brian is a very responsible Usenet citizen..
Hahaha...was gonna snip the rest, but couldn't leave this little pearler
out. What a load of absolute nonsense. He cries foul and throws false
accusations about when a vote goes against his wishes....really
responsible...and cries out that I am out to bully him when asking him to
justify what I consider to be outlandish claims in a RFD...really
responsible. About as responsible as you actually. Which is zip.
Gary Meadows
> Gary neglects to mention that if you are not of his political persuasion
Well aren;t you just full of vesta surprises. Idiot. I am not of *any*
political persuasion you clown.
> So it is hypocritical
Everything you say is.
David Bromage
> David Bromage wrote:
> >
> > I still disagree with the name. There is no case for creating a new second
> > level hierarchy.
> And what would you suggest as an alternative name then, David?
As has already been pointed out, aus.arts.history would be more
appropriate, unless we can justify aus.humanities.*
Cheers
David
Che Guava
Neville Duguid wrote:
>
>
> "Fatuous" is the word that comes to my mind too,
Like a homing pidgeon, eh Nev? B^D
Che
-----
B^D
Che Guava
Gary Meadows wrote:
> Again, I bet 7250+ of
> them relate to the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there
> is plenty of discussion about Australian history.
BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHAAAA!
This IS the same Gary Meadows who abuses people for posting about
ANZAC biscuits and Gallipoli in aus.culture.true-blue! B^D
According to the Townsville Taliban, you can talk about Cook,
but not about recent political history..
According to the Townsville Taliban, you can talk about The Immigration
Act (the White Australia Policy) but not about our rich multicultural history!
According to the Townsville Taliban, you can talk about nazi eugenics,
but not about Judith Wrights lifelong interest in indigenous Australians.
According to the Townsville Taliban, you can even talk about politics,
like George Speyt in FIji, BUT ONLY SO LONG AS YOU APPROVE
OF HIS MONOCULTURAL FASCISM, like muttley does..
If you are one of the Townsville Taliban you can pretty much say what you
like...
but dissenting views are anathema to them...
Yes Brian.. we need an OPEN and APPROPRIATE venue for the discussion
of an Australian perspective on History... one where the One Nation remnant
do not scream everytime progressive views are advanced.
One reason alone makes aus.culture.true-blue inappropriate.. History is
political!
And in a.c.tb. Gary is obsessed with any politics other that his own
neo-fascism.
brian
Yet, as David Formosa pointed out and I've explained, aus.arts is about
the cultural arts, not the educative or contemplative arts. Therefore
it would be inappropriate, unless of cause you want to completely
reorganise the aus.* heirachy in your own image? I mean, we'd then have
to have:
aus.arts
aus.arts.performing
aus.arts.painting
aus.arts.politics
aus.arts.politics.guns
aus.arts.film
aus.arts.tv
aus.arts.culture
aus.arts.culture.true-blue
Seems to me that you've got a hard road to travel if you're going to
achieve that.
CandL Garrett
Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<39783714...@my-deja.com>...
>
>
> CandL Garrett wrote:
>
> > I agree that there is a need for a specific ng to discuss aus
history... I
> > would participate.
> > --
> > Lena G
>
> Yes indeed, a worthy addition to the NG heirarchy.
>
> BTW, because it doesn't exist yet.. is their anyone who knows
> an online source for the The Bulletin debates between Lawson and
> Patterson?
Sorry ... not online. I do have them in print... that's if you mean the
poems.... city vs country etc.
--
Lena G
Suzi
<webm...@editgroup.com.au> wrote:
>
>"brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
>news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
>> Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
>> presently running.
>
>Just a reminder that you have done nothing that even closely resembles
>justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate to
>the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty of
>discussion about Australian history.
>
then put up or shut up.
brian claims this figure is from aus.politics and aus.general.
do you have any proof to the contary, or are you just a spoiler?
>
>
>
Che Guava
CandL Garrett wrote:
Thanks Lena..It was a long shot, so little Australian historical primary
source
material is available online.. yet.
Gary Meadows
"Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3979591E...@my-deja.com...
>
>
> Gary Meadows wrote:
>
> > Again, I bet 7250+ of
> > them relate to the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where
there
> > is plenty of discussion about Australian history.
>
Sorry shit for brains...I should have made that "where there is plenty of
discussion about Australian history, in addition to plenty of Che the Pig's
lying and bullshit".
How's your politically infested crap (aka as the unofficial FAQ coming
along? You keeping to your word yet and accepting submissions to it? Lying
little grommit!
Gary Meadows
"Suzi" <suz...@seductive.com> wrote in message
news:39793285...@NEWS.BIGPOND.COM...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:46:47 +1000, "Gary Meadows"
> <webm...@editgroup.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
> >"brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
> >news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
> >> Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> >> presently running.
> >
> >Just a reminder that you have done nothing that even closely resembles
to
> >the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty
of
> >discussion about Australian history.
> >
My god..it's you! Che the Pig in Drag. How warming on a Sunday morning.
> brian claims this figure is from aus.politics and aus.general.
Ever heard of cross posting?
> do you have any proof to the contary, or are you just a spoiler?
Well I must be a spoiler then...because I supported
aus.culture.true-blue...and it got created...and all those posts that Dead
Loss is claiming are all about history and justification for his proposal,
seem to have disappeared.
You haven't gotten any smarter since we last spoke.
Seppo Renfors
Peter Mackay wrote:
>
> In article <3977...@news.iprimus.com.au>, benedik...@hotkey.net.au
> says...
> > From: "S.Benedikt" <benedik...@hotkey.net.au>
> > Newsgroups: aus.net.news, aus.politics, aus.general, soc.culture.australian, aus.culture.true-blue
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:47:56 +1000
> >
> > I like this proposal. It would or could become the recorded history from
> > many individuals airing their living experiences that otherwise would never
> > come to notice.
> >
> >
> > brian wrote in message <39770C9A...@tower.net.au>...
> > |Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> > |presently running.
> >
> What's the point? act-b seems to be having more discussion of Australian
> history than we've seen before.
Really!! Most of that garbage seems to be cross posted ot
aus.politics, and quite frankly I am yet to see anything of
History there. It is THIS group -aus.politics- that seems to get
a lot of history, and if it ends up in act-b, it is ONLY because
if came from here.
Are you seriously suggesting, Che, Nev, Gumby, Ned, Lance, Lisa
or anyone else have been talking "history" past the first RFQ for
the snake pit of forked tongues the call act-b!
--
SIR -Philosopher Unauthorised
------------------------------------------------------------------
" Don't resent getting old. A great many are denied that
privilege "
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Bromage
> David Bromage wrote:
> >
> > brian (bria...@tower.net.au) wrote:
> > > David Bromage wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I still disagree with the name. There is no case for creating a new second
> > > > level hierarchy.
> >
> > > And what would you suggest as an alternative name then, David?
> >
> > As has already been pointed out, aus.arts.history would be more
> > appropriate, unless we can justify aus.humanities.*
> Yet, as David Formosa pointed out and I've explained, aus.arts is about
> the cultural arts, not the educative or contemplative arts.
Why says it can't be about all arts? Is the only reason aus.arts.* can't
be about educative arts simply because it hasn't been done thus far?
Cheers
David
Gary Meadows
"Seppo Renfors" <sren...@invalid.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
news:3979BE68...@invalid.adelaide.on.net...
>
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >
> > In article <3977...@news.iprimus.com.au>, benedik...@hotkey.net.au
> > says...
> > > From: "S.Benedikt" <benedik...@hotkey.net.au>
> > > Newsgroups: aus.net.news, aus.politics, aus.general,
soc.culture.australian, aus.culture.true-blue
> > > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:47:56 +1000
> > >
> > > I like this proposal. It would or could become the recorded history
from
> > > many individuals airing their living experiences that otherwise would
never
> > > come to notice.
> > >
> > >
> > > brian wrote in message <39770C9A...@tower.net.au>...
> > > |Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> > > |presently running.
> > >
> > What's the point? act-b seems to be having more discussion of Australian
> > history than we've seen before.
>
> Really!! Most of that garbage seems to be cross posted ot
> aus.politics, and quite frankly I am yet to see anything of
> History there.
You're right there gumby. All the garbage does get cross posted to
aus.politics. You can blame your cronies for that. Che the Pig needs to make
sure he makes a fool of himself on a wide a platform as possible.
The rest...the true true blue discussion the group was raised to foster, is
successfully maintaining a strong presence inside te group itself.
> It is THIS group -aus.politics- that seems to get
> a lot of history, and if it ends up in act-b, it is ONLY because
> if came from here.
Wrong.
> Are you seriously suggesting, Che, Nev, Gumby, Ned, Lance, Lisa
> or anyone else have been talking "history" past the first RFQ for
> the snake pit of forked tongues the call act-b!
There's plenty of histotical discussion going on.
But I'll let you know when the forked tongue (aka Che the Pig) makes as
ungracious an exit as he did when aus.culture.naturist showed him the
working end of a size 10 boot.
Seppo Renfors
David Bromage wrote:
>
> brian (bria...@tower.net.au) wrote:
> > David Bromage wrote:
> > >
> > > I still disagree with the name. There is no case for creating a new second
> > > level hierarchy.
>
> > And what would you suggest as an alternative name then, David?
>
> As has already been pointed out, aus.arts.history would be more
> appropriate, unless we can justify aus.humanities.*
No good, because in real life, history is not seen as "arts".
"Arts" always portrays an image of performing arts, visual arts
etc -not of language nor history. It is an exclusive term used in
a rather closed group of people, and is unsuitable as a commonly
understood thing. "Arts" is an industry specific term, used in
the manner you propose.
Seppo Renfors
brian wrote:
>
> snail wrote:
> >
> > stereotype <stere...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > >hierarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your disagreement seems to
> > >stem from the fact that history is rarely compartmentalised when it is
> > >discussed (except by historians)? So it's unlikely we would require 10
> >
> > Sounds like you're wrong :) David's point is that it belongs under
> > a 2nd level hyraky (my own argument is for aus.arts.history) rather
> > than as a 2nd level hyraky. Its placement in the hyraky doesn't affect
> > how many groups it may or may not have hanging off it. However, if
> > there is an appropriate 2nd level node to put it under then I think
> > it should be placed there. I happen to think aus.arts.* is the
> > appropriate node.
>
> Whereas in reality, the concept of the "arts" as embodied in aus.arts is
> about the expressive arts, not the contemplative ones, Snail. aus.arts
> is about the stuff you see in galleries, theatres and so on, not what is
> taught as "arts" at university.
I have to agree with both "stereotype" and Brian on this score.
If I was to look for "history", there is no way I would look
under "arts", as out there in the NORMAL world, history isn't
considered art... well other than a "bullshit artist" on a
historical aspect, but that applies to any facet....
>
> > >My understanding (again, correct me if I'm wrong) is that we create
> > >the hierarchy, then if someone wants to create aus.history.genaeology
> > >we would have a separate vote.
> >
> > That's correct.
Eminently sensible!
> >
> > >I think History is its own area of
> > >study and public discussion, as such it requires its own hierarchy.
> > >The name of this group makes absolutely clear what the group is for.
> >
> > That's certainly an argument in favour of it, I imagine David's, and
> > I know my own, disagreement is where in the hyraky we put history's
> > hyraky :-)
>
> At its own level.
Agreed.
Seppo Renfors
brian wrote:
>
> Daniel McKeown wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I came in a little late. My apologies if what I have to say is old-hat
> > or irrelevant. If it's either (or more likely both), feel free to flame
> > me stupid, I can take it. (At least it's guaranteed to be quick).
>
> No, you're never too late. Just a little slower than others and you
> raise some interesting points.
>
> > Technically, what would be off-topic on aus.history? Surely every
> > Australian event or piece of writing is on topic, having
> > by definition happened in the past and forming part of Australian
> > history? Should / can a charter specifically list topics that are
> > considered best discussed elsewhere - for example, political
> > discussion, while on-topic in aus.history may be better
> > located elsewhere (for example aus.politics). I don't know whether
> > such information is appropriate in a newsgroup charter, but it seems
> > like it would give some rationale for limiting inappropriate
> > discussion should it get over the line.
>
> Well, basically the intent is not for just discussion of Australian
> history but rather the Australian view of history. Therefore, in part
> you're correct, virtually anything could be construed as being on topic
> but in reality most people who consider events greater than a few
> seconds old to be "history" whilst those which aren't, are "current
> events". While thats flippant, its essentially correct. Rather than
> trying to over define something I'd rather let the group define itself.
> All I've attempted to do is set out a set of guidelines for discussion,
> nothing more.
>
> > "Discussions about current issues will be discouraged" - should there
> > be some stronger definition of "current" issues? I guess most traffic
> > would be discussing Australian history in relation to topical events
> > of the day, so I understand you have to be a little careful not to
> > kill the group before it starts.
>
> Can you supply such a definition?
Surely common sense can define what is "current issues", like
"current affairs" would be OUT OF BOUNDS in that news group.
> > Are the following issues on-topic (try to ignore the troll like
> > nature of the topics to answer yes or no - If these areas are
> > blurred now, all hell will break loose later!):
> > - What did One Nation do wrong? (Are they history?)
>
> What they _did_ is history.
Well, yes, but even that is getting close to being "current
affairs".
>
> > - Aboriginal reconciliation - What do we have to reconcile?
>
> The process is not history, yet but the events which brought about a
> need for reconciliation are, by and large, history.
Yes, agreed.
>
> > - Immigration policy, the good old days.
>
> Well, which "good old days" are these? The ones where the immigrants
> were shipped out in chains or the ones where they arrived after we paid
> most of the cost for their passage?
Certainly I see nothing in "current" immigration policies to be
valid as a topic. That includes the PHON immigration policy (damn
thing is still current).
>
> > What will prevent aus.history from becoming aus.general sans personal
> > ads?
>
> Basically because the intent and emphasis will be on the discussion of
> matters historical, rather than matters necessarily general.
> aus.general has by and large been invaded and its raison de'entre
> destroyed because far too many people assume they should be crossposting
> to it, when in reality anything which appears in another newsgroup
> should _not_ appear in aus.general.
>
> > Just my brass razoo's worth,
>
> More worth as a contribution to the RFD than some I could name. ;-)
Seppo Renfors
OH! Do you call that shit fight you had about "who's on first
base" as HISTORY?? What a DORK you are Gumby!
>
> > Are you seriously suggesting, Che, Nev, Gumby, Ned, Lance, Lisa
> > or anyone else have been talking "history" past the first RFQ for
> > the snake pit of forked tongues the call act-b!
>
> There's plenty of histotical discussion going on.
Oh Sure!! If there was it would have been in aus.politics by now,
it isn't therefor it doesn't exist.... other than the "who's on
first base" crap you whine about.
>
> But I'll let you know when the forked tongue (aka Che the Pig) makes as
> ungracious an exit as he did when aus.culture.naturist showed him the
> working end of a size 10 boot.
IIRC his "entry" there was rather unintended in the fist place,
so it isn't even honest to say he was "kicked out", as you cannot
be "kicked out" from an unmoderated group. You lot have tried
hard enough. Nev has been crying all over the net about it to all
and sundry to no avail. What was it again he promised.. to go
squeal on Che to ASIO, NORAD and Gill Gates are some I remember
him nominating. Your lot have even been spamming his ISP!! Talk
about loony toones!
WORSE is that YOU actually ENCOURAGE Che to carry on!! When the
hell will you grow up and LEARN??
Ian Staples
In article <3977...@ns1.access1.com.au>,
"Gary Meadows" <webm...@editgroup.com.au> wrote:
>
>"brian" <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote in message
>news:39770C9A...@tower.net.au...
>> Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
>> presently running.
>
>Just a reminder that you have done nothing that even closely resembles
>justifying your traffic claim. Of your "7300" I bet 7250+ of them relate to
>the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where there is plenty of
>discussion about Australian history.
a.c.t-b may be "up and running" but it's clearly not running very far.
Certainly as yet no sign of it on this server that I can find.
Cheers, Ian S.
Che Guava
OOOO! Gary posting in aus.politics again..
something the claims he NEVER does! B^D
And what do we find him doing?
Why, obsessed with his nemesis, Che, again! B^D
Like Seppo, they can't help licking their wounds and whining about past
defeats in public:
Seppo Renfors wrote:
> Gary Meadows wrote:
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" <sren...@invalid.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
> > news:3979BE68...@invalid.adelaide.on.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter Mackay wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3977...@news.iprimus.com.au>, benedik...@hotkey.net.au
> > > > says...
> > > > > From: "S.Benedikt" <benedik...@hotkey.net.au>
> > > > > Newsgroups: aus.net.news, aus.politics, aus.general,
> > soc.culture.australian, aus.culture.true-blue
> > > > > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:47:56 +1000
> > > > >
> > > > > I like this proposal. It would or could become the recorded history
> > from
> > > > > many individuals airing their living experiences that otherwise would
> > never
> > > > > come to notice.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > brian wrote in message <39770C9A...@tower.net.au>...
> > > > > |Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> > > > > |presently running.
> > > > >
> > > > What's the point? act-b seems to be having more discussion of Australian
> > > > history than we've seen before.
> > >
> > > Really!! Most of that garbage seems to be cross posted ot
> > > aus.politics, and quite frankly I am yet to see anything of
> > > History there.
I posted on the history of Anzac biscuits, invented by the diggers
rather than lose their teeth on army bootsole biscuits.
Brian, who is interested in History, saw it.
Those of you fully occupied in looking for something to whinge about,
or permanently engaged in gutless backbiting (Gary, Seppo ;-)
missed it apparently. B^p
> >
> > You're right there gumby. All the garbage does get cross posted to
> > aus.politics. You can blame your cronies for that. Che the Pig needs to make
> > sure he makes a fool of himself on a wide a platform as possible.
> >
> > The rest...the true true blue discussion the group was raised to foster, is
> > successfully maintaining a strong presence inside te group itself.
> >
> > > It is THIS group -aus.politics- that seems to get
> > > a lot of history, and if it ends up in act-b, it is ONLY because
> > > if came from here.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> OH! Do you call that shit fight you had about "who's on first
> base" as HISTORY?? What a DORK you are Gumby!
> >
> > > Are you seriously suggesting, Che, Nev, Gumby, Ned, Lance, Lisa
> > > or anyone else have been talking "history" past the first RFQ for
> > > the snake pit of forked tongues the call act-b!
> >
> > There's plenty of histotical discussion going on.
>
> Oh Sure!! If there was it would have been in aus.politics by now,
> it isn't therefor it doesn't exist.... other than the "who's on
> first base" crap you whine about.
> >
> > But I'll let you know when the forked tongue (aka Che the Pig) makes as
> > ungracious an exit as he did when aus.culture.naturist showed him the
> > working end of a size 10 boot.
Are you telling everyone that Ms Mojo's nudism was so repulsive it
sent me fleeing faster than all your fruitless attempts to drive me and
other dissenting voices from your Townsville Taliban coven can manage??? 8^o
What kind of girlie cake-boys are you!? B^D
So all that black leather, studs, peaked caps and goosestepping is
just Townsville Taliban high camp!?! B^D
Well, we will just have to put your lies and bullshit to the test! B^D
> IIRC his "entry" there was rather unintended in the fist place,
Have any of you ever ACTUALLY VISITED the floppy bits NG? B^D
It's as dead as the Townsville Taliban FAQ!!!! B^D
Every few months: "Hi I'm Bjorn from Sweeden, where can I see
some Aussie floppy bits" B^D
IT'S NOT EXACTLY RIVETTING READING! B^D
(If your news server carries it! One of mine doesn't, too low volume! B^)
> so it isn't even honest to say he was "kicked out", as you cannot
> be "kicked out" from an unmoderated group.
Seppo.. leave Gazza his bullshit bone..
IT'S ALL HE HAS TO GNAW ON!!! B^D
Then again.. perhaps it's time for a little visit to aus.naturist
just to show Gary to be a lying scumbag... AGAIN!!!!!! B^D
Lets take a vote.. is it
a) necessary?
b) worthwhile?
c) a bit of fun?
d) all of the above? B^D
(Is that Voodoo's teath I hear gnashing? '
PERHAPS SHE SHOULD PUT THEM BACK IN!! B^D
> You lot have tried hard enough.
Oh, Cmon Seppo.. their bitching bleating, moaning duffing and lying ISN'T HARD!
It comes naturally to the Townsville Taliban! B^D
> Nev has been crying all over the net about it to all
> and sundry to no avail.
Well, it wasn't a total waste of time!
We all got to roll around on the floor laughing and holding our sides from
splitting..
and his tears DID wash the inside of my monitor screen! B^D
> What was it again he promised.. to go
> squeal on Che to ASIO, NORAD and Gill Gates are some I remember
> him nominating.
Perhaps Gazza will get Ms Mojo to stick some pins in a Voodoo Doll..
It couldn't be ANY MORE INEFFECTIVE THAN HIS BLEATING! B^D
> Your lot have even been spamming his ISP!!
C'mon Seppo, you did play a part.. leading Dobber Duigood on by
telling him he was on the right track with Zorro's posts (the mysterious
phantom poster, who baffled the best minds of the Uthernet Powithe,
and whose dark charms are irresistable to women. ;-) when in reality,
you had no more evidence than he did! B^D
> Talk about loony toones!
Until they cease their disgraceful tactics in a.c.t-b that is exactly what we will
do!
> WORSE is that YOU actually ENCOURAGE Che to carry on!!
Reverse psychology on the Townsville Taliban Seppo?
And is this you demonstrating how to igniore me!?!? B^D
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
But you can no more resist me than they can!
You HAVE to know what pearls have been cast before the squealers! ;-)
It's called Hostage syndrome.. all those held captive (in this case by
superior intellect and force of reason ;-) come to identify, even worship
the strength of their master.. ;-)
Certainly they are obsessed with their nemesis..
Gazza makes a good pet, don't you think? A bit yappy, but
he follows nicely! B^D
> When the hell will you grow up and LEARN??
Pish tush.. IT IS the Townsville Taliban you are talking too..
they are so stubbonly pig-ignorant that they can't even learn manners! B^p
Che Guava
in an unsolicited ad hom by one Gary Meadows, and thought
you should be aware of this cowardly backbiters doings:
Gary Meadows claims below that you 'drive' people from your unmoderated NG.
(And that you wear size 10 boots!!! 8^o 8^o B^p )
(This post alone gives the lie to the first of his mad ravings, clearly I go
where I please
and rest assured intend to leave your NG POSTE HASTE, hopefully *before*
you go apopleptic.. , or sometime after, as the case may be. ;-)
..the sight of an enraged nudist gives me intense nausea, rage leads to all the
wrong bits becoming engorged and red! Ugh! ..all the skinny dippers
I know are relaxed and friendly ;-)
... but I thought i should let you know about Gary's unflattering portrayal of
you,
and give you the opportunity to comment on his characterization of your NG
as an unfriendly fiefdom which you rule as your private property?
(Much as he sees aus.culture.true-blue.. in fact! B^D )
Respond in any way you see fit, of course.. I just thought you might be
interested in Gary's implication that you are a mad harradin, bent
on shrilly attacking newbie enquirers, in, as Gary so evocatively puts it:
your "size 10" boots!! 8^o (SIZE 10!!?? REALLY??)
(It seems a strange mental image, nothing covered but your huge feet! B^D
...but what would you wear with such delicate accoutrements?
...trackie daks and overalls!?!? B^)
Gary Meadows wrote:
> But I'll let you know when the forked tongue (aka Che the Pig) makes as
> ungracious an exit as he did when aus.culture.naturist showed him the
> working end of a size 10 boot.
Yours, modestly covered...
Che
------
Born a nudist. ;-)
Che Guava
Gary Meadows wrote:
> "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3979591E...@my-deja.com...
> >
> >
> > Gary Meadows wrote:
> >
> > > Again, I bet 7250+ of
> > > them relate to the already up and running aus.culture.true-blue, where
> there
> > > is plenty of discussion about Australian history.
> >
> > BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHAAAA!
>> This IS the same Gary Meadows who abuses people for posting about
>> ANZAC biscuits and Gallipoli in aus.culture.true-blue! B^D
>
? Why yes.. i believe it is the same rancid hypocrite! B^D
>> According to the Townsville Taliban, you can talk about Cook,
>> but not about recent political history..
>
Gary's silence on this point (he actually snipped and ran ;-) speaks volumes.
B^)
>> According to the Townsville Taliban, you can talk about The Immigration
>> Act (the White Australia Policy) but not about our rich multicultural
>> history!
>
Gary's silence on this point (he actually snipped and ran ;-) speaks volumes.
B^)
>>
>> According to the Townsville Taliban, you can talk about nazi eugenics,
>> but not about Judith Wrights lifelong interest in indigenous Australians.
>>
>
Gary's silence on this point (he actually snipped and ran ;-) speaks volumes.
B^)
>> According to the Townsville Taliban, you can even talk about politics,
>> like George Speyt in FIji, BUT ONLY SO LONG AS YOU APPROVE
>> OF HIS MONOCULTURAL FASCISM, like muttley does..
>>
>
> Sorry shit for brains..
Don't keep apologising.. we all know your excremental cerebrum.
> .I should have made that "where there is plenty of
> discussion about Australian history, in addition to plenty of Che the Pig's
> lying and bullshit".
There you have it.. Gary's admission that he lied when he claimed
a.c.t-b is an open venue for discussion and even different views on
Aussie history (Eg ANZACS)'
(unless you are one of Gary's Townsville Taliban clique! B^p )
> How's your politically infested crap (aka as the unofficial FAQ coming
> along?
Gary, I have told you MANY times now, if you want to post shite in
your unofficial FAQ, you don't have to ASK ME, just see Lisa,
the Gatekeeper to the duffed, imitation, (and now deceased!) PHONie FAQ!!!!!
(Poor dear.. he gets SO confused! B^)
The official aus.culture.true-blue FAQ is doing fine, nearly ready for the
next version release! :-)
> You keeping to your word yet and accepting submissions to it? Lying
> little grommit!
Absolutely! B^D I have trouble keeping up! it's going gangbusters!
(PS Just let me know, in the unlikely event of you overcoming
your shame and emberassment, (and having anything constructive to say ;-)
if you want to make an entry... I have explained the process..
now it's up to you.. ;-)
And thanks for asking! ..you are JUST one of many avid folowers of this
FAQs progress. :-)
HMMMMMMM.. It is deeply satisfying to have contributed to the a.c.t-b
participation with the most participated in, and longest thread in the NG's
history. ;-)
Do you think one day you will ever contribute more than pathetic, childish,
carping
and bleating?
Just ask if you ever want help.. ;-)
Che
------
Trueblues lend a helping hand. 8^)
>>
>> If you are one of the Townsville Taliban you can pretty much say what you
>> like...
>> but dissenting views are anathema to them...
>>
>> Yes Brian.. we need an OPEN and APPROPRIATE venue for the discussion
>> of an Australian perspective on History... one where the One Nation remnant
>>
>> do not scream everytime progressive views are advanced.
>
Gary's silence on this point (he actually snipped and ran ;-) speaks volumes.
B^)
>>
>>
>> One reason alone makes aus.culture.true-blue inappropriate..
>> History is political!
>> And in a.c.tb. Gary is obsessed with any politics other that his own
>> neo-fascism.
>
Gary's silence on this point (he actually snipped and ran ;-) speaks volumes.
B^)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote:
>brian (bria...@tower.net.au) wrote:
[...]
>> Yet, as David Formosa pointed out and I've explained, aus.arts is about
>> the cultural arts, not the educative or contemplative arts.
>
>Why says it can't be about all arts? Is the only reason aus.arts.* can't
>be about educative arts simply because it hasn't been done thus far?
I beleave that using arts to indercate the social sciences, whatever
you wish to call it, could lead to confusion amounst the public. It
also stems from a personal beleif that "Art" shouldn't cover most of
the humanites. There would be a logical act to place them under
politics but that would leed to it getting flamed to hell.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
snail
>I beleave that using arts to indercate the social sciences, whatever
>you wish to call it, could lead to confusion amounst the public. It
I can't see why. The social sciences have been included under arts
at every uni I can think of.
>also stems from a personal beleif that "Art" shouldn't cover most of
>the humanites.
'Art' doesn't. 'Arts' does. But I don't really want to revisit
that argument again, particularly now that DRS seems to be no
longer with us :)
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
Gary Meadows
> Hi Voo.. how's things, hanging? I found us both mentioned
> in an unsolicited ad hom by one Gary Meadows, and thought
> you should be aware of this cowardly backbiters doings:
That's funny...I've been mentioning your outcasting from
aus.culture.naturist for a while now. You mean the penny finally dropped?
Oh...I added aus.culture.true-blue for you too dopey. No need to shorten
your platform of stupidity so late in the piece is there.
Gary Meadows
> >> This IS the same Gary Meadows who abuses people for posting about
> >> ANZAC biscuits and Gallipoli in aus.culture.true-blue! B^D
> >
>
> ? Why yes.. i believe it is the same rancid hypocrite! B^D
You're having a nice old conversation there with yourself again Che the Pig.
Forgotten who you are posting as today have you? Idiot. lol
> >> According to the Townsville Taliban, you can talk about Cook,
> >> but not about recent political history..
> >
> Gary's silence on this point (he actually snipped and ran ;-) speaks
volumes.
I snip most of your politically infested crap Che the Pig. But I don't run.
I'm still here. And you are still stupid.
Gary Meadows
> Certainly I see nothing in "current" immigration policies to be
> valid as a topic.
We're all quite aware of your racist view of these things Steptoe. No need
to rub your own nose in it any further.
snail
>snail wrote:
>> Sounds like you're wrong :) David's point is that it belongs under
>> a 2nd level hyraky (my own argument is for aus.arts.history) rather
>Whereas in reality, the concept of the "arts" as embodied in aus.arts is
>about the expressive arts, not the contemplative ones, Snail. aus.arts
>is about the stuff you see in galleries, theatres and so on, not what is
>taught as "arts" at university.
Bullshit. I was the one who argued for the creation of aus.arts.*
in the first place. It was certainly in my mind at the time that
the broader, more inclusive definition would be appropriate. Secondly
there is no aus.arts, although that was more to do with the fact that
I didn't have the time then to run an RFD. 'then' referring to the
time around the creation of aus.arts.comics and the discussion of a
group to discuss art, which would've been aus.arts.art but I think
DRS got fed up and left :( DRS being the one wanting the art group
for the purpose of discussing expressive arts such as painting,
sculpture, etc.
The only reason the contemplative ones haven't been included is
because noone has mounted an RFD for any; history being the closest
case for one. aus.arts.* has only existed as a hyraky for a couple
of years at best, even then it is more a potential for a hyraky
than anything else. Ideally I'd like to see several 2nd tier groups
moved under it (eg films, theatre) but renaming groups is too much
of a bugger in the short term.
Gary Meadows
> > > Are you seriously suggesting, Che, Nev, Gumby, Ned, Lance, Lisa
> > > or anyone else have been talking "history" past the first RFQ for
> > > the snake pit of forked tongues the call act-b!
> >
> > There's plenty of histotical discussion going on.
>
> Oh Sure!! If there was it would have been in aus.politics by now,
> it isn't therefor it doesn't exist.... other than the "who's on
> first base" crap you whine about.
I aint whining. Just glad I was able to stop Che the Pig from infesting the
groups' inaugural thread with his politically infested crap.
And as far as anything of any importance ever being raised in
aus.politics...grow up! lol
Gary Meadows
> But you can no more resist me than they can!
It's all very sweet..this public joining together of two of the biggest
morons ever to grace the shores of Usenet...but can you spare us the
serenading and just get on with your pathetic little life together.
> You HAVE to know what pearls have been cast before the squealers!
We do not need to know what "pearls" you pair of clowns are casting on each
other...whether you're squaeling or not.
brian
What can I say? "Tough", comes to mind but I'll be kind for the moment,
Snail. ;-)
As you mentioned, "none has mounted an RFD for any" whereas I've mounted
one for aus.history. Now, why not just wait and see the results from
the CFV? If it fails, propose an RFD yourself for aus.arts.history.
I'll support it all the way, if my proposal fails. Personally, I
believe you're nitpicking because for your ideas on the hierachy to be
carried out, you'd need to rename quite a few newsgroups IMO, to bring
them under the aus.arts.* banner and as you, yourself made clear, you
don't see it happening anytime soon.
Che Guava
Gary Meadows wrote:
> "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:397AB94F...@my-deja.com...
> > Hi Voo.. how's things, hanging? I found us both mentioned
> > in an unsolicited ad hom by one Gary Meadows, and thought
> > you should be aware of this cowardly backbiters doings:
>
> That's funny...I've been mentioning your outcasting from
> aus.culture.naturist for a while now.
Yes, you have been lying about that for some time..
in fact i have posted to aus.culture.naturist as recently as today. ;-)
Another Meadows lie exposed. B^D
> You mean the penny finally dropped?
No, Ive known you are are compulsive liar for some time..
I am just taking opportunities to inform others, with suitable evidence of
course. ;-)
Only a devious, slimy, low-life like the Townsville Taliban make serious
allegations
with not even an attempt to justify their claims.. but then, they wouldn't know
*a fair go* if it bit them on the arse.. as it increasingly does these
days! B^D
> Oh...I added aus.culture.true-blue for you too dopey. No need to shorten
> your platform of stupidity so late in the piece is there.
Cross-post pointlessly till your hearts content.. I only do so to inform
people..;-)
Oh, BTW, your mate Lance claims it proves something or other about you
seeking help! B^D .. but then he obviously needs some, URGENTLY! B^D
Look I know its the British Royals who go in for toe sucking..
but it seems you have your feet (with or without size tens?)
firmly in your mouth! ;-)
I have been to aus.culture.naturist.. as usual, nothing is happening there.
The traffic volumes are so low that a six monthly review takes a few seconds!
B^p
I guess once you have implemented the same sort of rabid response to newbies,
or anyone who lacks your political pedigree, you hope to have
aus.culture.true-blue
as empty?
Sorry.. in trueblue are some core values worth fighting for.. if you want
an empty, exclusive, personal fiefdom..then feel free to get your gear off and
join the only NG with less to say than you do! B^D
You clearly have the requisite NAKED political ambition! B^D
Gary Meadows
> Cross-post pointlessly till your hearts content.. I only do so to inform
> people..
..of what an absolute brain dead fool you are.
I readded aus.culture.naturist, since you think you are so welcome there.
lol
David Bromage
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 03:43:41 GMT, David Bromage
> <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote:
> >brian (bria...@tower.net.au) wrote:
> [...]
> >> Yet, as David Formosa pointed out and I've explained, aus.arts is about
> >> the cultural arts, not the educative or contemplative arts.
> >
> >Why says it can't be about all arts? Is the only reason aus.arts.* can't
> >be about educative arts simply because it hasn't been done thus far?
> I beleave that using arts to indercate the social sciences, whatever
> you wish to call it, could lead to confusion amounst the public. It
> also stems from a personal beleif that "Art" shouldn't cover most of
> the humanites.
If it was aus.art.* I would agree, but it's aus.arts.* which includes all
arts.
Cheers
David
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > >
> > > "Seppo Renfors" <sren...@invalid.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3979BE68...@invalid.adelaide.on.net...
> > > >
[..]
>
> > Your lot have even been spamming his ISP!!
>
> C'mon Seppo, you did play a part.. leading Dobber Duigood on by
> telling him he was on the right track with Zorro's posts (the mysterious
> phantom poster, who baffled the best minds of the Uthernet Powithe,
> and whose dark charms are irresistable to women. ;-) when in reality,
> you had no more evidence than he did! B^D
Hey at that stage they already *had* spammed your ISP according
to you. Don't tell me that you never INTENDED for Neville to know
it was you. Come on, that was plain bloody obvious.
Unfortunately Nev was too thick to twig you were having a lend of
him a big way, as he couldn't definitely identify that last one
was from you, even after all the HUGE clues you had left for him
(he would have thought it was someone else who was having a lend
of him, the paranoid twit).
Shit that was no SECRET for crying out loud! It stood out like a
sore thumb!
[..]
Seppo Renfors
Gary Meadows wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <sren...@invalid.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
Granted YOU have NEVER contributed ANYTHING useful!
Che Guava
that the "circumstantial evidence" you refer to as clues
were deliberately placed to cast suspicion on me?
The Townsville Taliban are very adept at lumping ALL their
critics together.. that way they don't have to face their unpopularity.
Seppo Renfors wrote:
> Che Guava wrote:
> >
> > Seppo Renfors wrote:
> >
> > > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Seppo Renfors" <sren...@invalid.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3979BE68...@invalid.adelaide.on.net...
> > > > >
> [..]
> >
> > > Your lot have even been spamming his ISP!!
> >
> > C'mon Seppo, you did play a part.. leading Dobber Duigood on by
> > telling him he was on the right track with Zorro's posts (the mysterious
> > phantom poster, who baffled the best minds of the Uthernet Powithe,
> > and whose dark charms are irresistable to women. ;-) when in reality,
> > you had no more evidence than he did! B^D
>
> Hey at that stage they already *had* spammed your ISP according
> to you. Don't tell me that you never INTENDED for Neville to know
> it was you. Come on, that was plain bloody obvious.
I think Zorro was playing a deep game.
Nev drowned, are you sure your feet can touch the bottom? ;-)
> Unfortunately Nev was too thick to twig you were having a lend of
> him a big way,
Nev is a humourless twat. He completely lacks the trueblue traits
of laconic humour and playful trickery.
All the Townsville Taliban are as earnest as maggotts.
> as he couldn't definitely identify that last one
> was from you, even after all the HUGE clues you had left for him
Someone sure tried to make it look like me...
Makes you wonder why...
> (he would have thought it was someone else who was having a lend
> of him, the paranoid twit).
Someone will always have a lend of Nev.. that combination of
ignorance and pomposity is just begging to have its hubris punctured.
> Shit that was no SECRET for crying out loud! It stood out like a
> sore thumb!
Just what, exactly, do you mean?
I'm curious if you have more behind your judgement than Nev did.
snail
>snail wrote:
>> Bullshit. I was the one who argued for the creation of aus.arts.*
>> in the first place. It was certainly in my mind at the time that
>> the broader, more inclusive definition would be appropriate. Secondly
>What can I say? "Tough", comes to mind but I'll be kind for the moment,
>Snail. ;-)
:) Well I didn't appreciate your attempt to rewrite the history
of the aus.arts debate.
>As you mentioned, "none has mounted an RFD for any" whereas I've mounted
>one for aus.history. Now, why not just wait and see the results from
So what's the point of having an RFD if I have to wait until after
the CFV before making suggestions ?
>the CFV? If it fails, propose an RFD yourself for aus.arts.history.
No. I don't care whether there's a history group or not, my own
concern is one of naming.
>believe you're nitpicking because for your ideas on the hierachy to be
I am a librarian :) how things are catalogued is important to me.
My main interests these days, as far as aus.net.news, is placement
of groups within the hyraky and making sure new groups have the
support they need to survive. But namespace has traditionally been
one of the primary issues of debate for any proposal.
>carried out, you'd need to rename quite a few newsgroups IMO, to bring
>them under the aus.arts.* banner and as you, yourself made clear, you
>don't see it happening anytime soon.
It's unlikely to happen, but that's no reason for new groups not to
be included under the new hyraky. It's a pragmatic solution.
David Gerard
:I beleave that using arts to indercate the social sciences, whatever
:you wish to call it, could lead to confusion amounst the public. It
:also stems from a personal beleif that "Art" shouldn't cover most of
:the humanites. There would be a logical act to place them under
:politics but that would leed to it getting flamed to hell.
So is there anything deeply wrong with aus.humanities.history ? It's a new
second-level hierarchy, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to put
it at this stage.
--
http://xenu.netizen.com.au/ http://www.caube.org.au/
"I fully expect that when the DSM V comes out, Net Kook will be a documented
pathology." (Jim Dugan)
Dave Proctor
news:8lhalk$kq4$1...@thingy.apana.org.au...
> On 23 Jul 2000 12:13:16 GMT, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
> :I beleave that using arts to indercate the social sciences, whatever
> :you wish to call it, could lead to confusion amounst the public. It
> :also stems from a personal beleif that "Art" shouldn't cover most of
> :the humanites. There would be a logical act to place them under
> :politics but that would leed to it getting flamed to hell.
>
> So is there anything deeply wrong with aus.humanities.history ? It's a new
> second-level hierarchy, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere else to put
> it at this stage.
I don't think there is any problem with that. Most people when they do a
search for newsgroups that they wish to subscribe to just type in a word,
and their news client brings up all groups that have that word in the name.
So typing "history" would bring up such a group (thus negating the
objections of those who want "aus.history") whilst helping to ensure the
long term integrity of the aus.* hierarchy structure.
For the record, I will be voting NO on aus.history (due to its hierarchy
placement, for no other reason) but if it was to reappear under another
hierarchy (aus.arts.history or aus.humanities.history) I would vote YES.
This is mainly due to the need to look forward and look at the big picture
of the structure of the aus.* hierarchy.
Dave
Seppo Renfors
Che Guava wrote:
>
[..]
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
[..]
>
> > (he would have thought it was someone else who was having a lend
> > of him, the paranoid twit).
>
> Someone will always have a lend of Nev.. that combination of
> ignorance and pomposity is just begging to have its hubris punctured.
>
> > Shit that was no SECRET for crying out loud! It stood out like a
> > sore thumb!
>
> Just what, exactly, do you mean?
Listen that halo of yours has slipped and is around your ankles,
better watch it or you'll trip over it :-)
>
> I'm curious if you have more behind your judgement than Nev did.
Yes :-)
Gary Meadows
> > C'mon Seppo, you did play a part.. leading Dobber Duigood on by
> > telling him he was on the right track with Zorro's posts (the mysterious
> > phantom poster, who baffled the best minds of the Uthernet Powithe,
> > and whose dark charms are irresistable to women. ;-) when in reality,
> > you had no more evidence than he did! B^D
>
> Hey at that stage they already *had* spammed your ISP according
> to you. Don't tell me that you never INTENDED for Neville to know
> it was you. Come on, that was plain bloody obvious.
You two should take your crying and bitch-slapping outside. Sheeesh!
Gary Meadows
> are you sure your feet can touch the bottom?
> I'm curious if you have more behind
My my...you two really should take this elsewhere. I'm sure you'll have a
happy life together. Don't need to know the sordid details though.
Gary Meadows
> > And as far as anything of any importance ever being raised in
> > aus.politics...grow up! lol
>
> Granted YOU have NEVER contributed ANYTHING useful!
Never intend to. It wouldn't be understood in there anyway.
Now can you explain the logic you used to arrive at this conclusion, and
explain it to Che over dinner tonight, we'd be one step closer towards
removing his confusion.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
>>I beleave that using arts to indercate the social sciences, whatever
>>you wish to call it, could lead to confusion amounst the public. It
>
>at every uni I can think of.
True, though I suspect that its some strange way the humanites have
been using to try and leach legitimicy from a distenly related field.
However aus.arts.history is growing on me, and at the moment it's
slightly less bad then aus.history IMHO.
David Bromage
> I don't think there is any problem with that. Most people when they do a
> search for newsgroups that they wish to subscribe to just type in a word,
> and their news client brings up all groups that have that word in the name.
> So typing "history" would bring up such a group (thus negating the
> objections of those who want "aus.history") whilst helping to ensure the
> long term integrity of the aus.* hierarchy structure.
The Big 7 became the Big 8 almost overnight with little opposition.
> For the record, I will be voting NO on aus.history (due to its hierarchy
> placement, for no other reason) but if it was to reappear under another
> hierarchy (aus.arts.history or aus.humanities.history) I would vote YES.
Ditto.
aus.humanities.* is a more appropriate new 2nd level hierarchy than
aus.history.*
Cheers
David
Dave Proctor
news:Ph5f5.54$yl3....@news0.optus.net.au...
> > For the record, I will be voting NO on aus.history (due to its hierarchy
> > placement, for no other reason) but if it was to reappear under another
> > hierarchy (aus.arts.history or aus.humanities.history) I would vote YES.
>
> Ditto.
>
> aus.humanities.* is a more appropriate new 2nd level hierarchy than
> aus.history.*
Just on this, if the proponent was to change the RFD to make it
aus.humanities.history or aus.arts.history, would the timescale need to
recommence? After all, the whole point of an RFD process is to refine the
proposal so that it can be as good as it can be. Resetting the clock would
make people reluctant to accept the proposed changes.
Dave
fas...@my-deja.com
brian <bria...@tower.net.au> wrote:
> Just a reminder that the RFD for a new newsgroup, aus.history is
> presently running.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>
> unmoderated group aus.history
>
> This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of an
> Australian unmoderated Usenet newsgroup aus.history. This is not a
Call
> for Votes (CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are
> below.
>
> Newsgroup line:
> aus.history Discussion of all aspects of Australian history
>
> RATIONALE: aus.history
>
> The newsgroup aus.history is intended to provide a forum for the
> discussion of all issues about and arising from Australia's rich and
> diverse history.
>
> At present, there is no other newsgroup which caters specifically for
> this unique history as a forum dedicated to discussing it. Historical
> discussions have quite often taken place in other forums, such as
> aus.politics and soc.culture.australia(n) but neither is really
> appropriate as a newsgroup for such discussions, as neither was
intended
> to cover it. While aus.general is intended for discussion of
> _everything_ which does not fit into the other newsgroups and as such
> historical discussion could
> take place there but it would be easily sidetracked or swamped IMO by
> the
> interference of people who are interested in matters not specifically
> historical so it is not an appropriate forum.
>
> This new newsgroup is therefore intended to foster discussion amongst
> primarily Australian readers about Australian history. It would also
> fulfil a missing gap in the aus.* heirachy by creating a newsgroup,
> where meta-discussions about Australian history could take place.
> While
> there could be a need at a later date for more specific historical
> discussion groups, such as those dedicated to social, industrial or
> economic history, they can be created at a later date, once sufficient
> interest and hence net traffic has been shown to exist.
>
> While its difficult to get anything concrete in the way of traffic
stats
> before the creation of the newsgroup, I can only point out that
> according to a simple Dejanews search, that there appears to be in
> aus.politics and aus.general well over 7300+ postings which mention
> history or some form of historical concepts since the start of the
> year. Whilst a great deal of it may well be crossposts and as
> historical references are quite often used as a term of insult by some
> (ie "Nazi"), it shows IMO that there is more than sufficient interest
in
> the matter of a newsgroup which is dedicated to the discussion of
> matters historical.
>
> CHARTER: aus.history
>
> An unmoderated newsgroup which would provide a forum for the
discussion
> of Australia's unique history. It will include all aspects of
> Australian history, from all viewpoints, including oral, written or
> electronic formats, as well as any other which can be thought
> of/developed. It will provide a forum for which the particularly
> Australian viewpoint on history can be expressed and maintained.
>
> Possible points of discussions are, but not limited to:
>
> - history, historiography;
> - traditions;
> - customs;
> - folklore.
>
> In addition, all disciplines of history will be open for discussion,
> including but not limited to:
> - Migration History;
> - Labor History;
> - Military History;
> - Feminist History;
> - Religious History;
> - Famous or not-so-famous Australians;
> - Pre-Colonial History;
> - Natural History;
> - Economic History;
> - Oral History;
>
> And all formats, including oral, written or electronic formats, as
well
> as any other which can be thought of/developed will be utilised where
> possible.
>
> This group will be unmoderated.
>
> Binary postings, chain letters and unrelated commercial advertisements
> are prohibited.
>
> Discussions about current issues will be discouraged, as other
> mainstream newsgroups already exist to cover that aspect of Australian
> life, although this will admittedly always remain a bit of a grey
area.
>
> Cross-postings between this newsgroup and others will be discouraged.
>
> END CHARTER.
>
> PROPOSER: Brian <bria...@tower.net.au>
>
> PROCEDURE:
>
> This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of
> the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroups
should
> be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for a
> minimum
> of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this proposal is
posted
> to
> aus.net.news), after which a Call For Votes (CFV) may be posted by the
> aus.* administration team (See http://aus.news-admin.org/ for further
> information). Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
>
> All discussion of this proposal should be posted to aus.net.news.
>
> This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
> guidelines outlined at http://aus.news-admin.org/Faq/aus_faq. Please
> refer to that document if you have any questions about the process.
>
> DISTRIBUTION:
>
> aus.general
> aus.net.news
> aus.politics
> aus.culture.true-blue
> soc.culture.australian
>
> Proponent: Brian <bria...@tower.net.au>
>
> --
> "It is the knowledge of the mechanics of war, not of the
> principles of strategy, that distinguishes a good leader
> from a bad [one]."
> Archibald Wavell, Generals and
Generalship
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Seppo Renfors
Gary Meadows wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <sren...@invalid.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
> news:397BE8EA...@invalid.adelaide.on.net...
>
> > > And as far as anything of any importance ever being raised in
> > > aus.politics...grow up! lol
> >
> > Granted YOU have NEVER contributed ANYTHING useful!
>
> Never intend to.
Confession accepted.
er...@my-deja.com
Oi now it makes sense why you use the name 'snail' bein a 'librarian'
its a good choise! Always thought they were a bit 'slow'.
>
> >carried out, you'd need to rename quite a few newsgroups IMO, to
bring
> >them under the aus.arts.* banner and as you, yourself made clear, you
> >don't see it happening anytime soon.
>
> It's unlikely to happen, but that's no reason for new groups not to
> be included under the new hyraky. It's a pragmatic solution.
> --
For fucks sake, history is bloody 'history' nothin else. not that i
figger what value it really has, its over and done with, but ART it
aint. Thats for poofs and ponces. History is abut war and men and
heroes not a mes of pain on a bit of tarp. Who the fucks going to look
for history among bloody painings?
>
--
"The perfidious, haughty, savage, disdainful, stupid, slothful,
inhospitable, inhumane English."
Julius Caesar Scalinger (1540-1609)
Dave Proctor
> For fucks sake, history is bloody 'history' nothin else. not that i
> figger what value it really has, its over and done with, but ART it
> aint. Thats for poofs and ponces. History is abut war and men and
> heroes not a mes of pain on a bit of tarp. Who the fucks going to look
> for history among bloody painings?
You are thinking "art" - Snail is talking about "arts" - there is subtle but
signifigant difference.
Dave
Gary Meadows
>
>
> Gary Meadows wrote:
> >
> > "Seppo Renfors" <sren...@invalid.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
> > news:397BE8EA...@invalid.adelaide.on.net...
> >
> > > > And as far as anything of any importance ever being raised in
> > > > aus.politics...grow up! lol
> > >
> > > Granted YOU have NEVER contributed ANYTHING useful!
> >
> > Never intend to.
>
> Confession accepted.
Confession? Surely you are mistaken Seppo the Racist. I thought my viewpoint
on the cesspit called aus.politics was well known. I, or anyone else for
that matter, would never contribute anything useful in there.
Oh...and Che the Pig is in aus.culture.true-blue dribbling something about
your penis...I do wish you two would elope. But you'd better hurry...in the
same post he's also suggesting himself that it's time he grew up...so you
might miss the boat.
Che Guava
discussion belongs in a.c.tb B^p
In article <8lm45l$37l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
er...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
>
> For fucks sake, history is bloody 'history' nothin else. not that i
> figger what value it really has, its over and done with, but ART it
> aint. Thats for poofs and ponces. History is abut war and men and
> heroes not a mes of pain on a bit of tarp. Who the fucks going to look
> for history among bloody painings?
Hmmmm.. poor old Erkil..he obviously hasn't heard of
**The Art of War!* B^D (What a dolt!.. whoever is pulling
that dummy's strings is doing one of the crappiest 'agent
provocateur' trolls I have ever seen! B^D )
Oh, BTW dunderklumpen; as for 'poofs and ponces' as distinct
from 'war and men' .. i suppose you mean like ALEXANDER,
often called The Great, famous (infamous?) for his bloody
miliatry conquests and and empire building throughout
the ancient world!! B^D B^D
Not bad for a cake boy, eh? YOU WANKER!!!! B^p
(I get a real laugh from "Survivor" too, THE MOST COMPETENT
BLOKE ON THE ISLAND, not only the chief food provider, but
clearly the most able tactician, is the Gay boy, Rich! B^D
It must drive Muttley and the homophobes wild! ;-)
Che
---
"Money is our god" - The First International Bank of the Golden Calf
"Where there is no vision, the people perish." - Proverbs 29:18
Che Guava
s.so...@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter) wrote:
> In article <397DBAD7...@surpac.com>, Daniel McKeown
> <dan...@surpac.com> wrote:
>
> > Looks like Lisa has more or less lost interest (two posts in the
> > last two weeks) and poor misguided Rebecca last posted on
> > the 9th. How is the group meant to survive without their
> > ownership ... er ... leadership?
It's going SWIMMINGLY!
The Grand Dragon, (One Nation Spokes-ork, Peter Macaw) has completely
undermined the line the Townsville Taliban were running and is now
claiming that a.c.tb is a suitable for ALL history (History of Trade
Unions, History of the Liberal Party, History of the Communist Party,
Modern History of the PHONie Cult, History of Multiculturalism! B^D )
By the time they wake up how they have been routed the NG will be
free of their malign influence and firmly delivered BACK TO US
GENUINE TRUEBLUES!!!
Even their petty attacks on my informative cross-posting and
advice to those who still can't access the a.c.tb NG has now been
shown up:
>
> Actually, one of the reasons may be that not every news server carries
> _aus.culture.true-blue_. The one I post to, for example, does not.
> (Although for some strange reason it appears allows me to
> cross-post to it, as happened in the case of the case of
> my Isaacs post. Leastways it did not baulk as it normally
> does if I attempt to cross-post to a group not carried.)
This, and other anomalies have already been pointed out..
some who cannot access the NG via their ISP's Server, can
access via Deja.com PROVIDED THEY CROSS-POST To AT LEAST ONE
OTHER NG.
As far as i am concerned, those anal net-cops who are protesting
the unusual level of cross-posting which stems from the vagaries
of USENET NG PROPAGATION, are inconsiderate in the extreme...
(Of course, with Gary, it's just malicious, dog-in-the-manger-bile ;-)
The system is to SERVE MANKIND.. NOT MANKIND TO SERVE THE SYSTEM!!!!!!
David Bromage
> <er...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lm45l$37l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > For fucks sake, history is bloody 'history' nothin else. not that i
> > figger what value it really has, its over and done with, but ART it
> > aint. Thats for poofs and ponces. History is abut war and men and
> > heroes not a mes of pain on a bit of tarp. Who the fucks going to look
> > for history among bloody painings?
> You are thinking "art" - Snail is talking about "arts" - there is subtle but
> signifigant difference.
Trying to be subtle here is about as useful as giving a comb to George Speight.
Cheers
David
MAD MAL
BACK UNDER YOUR ROCK cur boy Mosley AND STAY THERE!
___________________________________________________________________________
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Che Guava wrote:
> According to the Grand Dragon, Peter Mackay, history
> discussion belongs in a.c.tb B^p
:)
> In article <8lm45l$37l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> er...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > For fucks sake, history is bloody 'history' nothin else. not that i
> > figger what value it really has, its over and done with, but ART it
> > aint. Thats for poofs and ponces. History is abut war and men and
> > heroes not a mes of pain on a bit of tarp. Who the fucks going to look
> > for history among bloody painings?
>
> Hmmmm.. poor old Erkil..he obviously hasn't heard of
> **The Art of War!* B^D (What a dolt!.. whoever is pulling
> that dummy's strings is doing one of the crappiest 'agent
> provocateur' trolls I have ever seen! B^D )
>
> Oh, BTW dunderklumpen; as for 'poofs and ponces' as distinct
> from 'war and men' .. i suppose you mean like ALEXANDER,
> often called The Great, famous (infamous?) for his bloody
> miliatry conquests and and empire building throughout
> the ancient world!! B^D B^D
>
> Not bad for a cake boy, eh? YOU WANKER!!!! B^p
>
>
> (I get a real laugh from "Survivor" too, THE MOST COMPETENT
> BLOKE ON THE ISLAND, not only the chief food provider, but
> clearly the most able tactician, is the Gay boy, Rich! B^D
>
> It must drive Muttley and the homophobes wild! ;-)
>
>
Gary Meadows
> Hmmmm.. poor old Erkil
Sheeesh....next you'll be telling us you have found hairs on the palms of
your hands gumby.
You really must stop this self abuse...you're going to give your therapist a
coronary.
Gary Meadows
> The system is to SERVE
Well start serving boy. You're politically pathetic FArQ is due for an
update. I contribute...you serve. That's the way it goes isn't it?
Poor little Che the Pig...never thought he'd be lying about serving us with
his FArQ.
Che Guava
and couldn't challenge a word of it! B^D
He really is one of my most avid and loyal readers (bit of
an embarassment really, because he's as thick as pigsh*t,
but I'm determined to help reform him... ;-)
Gary Meadows wrote:
> "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8lnuct$f3p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> Well start serving boy.
No, sorry Gary, we don't deal in young boys here,
you will have to go to your usual pimp.. (Muttley? or Lance?)
Gary Meadows
> Isn't is comforting to know that Gary read this whole post
> and couldn't challenge a word of it! B^D
As usual, your whole post wasn't worth the bandwidth it took to retrieve.
> > Well start serving boy.
>
> No, sorry Gary, we don't deal in young boys here,
We're stuck with you, bloody imbecile! lol
Che Guava
Gary Meadows wrote:
> "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8lnt1e$e5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Hmmmm.. poor old Erkil
>
> Sheeesh....next you'll be telling us you have found hairs on the palms of
> your hands
A natural byproduct of having you by the short and curlies, son B^)
Gary Meadows
Your fascination with pubic hair is best left concentrated on Seppo the
Racist. I warned him that you reckon it's time you yourself actually grew
up...don't tell me the wedding is off now?
What a shame. You pair of morons were a match made in heaven. lol
Seppo Renfors
Gary Meadows wrote:
>
> "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3981926D...@my-deja.com...
> >
> >
> > Gary Meadows wrote:
> >
> > > "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8lnt1e$e5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > Hmmmm.. poor old Erkil
> > >
> > > Sheeesh....next you'll be telling us you have found hairs on the palms
> of
> > > your hands
> >
> > A natural byproduct of having you by the short and curlies, son B^)
>
> Your fascination with pubic hair is best left concentrated on Seppo the
> Racist. I warned him that you reckon it's time you yourself actually grew
> up...don't tell me the wedding is off now?
>
> What a shame. You pair of morons were a match made in heaven. lol
Hey GUMBY, this is SUPPOSED to be a thread about discussion on
aus.history. Do you have something to say about the subject? If
not STOP SPAMMING aus.politics and aus.net.news with your sexual
fantasies.
Gary Meadows
>
>
> Gary Meadows wrote:
> >
> > "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:3981926D...@my-deja.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Gary Meadows wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Che Guava" <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:8lnt1e$e5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > >
> > > > > Hmmmm.. poor old Erkil
> > > >
> > > > Sheeesh....next you'll be telling us you have found hairs on the
palms
> > of
> > > > your hands
> > >
> > > A natural byproduct of having you by the short and curlies, son B^)
> >
> > Your fascination with pubic hair is best left concentrated on Seppo the
> > Racist. I warned him that you reckon it's time you yourself actually
grew
> > up...don't tell me the wedding is off now?
> >
> > What a shame. You pair of morons were a match made in heaven. lol
>
> Hey GUMBY, this is SUPPOSED to be a thread about discussion on
> aus.history. Do you have something to say about the subject? If
> not STOP SPAMMING aus.politics and aus.net.news with your sexual
> fantasies.
Tsk tsk..don't be so bitchy Steptoe. If you girls have called it off, so be
it. lol
endeavour
Get lost, child!
You have no idea what you are talking about.You are demented. You are also a
sicko suffering alienation from what you claim is your native culture.
That's called "anomie". You have it in spades.
Everyone else on this ng can be logical. You can't, Che the Pig.
You're utterly mad. Your crazy postings that no-one can even read prove
that - if proof is required.
Please don't respond to this, Che the Pig, because I'd much rather get on
with the ng than worry about having to chase you down your burrow.
You are simply irrelevant.
Go away,Che, the Pig and the lunatic! And leave this ng to those who voted
for it.
Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lnt1e$e5s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> According to the Grand Dragon, Peter Mackay, history
> discussion belongs in a.c.tb B^p
>
> In article <8lm45l$37l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> er...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > For fucks sake, history is bloody 'history' nothin else. not that i
> > figger what value it really has, its over and done with, but ART it
> > aint. Thats for poofs and ponces. History is abut war and men and
> > heroes not a mes of pain on a bit of tarp. Who the fucks going to look
> > for history among bloody painings?
>
> Hmmmm.. poor old Erkil..he obviously hasn't heard of
> **The Art of War!* B^D (What a dolt!.. whoever is pulling
> that dummy's strings is doing one of the crappiest 'agent
> provocateur' trolls I have ever seen! B^D )
>
> Oh, BTW dunderklumpen; as for 'poofs and ponces' as distinct
> from 'war and men' .. i suppose you mean like ALEXANDER,
> often called The Great, famous (infamous?) for his bloody
> miliatry conquests and and empire building throughout
> the ancient world!! B^D B^D
>
> Not bad for a cake boy, eh? YOU WANKER!!!! B^p
>
>
> (I get a real laugh from "Survivor" too, THE MOST COMPETENT
> BLOKE ON THE ISLAND, not only the chief food provider, but
> clearly the most able tactician, is the Gay boy, Rich! B^D
>
> It must drive Muttley and the homophobes wild! ;-)
>
>
> Che
> ---
> "Money is our god" - The First International Bank of the Golden Calf
>
> "Where there is no vision, the people perish." - Proverbs 29:18
>
>