ads in austin.general [Was: Austin Nights - help Wanted!]
Chip Rosenthal
[added austin.usenet.config]
In article <60tujf$ak6$1...@boris.eden.com>, <ma...@eden.MAPS.ON.com> wrote:
>but then here you come again, reposting their entire ad, with your request
Hmmm? He edited the ad way way way down and quoted just enough
context to make his point.
>Just seems a little strange to me...
Why? These people clearly aren't making any effort to read the
guidelines. What do you think the abuse levels would be like if
we benignly tolerated it without saying anything?
I think you may be kidding yourself into believing there is an
alternative where: the "knock it off" posts stop and the off-topic
advertisement level stays the same. Sorry, that's not real. A
real alternative is that the "knock it off" posts stop and the
off-topic ads increase greatly. Maybe people are annoyed enough
so that they are willing to make that trade-off.
That said, I'm pretty tired of seeing John's posts -- but probably
no more so then he is making them. If you have an alternative way
of keeping the off-topic ads down, I'd support you in a New Yawk
minute. If I had an alternative (one that doesn't involve bamboo
splints) I'd propose it, but I'm stuck.
--
Chip Rosenthal * Unicom Systems Development http://www.unicom.com/
Outlaw junk email * Support CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/
We Saved the Riverside Library! http://www.realtime.net/~chip/save-riverside/
David.A.
Chip Rosenthal wrote:
>
> [added austin.usenet.config]
>
> In article <60tujf$ak6$1...@boris.eden.com>, <ma...@eden.MAPS.ON.com> wrote:
> >but then here you come again, reposting their entire ad, with your request
>
> Hmmm? He edited the ad way way way down and quoted just enough
> context to make his point.
>
> >Just seems a little strange to me...
>
> Why? These people clearly aren't making any effort to read the
> guidelines. What do you think the abuse levels would be like if
> we benignly tolerated it without saying anything?
>
> I think you may be kidding yourself into believing there is an
> alternative where: the "knock it off" posts stop and the off-topic
> advertisement level stays the same. Sorry, that's not real. A
> real alternative is that the "knock it off" posts stop and the
> off-topic ads increase greatly. Maybe people are annoyed enough
> so that they are willing to make that trade-off.
>
> That said, I'm pretty tired of seeing John's posts -- but probably
> no more so then he is making them. If you have an alternative way
> of keeping the off-topic ads down, I'd support you in a New Yawk
> minute. If I had an alternative (one that doesn't involve bamboo
> splints) I'd propose it, but I'm stuck.
>
THOSE WHO RESPECT FREEDOM.
--
NEED TO CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN?
CONGRESSIONAL E-MAIL ADDRESSES ARE LOCATED AT:
http://www.jbs.org/cgmail.htm
Refuse to vote for any Socialist Democrat!
Let's continue to turn out the Socialists Democrats in Congress in 1998!
Steve Lacker
Albert Nurick wrote:
>
> In article <343350...@flash.net>, davi...@flash.net says...
> > I THINK YOU SHOULD GO PLAY IN YOUR SAND BOX AND LEAVE THE NET TO
> > THOSE WHO RESPECT FREEDOM.
>
> a new experiment; engage your brain before unleashing your fingers.
>
I think David's brain is like a worn-out Muncie. You can engage it any
any gear, but the minute you apply a load it pops right back into
neutral :-)
--
Stephen Lacker
Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin
PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
512-835-3286 sla...@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me)
Albert Nurick
In article <343350...@flash.net>, davi...@flash.net says...
> I THINK YOU SHOULD GO PLAY IN YOUR SAND BOX AND LEAVE THE NET TO
> THOSE WHO RESPECT FREEDOM.
Chip didn't issue an advisory about the message in question. David, try
a new experiment; engage your brain before unleashing your fingers.
--
Albert Nurick
Partner, data.net communications
alb...@data.net
http://www.data.net
David.A.
Brent Burton wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> davi...@flash.net wrote:
> | I THINK YOU SHOULD GO PLAY IN YOUR SAND BOX AND LEAVE THE NET TO
> | THOSE WHO RESPECT FREEDOM.
>
> 'net to those of us who respect personal responsibility, self-control,
> and respect for "local custom" (or "netiquette").
Who got a chance to vote on those netiquette rules?
This is very typical of leftwing democrats; they want control,and they
do not want the public to make the rules i.e. Prop 209 in California.
You can abide by anything you make up, but dont expect the rest of us
to follow you.
Leonard "The Chipster" Rosenthal seems to want to play net-god.
David.A.
Steve Lacker wrote:
> > > THOSE WHO RESPECT FREEDOM.
> >
> > a new experiment; engage your brain before unleashing your fingers.
> >
>
> any gear, but the minute you apply a load it pops right back into
> neutral :-)
>
> --
> Stephen Lacker
> Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin
> PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
> 512-835-3286 sla...@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me)
Ohhhh, boo hoo, youre going to make me cry!
Stephen, how does it feel to be just another follower?
Albert Nurick
In article <343498...@flash.net>, davi...@flash.net says...
> Stephen, how does it feel to be just another follower?
David, if you can't answer this question, no one can. You've never
demonstrated an original thought in your countless Usenet postings.
David Forbis
In article <MPG.e9ebaf46...@news.texas.net>,
Albert Nurick <alb...@data.net> wrote:
>In article <343498...@flash.net>, davi...@flash.net says...
>> Stephen, how does it feel to be just another follower?
>
>David, if you can't answer this question, no one can. You've never
>demonstrated an original thought in your countless Usenet postings.
>
Actually, his idea of opening up hard drives was pretty original. %-|
Thomas A. Gunter
> Who got a chance to vote on those netiquette rules?
For these particulr rules, everyone with the good sense to read
austin.usenet.config at least once a month. Rules changes are made slowly
and after much discussion.
It's a forum in which ANYONE who cares enough can have a voice.
Try it. If you want the rules changed, make a proposal. It will be openly
discussed.
Tom
--
I've never met a problem that a truckload of ebola monkeys couldn't fix.
David.A.
Albert Nurick wrote:
>
> In article <343350...@flash.net>, davi...@flash.net says...
> > I THINK YOU SHOULD GO PLAY IN YOUR SAND BOX AND LEAVE THE NET TO
> > THOSE WHO RESPECT FREEDOM.
>
> Chip didn't issue an advisory about the message in question. David, try
> a new experiment; engage your brain before unleashing your fingers.
>
Albert, read my words before responding.
Dusty Rhodes
David.A. wrote:
>
> Brent Burton wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> > davi...@flash.net wrote:
> > | THOSE WHO RESPECT FREEDOM.
> >
> > 'net to those of us who respect personal responsibility, self-control,
> > and respect for "local custom" (or "netiquette").
>
Everyone who cared too. Even you. People like you generally prefer to
make noise rather than participate. Since your memory is so poor, I
suggest you look it up in DejaNews.
<much off topic political babbling mercifully snipped>
An idiot maybe, but he's OUR global village idiot.
Cheers,
Dusty
--
To reply by e mail, remove NOSPAM from return address.
"The two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and
stupidity."
- Harlan Ellison
Steve Lacker
David.A. wrote:
>
> Steve Lacker wrote:
> >
> > Albert Nurick wrote:
> > >
> > > a new experiment; engage your brain before unleashing your fingers.
> > >
> >
> > any gear, but the minute you apply a load it pops right back into
> > neutral :-)
>
Wow. I didn't think that innocent little barb would actually get to you,
David. ;-)
Against my better judgement, I'm going to pursue this discussion. David,
if you actually knew me, you would certainly not call me a follower.
Yes, I'm basically conservative and also a Christian, but you could
hardly pigeonhole my entire being into any "group" as commonly portrayed
on the news an on the internet. My biggest complaint about "followers"
in today's world is that they want to put everyone in clearly defined
"categories," and you are highly guilty of this yourself. In some
measure, I agree with part of what you believe. But here's the rub: I
and many others who might agree with part of what you believe are turned
off by your methods. You are rude. You tend to be uninformed on the
details of broad subjects that catch your eye as possible flame fodder.
(case in point: freedom of speech is not freedom to do whatever you want
whenever you want wherever you want. It never included those morons who
blocked traffic on bicycles, and it certainly doesn't extend to putting
advertisements into newsgroups that are designed to be free of
advertisemsnts. As long as an *appropriate time and place* for free
speech exists, then free speech is alive and well, even if there are
places and times where it is not permitted, either by consensus, law, or
common courtesy.) You deliberately drop incindiary bombs to start raging
debates on inflammatory subjects among a group of people (Usenet,
austin.general in particular) whom you do NOT know personally, and
therefore cannot hope to have a fundamental impact upon. Your best-laid
arguments are undermined by this, and your average quality arguments are
totally destroyed by this.
Now go away.
-Steve
David,
Steve, I almost get the impression that someone is holding a gun to
your head and forcing you to read my posts! What a shame!
David,
> |> davi...@flash.net wrote:
> |> | I THINK YOU SHOULD GO PLAY IN YOUR SAND BOX AND LEAVE THE NET TO
> |> | THOSE WHO RESPECT FREEDOM.
> |>
> |> I think you should pull your head out of the sand, and leave the
> |> 'net to those of us who respect personal responsibility, self-control,
> |> and respect for "local custom" (or "netiquette").
> |
> | Who got a chance to vote on those netiquette rules?
>
>
> David, I'm a tad disappointed that you wouldn't even address my second
> point, that being:
>
> BTW, aren't these ideas a subset of the tenets of every good
> conservative, or are they only when the possibility of BIG-BUCKS-NOW
> is nil?
>
> So, shall I take by your silent response to the above comment that
> you agree with it, assuming if you disagreed you'd speak up about it?
>
> | This is very typical of leftwing democrats; they want control,and they
>
> Your classification of everyone who disagrees with you is *quite*
> humorous. I'm as much a _leftwing_democrat_ as Al Sharpton is a champion
> of rational racial debate.
>
> By the way, the public on Usenet does indeed guide the rules. There is an
> established process (vs. some ad hoc mechanism created last night to keep
> you silent, as much as your conspiranoid[1] mind may be attracted to that
> idea) by which newsgroups are created and maintained.
Brent, have you ever noticed that this group has a large number of
clinton look-a-likes within it?