Re: FAQ
Jolly Roger
moderator emeritus <mo...@FU.org> wrote:
> This group has no official FAQ that I can find regularly posted on the
> newsgroup as a good group should.
>
> So, here is an unofficial one.
>
> Don't bother reading or posting here.
>
> You may get lucky once in a while and get some helpful, accurate
> information.
>
> Better to search the web and the many blogs and forums there.
>
> If you are looking to engage in intellectual snobbery, obnoxious banter,
> argument, debate, abusive and foul language, pro-left wing and
> homosexual advocacy, anti-right wing and anti-Christian advocacy -
> you've come to the right place - otherwise, get out while you can!
To borrow a phrase from the English:
Piss off, wanker.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, as
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Mark Conrad
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > This group has no official FAQ that I can find regularly posted on the
> > newsgroup as a good group should.
> >
> > So, here is an unofficial one.
> >
> > Don't bother reading or posting here.
> >
> > You may get lucky once in a while and get some helpful, accurate
> > information.
> >
> > Better to search the web and the many blogs and forums there.
> >
> > If you are looking to engage in intellectual snobbery, obnoxious banter,
> > argument, debate, abusive and foul language, pro-left wing and
> > homosexual advocacy, anti-right wing and anti-Christian advocacy -
> > you've come to the right place - otherwise, get out while you can!
>
> To borrow a phrase from the English:
>
> Piss off, wanker.
His true statements sting, don't they, you bellicose blowhard.
Mark-
Gregory Weston
Mark Conrad <no-e...@here.invalid> wrote:
Hard to say, since the OP didn't make any true statements. And I'm not
sure what's worrisome about engaging in debate, regardless. I'd think a
*real* debate would be a good thing, in contrast to the growing habit in
all forums of people simply talking *at* each other.
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
Mark Conrad
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
I agree will all your points.
My take on the issues brought up by the OP are mixed.
I do not think much would be gained with generating a FAQ, given
that most ignore "rules" in these open NGs.
As for his point: "You may get lucky once in a while..."
That to me rings true nowadays, when these Mac "side NGs"
do not attract hardly any traffic.
Seems these side NGs were a lot more active a year ago, the
loss of traffic seems to have occured in recent months.
...which is why lots of posters take _all_ their traffic to the
main NG, so their posts will be seen.
As regards his other comments, I have _really_ mixed
emotions about them, so I will address them one-at-a-time.
These are just _my_ opinions, other opinions might vary,
that is the great thing about this country, tolerance for
dissenting opinions. (except in Mac NGs)<g>
> ...intellectual snobbery...
I think that rings true, hope _I_ am not guilty of it.
> ...obnoxious banter...
99.9% percent true whenever the subject being discussed
rubs others the wrong way. In my view, this is a shame,
to me such posts should merely be ignored, rather than
deliberately swamped with obnoxious banter.
Why? - well consider what would happen to a poster if
Macs were around in 1940, and someone like me posted
that they thought it would be feasible for people to be
walking around on the moon in 75 years - - - and that
those people could be medically operated upon by surgeons
based on earth.
(Da Vinci remote medical robot is being used for years now)
I can just imagine the "obnoxious banter" that would result
from the intolerant people here.
> ...argument...
Nothing wrong with arguing, as long as it is "civil" and
sticks to the subject.
all his other lumped-together points
*************************
> ...pro-left wing and homosexual advocacy, anti-right wing
> and anti-Christian advocacy...
I think he is possibly off base here, but he is entitled to his
own opinions. Heck, this whole country alternates between
right-wing and left-wing politics. In my case, I choose
whatever scoundrels I think will benefit the country
at the time.
Homosexual advocacy? I have not seen any such in these NGs,
even if some guy prefers bungholes to vaginas, I figure that
is his own private business.
Anti-Christian? Have seen little of that here either, although I
wish the Christian nuts would keep their bible fairy tales in the
religious NGs where it belongs.
What little there is here, I just ignore, but in no way do I or
anyone else I know of overtly "advocate" anti-christian behavior.
That point will be moot anyhow if Obama gets elected; he will make
good Muslims out of us, like the large amounts of Muslims in
Britain, where more attend mosques than attend Church of England.
<http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/000743.php>
Mark-