Big-8 Management Board - Current Membership & Composition

[Big-8 Management Board]

This is an official communication from the Big-8 Management Board.
Please note that Followup-To is set to news.groups.

Kathy Morgan and Alexander Bartolich have been re-elected.
Helge Nareid and Dave Sill have decided to retire from the board.
In addition, one new member has been elected:

Bob Rudd

The current membership of the board is:

Term Expires 1 Oct 2012
Jeremy Nixon
David E. Ross
Paul Schleck
Howard S Shubs
Term Expires 1 April 2013
Robert Bonomi
Rebecca Brown
Bill Horne
Thomas Lee
Term Expires 1 Oct 2013
Alexander Bartolich, Chair
Kathy Morgan, Vice-Chair
Bob Rudd

--
Alexander Bartolich, chair

[Adam H. Kerman]

qartl <qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:

>Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

>>This is an official communication from the Big-8

>Junta.

>Whoooooooo! Step aside! Make a hole and make it wide!

>>Kathy Morgan and Alexander Bartolich have been re-elected.
>>Helge Nareid and Dave Sill have decided to retire from the board.

>From start to finish, the junta has achieved complete opacity. Well
>done!

>>In addition, one new member has been elected:

>>Bob Rudd

>Oh, a perfect fit: Message-ID: <jdkmhh$4an$1...@news.albasani.net>

>And it is my recollection that Mr. AK predicted this outcome.

Huh. They must have missed the sarcasm in my nomination of Bob Rudd.
They didn't choose the moronic proponent of the Dutch language
Windows 8 newsgroups. He would have been an even better Bambi.

[dvus]

Jesus Adam, you sound like a broken record on this subject. If you don't
like the present setup offer up a better one and practical ways to
implement it.

No one liked the way this board originated but everyone could see the
flaws in the proposed alternatives. I suppose the time may have come
that some sort of democratic selection process is possible, but I can't
think of how to avoid the bullshit if the trolls decide to screw it up.
The constant ad hominem attacks on those on the board don't help the
situation IMHO, they just provide fodder for the idiots that enjoy
bickering with everyone and anyone.

You've got a zillion years of Usenet experience under your belt, do
something helpful and come up with a better way.

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 11:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>qartl<qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:
>>>Big-8 Management Board<bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

>>>>This is an official communication from the Big-8 Junta.

>>>Whoooooooo! Step aside! Make a hole and make it wide!

>>>>Kathy Morgan and Alexander Bartolich have been re-elected.
>>>>Helge Nareid and Dave Sill have decided to retire from the board.

>>>From start to finish, the junta has achieved complete opacity. Well
>>>done!

>>>>In addition, one new member has been elected:

>>>>Bob Rudd

>>>Oh, a perfect fit: Message-ID:<jdkmhh$4an$1...@news.albasani.net>

>>>And it is my recollection that Mr. AK predicted this outcome.

>>Huh. They must have missed the sarcasm in my nomination of Bob Rudd.
>>They didn't choose the moronic proponent of the Dutch language
>>Windows 8 newsgroups. He would have been an even better Bambi.

>Jesus Adam, you sound like a broken record on this subject. If you don't
>like the present setup offer up a better one and practical ways to
>implement it.

You're posting a followup eight days later.

It's nothing to do with the setup. It's to do with the lack of ethics
of those currently serving and their willingness, if not obsession,
to appease bad proponents like Bob Rudd. You may recall Bob Rudd was
laughed out of alt.config. We didn't coddle him because he hijacked
a proposal, then denied it for months and months.

>No one liked the way this board originated but everyone could see the
>flaws in the proposed alternatives.

No well thought out alternatives were proposed.

>I suppose the time may have come that some sort of democratic selection
>process is possible, but I can't think of how to avoid the bullshit
>if the trolls decide to screw it up. The constant ad hominem attacks
>on those on the board don't help the situation IMHO, they just provide
>fodder for the idiots that enjoy bickering with everyone and anyone.

Trolls? The problem with the Bambies all along has been that they are
self-trolling, proved by the socmen moderation proposal and the similar
pondscum fiasco.

>You've got a zillion years of Usenet experience under your belt, do
>something helpful and come up with a better way.

I am doing something by making comments. I would never care to associate
myself with them due to the secret policies and arbitrary decisions and
nearly complete unwillingness to follow their own stated policies.

If you want to be among them, go for it, but I doubt your experience
will be any happier than Barb's or Mark's. Why would you wish it upon me?
Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
the server run by the Bambi chairman.

These are extremely unethical people that I don't wish to join for
any reason.

[dvus]

On 4/21/2012 10:57 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 11:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> qartl<qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:
>>>> Big-8 Management Board<bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>
>>>>> This is an official communication from the Big-8 Junta.
>
>>>> Whoooooooo! Step aside! Make a hole and make it wide!
>
>>>>> Kathy Morgan and Alexander Bartolich have been re-elected.
>>>>> Helge Nareid and Dave Sill have decided to retire from the board.
>
>>> > From start to finish, the junta has achieved complete opacity. Well
>>>> done!
>
>>>>> In addition, one new member has been elected:
>
>>>>> Bob Rudd
>
>>>> Oh, a perfect fit: Message-ID:<jdkmhh$4an$1...@news.albasani.net>
>
>>>> And it is my recollection that Mr. AK predicted this outcome.
>
>>> Huh. They must have missed the sarcasm in my nomination of Bob Rudd.
>>> They didn't choose the moronic proponent of the Dutch language
>>> Windows 8 newsgroups. He would have been an even better Bambi.
>
>> Jesus Adam, you sound like a broken record on this subject. If you don't
>> like the present setup offer up a better one and practical ways to
>> implement it.
>
> You're posting a followup eight days later.

That's because I don't read Usenet as much as I used to. It doesn't seem
as much fun as it used to. I suppose it may just be me getting older or
something, but I just don't enjoy the same old bickering week after
week. Same thing with alt.config, I guess for one reason or another, the
times they are a-changin'.

> It's nothing to do with the setup. It's to do with the lack of ethics
> of those currently serving and their willingness, if not obsession,
> to appease bad proponents like Bob Rudd. You may recall Bob Rudd was
> laughed out of alt.config. We didn't coddle him because he hijacked
> a proposal, then denied it for months and months.
>
>> No one liked the way this board originated but everyone could see the
>> flaws in the proposed alternatives.
>
> No well thought out alternatives were proposed.

Perhaps not formally, but many people voiced the way they thought it
should have been handled.

>> I suppose the time may have come that some sort of democratic selection
>> process is possible, but I can't think of how to avoid the bullshit
>> if the trolls decide to screw it up. The constant ad hominem attacks
>> on those on the board don't help the situation IMHO, they just provide
>> fodder for the idiots that enjoy bickering with everyone and anyone.
>
> Trolls? The problem with the Bambies all along has been that they are
> self-trolling, proved by the socmen moderation proposal and the similar
> pondscum fiasco.

Well, I don't want to re-hash all that again. Nothing constructive ever
comes of it and all you get is a lot of accusations and name calling.

>> You've got a zillion years of Usenet experience under your belt, do
>> something helpful and come up with a better way.
>
> I am doing something by making comments. I would never care to associate
> myself with them due to the secret policies and arbitrary decisions and
> nearly complete unwillingness to follow their own stated policies.

Yes, you do make a lot of comments, but they don't seem to lead to any
results that would satisfy you or many others who don't like the way
things are done. People seem to be railing against the machine without
hope that it'll be fixed to their satisfaction.

> If you want to be among them, go for it, but I doubt your experience
> will be any happier than Barb's or Mark's. Why would you wish it upon me?

I have no desire to "be among them" or be involved other than a user of
Usenet. I volunteered as a Moderator but that's just a simple task
without any further involvement in any administrative duties. Nor do I
"wish" anything on you other than perhaps the use of your experience to
promote something that might satisfy those unhappy with the status quo.

> Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
> the server run by the Bambi chairman.

Why not? Do you mean to say they are censoring your posts?

> These are extremely unethical people that I don't wish to join for
> any reason.

Seems like a pretty strong accusation. I thought you liked Kathy, she
doesn't seem at all "unethical" to me.

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 4/21/2012 10:57 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>On 4/13/2012 11:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>qartl<qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:
>>>>>Big-8 Management Board<bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

>>>I suppose the time may have come that some sort of democratic selection
>>>process is possible, but I can't think of how to avoid the bullshit
>>>if the trolls decide to screw it up. The constant ad hominem attacks
>>>on those on the board don't help the situation IMHO, they just provide
>>>fodder for the idiots that enjoy bickering with everyone and anyone.

>>Trolls? The problem with the Bambies all along has been that they are
>>self-trolling, proved by the socmen moderation proposal and the similar
>>pondscum fiasco.

>Well, I don't want to re-hash all that again. Nothing constructive ever
>comes of it and all you get is a lot of accusations and name calling.

The point is that they refuse to learn and keep repeating the same mistakes.

>>>You've got a zillion years of Usenet experience under your belt, do
>>>something helpful and come up with a better way.

>>I am doing something by making comments. I would never care to associate
>>myself with them due to the secret policies and arbitrary decisions and
>>nearly complete unwillingness to follow their own stated policies.

>Yes, you do make a lot of comments, but they don't seem to lead to any
>results that would satisfy you or many others who don't like the way
>things are done. People seem to be railing against the machine without
>hope that it'll be fixed to their satisfaction.

This is my role. There is nothing else for me to do.

>>Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
>>the server run by the Bambi chairman.

>Why not? Do you mean to say they are censoring your posts?

Yes. His crossposting rejection rules are a form of censorship. It's
his rule on his server, but as long as he's Bambi-in-chief, it's highly
unethical and he should resign.

[ah]

Troll.
--
a "http://orteil.dashnet.org/nested.php" h

[Thomas Lee]

I've been on the road and could not reply, but I saw this and while I
probalby shoudl just have killed the post, Adam's latest post was one
I wanted to follow up on.

> It's nothing to do with the setup. It's to do with the lack of ethics
> of those currently serving and their willingness, if not obsession,
> to appease bad proponents like Bob Rudd. You may recall Bob Rudd was
> laughed out of alt.config. We didn't coddle him because he hijacked
> a proposal, then denied it for months and months.

Adam, for years you've cried every mournful tune - you are literally
the boy who cried wolf. You have accused every board member of
virtually every crime under humanity. To call us unethical is a slur I
doubt you could support except in that deluded fantasy world of yours.
I think that posts like this just reduce any authority your comments
might have had to just noise.

> >No one liked the way this board originated but everyone could see the
> >flaws in the proposed alternatives.
>
> No well thought out alternatives were proposed.

You never proposed well throught out alternatives. All you've done,
for years, is to whine. We did not listen to you 7 years ago and have
not listened much to you since then. Oddly, you continue to whine. I
don't recall you ever producing anyting of value - just lots of hot
air and noise. Face it: you are not her to help but to disrupt.

> >I suppose the time may have come that some sort of democratic selection
> >process is possible, but I can't think of how to avoid the bullshit
> >if the trolls decide to screw it up.  The constant ad hominem attacks
> >on those on the board don't help the situation IMHO, they just provide
> >fodder for the idiots that enjoy bickering with everyone and anyone.
>
> Trolls? The problem with the Bambies all along has been that they are
> self-trolling, proved by the socmen moderation proposal and the similar
> pondscum fiasco.

The socmen group was, I will agree, was not one of our better
decisions. We were, at that time fairly new, and I think the trolls
did a better job than we did. I do not believe we made that mistake
again. And as for the ponders, your bahaviour towards then was
appaling. Frankly, you have lost any moral high ground you might have
thanks to your incredibly stupid and unprofessional comments in that
'debate'. But in both cases my view then and now is that if a bunch of
people make a vaguely compelling case for a group I would be in
favour, so long as the contents are not illegal. With the decline in
Usenet, asking for a vote would a) be a waste of time and b) would be
an inviation to trolls who are now a lot better equppped.

> >You've got a zillion years of Usenet experience under your belt, do
> >something helpful and come up with a better way.

You forget, Adam is here as a troll, he never seriously wanted to do
anything but that. He could have been quite useful but his chidish
antics have consigned him to play a fools role.It;s a shame as you
point out - he does have the experience, But sadly, his comments have,
over the years, painted him into a corner he'll never escape form -
and as a result his posts are a waste of time.

> I am doing something by making comments. I would never care to associate
> myself with them due to the secret policies and arbitrary decisions and
> nearly complete unwillingness to follow their own stated policies.

What crap Adam. You should know better - but then again, you were
never one that let the truth get in the say of (another) good whine.

> If you want to be among them, go for it, but I doubt your experience
> will be any happier than Barb's or Mark's. Why would you wish it upon me?
> Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
> the server run by the Bambi chairman.
>
> These are extremely unethical people that I don't wish to join for
> any reason.

Then why don't you go to some other group where your childish,
immature, and unprofessional conduct might be better apprecaited?

Thomas

[David Bostwick]

What's wrong with your attribution headers?



Thomas Lee <doct...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:d38366d3-9162-4c07...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

> I've been on the road and could not reply, but I saw this and while I
> probalby shoudl just have killed the post, Adam's latest post was one
> I wanted to follow up on.

Me, too. Just a couple of things.

>
>> It's nothing to do with the setup. It's to do with the lack of ethics
>> of those currently serving and their willingness, if not obsession,
>> to appease bad proponents like Bob Rudd. You may recall Bob Rudd was
>> laughed out of alt.config. We didn't coddle him because he hijacked
>> a proposal, then denied it for months and months.
>
> Adam, for years you've cried every mournful tune - you are literally
> the boy who cried wolf. You have accused every board member of
> virtually every crime under humanity. To call us unethical is a slur I
> doubt you could support except in that deluded fantasy world of yours.
> I think that posts like this just reduce any authority your comments
> might have had to just noise.

Have all of the Board's posts been free of noise? Some of you have taken
potshots while decrying that in others.

>
>> >No one liked the way this board originated but everyone could see
>> >the flaws in the proposed alternatives.
>>
>> No well thought out alternatives were proposed.
>
> You never proposed well throught out alternatives.

He didn't limit the list to his ideas. Other ideas were proposed, but
you (the royal you) felt they were bad, and basically said you were going
to do things your way. Usenet was never a real democracy, but the first
Board let things get autocratic in a hurry, and basically told everyone
who disagreed with them to pound sand. I don't recall a single proposal
being seriously considered unless it supported your position.

> All you've done,
> for years, is to whine. We did not listen to you 7 years ago

Q.E.D.

Not everything Adam said at first was abusive or trolling. However, when
one is, as you said above, ignored, there comes a time when one says the
heck with it. If you can't work with the system, then just be a
curmudgeon. Since the change was a fait accompli, I tried to support the
Board at the first, and make some suggestions, but I didn't get much
farther than Adam, if at all. You invited me to join the Board, but by
then I didn't want to be part of an autocracy.

>
>> I am doing something by making comments. I would never care to
>> associate myself with them due to the secret policies and arbitrary
>> decisions and nearly complete unwillingness to follow their own
>> stated policies.
>
> What crap Adam. You should know better - but then again, you were
> never one that let the truth get in the say of (another) good whine.
>

Pot, kettle.

>> If you want to be among them, go for it, but I doubt your experience
>> will be any happier than Barb's or Mark's. Why would you wish it upon
>> me? Note that I can't even post this followup through
>> news.albasani.net, the server run by the Bambi chairman.
>>
>> These are extremely unethical people that I don't wish to join for
>> any reason.
>
> Then why don't you go to some other group where your childish,
> immature, and unprofessional conduct might be better apprecaited?
>
> Thomas
>

And there we have it. "Our group is moderated, so we can keep you out.
This group is unmoderated, so we can't keep you out, but we can
'encourage' you to go elsewhere."


Where should he go? This group, once the backbone of Usenet, is limited
to potshots like this every 6-10 months. Most of the sci.* groups I know
are dead, and the only posts in sci.chem are from a guy who thinks the
universe is a giant plutomium atom, and who replies to his own posts. I
never followed a lot of the other Big 8, but I imagine those are way
down. Alt's probably going strong, since it was always the rebel side.

I'm not really mad at anyone, I'm just at the point where I wonder about
this teapot tempest, and why the Board goes through the motions. I drop
by from time to time, just to see if anything's new. See you in a few.

[Steve Bonine]

On 4/30/12 11:18 AM, David Bostwick wrote:

> I'm not really mad at anyone, I'm just at the point where I wonder about
> this teapot tempest, and why the Board goes through the motions. I drop
> by from time to time, just to see if anything's new. See you in a few.

You beat the place where once there was a dead horse because it reminds
you that years ago it was a pleasant and productive activity to
participate in Usenet.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Newsflash: Steve Bonine continues to be a drama queen. Don't let the
door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Mark Kramer]

In article <d38366d3-9162-4c07...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

Thomas Lee <doct...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've been on the road and could not reply, but I saw this and while I
>probalby shoudl just have killed the post,

Ooops, Thomas. This is news.groups and alt.config. We're unmoderated
here. You're thinking of ngp where you do have the power to kill ideas
that you don't like. Fascinating that your first thought was to kill someone else's post instead of respond civilly, though. Thanks for sharing.

>I think that posts like this just reduce any authority your comments
>might have had to just noise.

Does a threat to kill a post in an unmoderated group increase or reduce any
authority you are perceived to have?

>Then why don't you go to some other group where your childish,
>immature, and unprofessional conduct might be better apprecaited?

You mean like ngp?

[ah]

On 4/30/2012 5:22 AM, Thomas Lee wrote:
> The socmen group was, I will agree, was not one of our better
> decisions.

ROLF!
--
a "http://www.cat-sidh.net/gallery/albums/batch012/normal_MayberryLSD.jpg" h

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 02 May 2012 18:51:53 -0400, in the land of alt.config, ah
<splif...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:

>On 4/30/2012 5:22 AM, Thomas Lee wrote:
>> The socmen group was, I will agree, was not one of our better
>> decisions.
>
>ROLF!

Shocking that all these years later they have fininally figured out
that "build it and they will come" is bound to fail.

--

The Delimited Ratz

[Adam H. Kerman]

Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>ah <splif...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>On 4/30/2012 5:22 AM, Thomas Lee wrote:

>>>The socmen group was, I will agree, was not one of our better
>>>decisions.

>>ROLF!

>Shocking that all these years later they have fininally figured out
>that "build it and they will come" is bound to fail.

They wanted socmen, they got socmen.

But figured something out? No, there's no evidence of that.

[dvus]

C'mon, Adam, are you really losing sleep over this group's formation or
is it just fuel for your indignation?

I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone, allowing this bickering to affect me
in any meaningful way. I guess I should go back to occasional lurking
and keep my quill dry.

--
dvus

[dvus]

On 4/23/2012 11:09 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 4/21/2012 10:57 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/2012 11:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> qartl<qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:
>>>>>> Big-8 Management Board<bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>
>>>> I suppose the time may have come that some sort of democratic selection
>>>> process is possible, but I can't think of how to avoid the bullshit
>>>> if the trolls decide to screw it up. The constant ad hominem attacks
>>>> on those on the board don't help the situation IMHO, they just provide
>>>> fodder for the idiots that enjoy bickering with everyone and anyone.
>
>>> Trolls? The problem with the Bambies all along has been that they are
>>> self-trolling, proved by the socmen moderation proposal and the similar
>>> pondscum fiasco.
>
>> Well, I don't want to re-hash all that again. Nothing constructive ever
>> comes of it and all you get is a lot of accusations and name calling.
>
> The point is that they refuse to learn and keep repeating the same mistakes.

If you say so. I suppose Thomas Lee's admission that socmen was a
mistake counts for nothing?

>>>> You've got a zillion years of Usenet experience under your belt, do
>>>> something helpful and come up with a better way.
>
>>> I am doing something by making comments. I would never care to associate
>>> myself with them due to the secret policies and arbitrary decisions and
>>> nearly complete unwillingness to follow their own stated policies.
>
>> Yes, you do make a lot of comments, but they don't seem to lead to any
>> results that would satisfy you or many others who don't like the way
>> things are done. People seem to be railing against the machine without
>> hope that it'll be fixed to their satisfaction.
>
> This is my role. There is nothing else for me to do.

OK, I don't see any attempts from anyone on either side to open a
conversation about how to try to fix things that would improve relations
without any ad hominem punctuation, so I guess the show will go on. It's
better than no one posting anything, so...

>>> Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
>>> the server run by the Bambi chairman.
>
>> Why not? Do you mean to say they are censoring your posts?
>
> Yes. His crossposting rejection rules are a form of censorship. It's
> his rule on his server, but as long as he's Bambi-in-chief, it's highly
> unethical and he should resign.

As the owner of the server or as a board member? Would you feel better
if he gave you special dispensation to post as you like on his server?

If the rules apply evenly to everyone why are you upset? You've always
said "Their server, their rules." Why is this different?

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 5/2/2012 10:08 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Aratzio<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>ah<splif...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>On 4/30/2012 5:22 AM, Thomas Lee wrote:

>>>>>The socmen group was, I will agree, was not one of our better
>>>>>decisions.

>>>>ROLF!

>>>Shocking that all these years later they have fininally figured out
>>>that "build it and they will come" is bound to fail.

>>They wanted socmen, they got socmen.

>>But figured something out? No, there's no evidence of that.

>C'mon, Adam, are you really losing sleep over this group's formation or
>is it just fuel for your indignation?

I wasn't thinking about the history at all, not till it got rehashed
in this thread.

>I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone, allowing this bickering to affect me
>in any meaningful way. I guess I should go back to occasional lurking
>and keep my quill dry.

Whatever

[Adam H. Kerman]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 4/23/2012 11:09 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>On 4/21/2012 10:57 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 4/13/2012 11:56 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>qartl<qa...@a51.mi1> wrote:
>>>>>>>Big-8 Management Board<bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

>>>>>I suppose the time may have come that some sort of democratic selection
>>>>>process is possible, but I can't think of how to avoid the bullshit
>>>>>if the trolls decide to screw it up. The constant ad hominem attacks
>>>>>on those on the board don't help the situation IMHO, they just provide
>>>>>fodder for the idiots that enjoy bickering with everyone and anyone.

>>>>Trolls? The problem with the Bambies all along has been that they are
>>>>self-trolling, proved by the socmen moderation proposal and the similar
>>>>pondscum fiasco.

>>>Well, I don't want to re-hash all that again. Nothing constructive ever
>>>comes of it and all you get is a lot of accusations and name calling.

>>The point is that they refuse to learn and keep repeating the same mistakes.

>If you say so. I suppose Thomas Lee's admission that socmen was a
>mistake counts for nothing?

That's right. What Thomas Lee claims is irrelevant. It's what he does
that's important.

What's important here is that after it had become clear, even to the Bambies,
that what everyone else said about the socmen herding proposal was correct,
they pursued the very similar pondscum proposal.

Mistake repeated.

>>>>>You've got a zillion years of Usenet experience under your belt, do
>>>>>something helpful and come up with a better way.

>>>>I am doing something by making comments. I would never care to associate
>>>>myself with them due to the secret policies and arbitrary decisions and
>>>>nearly complete unwillingness to follow their own stated policies.

>>>Yes, you do make a lot of comments, but they don't seem to lead to any
>>>results that would satisfy you or many others who don't like the way
>>>things are done. People seem to be railing against the machine without
>>>hope that it'll be fixed to their satisfaction.

>>This is my role. There is nothing else for me to do.

>OK, I don't see any attempts from anyone on either side to open a
>conversation about how to try to fix things that would improve relations
>without any ad hominem punctuation, so I guess the show will go on. It's
>better than no one posting anything, so...

Why does it matter to you? The Bambies have little to do with Usenet as
it is today and have a lot less power than they believe they have.

Why would it improve Usenet if anyone had good relations with them? Feel
free to try and then prove me wrong. If you think you can teach them
something, go for it. It's your time.

>>>>Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
>>>>the server run by the Bambi chairman.

>>>Why not? Do you mean to say they are censoring your posts?

>>Yes. His crossposting rejection rules are a form of censorship. It's
>>his rule on his server, but as long as he's Bambi-in-chief, it's highly
>>unethical and he should resign.

>As the owner of the server or as a board member? Would you feel better
>if he gave you special dispensation to post as you like on his server?

>If the rules apply evenly to everyone why are you upset? You've always
>said "Their server, their rules." Why is this different?

Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a necessary
prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary configging discussion
from taking place on one's own News server has got to be basic ethical
behavior.

That you don't agree says a lot more about you than him.

This article was NOT posted through his server, as he prevented me
from doing so.

[Alexander Bartolich]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> [...]

> Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a necessary
> prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary configging discussion
> from taking place on one's own News server has got to be basic ethical
> behavior.

A crosspost without followup-to is evil.
Stop fighting for evil, and the pain will go away.

Ciao

Alexander.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]

Followup-To ignored.

>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>[...]
>>Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a necessary
>>prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary configging discussion
>>from taking place on one's own News server has got to be basic ethical
>>behavior.

>A crosspost without followup-to is evil.
>Stop fighting for evil, and the pain will go away.

I'm not going away, Alexander, but feel free to keep up the lame insults.
You'll actually have to remove my user privileges for that to happen.

Not posted through news.albasani.net due to censorship reasons

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 10:10:17 -0400, in the land of alt.config, dvus
<dv...@adelphia.net> got double secret probation for writing:

>If you say so. I suppose Thomas Lee's admission that socmen was a
>mistake counts for nothing?

Admitting a mistake is not correcting the mistake, so no. Until there
is empirical evidence to the contrary giving lip service does not
count.

--

The Delimited Ratz

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 21:28:33 +0000 (UTC), in the land of alt.config,
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
probation for writing:

Fuck off, net nazi.

--

The Delimited Ratz

[Aratzio]

On May 4, 6:23 pm, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 21:28:33 +0000 (UTC), in the land of alt.config,

> Alexander Bartolich <alexander.bartol...@gmx.at> got double secret

> probation for writing:
>
> >["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]
>
> >Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a necessary
> >> prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary configging discussion
> >> from taking place on one's own News server has got to be basic ethical
> >> behavior.
>
> >A crosspost without followup-to is evil.
> >Stop fighting for evil, and the pain will go away.
>
> >Ciao
>
> >    Alexander.
>
> Fuck off, net nazi.
>
> --
>

> The Demented Ratz

Quit Frogging me, Goober-Grabber !!
--
Aratzio

[dvus]

It only matters to me in a sort of peripheral way in that it seems
Usenet is losing popularity and all the bickering can't be helping. I
used to really enjoy reading and posting, but now it seems one has to
spend an inordinate amount of time wading through a bunch of crap to
find any meaningful conversation.

> Why would it improve Usenet if anyone had good relations with them? Feel
> free to try and then prove me wrong. If you think you can teach them
> something, go for it. It's your time.

I've not had a problem with anyone on the board other than one person,
and he's not on it anymore.

>>>>> Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
>>>>> the server run by the Bambi chairman.
>
>>>> Why not? Do you mean to say they are censoring your posts?
>
>>> Yes. His crossposting rejection rules are a form of censorship. It's
>>> his rule on his server, but as long as he's Bambi-in-chief, it's highly
>>> unethical and he should resign.
>
>> As the owner of the server or as a board member? Would you feel better
>> if he gave you special dispensation to post as you like on his server?
>
>> If the rules apply evenly to everyone why are you upset? You've always
>> said "Their server, their rules." Why is this different?
>
> Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a necessary
> prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary configging discussion
> from taking place on one's own News server has got to be basic ethical
> behavior.

Actually I do think basic ethical behavior is important for everyone. If
the non-crossposting rule were directed towards you or just some sub-set
of posters I'd have a problem with it. Since it's a general rule people
should just vote with their feet if they don't like it. My provider
won't let me post in any way at all to certain groups. It's their rules
and I decide if I can abide them or not.

> That you don't agree says a lot more about you than him.

What does not agreeing with you say about me? I've disagreed with you
many times in the past and we simply argued it out. Now I'm a bad person
(yes, I know you didn't say that specifically, the inference is there)
because I don't agree with you? That's silly and beneath you.

> This article was NOT posted through his server, as he prevented me
> from doing so.

No, the rules for using his server prevented you from doing so. That you
appear to have attempted to bypass the server's rules says something
about you, IMHO. You've become quite the outlaw!

--
dvus

[dvus]

So, if there were "empirical evidence to the contrary" then the "lip
service" would be acceptable? What sort of evidence would suffice? It
can't be you want them to rmgroup socmen, do you? What *do* you want?

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

Considering the configging groups have been pretty quiet for a while,
that's pretty silly. As far as the rest of Usenet, do you really have
to be told to learn to use your kill file if you can't quickly pick
and choose what you want to read? You've been around a long time;
no sympathy.

>>Why would it improve Usenet if anyone had good relations with them? Feel
>>free to try and then prove me wrong. If you think you can teach them
>>something, go for it. It's your time.

>I've not had a problem with anyone on the board other than one person,
>and he's not on it anymore.

What does that have to do with good relations? That's irrelevant.

>>>>>>Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
>>>>>>the server run by the Bambi chairman.

>>>>>Why not? Do you mean to say they are censoring your posts?

>>>>Yes. His crossposting rejection rules are a form of censorship. It's
>>>>his rule on his server, but as long as he's Bambi-in-chief, it's highly
>>>>unethical and he should resign.

>>>As the owner of the server or as a board member? Would you feel better
>>>if he gave you special dispensation to post as you like on his server?

>>>If the rules apply evenly to everyone why are you upset? You've always
>>>said "Their server, their rules." Why is this different?

>>Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a necessary
>>prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary configging discussion
>>from taking place on one's own News server has got to be basic ethical
>>behavior.

>Actually I do think basic ethical behavior is important for everyone. If
>the non-crossposting rule were directed towards you or just some sub-set
>of posters I'd have a problem with it.

It's directed toward configging discussions.

>Since it's a general rule people should just vote with their feet if
>they don't like it.

He's a Bambi. No one voted for him.

>My provider won't let me post in any way at all to certain groups. It's
>their rules and I decide if I can abide them or not.

Is your News administrator a Bambi? Then that comment is irrelevant.

>>That you don't agree says a lot more about you than him.

>What does not agreeing with you say about me?

It says that you are unwilling to take a hard look at the ethics of a Bambi
who is thwarting configging discussion where he has control over it. That's
a serious blind spot and I can't think of any valid reason for it.

>I've disagreed with you many times in the past and we simply argued it out.

You're not arguing it out. You're focusing on his role as News administrator
and ignoring his role as Bambi. That he can do what he likes as News
administrator is not the issue at hand.

>Now I'm a bad person

No, you're not arguing for your own position in any way that could possibly
convince me.

>(yes, I know you didn't say that specifically, the inference is there)
>because I don't agree with you? That's silly and beneath you.

>>This article was NOT posted through his server, as he prevented me
>>from doing so.

>No, the rules for using his server prevented you from doing so. That you
>appear to have attempted to bypass the server's rules says something
>about you, IMHO. You've become quite the outlaw!

I have done nothing of the kind, so that's utter nonsense.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Again, dvus, you're ignoring the most obvious history. The pondscum
proposal, another troll group proposal, came shortly after the socmen
herding proposal. You can't see that they failed to correct a mistake
due to willful blindness.

Oh, what came shortly after these two proposals? They started whining about
how badly proponents were treated. That's when we got the Treehouse.

No genuine proponents were ever mistreated, but the discussion of these
two proposals was endless because the idiots were battling each other.
There were thousands of articles discussing those two RFDs.

Some of the discussion was deserved criticism of the Bambies, hence
the Treehouse.

It saddens me that you're defending the indefensible.

[ah]

Maybe one day we can all sit-back, and laugh.
--
a "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_RZSi4d1Qc" h

[ah]

Isn't there supposed to be a hyphen between net and nazi?

[Steve Bonine]

On 5/4/12 8:47 PM, ah wrote:

> Maybe one day we can all sit-back, and laugh.

Some of us already are.

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:54:33 -0400, in the land of news.groups, dvus

<dv...@adelphia.net> got double secret probation for writing:

>On 5/4/2012 7:22 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 May 2012 10:10:17 -0400, in the land of alt.config, dvus
>> <dv...@adelphia.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>> If you say so. I suppose Thomas Lee's admission that socmen was a
>>> mistake counts for nothing?
>>
>> Admitting a mistake is not correcting the mistake, so no. Until there
>> is empirical evidence to the contrary giving lip service does not
>> count.
>
>So, if there were "empirical evidence to the contrary" then the "lip
>service" would be acceptable? What sort of evidence would suffice? It
>can't be you want them to rmgroup socmen, do you? What *do* you want?

How about take advice from those that actually know of what they
speak? You know, everyone that told then in detail exactly how the
sof.froot group and every other "build it and they will come"
newsgroup would end, empty and abandoned.

"But they didn't tell us nicely so we could not take the advice"

How about that? Show they *learn* from their mistakes and don't keep
repeating them.

You know, repetitve mistakes, that which makes people think they will
continue to make the same mistakes regardless of the amount of gum
flapping the idiots do?

--

The Delimited Ratz

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:54:40 -0400, in the land of news.groups, ah
<splif...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:

Maybe a hymen.

--

The Delimited Ratz

[Aratzio]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:59:32 -0500, in the land of news.groups, Steve
Bonine <s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:

>On 5/4/12 8:47 PM, ah wrote:
>
>> Maybe one day we can all sit-back, and laugh.
>
>Some of us already are.

Yeah, Steve, you are so well known for your uprorious sense of humor
and how easily you laugh at lifes absurdities.


--

The Delimited Ratz

[Fred Hall]

On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:00:45 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
wrote in <be99q7535g710lvss...@4ax.com>:

Not to mention the dental floss.

[dvus]

I'm not looking for sympathy and I know how to filter as you point out,
I'm just not a fan of the 99:1 signal to noise ratio. I don't expect
anyone to fix the problem for me, I'm just lamenting the fact that it
seems to be worsening.

>>> Why would it improve Usenet if anyone had good relations with them? Feel
>>> free to try and then prove me wrong. If you think you can teach them
>>> something, go for it. It's your time.
>
>> I've not had a problem with anyone on the board other than one person,
>> and he's not on it anymore.
>
> What does that have to do with good relations? That's irrelevant.

I say that I've not had bad relations with everyone on the board and you
say that's irrelevant to your stated challenge that I should feel free
to try to have good relations with them?

>
>>>>>>> Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
>>>>>>> the server run by the Bambi chairman.
>
>>>>>> Why not? Do you mean to say they are censoring your posts?
>
>>>>> Yes. His crossposting rejection rules are a form of censorship. It's
>>>>> his rule on his server, but as long as he's Bambi-in-chief, it's highly
>>>>> unethical and he should resign.
>
>>>> As the owner of the server or as a board member? Would you feel better
>>>> if he gave you special dispensation to post as you like on his server?
>
>>>> If the rules apply evenly to everyone why are you upset? You've always
>>>> said "Their server, their rules." Why is this different?
>
>>> Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a necessary
>>> prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary configging discussion
>> >from taking place on one's own News server has got to be basic ethical
>>> behavior.
>
>> Actually I do think basic ethical behavior is important for everyone. If
>> the non-crossposting rule were directed towards you or just some sub-set
>> of posters I'd have a problem with it.
>
> It's directed toward configging discussions.

Is it directed toward configging discussions alone or all discussion? I
don't use that server so I don't know. If the application of the rule is
dependent on content than I'd agree completely that it's a bad policy
and would expect people to go elsewhere in protest.

>> Since it's a general rule people should just vote with their feet if
>> they don't like it.
>
> He's a Bambi. No one voted for him.

Non sequitur. His being a bambi should have no bearing on the
application of server rules. In addition, people don't "vote" to engage
a service provider, they pay for a service that they can discontinue if
they disapprove of the server's policies.

>> My provider won't let me post in any way at all to certain groups. It's
>> their rules and I decide if I can abide them or not.
>
> Is your News administrator a Bambi? Then that comment is irrelevant.

I don't agree. Server policy should be consistent for all posters
whether the person running it is a board member or a rodeo clown. You
still haven't clarified whether the crossposting rules are applied to
all posts in general or configging posts in particular.

>>> That you don't agree says a lot more about you than him.
>
>> What does not agreeing with you say about me?
>
> It says that you are unwilling to take a hard look at the ethics of a Bambi
> who is thwarting configging discussion where he has control over it. That's
> a serious blind spot and I can't think of any valid reason for it.

Expecting users to follow the server's rules isn't thwarting configging
discussion unless the rules are applied in a discriminatory fashion. I
don't understand why you argue otherwise.

>> I've disagreed with you many times in the past and we simply argued it out.
>
> You're not arguing it out. You're focusing on his role as News administrator
> and ignoring his role as Bambi. That he can do what he likes as News
> administrator is not the issue at hand.

Are you saying that as a board member he should suspend the server's
rules for configging discussion or that as an administrator he should
abandon the rule in general?

>> Now I'm a bad person
>
> No, you're not arguing for your own position in any way that could possibly
> convince me.

My position is that it's unfair and inaccurate to infer that all those
serving on the board demonstrate a lack of ethics because you (or I)
disagree with them.

>> (yes, I know you didn't say that specifically, the inference is there)
>> because I don't agree with you? That's silly and beneath you.
>
>>> This article was NOT posted through his server, as he prevented me
>> >from doing so.
>
>> No, the rules for using his server prevented you from doing so. That you
>> appear to have attempted to bypass the server's rules says something
>> about you, IMHO. You've become quite the outlaw!
>
> I have done nothing of the kind, so that's utter nonsense.

OK, I assumed you stated you were unable to post this conversation via
albasani because you actually tried to do so. It's hard to imagine how
you could have been prevented from doing something you didn't try to do.

--
dvus

[dvus]

On 5/4/2012 9:27 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 5/4/2012 7:22 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 May 2012 10:10:17 -0400, in the land of alt.config, dvus
>>> <dv...@adelphia.net> got double secret probation for writing:
>
>>>> If you say so. I suppose Thomas Lee's admission that socmen was a
>>>> mistake counts for nothing?
>
>>> Admitting a mistake is not correcting the mistake, so no. Until there
>>> is empirical evidence to the contrary giving lip service does not
>>> count.
>
>> So, if there were "empirical evidence to the contrary" then the "lip
>> service" would be acceptable? What sort of evidence would suffice? It
>> can't be you want them to rmgroup socmen, do you? What *do* you want?
>
> Again, dvus, you're ignoring the most obvious history. The pondscum
> proposal, another troll group proposal, came shortly after the socmen
> herding proposal. You can't see that they failed to correct a mistake
> due to willful blindness.

It's true, I really don't care all that much about a few useless groups
being created, at least not to the point that I'd be willing to condemn
everyone who had a hand in it. I understand that you disagree with the
way in which it was done and admit that there's validity in pointing out
the errors committed in their creation. I just don't agree with accusing
everyone on the board of lacking ethics because of those actions.

> Oh, what came shortly after these two proposals? They started whining about
> how badly proponents were treated. That's when we got the Treehouse.

It's my feeling that the way proponents have been treated in general is
the root cause of most of the problems in news.groups and has been for a
long time.

> No genuine proponents were ever mistreated, but the discussion of these
> two proposals was endless because the idiots were battling each other.
> There were thousands of articles discussing those two RFDs.
>
> Some of the discussion was deserved criticism of the Bambies, hence
> the Treehouse.
>
> It saddens me that you're defending the indefensible.

I don't feel that I am, but it'll have to wait, I cant contimue right now

--
dvus

[Steve Bonine]

On 5/5/12 6:47 AM, dvus wrote:

> My position is that it's unfair and inaccurate to infer that all those
> serving on the board demonstrate a lack of ethics because you (or I)
> disagree with them.

Pardon me for pulling one sentence out of a very long article, but this
really says it all.

And yes, Ratz, I'm laughing.

[Steve Bonine]

It's spelled "uproarious" and you need an apostrophe in "life's".

[Adam H. Kerman]

There's no chance that you're exaggerating hugely here, is there? As we
always tell the complainers, if you don't see the discussion in the group
that you want, start it.

>>>>Why would it improve Usenet if anyone had good relations with them? Feel
>>>>free to try and then prove me wrong. If you think you can teach them
>>>>something, go for it. It's your time.

>>>I've not had a problem with anyone on the board other than one person,
>>>and he's not on it anymore.

>>What does that have to do with good relations? That's irrelevant.

>I say that I've not had bad relations with everyone on the board and you
>say that's irrelevant to your stated challenge that I should feel free
>to try to have good relations with them?

No, you said you don't have a problem with anyone. That's not a comment
about your relations with them, that is, if you ever tried to get them
to stop repeating an error or understand something. Not having tried to
impart clue doesn't prove that you could have good relations with them. In
your case, by not bothering to challenge them, it's academic.

>>>>>>>>Note that I can't even post this followup through news.albasani.net,
>>>>>>>>the server run by the Bambi chairman.

>>>>>>>Why not? Do you mean to say they are censoring your posts?

>>>>>>Yes. His crossposting rejection rules are a form of censorship. It's
>>>>>>his rule on his server, but as long as he's Bambi-in-chief, it's highly
>>>>>>unethical and he should resign.

>>>>>As the owner of the server or as a board member? Would you feel better
>>>>>if he gave you special dispensation to post as you like on his server?

>>>>>If the rules apply evenly to everyone why are you upset? You've always
>>>>>said "Their server, their rules." Why is this different?

>>>>Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a
>>>>necessary prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary
>>>>configging discussion from taking place on one's own News server has
>>>>got to be basic ethical behavior.

>>>Actually I do think basic ethical behavior is important for everyone. If
>>>the non-crossposting rule were directed towards you or just some sub-set
>>>of posters I'd have a problem with it.

>>It's directed toward configging discussions.

>Is it directed toward configging discussions alone or all discussion?

How is that relevant? There are crossposting restrictions that involve
specific non-configging groups as well. Those crossposting restrictions
could be objectionable for other reasons, but are not relevant to Alexander
serving as a Bambi.

>I don't use that server so I don't know. If the application of the rule is
>dependent on content than I'd agree completely that it's a bad policy
>and would expect people to go elsewhere in protest.

You keep raising irrelevancies to attempt to distract. I didn't say the
rule is dependent on content. I said it's a crossposting restriction that
prevents certain configgin discussions from taking place if the article
is posted via his server, like this very configging discussion I am
failing to have with you.

A second irrelevancy is whether users should leave the server. Again, my
comment is that the restriction is unethical because he's a Bambi. My
comment is not about users.

If you want to have a discussion with me, perhaps you could address my
comments and not keep going off on tangents.

>>>Since it's a general rule people should just vote with their feet if
>>>they don't like it.

>>He's a Bambi. No one voted for him.

>Non sequitur.

Wrong, dvus. That he's a Bambi is the core issue.

>His being a bambi should have no bearing on the application of server rules.

These are rules that prevent some configging discussion from taking place
on his server. That conflicts with his role as Bambi and he should resign.

Preventing some configging discussion has no bearing on whether he's a
Bambi? I'm horrified that that is your opinion.

>>>My provider won't let me post in any way at all to certain groups. It's
>>>their rules and I decide if I can abide them or not.

>>Is your News administrator a Bambi? Then that comment is irrelevant.

>I don't agree. . . .

No, it's irrelevant. My comment is limited to ethical behavior of a Bambi.
Restrictions of News administrators who are not Bambis are irrelevant
to my comment.

>>>>That you don't agree says a lot more about you than him.

>>>What does not agreeing with you say about me?

>>It says that you are unwilling to take a hard look at the ethics of a Bambi
>>who is thwarting configging discussion where he has control over it. That's
>>a serious blind spot and I can't think of any valid reason for it.

>Expecting users to follow the server's rules isn't thwarting configging
>discussion unless the rules are applied in a discriminatory fashion. I
>don't understand why you argue otherwise.

Just so you're clear: It's your blind spot. Your attitude horrifies me.

>>>I've disagreed with you many times in the past and we simply argued it out.

>>You're not arguing it out. You're focusing on his role as News administrator
>>and ignoring his role as Bambi. That he can do what he likes as News
>>administrator is not the issue at hand.

>Are you saying that as a board member he should suspend the server's
>rules for configging discussion or that as an administrator he should
>abandon the rule in general?

After numerous rounds, what do you think I mean? Stop being so goddamn obtuse.

>>>Now I'm a bad person . . .

>>No, you're not arguing for your own position in any way that could possibly
>>convince me.

>My position is that it's unfair and inaccurate to infer that all those
>serving on the board demonstrate a lack of ethics because you (or I)
>disagree with them.

Oh, another attempt at distraction. My discussion with you in this subthread
has been about Alexander's unethical behavior, not general Bambi unethical
behavior. Oh: I've clearly demonstrated Alexander's unethical behavior;
it's not a matter of inference.

>>>>This article was NOT posted through his server, as he prevented me
>>>>from doing so.

>>>No, the rules for using his server prevented you from doing so. That you
>>>appear to have attempted to bypass the server's rules says something
>>>about you, IMHO. You've become quite the outlaw!

>>I have done nothing of the kind, so that's utter nonsense.

>OK, I assumed you stated you were unable to post this conversation via
>albasani because you actually tried to do so. It's hard to imagine how
>you could have been prevented from doing something you didn't try to do.

Don't be obtuse. You stated that I appeared to have attempted to bypass
the server's rules. That statement is false. I am being prevented from
posting to this discussion on news.albasani.net. I did not attempt to
bypass the server's rules. What's the matter with you?

[Adam H. Kerman]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 5/4/2012 9:27 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>On 5/4/2012 7:22 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 04 May 2012 10:10:17 -0400, in the land of alt.config, dvus
>>>><dv...@adelphia.net> got double secret probation for writing:

>>>>>If you say so. I suppose Thomas Lee's admission that socmen was a
>>>>>mistake counts for nothing?

>>>>Admitting a mistake is not correcting the mistake, so no. Until there
>>>>is empirical evidence to the contrary giving lip service does not
>>>>count.

>>>So, if there were "empirical evidence to the contrary" then the "lip
>>>service" would be acceptable? What sort of evidence would suffice? It
>>>can't be you want them to rmgroup socmen, do you? What *do* you want?

>>Again, dvus, you're ignoring the most obvious history. The pondscum
>>proposal, another troll group proposal, came shortly after the socmen
>>herding proposal. You can't see that they failed to correct a mistake
>>due to willful blindness.

>It's true, I really don't care all that much about a few useless groups
>being created, at least not to the point that I'd be willing to condemn
>everyone who had a hand in it.

Now you're moving the goalposts. I didn't ask if you cared that useless
groups were newgrouped. As it happens, with regard to the socmen herding
group and the pondscum group, I don't care that the groups were newgrouped
either.

(You know better than to say "created".)

You asked if Thomas Lee's admission of a mistake counts for nothing. As
the Bambis repeated the mistake shortly thereafter, I demonstrated that
Thomas Lee's admission of a mistake counts for nothing.

I reminded you that the answer to your question is found in actual history.
You now refuse to accept the facts. If you didn't want to be informed of
the facts, why did you ask the question?

Whether you care that useless groups were newgrouped was not relevant to
the question you asked.

>I understand that you disagree with the way in which it was done

Hey, dvus? Knock off the patronizing bullshit. What the Bambis were responsible
for was starting bullshit so-called configging threads in which thousands and
thousands and thousands of hateful articles were posted because the assholes
who were the regular posters of the socmen group and the pondscum group
all despised each other. That's what the Bambis did and they were warned
before it happened that that's what would happen. When it happened with the
socmen herding discussion, the Bambis did it again by entertaining the
pondscum RFD.

You were around. You know all this.

After these two enormous rounds of bullshit discussion, the Bambies had the
absolute nerve to claim that news.groups was not safe for RFD discussion,
but that was due to what the Bambies themselves did. The Bambies to this
day blame their critics for the "toxic atmosphere" (their words) in
news.groups, the atmosphere they created.

After this mess came The Treehouse.

>and admit that there's validity in pointing out the errors committed in
>their creation.

Again, you are willfully ignoring history. The fact that the groups were
newgrouped is the least of it. The fact that they encouraged, if not
egged on, expansive and all-encompassing flame wars to spill over into
news.groups is what they are truly guilty of.

>I just don't agree with accusing everyone on the board of lacking ethics
>because of those actions.

The Bambis blamed everybody else for the mess they caused. Fanning the flame
wars was their responsibility. They created the "toxic atmosphere" in
news.groups. Their reaction was NOT to accept responsibility, but to
newgroup The Treehouse instead.

Yes, dvus, I have not accused the board of lacking ethics just to lame
them. I demonstrated that newgrouping The Treehouse following the two
massive flame wars is a clearcut case of lack of ethics because they
refused to take responsibility for their own bad behavior, and simply
didn't want to hear from their critics any longer.

Your only counterargument is that you're apathetic and ignorant. The
trouble is that I know that you have actual knowledge of these events.
Furthermore, you know that we all remember that you were around AND
one of the Bambi's critics.

>>Oh, what came shortly after these two proposals? They started whining about
>>how badly proponents were treated. That's when we got the Treehouse.

>It's my feeling that the way proponents have been treated in general is
>the root cause of most of the problems in news.groups and has been for a
>long time.

Then why not become a Bambi, dvus? You're willfully ignoring the very
history that you witnessed and participated in. Willful blindness and
failure to take responsibility for your own role in events are
prerequisites.

The thing is, you actually know how proponents were treated. You criticized
your share of proposals over the years, and you didn't blow sunshine up
any proponent's ass.

You're completely full of shit here, denying your own role. The rest
has been snipped unread.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Crosspost to alt.config restored

Well, what it really says is that context is important, but not to
Squirrel Steve.

[Aratzio]

On Sat, 05 May 2012 08:18:01 -0500, in the land of news.groups, Steve

Bonine <s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:

>On 5/4/12 11:02 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:59:32 -0500, in the land of news.groups, Steve
>> Bonine<s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>> On 5/4/12 8:47 PM, ah wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe one day we can all sit-back, and laugh.
>>>
>>> Some of us already are.
>>
>> Yeah, Steve, you are so well known for your uprorious sense of humor
>> and how easily you laugh at lifes absurdities.
>
>It's spelled "uproarious" and you need an apostrophe in "life's".

I bet you do think that to be quite the epitome of humor.

--

The Delimited Ratz

[Kathy Morgan]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:

> On 5/4/2012 9:27 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > Again, dvus, you're ignoring the most obvious history. The pondscum
> > proposal, another troll group proposal, came shortly after the socmen
> > herding proposal. You can't see that they failed to correct a mistake
> > due to willful blindness.
>
> It's true, I really don't care all that much about a few useless groups
> being created, at least not to the point that I'd be willing to condemn

> everyone who had a hand in it. [...]

The rec.ponds.moderated group appears to be a success. Over the past
year and the past month it has an average of about 1.5 messages per day.
There are people using the group and enjoying the discussion on a
regular basis. I don't believe it was a troll proposal; but even if it
were, I wouldn't care--it resulted in a well used group.

> > the discussion of these
> > two proposals was endless because the idiots were battling each other.
> > There were thousands of articles discussing those two RFDs.

Oh! Now the truth comes out: Adam's objection is that there were too
many messages discussing these RFDs. Perhaps he needs a newsreader that
would allow him to killfile on subject line so that he could avoid the
proposals that people actually want to discuss.

--
Kathy, speaking only for myself

[Junior]

I'm figuring, if you can keep the crabby little control freak busy
here, maybe he'd leave alt.config alone. Isn't there like a
position on the board for this guy? Something? Anything! You know
that's what he wants.

[Adam H. Kerman]

alt.config crosspost restored

Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>On 5/4/2012 9:27 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:

>>>Again, dvus, you're ignoring the most obvious history. The pondscum
>>>proposal, another troll group proposal, came shortly after the socmen
>>>herding proposal. You can't see that they failed to correct a mistake
>>>due to willful blindness.

>>It's true, I really don't care all that much about a few useless groups
>>being created, at least not to the point that I'd be willing to condemn
>>everyone who had a hand in it. [...]

>The rec.ponds.moderated group appears to be a success. Over the past
>year and the past month it has an average of about 1.5 messages per day.
>There are people using the group and enjoying the discussion on a
>regular basis. I don't believe it was a troll proposal; but even if it
>were, I wouldn't care--it resulted in a well used group.

dvus, if this isn't an example of unwillingness and inability to learn,
I don't know what is.

Success? You're insane, Kathy. That's a group that's nearly dead. When
they were all trolling each other during the proposal, the unmoderated
group had more pond discussion than that. Most of the discussion was
the flame war.

>>>the discussion of these two proposals was endless because the idiots
>>>were battling each other. There were thousands of articles discussing
>>>those two RFDs.

>Oh! Now the truth comes out: Adam's objection is that there were too
>many messages discussing these RFDs.

It was several lengthy flame wars. The RFDs were not actually being
discussed in the RFD threads. But you recall that.

>Perhaps he needs a newsreader that would allow him to killfile on subject
>line so that he could avoid the proposals that people actually want
>to discuss.

No, I need a Squirrel of my own to screen my articles for me.

Kathy having kill filed me always makes me giggle. She manages to address
me, still, by piggybacking in followup to articles of others.

It's so very mature.

[Steve Bonine]

On 5/5/12 11:01 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Kathy Morgan wrote:

>> The rec.ponds.moderated group appears to be a success. Over the past
>> year and the past month it has an average of about 1.5 messages per day.
>> There are people using the group and enjoying the discussion on a
>> regular basis. I don't believe it was a troll proposal; but even if it
>> were, I wouldn't care--it resulted in a well used group.

> Success? You're insane, Kathy. That's a group that's nearly dead.

Do you think that stating that the group is nearly dead somehow changes
reality?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Perhaps your comment that an average of about 1.5 articles (not messages)
per day is not a healthy newsgroup would have been better off directed
at Kathy, unless your role as Squirrel is to blow sunshine up the ass
of the collective Bambies. If it's the latter, carry on.

[Mark Kramer]

In article <jo1hm1$u4t$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>A crosspost without followup-to is evil.

In your opinion.

Not even the RFC defines "evil".

A crosspost without followup-to is a crosspost that lacks an optional
header. Will you next proclaim that a crosspost without a summary header
is evil?

>Stop fighting for evil, and the pain will go away.

I stopped fighting WITH evil that will not cease, and yes, the pain is
less. When I stopped BEING evil, I felt much much better.

But fighting a NSP that applies arbitrary rules to limit discussion
isn't fighting for evil. It's fighting against it. Crossposts without
followups are so far down on the "evil" list that it is dishonest to
limit them.

[ah]

Let's ask the C-hair of the board.

[ah]

I can see this trending towards a debate about the merits of waxed and
un-waxed floss . . . .

[ah]

Some of us isn't all of us, is it now, Steve?

[ah]

[Follow-Upset]

On 5/4/2012 5:28 PM, Alexander Bartolich wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]
>
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> [...]
>> Why is it that you don't feel that basic ethical behavior is a necessary
>> prerequisite for being a Bambi? Not preventing ordinary configging discussion
>> from taking place on one's own News server has got to be basic ethical
>> behavior.
>
> A crosspost without followup-to is evil.
> Stop fighting for evil, and the pain will go away.
>
> Ciao
>
> Alexander.

Jehova Police-State Monotheists are not allowed in alt.config

Please read the FAQ'n Charter.

[Aratzio]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 18:37:02 -0400, in the land of alt.config, ah
<splif...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:

I was thinking more onthe lines of manufactured floss as opposed to
organic floss.

--

The Delimited Ratz

[ah]

Is this like when the supply of mahogany dried-up as a result of the
promulgation of the Sustainability Forestry Initiative, or are we talkin'
Post-Katrina pine reserves?

[Aratzio]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:31:43 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, ah

<splif...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:

>On 5/6/2012 7:25 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 18:37:02 -0400, in the land of alt.config, ah
>> <splif...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>On 5/5/2012 3:44 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 08:18:01 -0500, in the land of news.groups, Steve
>>>> Bonine <s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>
>>>>>On 5/4/12 11:02 PM, Aratzio wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 04 May 2012 21:59:32 -0500, in the land of news.groups, Steve
>>>>>> Bonine<s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/4/12 8:47 PM, ah wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe one day we can all sit-back, and laugh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some of us already are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, Steve, you are so well known for your uprorious sense of humor
>>>>>> and how easily you laugh at lifes absurdities.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's spelled "uproarious" and you need an apostrophe in "life's".
>>>>
>>>> I bet you do think that to be quite the epitome of humor.
>>>
>>>I can see this trending towards a debate about the merits of waxed and
>>>un-waxed floss . . . .
>>
>> I was thinking more onthe lines of manufactured floss as opposed to
>> organic floss.
>
>Is this like when the supply of mahogany dried-up as a result of the
>promulgation of the Sustainability Forestry Initiative, or are we talkin'
>Post-Katrina pine reserves?

Montana Farmed Floss vs Artificial.

--

The Delimited Ratz

[Steve Bonine]

I personally prefer free-range floss.

[dvus]

So, your saying that since AB is a Bambi he should suspend pre-existing
server rules if they can be construed as limiting configging
discussions? What if he were to take a job on the board of a company
that spammed Usenet to advertise. Would you expect him to suspend
anti-spam rules to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest? Of
course not. The cross-posting rules were put there as a policy of the
server to best serve its users. To suspend them because someone feels
they limit configging discussion would be hypocritical.

>> I don't use that server so I don't know. If the application of the rule is
>> dependent on content than I'd agree completely that it's a bad policy
>> and would expect people to go elsewhere in protest.
>
> You keep raising irrelevancies to attempt to distract. I didn't say the
> rule is dependent on content. I said it's a crossposting restriction that
> prevents certain configgin discussions from taking place if the article
> is posted via his server, like this very configging discussion I am
> failing to have with you.
>
> A second irrelevancy is whether users should leave the server. Again, my
> comment is that the restriction is unethical because he's a Bambi. My
> comment is not about users.

And so, obviously, you're not using it to post your comments. Just as
anyone has the right to not use a server whose rules they disagree with.
To expect AB to change the pre-existing rules of his server just because
you feel they don't suit you isn't fair.

>
> If you want to have a discussion with me, perhaps you could address my
> comments and not keep going off on tangents.

I've asked several times whether the rules you dislike are directed at
only configging discussions and you continually avoid answering saying
"it's not relevant". I'm saying it *is* relevant, at least from my point
of view.

>>>> Since it's a general rule people should just vote with their feet if
>>>> they don't like it.
>
>>> He's a Bambi. No one voted for him.
>
>> Non sequitur.
>
> Wrong, dvus. That he's a Bambi is the core issue.

People "voting with their feet" and voting for board membership are two
separate issues. That you jumped on my choice of words to try to make a
point is disingenuous.

>> His being a bambi should have no bearing on the application of server rules.
>
> These are rules that prevent some configging discussion from taking place
> on his server. That conflicts with his role as Bambi and he should resign.

It's common knowledge that you think they should all resign. If AB
changed the cross-posting rules for just configging discussions would
you then withdraw your insistence that AB resign? I doubt it.

> Preventing some configging discussion has no bearing on whether he's a
> Bambi? I'm horrified that that is your opinion.

Oh, I don't think you're all that horrified. You've just jumped on this
point to bolster your view that the board is evil. If it weren't this
issue it would be something else.

>>>> My provider won't let me post in any way at all to certain groups. It's
>>>> their rules and I decide if I can abide them or not.
>
>>> Is your News administrator a Bambi? Then that comment is irrelevant.
>
>> I don't agree. . . .
>
> No, it's irrelevant. My comment is limited to ethical behavior of a Bambi.
> Restrictions of News administrators who are not Bambis are irrelevant
> to my comment.
>
>>>>> That you don't agree says a lot more about you than him.
>
>>>> What does not agreeing with you say about me?
>
>>> It says that you are unwilling to take a hard look at the ethics of a Bambi
>>> who is thwarting configging discussion where he has control over it. That's
>>> a serious blind spot and I can't think of any valid reason for it.
>
>> Expecting users to follow the server's rules isn't thwarting configging
>> discussion unless the rules are applied in a discriminatory fashion. I
>> don't understand why you argue otherwise.
>
> Just so you're clear: It's your blind spot. Your attitude horrifies me.
>
>>>> I've disagreed with you many times in the past and we simply argued it out.
>
>>> You're not arguing it out. You're focusing on his role as News administrator
>>> and ignoring his role as Bambi. That he can do what he likes as News
>>> administrator is not the issue at hand.
>
>> Are you saying that as a board member he should suspend the server's
>> rules for configging discussion or that as an administrator he should
>> abandon the rule in general?
>
> After numerous rounds, what do you think I mean? Stop being so goddamn obtuse.

I wouldn't have to be if you'd answer one question directly instead of
dancing around the issues. If you think a server administrator whose
server rules interfere with how you feel configging discussions should
be held is disqualified from being a board member, then say so. If you
think the server rules are unfair in general, then say that. Stop being

obtuse.

>>>> Now I'm a bad person . . .
>
>>> No, you're not arguing for your own position in any way that could possibly
>>> convince me.
>
>> My position is that it's unfair and inaccurate to infer that all those
>> serving on the board demonstrate a lack of ethics because you (or I)
>> disagree with them.
>
> Oh, another attempt at distraction. My discussion with you in this subthread
> has been about Alexander's unethical behavior, not general Bambi unethical
> behavior. Oh: I've clearly demonstrated Alexander's unethical behavior;
> it's not a matter of inference.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. To be honest, I don't know the guy,
I've never dealt with him and so have no way of judging his character.
Serving on the board and not changing his server's rules to suit you
doesn't make him a bad person, IMHO, especially taking into account your
known feeling about the board and everyone on it. Earlier you said they
all lacked ethics, and I know that isn't true in my experience.

>>>>> This article was NOT posted through his server, as he prevented me
>>>> >from doing so.
>
>>>> No, the rules for using his server prevented you from doing so. That you
>>>> appear to have attempted to bypass the server's rules says something
>>>> about you, IMHO. You've become quite the outlaw!
>
>>> I have done nothing of the kind, so that's utter nonsense.
>
>> OK, I assumed you stated you were unable to post this conversation via
>> albasani because you actually tried to do so. It's hard to imagine how
>> you could have been prevented from doing something you didn't try to do.
>
> Don't be obtuse. You stated that I appeared to have attempted to bypass
> the server's rules. That statement is false. I am being prevented from
> posting to this discussion on news.albasani.net. I did not attempt to
> bypass the server's rules. What's the matter with you?

Well, I guess I'll have to read your mind, since you insist on being
unclear. Were you "prevented" from posting this via albasani because you
assumed that since it contains more than one newsgroup that your posts
would be rejected or did you actually try to post via albasani and have
your post rejected? Or will you now tell me my question is "irrelevant"
again because it doesn't state things within your desired framework?

--
dvus

[Alexander Bartolich]

["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]

dvus wrote:
> [...] The cross-posting rules were put there as a policy of the

> server to best serve its users. To suspend them because someone feels
> they limit configging discussion would be hypocritical.

To be honest, I set up the followup-to requirement to limit the amount
of abuse reports I receive.

In some areas of Usenet it is common to have aggressive, endless, cross-
posted discussions. Participants typically just reply without ever
checking whether the thread is relevant to all targeted groups. Some
people exploit that and add unrelated groups to the list, just to see
them flooded. Others use group names to ridicule or insult. The canonical
example is to add alt.usenet.kooks. And the epitome of this kind of humor
is to simply make up derogatory group names, which can result in strange
errors.

[ Quested directed to Adam ]

> Well, I guess I'll have to read your mind, since you insist on being
> unclear. Were you "prevented" from posting this via albasani because you
> assumed that since it contains more than one newsgroup that your posts
> would be rejected or did you actually try to post via albasani and have
> your post rejected?

http://albasani.net/wiki/FAQ_(English)#Why_is_my_crosspost_not_accepted.3F

Ciao

Alexander.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>["Followup-To:" header set to news.groups.]

Followup-To ignored.

>dvus wrote:
>>[...] The cross-posting rules were put there as a policy of the
>>server to best serve its users. To suspend them because someone feels
>>they limit configging discussion would be hypocritical.

>To be honest, I set up the followup-to requirement to limit the amount
>of abuse reports I receive.

>In some areas of Usenet it is common to have aggressive, endless, cross-
>posted discussions. Participants typically just reply without ever
>checking whether the thread is relevant to all targeted groups. Some
>people exploit that and add unrelated groups to the list, just to see
>them flooded. Others use group names to ridicule or insult. The canonical
>example is to add alt.usenet.kooks. And the epitome of this kind of humor
>is to simply make up derogatory group names, which can result in strange
>errors.

As has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, the endless crossposted
discussions in news.groups ended after the socmen herding RFD and
pondscum RFD were newgrouped. There have been no such similar discussions
since. alt.config never had anything comparable to these two hideous
threads, entirely the fault of Bambies.

If you had any ability to pay attention to the state of news.groups in
the last four or five years, you'd have noticed this.

In other words, no, you're not being honest.

You should resign from the Bambies.

[ah]

This is turning into another Naugahide discussion.

[Aratzio]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:05:11 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, ah

I support the rights of Naugas to be free range.

--

The Delimited Ratz

[ah]

I've heard there are new regulations wrt rendered Nauga fat.

[Kathy Morgan]

> > posting to this discussion on news.albasani.net. [...]

>
> Well, I guess I'll have to read your mind, since you insist on being
> unclear. Were you "prevented" from posting this via albasani because you
> assumed that since it contains more than one newsgroup that your posts
> would be rejected or did you actually try to post via albasani and have
> your post rejected? Or will you now tell me my question is "irrelevant"
> again because it doesn't state things within your desired framework?

Adam is not being prevented from posting to this discussion on
news.albasani.net. What is prevented is his crossposting the discussion
without setting a followup to a single group. This particular
discussion is off topic in alt.config, so for this discussion setting
followups to news.groups only seems totally reasonable to me--in fact
I've deleted the crosspost from my message.

On the other hand, suppose this were an actual configging discussion
that was on topic in both alt.config and news.groups. An example would
be someone saying, "I want a group to discuss Foo and I don't know
whether I should try for a Big 8 group or just an alt.* group." In that
case, the albasani server would allow Adam or any other user to
crosspost the discussion--but they would have to choose one of the
groups for a followup. If the user believes further followups will
still be on topic in both groups, they can certainly add a note to the
beginning of their post saying something like, "Followups set to
news.groups only to comply with server rules. Please add alt.config
back to the Newsgroups line when you follow up."

If the example were, "I want a group to post pictures involving Foo and
I don't know whether I should try for a Big 8 group or an alt.binaries*
group," that again would be on topic in both news.groups and alt.config,
but the followups should tell the person, "Pictures are binaries and
belong in alt.binaries.*. You almost certainly will not get a Big 8
group for posting pictures," with followups directed to alt.config. It
would be appropriate to crosspost that message, so that other readers
both in news.groups and alt.config know that someone has given the
correct response, but further followups belong just in alt.config.

--
Kathy, speaking just for myself

[Adam H. Kerman]

Crosspost to alt.config restored.

Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>On 5/5/2012 11:11 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>Adam is not being prevented from posting to this discussion on
>news.albasani.net. What is prevented is his crossposting the discussion
>without setting a followup to a single group.

You are amazingly obtuse, Kathy. I don't set Followup-To (except as
a joke) and I won't post like that in a configging discussion.

>This particular discussion is off topic in alt.config,

The hell it is. Discussing Bambi-antics is on topic in whichever newsgroups
I decide are appropriate for my articles. This thread had been mostly
crossposted to both newsgroups, and that's the way it'll continue to be.

>so for this discussion setting followups to news.groups only seems totally
>reasonable to me--in fact I've deleted the crosspost from my message.

My, my. One Bambi apologizes for another. How unexpected.

>On the other hand, suppose this were an actual configging discussion
>that was on topic in both alt.config and news.groups. An example would
>be someone saying, "I want a group to discuss Foo and I don't know
>whether I should try for a Big 8 group or just an alt.* group." In that
>case, the albasani server would allow Adam or any other user to
>crosspost the discussion--but they would have to choose one of the
>groups for a followup. If the user believes further followups will
>still be on topic in both groups, they can certainly add a note to the
>beginning of their post saying something like, "Followups set to
>news.groups only to comply with server rules. Please add alt.config
>back to the Newsgroups line when you follow up."

Kathy, this just demonstrates that you are a complete moron, but
apparently, dvus will find this persuassive. No user should have
to play stupid games like that.

[David Bostwick]

ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4fab115e$0$2614$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

Which may be why they have to hide.

[William Bagwell]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:18:17 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>
wrote:

>alt.config never had anything comparable to these two hideous
>threads,

alt.twenty-something (sp) comes to mind.
--
William

http://www.alt-config.net/Link_to_the_FAQs.html

[dvus]

On 5/10/2012 12:12 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Crosspost to alt.config restored.
>
> Kathy Morgan<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2012 11:11 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>> Adam is not being prevented from posting to this discussion on
>> news.albasani.net. What is prevented is his crossposting the discussion
>> without setting a followup to a single group.
>
> You are amazingly obtuse, Kathy. I don't set Followup-To (except as
> a joke) and I won't post like that in a configging discussion.

Then, as is your right, you're not using albasani since you don't agree
with their restrictions on crossposts without a Followup.

>> This particular discussion is off topic in alt.config,
>
> The hell it is. Discussing Bambi-antics is on topic in whichever newsgroups
> I decide are appropriate for my articles. This thread had been mostly
> crossposted to both newsgroups, and that's the way it'll continue to be.

I agree. Since ac is unmoderated nothing is off-topic there. People
regularly post things having nothing to do with the subject of the group
but it's up to the reader to decide what they wish to read or not read.

>> so for this discussion setting followups to news.groups only seems totally
>> reasonable to me--in fact I've deleted the crosspost from my message.
>
> My, my. One Bambi apologizes for another. How unexpected.

I must remember not to agree with anyone you disagree with for fear of
being an apologist.

>> On the other hand, suppose this were an actual configging discussion
>> that was on topic in both alt.config and news.groups. An example would
>> be someone saying, "I want a group to discuss Foo and I don't know
>> whether I should try for a Big 8 group or just an alt.* group." In that
>> case, the albasani server would allow Adam or any other user to
>> crosspost the discussion--but they would have to choose one of the
>> groups for a followup. If the user believes further followups will
>> still be on topic in both groups, they can certainly add a note to the
>> beginning of their post saying something like, "Followups set to
>> news.groups only to comply with server rules. Please add alt.config
>> back to the Newsgroups line when you follow up."
>
> Kathy, this just demonstrates that you are a complete moron, but
> apparently, dvus will find this persuassive. No user should have
> to play stupid games like that.

Not finding Kathy's description of the situation persuasive does not
equate to my finding her to be a "moron", complete or otherwise. You'll
note that in those cases where I disagree with you I didn't call you one
either. You owe Kathy an apology, in my opinion.

--
dvus

[dvus]

Although I seldom see it expressed, I think the majority of those who
dislike the way things are being done simply miss the "good old days"
when they were free to flame proponents unmercifully for their own
amusement. I don't count Adam amongst those because he always kept his
insults on point and germane to the proposal(s) while others were more
than happy to let things devolve into pointless flame wars. As I've
mentioned, he and I were often at odds over his methods but our
discussions were generally cordial in tone.

Things seem to have changed and I'm on the verge of discontinuing
participation in this discussion since I don't see anything of value
resulting from it. I guess I started it, so it's only fitting that I end
it as far as my involvement is concerned. See you all in the funny papers.

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 5/10/2012 12:12 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>Kathy Morgan<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:

>>>Adam is not being prevented from posting to this discussion on
>>>news.albasani.net. What is prevented is his crossposting the discussion
>>>without setting a followup to a single group.

>>You are amazingly obtuse, Kathy. I don't set Followup-To (except as
>>a joke) and I won't post like that in a configging discussion.

>Then, as is your right, you're not using albasani since you don't agree
>with their restrictions on crossposts without a Followup.

Yes, dvus. As is my right, I'm observing that Alexander Bartolich is
unethical for imposing such a restriction as it's meant to interfere with
ordinary configging discussion because he's a Bambi. As he's unethical,
he should resign.

Do we have to go over this another 12 times before the penny drops?

>>>On the other hand, suppose this were an actual configging discussion
>>>that was on topic in both alt.config and news.groups. An example would
>>>be someone saying, "I want a group to discuss Foo and I don't know
>>>whether I should try for a Big 8 group or just an alt.* group." In that
>>>case, the albasani server would allow Adam or any other user to
>>>crosspost the discussion--but they would have to choose one of the
>>>groups for a followup. If the user believes further followups will
>>>still be on topic in both groups, they can certainly add a note to the
>>>beginning of their post saying something like, "Followups set to
>>>news.groups only to comply with server rules. Please add alt.config
>>>back to the Newsgroups line when you follow up."

>>Kathy, this just demonstrates that you are a complete moron, but
>>apparently, dvus will find this persuassive. No user should have
>>to play stupid games like that.

>Not finding Kathy's description of the situation persuasive does not
>equate to my finding her to be a "moron", complete or otherwise. You'll
>note that in those cases where I disagree with you I didn't call you one
>either. You owe Kathy an apology, in my opinion.

No, I really don't. She made a fool of herself. She won't learn.
If there's any evidence that she learned a lesson, then she wouldn't
be a moron and I would so state.

[Adam H. Kerman]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:

>Although I seldom see it expressed, I think the majority of those who
>dislike the way things are being done simply miss the "good old days"
>when they were free to flame proponents unmercifully for their own
>amusement. I don't count Adam amongst those because he always kept his
>insults on point and germane to the proposal(s) while others were more
>than happy to let things devolve into pointless flame wars. As I've
>mentioned, he and I were often at odds over his methods but our
>discussions were generally cordial in tone.

My methods have nothing to do with Alexander's methods.

>Things seem to have changed and I'm on the verge of discontinuing
>participation in this discussion since I don't see anything of value
>resulting from it. I guess I started it, so it's only fitting that I end
>it as far as my involvement is concerned. See you all in the funny papers.

No great loss, then.

[ah]

Nauga-pr0n?

[dvus]

On 5/11/2012 4:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 5/10/2012 12:12 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Kathy Morgan<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Adam is not being prevented from posting to this discussion on
>>>> news.albasani.net. What is prevented is his crossposting the discussion
>>>> without setting a followup to a single group.
>
>>> You are amazingly obtuse, Kathy. I don't set Followup-To (except as
>>> a joke) and I won't post like that in a configging discussion.
>
>> Then, as is your right, you're not using albasani since you don't agree
>> with their restrictions on crossposts without a Followup.
>
> Yes, dvus. As is my right, I'm observing that Alexander Bartolich is
> unethical for imposing such a restriction as it's meant to interfere with
> ordinary configging discussion because he's a Bambi. As he's unethical,
> he should resign.

I wasn't aware that the restriction was meant as a restriction on
configging discussion, imposed after AB joined the board. That's
certainly a "bad thing".

>
> Do we have to go over this another 12 times before the penny drops?

As I said, I didn't know the restriction was imposed as a result of AB's
board membership. You should make these things clearer.

>>>> On the other hand, suppose this were an actual configging discussion
>>>> that was on topic in both alt.config and news.groups. An example would
>>>> be someone saying, "I want a group to discuss Foo and I don't know
>>>> whether I should try for a Big 8 group or just an alt.* group." In that
>>>> case, the albasani server would allow Adam or any other user to
>>>> crosspost the discussion--but they would have to choose one of the
>>>> groups for a followup. If the user believes further followups will
>>>> still be on topic in both groups, they can certainly add a note to the
>>>> beginning of their post saying something like, "Followups set to
>>>> news.groups only to comply with server rules. Please add alt.config
>>>> back to the Newsgroups line when you follow up."
>
>>> Kathy, this just demonstrates that you are a complete moron, but
>>> apparently, dvus will find this persuassive. No user should have
>>> to play stupid games like that.
>
>> Not finding Kathy's description of the situation persuasive does not
>> equate to my finding her to be a "moron", complete or otherwise. You'll
>> note that in those cases where I disagree with you I didn't call you one
>> either. You owe Kathy an apology, in my opinion.
>
> No, I really don't. She made a fool of herself. She won't learn.
> If there's any evidence that she learned a lesson, then she wouldn't
> be a moron and I would so state.

Her not "learning a lesson" is just another way of saying she didn't
come around to your way of thinking. Is everyone who doesn't agree with
you therefore a moron?

--
dvus

[dvus]

On 5/11/2012 4:21 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>> Although I seldom see it expressed, I think the majority of those who
>> dislike the way things are being done simply miss the "good old days"
>> when they were free to flame proponents unmercifully for their own
>> amusement. I don't count Adam amongst those because he always kept his
>> insults on point and germane to the proposal(s) while others were more
>> than happy to let things devolve into pointless flame wars. As I've
>> mentioned, he and I were often at odds over his methods but our
>> discussions were generally cordial in tone.
>
> My methods have nothing to do with Alexander's methods.

No, and I didn't say they did. Your methods have everything to do with
you alone.

>> Things seem to have changed and I'm on the verge of discontinuing
>> participation in this discussion since I don't see anything of value
>> resulting from it. I guess I started it, so it's only fitting that I end
>> it as far as my involvement is concerned. See you all in the funny papers.
>
> No great loss, then.

No, I suppose not, not from your point of view, at least.

--
dvus

[Robert Bonomi]

In article <4fadb2bf$0$17205$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com>,

I'm told that there was an epidemic of plastic surgery -- that nobody's seen
a 'natural' nauga in YEARS!

[Robert Bonomi]

In article <a17718...@mid.individual.net>, dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 5/11/2012 4:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>> Yes, dvus. As is my right, I'm observing that Alexander Bartolich is
>> unethical for imposing such a restriction as it's meant to interfere with
>> ordinary configging discussion because he's a Bambi. As he's unethical,
>> he should resign.
>
>I wasn't aware that the restriction was meant as a restriction on
>configging discussion, imposed after AB joined the board. That's
>certainly a "bad thing".

Read _carefully_ -- Adam has -not- stated that that was the sequence
of events.

>> No, I really don't. She made a fool of herself. She won't learn.
>> If there's any evidence that she learned a lesson, then she wouldn't
>> be a moron and I would so state.
>
>Her not "learning a lesson" is just another way of saying she didn't
>come around to your way of thinking. Is everyone who doesn't agree with
>you therefore a moron?

Nope. In the World According to Adam, many who disagree with his gospel
are -worse- than morons.

[Adam H. Kerman]

dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 5/11/2012 4:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>On 5/10/2012 12:12 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Kathy Morgan<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:

>>>>>Adam is not being prevented from posting to this discussion on
>>>>>news.albasani.net. What is prevented is his crossposting the discussion
>>>>>without setting a followup to a single group.

>>>>You are amazingly obtuse, Kathy. I don't set Followup-To (except as
>>>>a joke) and I won't post like that in a configging discussion.

>>>Then, as is your right, you're not using albasani since you don't agree
>>>with their restrictions on crossposts without a Followup.

>>Yes, dvus. As is my right, I'm observing that Alexander Bartolich is
>>unethical for imposing such a restriction as it's meant to interfere with
>>ordinary configging discussion because he's a Bambi. As he's unethical,
>>he should resign.

>I wasn't aware that the restriction was meant as a restriction on
>configging discussion, imposed after AB joined the board. That's
>certainly a "bad thing".

The restriction was in place long before he became a Bambi. The other
Bambies knew about the restriction because I brought it to their attention
when he was first nominated.

[Steve Bonine]

On 5/12/12 12:47 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

> Nope. In the World According to Adam, many who disagree with his gospel
> are -worse- than morons.

Most of us have become animals.

[ah]

Chinese knockoffs?!?

[dvus]

On 5/12/2012 1:47 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article<a17718...@mid.individual.net>, dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>> On 5/11/2012 4:19 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, dvus. As is my right, I'm observing that Alexander Bartolich is
>>> unethical for imposing such a restriction as it's meant to interfere with
>>> ordinary configging discussion because he's a Bambi. As he's unethical,
>>> he should resign.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that the restriction was meant as a restriction on
>> configging discussion, imposed after AB joined the board. That's
>> certainly a "bad thing".
>
> Read _carefully_ -- Adam has -not- stated that that was the sequence
> of events.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but what bothers me is that it seems he was very
careful to avoid stating that it *wasn't* the sequence of events.

>
>>> No, I really don't. She made a fool of herself. She won't learn.
>>> If there's any evidence that she learned a lesson, then she wouldn't
>>> be a moron and I would so state.
>>
>> Her not "learning a lesson" is just another way of saying she didn't
>> come around to your way of thinking. Is everyone who doesn't agree with
>> you therefore a moron?
>
> Nope. In the World According to Adam, many who disagree with his gospel
> are -worse- than morons.

That's a subjective accusation which therefore resists accurate analysis
or debate. So, I won't try.

--
dvus

[Junior]

Maybe it would be more accurate to say, the fucker is a bitch.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article <a19oem...@mid.individual.net>, dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>On 5/12/2012 1:47 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> In article<a17718...@mid.individual.net>, dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wasn't aware that the restriction was meant as a restriction on
>>> configging discussion, imposed after AB joined the board. That's
>>> certainly a "bad thing".
>>
>> Read _carefully_ -- Adam has -not- stated that that was the sequence
>> of events.
>
>Yes, I'm aware of that, but what bothers me is that it seems he was very
>careful to avoid stating that it *wasn't* the sequence of events.

Yup. he knows the facts, and deliberately phrases things in a way that
invites the reader to draw the erroneous conclusions that he _wants_
them to believe.

Credit where credit is due: He _finally_ did come out with an explicit
statement of the sequence of events, when expressly questioned on the
chronology.

Wherein he admits that the cross-posting restriction (without a 'follow-up'
header) was in place many -years- before AB was invited onto the Big 8 board.

It is worth noting that many people feel that the restriction, as regards
'alt.config' and 'news.groups', is entirely reasonable -- The 'on topic'
subjects for discussion in those two groups are entirely disjoint (i.e.,
with zero overlap). Discussion of anything related to anything In the
configuration of 'alt.*' is irrelevant to 'news.groups' -- the 'news.groups'
charter limits it to the 'Big 8'. Similarly, the 'scope' of 'alt.config'
was intended to be strictly the 'alt.*' hierarchy -- anything 'Big 8' is
off-topic there.

In point of fact, Adam's entire history of harping about the B8MB (including
this entire discussion, and all participants -- myself *included*) is off-
topic for alt.config since it all has absolutely nothing to do with the
alt.* hierarchy.

>>> Her not "learning a lesson" is just another way of saying she didn't
>>> come around to your way of thinking. Is everyone who doesn't agree with
>>> you therefore a moron?
>>
>> Nope. In the World According to Adam, many who disagree with his gospel
>> are -worse- than morons.
>
>That's a subjective accusation which therefore resists accurate analysis
>or debate. So, I won't try.

Actually, is is based strictly on historical fact -- the names he has called
other people who have disagreed with his _opinion_ on other matters, in other
forums.

[Steve Bonine]

On 5/13/12 12:24 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

> In point of fact, Adam's entire history of harping about the B8MB (including
> this entire discussion, and all participants -- myself *included*) is off-
> topic for alt.config since it all has absolutely nothing to do with the
> alt.* hierarchy.

If you do not believe that the material belongs in alt.config why are
you posting the material to alt.config?

[Junior]

This needs to stop... now. We have our reputations to think about.
What if 'they' find out that we've been associating with the wrong
crowd? The Bamby Rabble. They would not approve. Certainly not.

--
RABBLE, n. In a republic, those who exercise a supreme authority
tempered by fraudulent elections. The rabble is like the sacred
Simurgh, of Arabian fable -- omnipotent on condition that it do
nothing. (The word is Aristocratese, and has no exact equivalent
in our tongue, but means, as nearly as may be, "soaring swine.")
*** From The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1906) ***

[%]

Junior wrote:
> Steve Bonine wrote:
>> On 5/13/12 12:24 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>>> In point of fact, Adam's entire history of harping about the B8MB
>>> (including this entire discussion, and all participants -- myself
>>> *included*) is off- topic for alt.config since it all has
>>> absolutely nothing to do with the alt.* hierarchy.
>>
>> If you do not believe that the material belongs in alt.config why are
>> you posting the material to alt.config?
>
> This needs to stop... now. We have our reputations to think about.
> What if 'they' find out that we've been associating with the wrong
> crowd? The Bamby Rabble. They would not approve. Certainly not.

are you guys on some sort of dope

[Adam H. Kerman]

Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>On 5/12/2012 1:47 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>>dvus<dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:

>>>>I wasn't aware that the restriction was meant as a restriction on
>>>>configging discussion, imposed after AB joined the board. That's
>>>>certainly a "bad thing".

>>>Read _carefully_ -- Adam has -not- stated that that was the sequence
>>>of events.

>>Yes, I'm aware of that, but what bothers me is that it seems he was very
>>careful to avoid stating that it *wasn't* the sequence of events.

>Yup. he knows the facts, and deliberately phrases things in a way that
>invites the reader to draw the erroneous conclusions that he _wants_
>them to believe.

Are you capable of _composing_ a sentence without _shouting_?

Why the fuck does it make any difference when Alexander started behaving
as an unethical Bambi? Does it matter if he wasn't doing it yesterday,
but is doing it today? Why does it change his lack of ethics if he started
doing it before or after he was appointed Bambi?

news.groups and alt.config are mostly quiet when no configging discussion
takes place. Very few groups have been proposed for the past several years
in alt or Big 8. This has been the case for years. How did _you_ fail
to notice?

Yet Alexander, defending his policy to dvus, talks about non-disclosed
complaints he got about crossposts, and cited auk. He doesn't even try
to justify the policy by connecting it to actual recent discussions in
the two newsgroups.

Is there _something_ seriously wrong with you, or is it just _another_
excuse to spew your eliptical insults?

>Credit where credit is due: He _finally_ did come out with an explicit
>statement of the sequence of events, when expressly questioned on the
>chronology.

>Wherein he admits that the cross-posting restriction (without a 'follow-up'
>header) was in place many -years- before AB was invited onto the Big 8 board.

>It is worth noting that many people feel that the restriction, as regards
>'alt.config' and 'news.groups', is entirely reasonable -- The 'on topic'
>subjects for discussion in those two groups are entirely disjoint (i.e.,
>with zero overlap). Discussion of anything related to anything In the
>configuration of 'alt.*' is irrelevant to 'news.groups' -- the 'news.groups'
>charter limits it to the 'Big 8'. Similarly, the 'scope' of 'alt.config'
>was intended to be strictly the 'alt.*' hierarchy -- anything 'Big 8' is
>off-topic there.

Incidently, if you believe your _English_ requires parenthetical
_explanations_, _Robert_, perhaps you should _consider_ taking
a _writing_ course.

How _many_ people do you believe you are, Robert? Can you be so kind as
to provide your statistical evidence and support you have from the lurkers
in email?

We've had _recent_ proponents, quite confused about the process,
simultaneously proposing the _same_ group in multiple hierarchies.

Why, that geneyous just got appointed new Bambi. In fact, I nominated him.

Again, how did _you_ fail to notice this?

You sure know very little about what gets discussed.

>In point of fact, Adam's entire history of harping about the B8MB (including
>this entire discussion, and all participants -- myself *included*) is off-
>topic for alt.config since it all has absolutely nothing to do with the
>alt.* hierarchy.

It has _everything_ to do with the alt hierarchy. It is a _related_ topic.
It is most _unfortunately_ _indeed_ that you cannot tell the difference
between _off topic_ and a _related topic_.

I'm the author. I decide where my article is on topic or a related topic.
Not you. Not Alexander. Such is the nature of unmoderated newsgroups.

How do you not know this?

>>>>Her not "learning a lesson" is just another way of saying she didn't
>>>>come around to your way of thinking. Is everyone who doesn't agree with
>>>>you therefore a moron?

>>>Nope. In the World According to Adam, many who disagree with his gospel
>>>are -worse- than morons.

>>That's a subjective accusation which therefore resists accurate analysis
>>or debate. So, I won't try.

>Actually, is is based strictly on historical fact -- the names he has called
>other people who have disagreed with his _opinion_ on other matters, in other
>forums.

_Everybody_ _be_ _like_ _Robert_ _who_ _never_ _accuses_ anyone of anything.
All hail Saint Robert.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article <joq4f4$2g0$1...@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

[ nothing of value -- except to thoroughly verify the previous statements
about his reactions when anyone challenges his proclamations of Gospel
in The World According to Adam. ]

[dvus]

Chinese handcuffs?!?

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>[ nothing of value -- except to thoroughly verify the previous statements
> about his reactions when anyone challenges his proclamations of Gospel
> in The World According to Adam. ]

Why Robert, baby, this proves just the opposite, that your followups have
been nothing but invective and that you had no ability to argue for your
own phoney position.

Congratulations for posting to Usenet for the first time in your life
without shouting. I didn't believe I could pound the clue through
your thick skull.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article <jorbin$l15$1...@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>[ nothing of value -- except to thoroughly verify the previous statements
>> about his reactions when anyone challenges his proclamations of Gospel
>> in The World According to Adam. ]
>

>Congratulations for posting to Usenet for the first time in your life
>without shouting.

Adam, honeychild, you are the one deserving of the "congratulations" -- for
resorting to an outright lie in addition to your usual distortions of
fact, and doing it in a single sentence.

> I didn't believe I could pound the clue through your thick skull.

Rest assured, *YOU* (emphasis added for the express purpose of triggering
the village idiot) didn't. So, you'll just have to chalk it up as another
of your failures.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Robert Bonomi <bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>[ nothing of value -- except to thoroughly verify the previous statements
>>> about his reactions when anyone challenges his proclamations of Gospel
>>> in The World According to Adam. ]

>>Congratulations for posting to Usenet for the first time in your life
>>without shouting.

>Adam, honeychild, you are the one deserving of the "congratulations" -- for
>resorting to an outright lie in addition to your usual distortions of
>fact, and doing it in a single sentence.

Why Robbie, fetus, nice job with selective quoting! Could you get
any more immature?

>>I didn't believe I could pound the clue through your thick skull.

>Rest assured, *YOU* (emphasis added for the express purpose of triggering
>the village idiot) didn't. So, you'll just have to chalk it up as another
>of your failures.

Rob, baby, so very proud of his own ineptitude with written language...

[ah]

Fight!