Earnhardt, Petty & Gordon mags for sale
Steve
Beckett Racing
Collector's Wolrd
Nascar 95 preview
All from the 1994-1995 racing season. The Beckett book has Earnhardt
& Petty on the cover and is in NM+ condition. No reserve on the
auction. Pictures are included on the auction site.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1045841155
Thanks,
Tom Pendergast
>
> I have 3 magazines:
RASN has a charter. eBay has rules.
> Beckett Racing
> Collector's Wolrd
> Nascar 95 preview
Trust me, the 3 people on earth who do not know about eBay
yet do not hang around these parts. If somebody wants these
they know how to find them.
> All from the 1994-1995 racing season. The Beckett book has Earnhardt
> & Petty on the cover and is in NM+ condition. No reserve on the
> auction. Pictures are included on the auction site.
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP_spamming_jerk_Item&item=1100110011
Your URL was borked, I fixed it for ya.
> Thanks,
Don't mention it.
TP
twenty-four
Thanks for the heads-up. Please put FS: at the beginning of
the subject line next time. Thanks. :)
Wayne Mann
wrote:
He won't be posting his spam here again, so why don't you
consider suicide?
The Dark One
>
> Thanks for the heads-up. Please put FS: at the beginning of
>the subject line next time. Thanks. :)
No thanks.
Since when did RASN become a forsale group?
>On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:21:12 GMT, Steve <scha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I have 3 magazines:
>>
>>Beckett Racing
>>Collector's Wolrd
>>Nascar 95 preview
>>
>>All from the 1994-1995 racing season. The Beckett book has Earnhardt
>>& Petty on the cover and is in NM+ condition. No reserve on the
>>auction. Pictures are included on the auction site.
>>
>>http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=crap
>>
>>Thanks,
Without light, without honor, without remorse.
twenty-four
There is no nascar for sale group, so as far as Im concerned its
ok.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 21:28:08 GMT, lightsout@ten (The Dark One)
wrote:
Wayne Mann
wrote:
>
> There is no nascar for sale group, so as far as Im concerned its
>ok.
>
Fortunately you have absolutely NOTHING to say about it.
Scumbag!
The Dark One
did speak thusly:
>
> There is no nascar for sale group, so as far as Im concerned its
>ok.
You must be confused.
This is a discussion group about stock car racing, not a place for
people to sell things. Understand? Usenet was not created by
advertisers.
Next, please!
--
The Dark One
twenty-four
You must be as equally confused about your ability to control
what others do. Im only suggesting a method that will allow
'personal' for-sale items in way that will be the least intrusive
for everyone.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:23:03 GMT, lightsout@ten (The Dark One)
wrote:
>You must be confused.
The Dark One
did speak thusly:
>On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:23:03 GMT, lightsout@ten (The Dark One)
>wrote:
>
>>You must be confused.
>>This is a discussion group about stock car racing, not a place for
>>people to sell things. Understand? Usenet was not created by
>>advertisers.
>
> You must be as equally confused about your ability to control
>what others do.
Which is exactly what you are trying to do to RASN. You are trying to
twist this group into a form that will suit you. YOU want to see
forsale ads, this group does not (as well as almost any other groups
on Usenet) Take a poll, the results will support my claim.
>Im only suggesting a method that will allow
>'personal' for-sale items in way that will be the least intrusive
>for everyone.
No, the least intrusive would be for it to not be here in the first
place. How does advertising contribute to the discussion? Any
discussion? It contributes nothing, and in a discussion group, is
worthless.
twenty-four
wrote:
>Which is exactly what you are trying to do to RASN. You are trying to
>twist this group into a form that will suit you. YOU want to see
No, its the opposite. Im not posting for-sale items, why should
I care. If I were selfish, I wouldnt give a rats-behind. This
argument isnt for me. How does taking the heat over this issue
help me? Doing so doesnt serve me at all but Im still willing to
stand up for what I believe is right.
>forsale ads, this group does not (as well as almost any other groups
>on Usenet) Take a poll, the results will support my claim.
I dont want or have to see them. I just dont mind seeing them.
I appreciate ones right to post an occasional 'personal' for-sale
item. Is that really so bad? I dont see the point in getting
completely wigged out and ballistic because over it. I believe
this group belongs to everyone, not just you or me.
>No, the least intrusive would be for it to not be here in the first
Sure, if you could stop it.
>place. How does advertising contribute to the discussion? Any
>discussion? It contributes nothing, and in a discussion group, is
>worthless.
People may have questions, comments, and otherwise discussion
about a proposed item for-sale. Is it a good buy? Does anyone
have one like it? Are they happy with it? What is the proper
care, use, and/or display of the item. Is the seller credible?
What would you look for? What should I avoid? When is a good time
to buy?
Lets not be close minded. I think this group is big enough for
everyone.
Deliveryboy
>
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 19:22:35 -0500, twenty-four <al...@jalanjones.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > There is no nascar for sale group, so as far as Im concerned its
> >ok.
> >
> Fortunately you have absolutely NOTHING to say about it.
> Scumbag!
Well hey, at least you did not call him Anal Janal.
John
Deliveryboy
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 00:51:15 -0500, twenty-four <al...@jalanjones.com>
> did speak thusly:
>
> >On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 05:23:03 GMT, lightsout@ten (The Dark One)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>You must be confused.
> >>This is a discussion group about stock car racing, not a place for
> >>people to sell things. Understand? Usenet was not created by
> >>advertisers.
> >
> > You must be as equally confused about your ability to control
> >what others do.
>
> Which is exactly what you are trying to do to RASN. You are trying to
> twist this group into a form that will suit you. YOU want to see
> forsale ads, this group does not (as well as almost any other groups
> on Usenet) Take a poll, the results will support my claim.
We've done that. It was pointed out to Alan before. That is when he came
up with the legendary "silent majority" thingie. He more or less was
saying the group was being run/lead/formed by "a vocal few" and that we
should include the "silent majority" in any discussion about such items.
Still my favorite.
John
twenty-four
Well John I still dont believe its a majority. I think the
majority is indifferent while a very significant number would like
to offer their occasional item to the group. If not, what are you
afraid of? If theres only a small minority of people who want to
post their personal for-sale items, whats the problem?
You dont like me or anyone coming around here and changing
things. Open your eyes and see things as they are and stop
clinging to old practices that dont work.
The vocal are few and the silent are many. Its a fact of life
John and its my favorite too. Just maybe one day you will
understand it as well.
twenty-four
And you childishly did John. Your credibility is on the same
level as Wane's.
Argue the issues with me John, dont call names. Lets see
what youre made of.
Mike Marlow
"twenty-four" <al...@jalanjones.com> wrote in message
news:bd6d1uo4k0kmbe9n4...@4ax.com...
>
> Well John I still dont believe its a majority. I think the
> majority is indifferent while a very significant number would like
> to offer their occasional item to the group. If not, what are you
> afraid of? If theres only a small minority of people who want to
> post their personal for-sale items, whats the problem?
>
> You dont like me or anyone coming around here and changing
> things. Open your eyes and see things as they are and stop
> clinging to old practices that dont work.
>
> The vocal are few and the silent are many. Its a fact of life
> John and its my favorite too. Just maybe one day you will
> understand it as well.
>
Classic freakin' jones. Talk about ignoring reality jones - it is no such
fact of life. It's only the premise you hide behind in attempt to justify
the way that you stand all alone in life. The very numbers mean nothing to
you - you simply concoct your ridiculous fact of life to explain away those
voices that speak continually against just about everything you have to say.
It's much easier to blame them all and create alternative realities than to
admit you're wrong , isn't it jones?
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Al Neill
Deliveryboy wrote:
>
> The Dark One wrote:
> > Which is exactly what you are trying to do to RASN. You are trying to
> > twist this group into a form that will suit you. YOU want to see
> > forsale ads, this group does not (as well as almost any other groups
> > on Usenet) Take a poll, the results will support my claim.
>
> We've done that. It was pointed out to Alan before. That is when he came
> up with the legendary "silent majority" thingie. He more or less was
> saying the group was being run/lead/formed by "a vocal few" and that we
> should include the "silent majority" in any discussion about such items.
> Still my favorite.
>
Me too. IIRC I went off on him about that contention at some point.
Ever notice that Alan's posts seem to have been removed from the
google archive? Wonder if he requested that himself or just a
decision by TPB ;)
- AL
twenty-four
Mike, your post shows ignorance. Go back to school or just ask
anyone in politics, broadcasting, advertising, or business in
general where there are a large number of customers.
If you cant grasp this basic social dynamic, how do you expect to
convince me Im wrong on anything?
twenty-four
wrote:
>Me too. IIRC I went off on him about that contention at some point.
I certainly hope you dont decide to 'go off' on me again. I just
dont know if I could survive that. I would surely crumble to the
ground.
>Ever notice that Alan's posts seem to have been removed from the
>google archive? Wonder if he requested that himself or just a
>decision by TPB ;)
Im just a mysterious figment of your imagination. (heheh-heh)
ScottB
> I think the majority is indifferent while a very significant number would
like to offer their occasional item to the group.
You should try this "occasional" thing.
> The vocal are few and the silent are many.
Or better yet, how about joining the many silent?
Scott B. RCR #29, DEI #8 #1
Semper Fidelis 3/9 USMC
"I love the smell of octane in the morning.
It smells like...victory" - Anon.
DeevaCath
>It's much easier to blame them all and create alternative realities than to
>admit you're wrong , isn't it jones?
You are king.
__________________________________________________________
* If you think there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody. *
Cathy, *Keeper of the Ts
#1 Mayfield & Gordon fan
twenty-four
Umm, ok Scott. If you say so. Im sure glad you cleared that up
once and for all. (??)
On 12 Dec 2001 02:30:14 GMT, nashcar...@aol.com (ScottB)
wrote:
twenty-four
Isnt this wonderful. You two understand each other perfectly.
Ignorance is bliss, but it also needs company. (heheh-heh)
On 12 Dec 2001 02:40:19 GMT, deev...@aol.comNotEven (DeevaCath)
wrote:
Mike Marlow
>
> Mike, your post shows ignorance. Go back to school or just ask
> anyone in politics, broadcasting, advertising, or business in
> general where there are a large number of customers.
>
> If you cant grasp this basic social dynamic, how do you expect to
> convince me Im wrong on anything?
>
Nice try alan, but you need to go take a second look. In a small group
those dynamics do not apply the way they do in a large, diverse population.
Think about the difference between a focused group and a general population.
Alan - you cannot continue to take snippets of fact from one environment and
apply them to your arguments at will - not if you ever want anyone to take
you seriously, that is. Alas - it's too late for that.
BTW - I do not expect to convince you of anything. Consider...
1) You're just not that important in my life
2) You lack the requisite reasoning abilities to conduct a rational,
intelligent discourse
3) I don't want to be guilty of contributing any knowledge in your life -
you've already proven how dangerous you can be with just a little bit of
knowledge.
4) You would first need to display the ability to admit you were wrong and
to accept someone pointing it out to you - which so far, you've not done.
5) You top post ($1 to Wayne)
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
twenty-four
Youre now explaining to me, something I had to explain to you
only about eight hours ago? This is unbelievable. Watching you
and a few others in this group has been an incredible experience of
human nature. What I find most amazing is youre all grown adults.
Hey look, honestly and all kidding aside, please reconsider the
wisdom of your confrontations with me.
Mike Marlow
>
> Youre now explaining to me, something I had to explain to you
> only about eight hours ago? This is unbelievable. Watching you
> and a few others in this group has been an incredible experience of
> human nature. What I find most amazing is youre all grown adults.
Huh? Did you read what I wrote Alan? It is in stark contrast to your
earlier claims. Trust me - you did not "have to" explain any of this to me.
Rather than take the typical approach and backtrack on your words, why not
explain how what I say below is in any way close to what you claimed
earlier? The amusing observation in all of this is that we all get to watch
you back peddle again. Next comes the duck and dive move where you evade
the questions put to you, and you jump on to some new ramble.
I'm not surprised that you find adults amazing - it's one of the defining
characteristics of the adolescent mind.
>
> Hey look, honestly and all kidding aside, please reconsider the
> wisdom of your confrontations with me.
Do you ever stop to think how utterly riduculous you sound when you make
these pompus proclamations? Really alan - you've not held up well in any
discusssion you've engaged in - with anyone here, and you really suggest
that you're somehow a force to be reckoned with? Honestly alan, your
ignorance is only overshadowed by your ego.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
DeevaCath
It's amazingly scary that janal is loose in society.
The Dark One
did speak thusly:
>On 12 Dec 2001 02:30:14 GMT, nashcar...@aol.com (ScottB)
>wrote:
>
>> twenty-four writes:
>>
>>> I think the majority is indifferent while a very significant number would
>>like to offer their occasional item to the group.
>>
>>You should try this "occasional" thing.
>>
>>> The vocal are few and the silent are many.
>>
>>Or better yet, how about joining the many silent?
>
> Umm, ok Scott. If you say so. Im sure glad you cleared that up
>once and for all. (??)
You're not a member of Mensa, are you?
He means, in the simplest terms possible, so even you can understand:
Zip it.
twenty-four
Ohhhh, so thats what he meant. Wow, I just wouldnt have gotten
it if not for you. Thanks Dark One. :)
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:14:38 GMT, lightsout@ten (The Dark One)
wrote:
>You're not a member of Mensa, are you?
twenty-four
Whether its a group listening to a local radio station or a group
reading a forum, the dynamic is the same. I know this from
experience. Its been proven to me over and over. For many
people, its just common knowledge.
Unlike John (deliveryboy) and Dark One, why do I always have
to state the obvious with you? This is the same criticism I had of
you during our first couple of arguments, which subsequently set
you on your path of hatred toward me. You think youre smart.
You talk like youre smart. And Mike, I truly wish you were smart.
I would luv to be able to carry on an intelligent discussion with
you. I need and enjoy that in life. But Im sorry fella, you just
aint cutin' it. You never come up with anything meaningful and,
even worse, rather than drop it like the others you continue to
demonstrate your ignorance.
Im not interested in being your teacher. Its boring for me and
frankly youre boring. Im only being honest with you. You try to
come across as intelligent but the content of what you say is a
lame disappointment. If you dont care to do better, dont be
surprised as my replies 'wane'.
On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 06:15:04 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<mike....@usa.net> wrote:
> ...
Deliveryboy
>
> And you childishly did John. Your credibility is on the same
> level as Wane's.
I hope you didn't pull a muscle jumping to that conclusion.
>
> Argue the issues with me John, dont call names. Lets see
> what youre made of.
>
Alan,
My response refferred to the fact that Wayne usually calls you that. I
was not calling you that. As you can see from Wayne's response that I
followed he does not name call. I was calling Wayne out on his
hypocritical double standards. No offense intended.
John
twenty-four
None taken, my apologies to you. :)
Deliveryboy
>
> Well John I still dont believe its a majority.
What does "it's" refer to in this sentence?
> I think the
> majority is indifferent while a very significant number would like
> to offer their occasional item to the group. If not, what are you
> afraid of?
Maybe I am as dumb as you think, "if not" what?
> If theres only a small minority of people who want to
> post their personal for-sale items, whats the problem?
Do the words "discussion group" mean anything?
>
> You dont like me or anyone coming around here and changing
> things.
Not true. I don't like people coming around here trying to change things
that are not broken. Not to mention consistently ignoring the fact that
the majority of those that voice their opinions do not want that change.
> The vocal are few and the silent are many. Its a fact of life
> John and its my favorite too. Just maybe one day you will
> understand it as well.
Once again another fine example of how you talk down to those that
disagree with you. I understand it fully. IIRC, you thought we should
include the silent majority in our discussion concerning letting for
sale ads in RASN. If the silent majority wants to be heard they need to
speak up. We can't base descisions on what "the silent majority" might
want. How would anyone know what the silent majority wants if they are
silent? Once they do speak they are no longer silent, they became part
of the vocal few.
John
Mike Marlow
>
> Whether its a group listening to a local radio station or a group
> reading a forum, the dynamic is the same. I know this from
> experience. Its been proven to me over and over. For many
> people, its just common knowledge.
If you insist - it's not worth my time to argue the point with you.
>
> Unlike John (deliveryboy) and Dark One, why do I always have
> to state the obvious with you? This is the same criticism I had of
> you during our first couple of arguments, which subsequently set
> you on your path of hatred toward me.
Because you have a propensity for making blatently false statements. Just
about everyone that has ever entered into discussion with you has pointed
that out. But then again - they're just the vocal few jerks here, right?
When you're called on it you back peddle and change the subject in a
juvenile attempt to place your opponent on the defensive. Sorry chum - you
simply cannot make me feel defensive. You're no threat. You lack
comprehension thus you're no threat to me.
You think youre smart.
> You talk like youre smart. And Mike, I truly wish you were smart.
> I would luv to be able to carry on an intelligent discussion with
> you. I need and enjoy that in life. But Im sorry fella, you just
> aint cutin' it. You never come up with anything meaningful and,
> even worse, rather than drop it like the others you continue to
> demonstrate your ignorance.
Nah - I'm not smart - not like you're smart alan. That's fine by me. It's
even better by me that I don't cut it in your book. It's when you start
liking me that I'll worry.
>
> Im not interested in being your teacher. Its boring for me and
> frankly youre boring. Im only being honest with you. You try to
> come across as intelligent but the content of what you say is a
> lame disappointment. If you dont care to do better, dont be
> surprised as my replies 'wane'.
>
Don't worry about taxing yourself jones - you've no capacity to be my
teacher. On the other hand, like many here - I'd love to see your replies
wane.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
twenty-four
<mike....@usa.net> wrote:
>Because you have a propensity for making blatently false statements.
Against predominant opinion is not blatantly false.
>When you're called on it you back peddle and change the subject in a
Your back-peddle scenario is weak and old. It sounds good to you
but that doesnt make it so.
>You're no threat. You lack
>comprehension thus you're no threat to me.
Thats great Mike.
twenty-four
wrote:
>What does "it's" refer to in this sentence?
Im not convinced a majority 'is' against for-sale ads. I think
'it is' simply an excuse for some to vent their hatred.
>Not true. I don't like people coming around here trying to change things
>that are not broken.
Its broken John.
>Not to mention consistently ignoring the fact that
>the majority of those that voice their opinions do not want that change.
When are you and the vocal majority going to get tired of hearing
the constant complaints over something we have no hope of stopping?
I think its time to deal with the issue because 'it is' not going
to go away until we do.
>you thought we should
>include the silent majority in our discussion concerning letting for
>sale ads in RASN. If the silent majority wants to be heard they need to
>speak up. We can't base descisions on what "the silent majority" might
>want. How would anyone know what the silent majority wants if they are
>silent?
Excellent. You see Marlow? This is discussion.
We can only take their silence as a vote of indifference. They
simply dont want to get involved. Its just not that important to
them.
>Once they do speak they are no longer silent, they became part
>of the vocal few.
Superb. (you watchin' this mikie?) Right, we can only be
absolutely sure when everyone makes their voice heard. Even in
presidential elections, only a minority casts its vote. Im saying
the majority simply doesnt care and thats why Im willing to push
for change.
I feel the only way to get at the heart of the problem is to give
the for-sale people their little slim slice of this very big
newsgroup pie. Give them rules to follow and proper steps to take.
Put them in their place out of and away from the spotlight. If
they refuse to follow the set guidelines, then we're no worse off
than before. Please stop allowing this topic to have the dominance
its enjoyed for literally years. I think the charter shows, to
some extent, a lack of foresight in this matter and it has been a
plague ever since. FS: at the beginning of the subject line is a
common and accepted practice for non-spam or 'personal on-topic'
for-sale posts. Its time to bring this group up to speed. (get it?
speed, nascar, ... never mind :)
I appreciate your thoughtful discussion on this John. I hope
others will give it the same careful consideration.
Wheeler
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:34:10 -0500, in rec.autos.sport.nascar you
> wrote:
>
> >What does "it's" refer to in this sentence?
>
> Im not convinced a majority 'is' against for-sale ads. I think
> 'it is' simply an excuse for some to vent their hatred.
I didn't realize you had that low of an opinion of the people here.
> >Not true. I don't like people coming around here trying to change things
> >that are not broken.
>
> Its broken John.
I disagree.
We've never been inundated with spam or forsale ads, simply because of
those who fight it at every opportunity. If somebody is warned by their
ISP, chances are they won't risk it again.
> >Not to mention consistently ignoring the fact that
> >the majority of those that voice their opinions do not want that change.
>
> When are you and the vocal majority going to get tired of hearing
> the constant complaints over something we have no hope of stopping?
> I think its time to deal with the issue because 'it is' not going
> to go away until we do.
So we should just roll over and die because our fight is seemingly
hopeless? That is a very defeatist attitude.
If those who are complaining stop doing so, the forsale ads and spam
will increase. It's because of the complaining that we don't see more
ads. Granted, it doesn't do a thing for those who only visit this group
to advertise, as they never see the followups, but it lets the regs and
lurkers know that spam and forsale ads are not appreciated.
> >you thought we should
> >include the silent majority in our discussion concerning letting for
> >sale ads in RASN. If the silent majority wants to be heard they need to
> >speak up. We can't base descisions on what "the silent majority" might
> >want. How would anyone know what the silent majority wants if they are
> >silent?
>
> Excellent. You see Marlow? This is discussion.
>
> We can only take their silence as a vote of indifference. They
> simply dont want to get involved. Its just not that important to
> them.
Or they don't want to get flamed. Either by those who oppose it, or
those who support it to the death.
> >Once they do speak they are no longer silent, they became part
> >of the vocal few.
>
> Superb. (you watchin' this mikie?) Right, we can only be
> absolutely sure when everyone makes their voice heard. Even in
> presidential elections, only a minority casts its vote. Im saying
> the majority simply doesnt care and thats why Im willing to push
> for change.
>
> I feel the only way to get at the heart of the problem is to give
> the for-sale people their little slim slice of this very big
> newsgroup pie. Give them rules to follow and proper steps to take.
> Put them in their place out of and away from the spotlight. If
> they refuse to follow the set guidelines, then we're no worse off
> than before.
Okay, but what of those who don't visit this group? I mean those who
have something to sell, and see RASN and think, "Hey, this seems like a
good place to advertise!" I personally feel that about half of those
who post forsale ads here are not regulars or even lurkers, they simply
post a message and forget about it. If they are not here regularly to
see these guidelines, how can we expect them to follow?
> Please stop allowing this topic to have the dominance
> its enjoyed for literally years. I think the charter shows, to
> some extent, a lack of foresight in this matter and it has been a
> plague ever since. FS: at the beginning of the subject line is a
> common and accepted practice for non-spam or 'personal on-topic'
> for-sale posts. Its time to bring this group up to speed. (get it?
> speed, nascar, ... never mind :)
I disagree. This is a discussion group about stock car racing (egads, I
sound like your pet, The Dark One, oh the humanity!!!). Where do you
draw the line for "personal forsale items"? Tickets? Diecasts? If you
allow diecasts, what's the limit? If an ad for one diecast is okay, is
an ad for 100 diecasts okay? What about 100 ads for one diecast? What
about magazines, or hats, or programs? The line between spam and
personal items is not as clear as some like to think.
--
Wheeler
new and improved for your viewing pleasure
JL
<CHOP>
Yo Jimbobwe!
I'm not going to tell you what to do, but stop
replying to The RASN Toy.
r a p p y
"Wheeler" <jwhe...@wmis.net> wrote in message
news:3C181B17...@wmis.net...
Exactly.
>
>
> > >you thought we should
> > >include the silent majority in our discussion concerning
letting for
> > >sale ads in RASN. If the silent majority wants to be heard they
need to
> > >speak up. We can't base descisions on what "the silent
majority" might
> > >want. How would anyone know what the silent majority wants if
they are
> > >silent?
> >
> > Excellent. You see Marlow? This is discussion.
> >
> > We can only take their silence as a vote of indifference.
They
> > simply dont want to get involved. Its just not that important
to
> > them.
>
> Or they don't want to get flamed. Either by those who oppose it,
or
> those who support it to the death.
Anyone who spends any time in other discussion groups can attest to
what happens
when for sale stuff is tollerated. It soon becomes difficult to
wade through the crap
just to find the discussion.
If alan really wants to give people a place to find such things it's
not
all that hard to point people to appropriate groups. For sale and
collectible groups for
diecast do exist....... They were created for that purpose.......
Why change a discussion group into something for which
the "need" is already being served elsewhere?
Pardon me.....but that's just plain brainless.
Heck.......he could just add the group/s to his sig line.
But.....we all know his real motives are far from all that........
Competiton equipment and tickets at face value.......
that's it..........
I'll netcop every one who posts FS in this group.......
I may not announce it like others do, but I'll never stop trying to
keep the playground clean........
Oh.....if anyone doesn't like it i suggest you go read up on how to
start a Diecast FS group.....
That's the real answer.........not this hogwash Alan is trying to
peddle.
I'm sure to do that is beyond him.
I have to remember......he doesn't create.....he just steals and
destroys.
Tom Pendergast
Heil Hitler!
TP
JL
Whooossh........Dickhead.
BTW, no one missed you.
Ren Jonsin
| >
| > On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:34:10 -0500, in rec.autos.sport.nascar you
| > wrote:
| >
| > Im not convinced a majority 'is' against for-sale ads. I think
| > 'it is' simply an excuse for some to vent their hatred.
|
| I didn't realize you had that low of an opinion of the people here.
|
Ad Hominem abusive attacks. Great starts. Invalid arguments though.
|
| > >Not true. I don't like people coming around here trying to change
things
| > >that are not broken.
| >
| > Its broken John.
|
| I disagree.
| We've never been inundated with spam or forsale ads, simply because of
| those who fight it at every opportunity. If somebody is warned by their
| ISP, chances are they won't risk it again.
|
|
Well, I agree it's broken. The reason it's broken, James, is because the
group has strayed so far from it's charter (see below.) This is supposed to
be a focused group that discusses topics regarding NASCAR/stock car racing.
Not CART, not F1, not diecasts, not Usama Bin Laden, not NY Donations, not
Alan Jones and certainly not discussions of the ethics of gun control,
abortion nor professors at Emory University.
Here's a hint to those that think that Emory University, abortion, gun
control, your 2 month teenage cheating girfriend (christ, I don't believe
that one), or where the 911 fund goes has anything to do with NASCAR: If you
have to prefix a post so that people know that the post has nothing to do
with the newsgroups topic, it probably shouldn't be posted in the first
place.
<snip>
| > When are you and the vocal majority going to get tired of hearing
| > the constant complaints over something we have no hope of stopping?
| > I think its time to deal with the issue because 'it is' not going
| > to go away until we do.
|
| So we should just roll over and die because our fight is seemingly
| hopeless? That is a very defeatist attitude.
| If those who are complaining stop doing so, the forsale ads and spam
| will increase. It's because of the complaining that we don't see more
| ads. Granted, it doesn't do a thing for those who only visit this group
| to advertise, as they never see the followups, but it lets the regs and
| lurkers know that spam and forsale ads are not appreciated.
|
|
<snip>
| > Please stop allowing this topic to have the dominance
| > its enjoyed for literally years. I think the charter shows, to
| > some extent, a lack of foresight in this matter and it has been a
| > plague ever since. FS: at the beginning of the subject line is a
| > common and accepted practice for non-spam or 'personal on-topic'
| > for-sale posts. Its time to bring this group up to speed. (get it?
| > speed, nascar, ... never mind :)
|
| I disagree. This is a discussion group about stock car racing (egads, I
| sound like your pet, The Dark One, oh the humanity!!!). Where do you
| draw the line for "personal forsale items"? Tickets? Diecasts? If you
| allow diecasts, what's the limit? If an ad for one diecast is okay, is
| an ad for 100 diecasts okay? What about 100 ads for one diecast? What
| about magazines, or hats, or programs? The line between spam and
| personal items is not as clear as some like to think.
|
Although Items for sale at a profit may not belong here, they are the LEAST
of the off topic problem here. Besides, if an advertiser really wants to
spam a newsgroup there are so many ways to start a free internet account
that it doesn't matter how many times an account is cancelled. Plus, there
are plenty of ISP's that don't really give a rat's ass about mass
e-mailings, much less an ad in a usenet group.
Ren Jonsin
FS.C
FYI: Here's the rec.autos.sport hierarchy guidlines and charter. Granted it
was last updated when the Pentium 60 and 66 were state of the art, and
broadband was an ISDN connection.
Posting-Frequency: every 7 days
Last-modified: 10th February 1995
Version: 1.1
Welcome to the rec.autos.sport hierarchy. This is a set of newsgroups
dedicated to the discussion of motorsport.
This message will be posted every 7 days to rec.autos.sport.info,
rec.autos.sport.tech, rec.autos.sport.nascar, rec.autos.sport.f1,
rec.autos.sport.indy and rec.autos.sport.misc. It has some guidelines
on posting to these newsgroups as well as instructions on how to obtain
the FAQ list of Frequently Asked Questions.
1. NETTIQUETTE
A lot of people read these newsgroups - over 100,000 at the latest
estimate. Some readers are restricted to tortuously slow connections.
Some people pay for their connect time by the minute. Other people just
like to read news when the Net is running slowly. When you post, please
ask yourself questions like:
1.1 The Content of Your Post
o Are you discussing `organised, legal auto competitions' ?
rec.autos.sport.* is _not_ for discussion of roadgoing `sports cars'.
o Would it be better to post to rec.autos.sport.misc,
rec.autos.sport.info,
rec.autos.sport.tech or rec.autos.sport.nascar ? The charters for
these newsgroups are listed in section 2.
o Is a cross posted article is directly relevant to all of the groups
where it will appear ? It is usually wrong to cross post an article
to both rec.autos.sport.misc and one of the other subgroups
(eg r.a.s.tech or r.a.s.nascar).
o It is perfectly legal to reproduce short extracts of a copyrighted
work for critical purposes, but reproduction in whole is strictly and
explicitly forbidden by international and US copyright law
unless given permission by the author.
1.2 The Style of Your Post
o Would you want to read what you are writing ? Might it be better to
email a comment, or even make no comment ? Spelling and grammar
flames are particularly dull for the rest of the world, as are posts
which follow fifty lines of quoted text with "I agreei".
o On the Net, most people only know you by the words that you write.
People will pay more attention to your thoughts if your writing is
clear and easy to read.
o Trim down your quotes. Delete parts of the article that you are not
responding to such as other people's signatures. Its best to have as
little as possible from previous posts.
o Humour, and particularly sarcasm, is often misunderstood over the Net
with hilarious consequences. A smily, :-), may be advisable.
1.3 Practicalities
o Is the subject line both descriptive and accurate ?
o People can select the articles which most appeal to them if you have
a keyword in the subject field like F1, INDYCAR, NHRA, WRC, F3000,
IMSA etc. I think ADMIN is good for any posts which discuss the
day-to-day running of the group, splitting the group, or revising the
charter.
o Please try to keep the lines in the main text of your posts to fewer
than 80 characters per line. When lines are longer than this, it
becomes difficult to read with many news readers. 72 characters per
line is a good length, since it allows others to quote you without
running over 80 characters.
o If you are following up an article to create a new article, please
remember to delete the References: line in the header. This will help
the readers who use a threaded news reader; otherwise your new topic
will be mixed in with an old one.
o Please do not post large binary files like GIFs, JPEGs, MPEGs or WAVs
to rec.autos.sport.* They will fill the Usenet disk partitions at
some sites. Some people cannot select which articles they want
before they have to download them. It is much better to post them
to one of the alt.binaries.* newsgroups with a short post to
rec.autos.sport.* to notify anyone who is interested.
1.4 Spoilers
o If you are going to post about a race before some people will have
had the chance to watch it on television, say within 48 hours of the
race, please put (spoiler) in the Subject: line and don't give away
the result. You might also want to give people a chance to quit
reading your message before you give them the news. The most reliable
way of doing this is with at least 24 blank lines. ^L page breaks
(hold the control key and press l) do not work for some newsreaders.
o If you have not yet seen the race, a day after it was on TV, and you
really don't want to know who won, please abstain from r.a.s for a
day. Even if everyone goes by the guidelines, there are always new
people who won't know about them.
o If someone posts results without a spoiler warning, do not post a
public flame. Mail a reasonably civil email note to that person
requesting that they use (spoiler) in the future.
1.5 Handling Frequently Asked Questions
o If you are asking a basic question, please check the FAQ first. If
the FAQ is has expired on your system, see section 3 for information
on how to get a copy.
o If someone posts a question about something that was resolved
recently, please answer the poster via email. Rehashing something
that was just discussed is a waste of bandwidth unless you have
something new to add.
o Many news reading programs allow you to filter the articles in a
newsgroup to ignore articles from a particular author or on certain
subjects using a KILL file. If you're using rn or its brethren, see
the rn KILL file FAQ in news.answers. Some lines that you might like
in your KILL file for rec.autos.sport.* are:
/Subject: New Users - Read Me First/h:j
/Subject: rec\.autos\.sport FAQ.* /h:j
/From: .*A\.H\. Henry/h:j
2. CHARTERS
2.1 rec.autos.sport
This unmoderated group is for discussion of legal, organised competition
involving automobiles. Discussion from either of two viewpoints,
spectator and participant, is encouraged. Technical discussions are
generally more appropriately carried on in rec.autos.sport.tech, and
NASCAR (and other professional stock car racing) is discussed in
rec.autos.sport.nascar. Arguments about sports cars are largely
inappropriate, as are most other discussions. For Sale ads are
inappropriate unless they are for competition vehicles and/or equipment.
Discussions of illegal events are marginal; one should probably avoid
advocating breaking the law. (remember, the FBI reads Usenet!)
2.2 rec.autos.sport.misc
Replaces rec.autos.sport as the group in which discussion of
organized, legal motor racing that does not fall within the category
of one of the sub-groups takes places. Now that rec.autos.sport.misc
has passed, rec.autos.sport will be removed in three months, allowing
time for traffic to move to the new groups.
This is a moderated group which contains announcements, results,
standings, news items, press releases, schedules, `reliable' rumours,
and other information about automotive racing. No discussion is
permitted; followups are be directed to rec.autos.sport.
2.4 rec.autos.sport.tech
An unmoderated group for discussions about the technical aspects of
racing cars. Discussions that are appropriate for this group include
F1/Indy engines, restrictor plates, aerodynamics, semi-automatic
transmissions, exotic fuels, carbon vs steel brakes, active suspension,
chassis construction etc.
2.5 rec.autos.sport.f1
Anything to do with Formula 1 motor racing, including but not limited
to race results, times from testing, practice, and qualifying, silly
season predictions, rumours, and news. Discussion of teams, drivers,
cars, engines, rules, safety are also in the charter.
2.6 rec.autos.sport.indy
All Indy Car racing related discussion, including but not limited
to race results, times from testing, practice, and qualifying, silly
season predictions, rumours, and news. Discussion of teams, drivers,
cars, engines, rules, safety are also in the charter.
2.7 rec.autos.sport.nascar
This unmoderated group is for discussions about all aspects of
professional stock car racing, especially the NASCAR (Winston Cup and
Grand National) but also series such as CASCAR and AUSCAR.
--
Andrew Henry
A.H....@bath.ac.uk Frequently Asked Questions for rec.autos.sport v1.4,
University of Bath, UK Gilles Villeneuve Appreciation & Bicycle Lights FAQ.
Sempre Gilles <URL:http://www.bath.ac.uk/~bspahh/home.html>
|
twenty-four
Good points Ren. Though Im guilty of off-topic posts, at least a
'nascar' for-sale item can be considered on-topic. I keep coming
back to the conclusion that they like having the for-sale issue
around because its their opportunity to kick someone in the balls.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 05:39:21 GMT, "Ren Jonsin"
<ren...@frontstretch.com> wrote:
> ...
Margaret R Buzas
ren...@frontstretch.com says...
>Well, I agree it's broken. The reason it's broken, James, is because the
>group has strayed so far from it's charter (see below.) This is supposed to
>be a focused group that discusses topics regarding NASCAR/stock car racing.
>Not CART, not F1, not diecasts, not Usama Bin Laden, not NY Donations, not
>Alan Jones and certainly not discussions of the ethics of gun control,
>abortion nor professors at Emory University.
>
>Here's a hint to those that think that Emory University, abortion, gun
>control, your 2 month teenage cheating girfriend (christ, I don't believe
>that one), or where the 911 fund goes has anything to do with NASCAR: If you
>have to prefix a post so that people know that the post has nothing to do
>with the newsgroups topic, it probably shouldn't be posted in the first
>place.
>
>
>
><snip>
I agree that sometimes, some people tend to go way off course BUT whatever
happened to the "if it doesn't pertain to me or I don't wanna get in the middle
of this or the I don't care" subject line, you just ignore it?
It's like songs on the radio or TV shows you don't like but bitch
about--there's no law that says you hafta listen to/watch anything--if you
don't like it, then turn the channel/change the station or don't read the
posts. What's the big deal? I'm fairly certain that there are people in here
who see a post from someone and they ignore it--I know there are certain
posters I don't read....
Just my couple of cents...for what it's worth....
--Margaret
Mike Marlow
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:34:10 -0500, in rec.autos.sport.nascar you
> wrote:
>
> >What does "it's" refer to in this sentence?
>
> Im not convinced a majority 'is' against for-sale ads. I think
> 'it is' simply an excuse for some to vent their hatred.
>
> >Not true. I don't like people coming around here trying to change things
> >that are not broken.
>
> Its broken John.
So states the great and wonderful janal.
>
> >Not to mention consistently ignoring the fact that
> >the majority of those that voice their opinions do not want that change.
>
> When are you and the vocal majority going to get tired of hearing
> the constant complaints over something we have no hope of stopping?
> I think its time to deal with the issue because 'it is' not going
> to go away until we do.
>
> >you thought we should
> >include the silent majority in our discussion concerning letting for
> >sale ads in RASN. If the silent majority wants to be heard they need to
> >speak up. We can't base descisions on what "the silent majority" might
> >want. How would anyone know what the silent majority wants if they are
> >silent?
>
> Excellent. You see Marlow? This is discussion.
No - this is clutter. It only speaks the obvious, and it's been beaten to
death here. In fact it's been beaten into your head far too much since you
started this crusade a long time ago. You may prefer to consider
repetitious bantering about the obvious some sort of enlightened dialog, but
not everyone does.
>
> We can only take their silence as a vote of indifference. They
> simply dont want to get involved. Its just not that important to
> them.
>
> >Once they do speak they are no longer silent, they became part
> >of the vocal few.
>
> Superb. (you watchin' this mikie?) Right, we can only be
> absolutely sure when everyone makes their voice heard. Even in
> presidential elections, only a minority casts its vote. Im saying
> the majority simply doesnt care and thats why Im willing to push
> for change.
>
Geeze jones - it really does not take much to excite you does it? Are you
just now discovering life? Oh - I understand now - you are just getting
your rocks off because someone is giving you the time of day.
> I feel the only way to get at the heart of the problem is to give
> the for-sale people their little slim slice of this very big
> newsgroup pie. Give them rules to follow and proper steps to take.
> Put them in their place out of and away from the spotlight. If
> they refuse to follow the set guidelines, then we're no worse off
> than before.
Again jones discovers what's been there for years. This already exists
alan. You're just not happy that it does not exist the way you want it to.
You want to impose your own brand of control and influence here. There is a
slice of usenet for this stuff, it has its own rules and those rules include
the rules of charters like the one this group has. But that's not good
enough for you. You want to re-write the rules your way. Alas - still just
a case of jones making a big production out of the obvious.
Please stop allowing this topic to have the dominance
> its enjoyed for literally years. I think the charter shows, to
> some extent, a lack of foresight in this matter and it has been a
> plague ever since. FS: at the beginning of the subject line is a
> common and accepted practice for non-spam or 'personal on-topic'
> for-sale posts. Its time to bring this group up to speed. (get it?
> speed, nascar, ... never mind :)
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful discussion on this John. I hope
> others will give it the same careful consideration.
What a condescending asshole you can be jones. This would almost - note I
said almost - be insulting, if it wasn't so funny coming from you.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Mike Marlow
>
> Good points Ren. Though Im guilty of off-topic posts, at least a
> 'nascar' for-sale item can be considered on-topic. I keep coming
> back to the conclusion that they like having the for-sale issue
> around because its their opportunity to kick someone in the balls.
>
I guess that explains why it is very often you who raises the topic to
debate level. Do a google search jones and come back and tell us who is the
most prolific poster of threads keeping this dialog alive. I'm not talking
about those who post the question "is it all right to post for sale items
here", I'm talking about those who continue to stir the embers of dispute by
regurgitating the same "what's wrong with it, let's do it this way..."
stuff. Look into the mirror alan. Talk about having some pent up anxiety
to vent...
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
r a p p y
"Ren Jonsin" <ren...@frontstretch.com> wrote in message
news:daXR7.69697$oj3.12...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
The sole difference being that many of those are regualr posters who
at least come here to
tlak wiht friends and have a little fun. Sure there is off topic
stuff.....and it gets worse during the off season, but at least it's
by the people who come here all the time and are part of the
community.
To say that it's "broken" because of that, is just no excuse to open
the flood gates of FS posts that would follow if left unchecked.
If a regular here does it once in awhile it's fine with me. It's
the out of towners who come here for no other purpose who i won't
tolerate.
It's been stated many many times.......and it's so simple that
anyone can get this.
You want to sell your wares here? Start or Join the discussion and
put your site or product in your sig line.
Do that and all get what they want..........
But I guess that's just to simple, huh? ;-)
Tom Pendergast
did some snipping here to keep the thing at a reasonable size)
Ren Jonsin wrote:
> Well, I agree it's broken. The reason it's broken, James, is because the
> group has strayed so far from it's charter (see below.) This is supposed to
> be a focused group that discusses topics regarding NASCAR/stock car racing.
> Not CART, not F1, not diecasts, not Usama Bin Laden, not NY Donations, not
> Alan Jones and certainly not discussions of the ethics of gun control,
> abortion nor professors at Emory University.
I agree to a certain extent...
> Here's a hint to those that think that Emory University, abortion, gun
> control, your 2 month teenage cheating girfriend (christ, I don't believe
> that one), or where the 911 fund goes has anything to do with NASCAR: If you
> have to prefix a post so that people know that the post has nothing to do
> with the newsgroups topic, it probably shouldn't be posted in the first
> place.
...OK, let's make that "I agree on the subjects that turn into long,
drawn out battles, with bit buckets full of requoted garbage growing
longer with every exchange, namely the political garbage." But things
like mini discussions of "life in general" between 2, 3, or maybe even
10 "citizens" or RASN who suddenly break into the areas of life, love,
pets, music, etc? Sorry, Ren, but that's part of the "community" idea
of Usenet. Those short lived threads are harmless, they don't
-bother- most folks, but most important...
> Although Items for sale at a profit may not belong here, they are the LEAST
> of the off topic problem here.
...those mini off topic threads do not stand to mushroom out of control
and take over the newsgroup, like ADS do. Advertisements on RASN are
capable of making this place totally useless if left go unchecked, you
could see 90-95% of the posts being ads before long. Not in my wildest
nightmares would I see people flocking here to post tales of their
love lives, football ramblings, or poll responses. there's just no
incentive for that to happen, unlike the financial lure that will keep
bringing hucksters here if they are the least bit tolerated.
TP
Wheeler
<snip>
> Although Items for sale at a profit may not belong here, they are the LEAST
> of the off topic problem here.
I don't see most off-topic posts as a problem. Notice I said most.
Most of them last for a couple of days and are forgotten.
Advertisements carry with them the very real threat of spiraling out of
control and flooding the newsgroup. OT posts don't carry this threat,
because as soon as the Gordons or Kevin Harvick do something, anything,
this group is right back on topic ready to defend or chastise ;-)
Usenet, by nature of it's ever-expanding popularity, is changing. I
agree with Alan (ODL!) that the charters were written with very little
foresight, not that I blame the original writers for being
short-sighted. Who could foresee the increase in internet traffic? The
increase in computer speed? The availability of high-speed access? The
integration of the internet into our daily lives? The newsgroups are
becoming communities, where people, united by a common interest, come
together and discuss things. Most of the time, the common interest is
discussed, but as the members grow closer and become friends, the
discussion sometimes moves to other areas, just like any other circle of
friends. But, since NASCAR is the reason we're all here, it remains the
underlying theme. For instance, I used the phrase, "Faster than Jimmy
Spencer through a box of doughnuts" once in a discussion about... well,
I have no idea what it was about ;-) I used that because I know just
about everybody here would get the joke and could picture Jimmy wolfing
down a dozen doughnuts in under a minute ;-) See? It's that underlying
theme that seems to pervade every thread.
As for my extreme dislike of political threads, I don't like them for
one very simple reason. Those types of discussions (political,
gun-control, tobacco, abortion, religion, etc.) do not foster an
atmosphere of friendliness. These subjects are too devisive, and serve
only to cause discord among us. Do you get together with your friends
and start yelling at each other? I sure don't. As for ads, do you get
together with your friends only to try to sell them your belongings?
Again, that's not my style. When this place stops being fun, many
people will leave, and this group will suffer because of it.
ScottB
> When this place stops being fun, many
>people will leave, and this group will suffer because of it.
I find myself giving in to emotion at times and firing off a stray round into
a political thread or two. I've vastly improved on this over the years, though.
This is a fine and growing community. And as in any "city", you avoid certain
areas. But, as an old literary friend once wrote; Cave ab homine unius libri -
Beware the man of one book. - Isaac D'Israeli
Scott B. RCR #29, DEI #8 #1
Semper Fidelis 3/9 USMC
"I love the smell of octane in the morning.
It smells like...victory" - Anon.
Ren Jonsin
"r a p p y" <rappy@get the e-mail off my home page.com> wrote in message
news:9va5od$4ff$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
That's not what I'm saying though, I'm saying that it's broken and since we
have so many OT posts, it gives the apperance that anything goes, go ahead
and post your for nascar related items you have on e-bay, since they are
more on topic than a lot of the other posts. I agree with you and I agree
with Wheeler. I don't think that setting up a system to allow anyone to post
items for sale is a good idea. I also don't believe you can stop it as easy
as reporting spammers to a disinterested ISP.
| It's been stated many many times.......and it's so simple that
| anyone can get this.
| You want to sell your wares here? Start or Join the discussion and
| put your site or product in your sig line.
|
| Do that and all get what they want..........
| But I guess that's just to simple, huh? ;-)
|
|
That would be great! It's like the guy who does the sporstbook link in his
sig. Pretty damn off topic, but he includes a synopsis of what's going on in
NASCAR right now so that the majority of the message isn't "Bet here!"
--
Ren Jonsin
www.frontstretch.com
ren...@frontstretch.com
Ren Jonsin
"Tom Pendergast" <t...@icubed.com> wrote in message
news:3C18B764...@icubed.com...
I agree with you Tom, FS ads can take this place over, and if the off topic
posts weren't here, they'd be much more noticeable. My point is that if
everyone stops the blatantly off-topic "discussions", then they're would be
a much higher percentage of topics worth reading here.
And I don't have a problem with an OT discussion that evolves from an on
topic thread, or that is at least someway connected with NASCAR. For
instance, if I was to ask you in a thread complaining about the amount of
commercials in a race, how much time is devoted to commercials in a normal
prime-time broadcast, technically, that would be off-topic, but would
pertain to the issue at hand.
I do have a problem with OT posts that are meant to start a huge thread of
name-calling and fallacies or even reasonable off post discussion. I also
have a problem with any topic that has your or anyone else's name in the
topic that is just a public insult. I see a lot more of those than For Sale
topics.
The charter from 1995 says that we should avoid those posts because of
bandwidth issues. This is 2001, light years away in computer terms since we
now have access to huge bandwidth and can download the entire 10000 message
newsgroup in seconds on broadband, and it still should be avoided just
because of the clutter it accumulates in the group.
Ren Jonsin
That's exactly my point. There is no reason to post this type of discussion
here. When a Man posts information about a topic just to encite a negative
responce, that's where the OT problem comes to light. That's not friends
talking to friends, that's a self-absorbed jerk grasping at straws, trying
to look like he has a higher intellect than another member of the group.
FS items are more on topic than any thread that starts "OT:" but are just as
unsuitible as any OT thread.
--
Ren Jonsin
www.frontstretch.com
ren...@frontstretch.com
|
Wayne Mann
<ren...@frontstretch.com> wrote:
>
>FS items are more on topic than any thread that starts "OT:" but are just as
>unsuitible as any OT thread.
Of course it also depends on who posts it, whether it is off
topic by some. Or put another way, my off topic is OK, your off topic
is OK, but not his, because it's a subject, I know nothing
about/aren't interested in, or someone I don't like. I personally do
not care what the rules are, just so long as they apply to EVERYONE
the SAME, ALL of the TIME! But when we have long threads about music,
FI engines, Kate Winslet, Bigs, sick, childish "humor," Janals ad's
for his spewings, Gordon not having children, everyone is Gay,
Rappy/Batman rants, Fed bill for 5 cent email, Janal's ";<)" and
"Hehehe" posts, Football posts, Redneck jokes, Gordon not donating to
the Firefighters fund, Lloyd's smoking rants, politics, computer
discussions, and on and on, and their are many more, and by almost
EVERY Regular, it really is hypocritical to only complain about two or
three of them and not the others and some even ENCOURAGE some of the
others.
I suggest whatever is the rules, EVERYONE should follow them,
but when some don't and criticize other's when they don't, that is
wrong. I don't care what everyone decides, just as long as it's the
same for EVERYONE, and what is wrong for one is wrong for all, and
encouraging wrong is just as bad as the person doing the wrong!
Dale Bright®
BRAVO
<clap clap clap>
Dale Bright®
"non compos mentis"
twenty-four
Ok Mike. Thanks. :)
twenty-four
Hey Mike, youre 'wane'-ing back into your alter-ego. Criticize
me without the name calling please.
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 06:32:20 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
<mike....@usa.net> wrote:
> ...
Mike Marlow
I have no idea what you're talking about alan. But then, neither do you.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
twenty-four
Hey look, if you come at me in a combative confrontational way,
Im gonna fight back and most likely hurt your feelings. If you
discuss the issue in a reasonable, constructive, and earnest
manner, I will respond as I did to Deliveryboy (John). Its your
choice but either way be mature enough to take it without
calling-names. It doesnt bother me but it makes you look like
Wane.
Mike Marlow
>
> Hey look, if you come at me in a combative confrontational way,
> Im gonna fight back and most likely hurt your feelings. I
Alan - I have to tell you again - you do not hurt my feelings. I do not
take you that seriously. You really need to get a grip.
f you
> discuss the issue in a reasonable, constructive, and earnest
> manner, I will respond as I did to Deliveryboy (John). Its your
> choice but either way be mature enough to take it without
> calling-names.
The common usenet practice of including text would be helpful here alan. I
still have no idea what you're talking about.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
She NASCAR
group as a whole. I just chose this post to reply to, because it had
some good points I wanted to comment on. Read on... and....
"If the shoe fits, you know where to stick it !"
"Ren Jonsin" <ren...@frontstretch.com> wrote in message news:<daXR7.69697$oj3.12...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...
> "Wheeler" <jwhe...@wmis.net> wrote in message
> news:3C181B17...@wmis.net...
> | twenty-four wrote:
> | >
> | > On Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:34:10 -0500, in rec.autos.sport.nascar you
> | > wrote:
> | >
> <snip>
> | > Im not convinced a majority 'is' against for-sale ads. I think
> | > 'it is' simply an excuse for some to vent their hatred.
Probably truer than some want to admit !
> |
> | I didn't realize you had that low of an opinion of the people here.
> |
Only those select few who choose to act fatuously.
>
> Ad Hominem abusive attacks. Great starts. Invalid arguments though.
>
> |
> | > >Not true. I don't like people coming around here trying to change
> things
> | > >that are not broken.
ROFLMAO and you are.... god ???
> | >
> | > Its broken John.
> |
> | I disagree.
> | We've never been inundated with spam or forsale ads, simply because of
> | those who fight it at every opportunity. If somebody is warned by their
> | ISP, chances are they won't risk it again.
ISP's normally don't mean diddly, they can be avoided. The "fight" is
not what keeps this place pretty much ad-free, it is the basic nature
of the members, and how *they* conduct themselves.
> |
> |
>
> Well, I agree it's broken. The reason it's broken, James, is because the
> group has strayed so far from it's charter (see below.) This is supposed to
> be a focused group that discusses topics regarding NASCAR/stock car racing.
> Not CART, not F1, not diecasts, not Usama Bin Laden, not NY Donations, not
> Alan Jones and certainly not discussions of the ethics of gun control,
> abortion nor professors at Emory University.
This newsgroup is a *community*, and has members that go no-where else
than here. *Most* here have lives other than NASCAR, and it is more
than appropriate when they want to discuss things that go on, other
than just NASCAR, with the other community members. There is a basic
charter, yes, but this is also a discussion driven by HUMAN BEINGS,
and being human, they will have passions other than NASCAR.
---->NEWSFLASH!!<-----
"NOBODY FORCES ANYONE TO READ ANYTHING HERE !!"
Why must some waste their time being rude and nasty about something
they aren't interested in ? The only valid reasons I can think of are:
1. They like to argue.
2. They are miserable, and misery loves company.
3. They have no life, and are so bored that they have memorized every
letter of the charter, and are able to recite it at the drop of a
dime.
4. They are on a power trip, and feel like they are the "Keeper of
the charter".
5. They are emasculate in their real lives, needing to vent.
>
> Here's a hint to those that think that Emory University, abortion, gun
> control, your 2 month teenage cheating girfriend (christ, I don't believe
> that one), or where the 911 fund goes has anything to do with NASCAR: If you
> have to prefix a post so that people know that the post has nothing to do
> with the newsgroups topic, it probably shouldn't be posted in the first
> place.
>
All *your* B&M is inappropriate, it isn't NASCAR !
>
>
> <snip>
> | > When are you and the vocal majority going to get tired of hearing
> | > the constant complaints over something we have no hope of stopping?
> | > I think its time to deal with the issue because 'it is' not going
> | > to go away until we do.
...and if we all go away, there will be no newsgroup.... I for one,
will not go away.
I appreciate all postings I read, and vice-versa, and ignore the ones
I don't (what a *novel* concept !)
> |
> | So we should just roll over and die because our fight is seemingly
> | hopeless? That is a very defeatist attitude.
> | If those who are complaining stop doing so, the forsale ads and spam
> | will increase. It's because of the complaining that we don't see more
> | ads. Granted, it doesn't do a thing for those who only visit this group
> | to advertise, as they never see the followups, but it lets the regs and
> | lurkers know that spam and forsale ads are not appreciated.
> |
> |
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE ADS, DON'T POST THEM, AND DON'T READ THEM !
Why is that so difficult for some of you to do ?????
>
> <snip>
>
> | > Please stop allowing this topic to have the dominance
> | > its enjoyed for literally years. I think the charter shows, to
> | > some extent, a lack of foresight in this matter and it has been a
> | > plague ever since. FS: at the beginning of the subject line is a
> | > common and accepted practice for non-spam or 'personal on-topic'
> | > for-sale posts. Its time to bring this group up to speed. (get it?
> | > speed, nascar, ... never mind :)
I agree. Too bad most of the old codgers here are too set in their
ways. Maybe they need to contact Pfizer and make like an egg ? :^P
> |
> | I disagree. This is a discussion group about stock car racing (egads, I
> | sound like your pet, The Dark One, oh the humanity!!!). Where do you
> | draw the line for "personal forsale items"? Tickets? Diecasts? If you
> | allow diecasts, what's the limit? If an ad for one diecast is okay, is
> | an ad for 100 diecasts okay? What about 100 ads for one diecast? What
> | about magazines, or hats, or programs? The line between spam and
> | personal items is not as clear as some like to think.
> |
OMG !!!! It will be anarchy !!!
>
> Although Items for sale at a profit may not belong here, they are the LEAST
> of the off topic problem here. Besides, if an advertiser really wants to
> spam a newsgroup there are so many ways to start a free internet account
> that it doesn't matter how many times an account is cancelled. Plus, there
> are plenty of ISP's that don't really give a rat's ass about mass
> e-mailings, much less an ad in a usenet group.
>
> Ren Jonsin
> FS.C
>
> FYI: Here's the rec.autos.sport hierarchy guidlines and charter. Granted it
> was last updated when the Pentium 60 and 66 were state of the art, and
> broadband was an ISDN connection.
>
> Posting-Frequency: every 7 days
> Last-modified: 10th February 1995
<snipped for being antediluvial>
10TH FEB. 1995 ??????
Need we say any more ?
~ She Shark :)
FS: VHS tapes hehehe
DeevaCath
"Hurt your feelings"....bwaaaaaa!
Is he for real?
__________________________________________________________
* If you think there is good in everybody, you haven't met everybody. *
Cathy, *Keeper of the Ts
#1 Mayfield & Gordon fan
twenty-four
Thank you very much. :) Such intelligence is rare in this group.
On 16 Dec 2001 08:57:38 -0800, shes...@lawyer.com (She NASCAR)
wrote:
> ...