Texas DFS
Wynnd CR
flame me!!!
Drew Gillmore
wyn...@aol.com (Wynnd CR) wrote:
> Does anyone know how I can get into Texas DFS? I am just a
> newbie, please don't flame me!!!
Doesn't really look like there's going to *be* much of one.
If you want, e-mail me, not in response to this posting, but at
dall...@hotmail.com and I'll send you info on what we're doing.
Drew Gillmore
--
Webpage removed from Geocities. Will inform when I get a new location.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Carlton Jenke
>
> Does anyone know how I can get into Texas DFS? I am just a newbie, please don't
> flame me!!!
a little nervous? hopefully our reputation isn't that bad
--
Carlton Jenke
Maggie
in Nutella on the kitchen wall...
Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
WTF is up with that?
--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://home.talkcity.com/EaselSt/princessmoo/
"Actually I find the overuse of emoticons to be the Usenet equivalent of
*drooling*..." --Scoots, on RMAAG
Maggie
martin...@guardianbigfoot.com painted in Nutella on the kitchen
wall...
> Maggie <mam...@stax.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.11ed65047...@news.stax.net...
> > Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
> > me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
> > but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
> >
> > WTF is up with that?
>
> should read the FAQ, but do not have enough time or patience to do both.
> Therefore they cannot post with confidence.
If you have the time to post, you have the time to lurk.
Nothing on Usenent is so damned urgent that you can't wait a minute and
get a feel for the group dynamic. It isn't as if the arguments over who
killed/bonded/abducted/compelled/beat whom are going to die anytime soon.
If one is too cowardly to just post without cringing and whining, one
shouldn't post, thus saving us the annoyance, and oneself the terror.
John S. Novak, III
>"Trust me, there is nothing you could possibly tell me through Usenet
> that is so Earthshatteringly important that it can't wait a week for
> you to figure out the rudiments of your own software. Claiming over-
> eagerness on this count vastly overestimates your importance in the
> miniscule Darwinian puddle that is Usenet. It is also rather akin to
> whipping it out and jacking off into your date's bowl during the soup
> course of the first date, just because you think she's pretty."
>No points.
Tsk tsk tsk.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Moogle
news:MPG.11ed65047...@news.stax.net...
> Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
> me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
> but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
>
> WTF is up with that?
I reckon they are from people who know they should lurk, and know they
should read the FAQ, but do not have enough time or patience to do both.
Therefore they cannot post with confidence.
Obviously, just MHO.
Martin
G00DGULF
>From: "Moogle" <martin...@guardianbigfoot.com>
>Obviously, just MHO.
>Martin
>
Martin, please FUCK OFF, In My Most Humble Opinion, you Little Cocksucker or as
you like to post FO, IMMHO, LCS.
John Rowat
> If you have the time to post, you have the time to lurk.
> Nothing on Usenent is so damned urgent that you can't wait a minute and
> get a feel for the group dynamic. It isn't as if the arguments over who
> killed/bonded/abducted/compelled/beat whom are going to die anytime soon.
"Trust me, there is nothing you could possibly tell me through Usenet
that is so Earthshatteringly important that it can't wait a week for
you to figure out the rudiments of your own software. Claiming over-
eagerness on this count vastly overestimates your importance in the
miniscule Darwinian puddle that is Usenet. It is also rather akin to
whipping it out and jacking off into your date's bowl during the soup
course of the first date, just because you think she's pretty."
No points.
-John, who really DOES keep all
those neat quotes for future use.
--
"Enchained to a shadow of the past / He walks the paths of life
Carrying that old story like a cross / On which he will,
On which he may nail another star."
-Samael, "Moonskin"
John Rowat
> On 8 Jul 1999 04:05:39 GMT, John Rowat <jro...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote:
<snip the quote>
>>No points.
> Tsk tsk tsk.
The attribution was there, just in the headers.
-John
Ralf Flicker
> [blah]
> Therefore they cannot post with confidence.
Who the hell can post with confidence hypotheses about
fictitious characters in a fictitious fable that has yet to
be concluded? Any who claims confidence in their own
speculations are both arrogant and ignorant, or they're just
stoned, and I think this NG is full of both kinds.
your humble lurker,
ralf
Suzanne Hillman
> Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
> me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
> but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
> WTF is up with that?
Um. Possibly that there *are* groups where newbies are flamed on sight.
And there are people who flame extravagantly for something as simple as
one misspelling.
People can be cruel.
I remember when I first got online ('94), I was *way* shy. being online,
on email lists, and part of a couple of MUCKS, is part of what helped me
learn how to deal with other people.
Suzanne, talking way too much for a first-poster today.
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
The lemmings will save us!
Drew Gillmore
> Moogle wrote:
> > [blah]
> > Therefore they cannot post with confidence.
>
> Who the hell can post with confidence hypotheses about
> fictitious characters in a fictitious fable that has yet to
> be concluded?
Ummm...about twelve people that I can name off the top of my head.
As for the people here on the group, there are many. I guess I would
say lurk some more, but that didn't seem to work the first time. So
here's an idea Sparky: Go get yourself some abstract reasoning, a
little common sense and a bag of logic and then come back and see us,
'kay?
> Any who claims confidence in their own
> speculations are both arrogant and ignorant, or they're just
> stoned, and I think this NG is full of both kinds.
Just those two kinds, huh? So...Either I'm arrogant and ignorant, or
I'm stoned.
Can I be arrogant, ignorant *and* stoned? Or is it just one or the
other?
What about crack? Can I be on crack? Can I be arrogant, ignorant,
stoned *and* on crack?
What about schizophrenic? Well, nevermind.
What about just plain stupid? Can I be like you?
Heres one for you: Can I be a wall-eyed, midget-squicking, elephant-
testicle-licking, no-brained, crack-whore-fondling, overproud and
overbearing whilst ever so overconfident, beatin' off with a handful of
broken glass and enjoyin' it, redneck talkin', big ego havin',
neurotic, manic depressive, psychotic, dog beatin' and cat eatin,
possum huntin' for dinner', ugly, stupid, no good, (let's not forget
lazy), downright worthless sumbitch ever to grace the net?
Or is that spot reserved for Monahan?
> your humble lurker,
It boggles the mind that anyone would lurk here and not figure out that
making a general statement that would insult more than half the
intelligent posters here is a Bad Idea.
You're either smoking some crazy dope stuff or your brain just lost
it's last functional synapses.
Or both.
--
Drew Gillmore http://www.spacebrain.com/sketch/
Key features: Web Journal, Mini-FAQ, Pictures of buxom extra-
terrestrials getting "probed".
The Great Gray Skwid
> > Does anyone know how I can get into Texas DFS? I am just a
> > newbie, please don't flame me!!!
> If you want, e-mail me, not in response to this posting, but at
> dall...@hotmail.com and I'll send you info on what we're doing.
You can also check out my Tex'aran'rhiod page for info on the Texas
Darkfriends & DFW Darkfriends groups descended from the old UT Austin
group. The list is still running, but there hasn't been a social in a
_long_ time.
http://skwid.home.texas.net/tdf.html
Later,
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"BOO!"--The Man in Gray http://skwid.home.texas.net/
Rob Stevenson
>
> Nothing on Usenent is so damned urgent that you can't wait a minute and
> get a feel for the group dynamic. It isn't as if the arguments over who
> killed/bonded/abducted/compelled/beat whom are going to die anytime soon.
>
> shouldn't post, thus saving us the annoyance, and oneself the terror.
>
Why should anyone have to lurk before they post I've been writing the odd
post (in fact quite alot of my posts are odd) but If I see a post that I
disagree with I will post a reply and state my thoughts on the subject I
have never asked not to be flame and infact quite enjoy some of the
arguements a flaming starts.
Rob
Lara Beaton
wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Maggie wrote:
>> Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
>> me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
>> but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
>> WTF is up with that?
>Um. Possibly that there *are* groups where newbies are flamed on sight.
>And there are people who flame extravagantly for something as simple as
>one misspelling.
>People can be cruel.
Well, in this group, you might get flamed by other newbies, but the
regulars won't do it unless you do something flagrantly stupid. And if
some newbie does flame you, chances are likely that the regulars will
stomp on said newbie's head with jackboots for being such a jerk.
You'll get corrections for grammar and spelling, and FAQ pointers up
the wazoo [1] but those are hardly flames.
>I remember when I first got online ('94), I was *way* shy. being online,
>on email lists, and part of a couple of MUCKS, is part of what helped me
>learn how to deal with other people.
>Suzanne, talking way too much for a first-poster today.
Don't worry so much. Talking lots, but not saying anything dumb is
highly encouraged in this group. And everything you've said today that
I've seen is intelligent and well thought out.
[1] so be sure to keep your wazoo well lubricated before posting.
--
Lara Beaton (remove SPAMCATCHER to reply)
The opinions expressed are not those of RSCL/RF
"Proudly serving my corporate masters."
Jeff Stockwin
>> If you have the time to post, you have the time to lurk.
>>
>> Nothing on Usenent is so damned urgent that you can't wait a minute and
>> get a feel for the group dynamic. It isn't as if the arguments over who
>> killed/bonded/abducted/compelled/beat whom are going to die anytime soon.
>>
>> If one is too cowardly to just post without cringing and whining, one
>> shouldn't post, thus saving us the annoyance, and oneself the terror.
>>
>> Maggie UIN 10248195
>
>Why should anyone have to lurk before they post
[snip]
Several reasons come immediately to mind:
To learn not to snip attributions.
To learn to snip .sigs.
To learn that punctuation is expected.
--
Jeff Stockwin "...perhaps God gave the answers
jdastockwin @ lis-a.com to those with nothing to say."
-Savatage
Maggie
shil...@iol.unh.edu painted in Nutella on the kitchen wall...
> On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Maggie wrote:
>
> > Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
> > me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
> > but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
> > WTF is up with that?
>
> Um. Possibly that there *are* groups where newbies are flamed on sight.
> And there are people who flame extravagantly for something as simple as
> one misspelling.
So? If you take the time to lurk in a group (and read the FAQ(s)), you
*know* what the group dynamic is and you *know* what is expected by way
of standards. If you don't like the group dynamic, don't post where you
feel you must beg for mercy on your very first post.
Whining "Please don't flame me" is asinine. Why anyone would want to
debase themselves in such a manner is beyond me. Has no one any self
respect anymore, that they must grovel before complete strangers, hoping
to avoid a small criticism?
What some people call a flame (frex: "Are you out of your mind?" was
dubbed a flame in another forum) borders on the ridiculously tame. To
whine and cry to avoid such is beyond stupid.
Aside from that, acting the part of the cowering dog is a sure way to
*invite* flames, not discourage them.
> People can be cruel.
Welcome to Usenet. Hell, welcome to *Life*!
Do you, upon entering into debate in person, cringe, cower and whine
"Please don't yell at me!", for fear that someone may disagree with you?
No? Why do it on Usenet?
> I remember when I first got online ('94), I was *way* shy. being online,
> on email lists, and part of a couple of MUCKS, is part of what helped me
> learn how to deal with other people.
> Suzanne, talking way too much for a first-poster today.
Nah. You're doing it far more intelligently than most of the newbies who
wander through here. It's nice to see someone who can write
intelligently.
Read the FAQs yet?
Maggie
<left intact to point out error>
> > If you have the time to post, you have the time to lurk.
> >
> > Nothing on Usenent is so damned urgent that you can't wait a minute and
> > get a feel for the group dynamic. It isn't as if the arguments over who
> > killed/bonded/abducted/compelled/beat whom are going to die anytime soon.
> >
> > If one is too cowardly to just post without cringing and whining, one
> > shouldn't post, thus saving us the annoyance, and oneself the terror.
> >
> > Maggie UIN 10248195
>
> Why should anyone have to lurk before they post I've been writing the odd
> post (in fact quite alot of my posts are odd) but If I see a post that I
> disagree with I will post a reply and state my thoughts on the subject I
> have never asked not to be flame and infact quite enjoy some of the
> arguements a flaming starts.
Please snip .sigs.
*Please* use punctuation, stream-of-unconcisousness is *terrible* to
attempt to follow, and hard on the eyes.
Now, to answer your question:
In order to post intelligently, without repeating the same tired topics
over and over, one should lurk for a while before posting, to get a feel
for the group.
If you can't be bothered to lurk a while, and instead jump in with both
feet, don't cry about getting thrashed later.
Mark Loy
lbe...@west.raytheon.com.SPAMCATCHER (Lara Beaton) wrote:
> The poster formerly known as Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu>
> wrote:
> >Um. Possibly that there *are* groups where newbies are flamed on sight.
> >And there are people who flame extravagantly for something as simple as
> >one misspelling.
>
> >People can be cruel.
>
> Well, in this group, you might get flamed by other newbies, but the
> regulars won't do it unless you do something flagrantly stupid. And if
> some newbie does flame you, chances are likely that the regulars will
> stomp on said newbie's head with jackboots for being such a jerk.
>
> You'll get corrections for grammar and spelling, and FAQ pointers up
> the wazoo [1] but those are hardly flames.
>
> [1] so be sure to keep your wazoo well lubricated before posting.
Words to live by, those.
Of course a well-maintained and diligently lubricated wazoo will serve you
well in all facets of life, not just posting on Usenet.
I prefer one of the synthetic lubricants like Mobil 1 or Slick 50 or, if
I'm feeling particularly sassy, virgin olive oil with just a spritz of
garlic.
But I'm thoughtful that way.
ML
Michael Bruce
Attributions. I've added them, do the same.
[>Maggie wrote:]
>> If you have the time to post, you have the time to lurk.
>>
>> Nothing on Usenent is so damned urgent that you can't wait a minute and
>> get a feel for the group dynamic. It isn't as if the arguments over who
>> killed/bonded/abducted/compelled/beat whom are going to die anytime soon.
>>
>> If one is too cowardly to just post without cringing and whining, one
>> shouldn't post, thus saving us the annoyance, and oneself the terror.
>Why should anyone have to lurk before they post I've been writing the odd
>post (in fact quite alot of my posts are odd) but If I see a post that I
>disagree with I will post a reply and state my thoughts on the subject I
>have never asked not to be flame and infact quite enjoy some of the
>arguements a flaming starts.
This post actually made me go check dejanews for your old posts, just
to see if you're joking. I don't think you are. I think you need to
pick up some rudimentary punctuation, or else get ready for a tedious
debate about why punctuation and non-stream-of-consciousness writing
are good things.
On to the topic at hand, everyone should lurk, if only for a little
while. I lurked six months before my first posting, which might be a
little excessive, but you should at least lurk a week or two[1].
--
Michael Bruce | http://www.infinet.com/~bruce UPDATE 8-10-1998
[1] Anyone who feels the need to make a comment about how much good
that lurking did me can just keep that comment held back.
P. Korda
Rob Stevenson <Rob.St...@icl.com> wrote:
>Why should anyone have to lurk before they post I've been writing the odd
>post (in fact quite alot of my posts are odd) but If I see a post that I
>disagree with I will post a reply and state my thoughts on the subject I
>have never asked not to be flame and infact quite enjoy some of the
>arguements a flaming starts.
Lurking for a week or two helps you get a feel for the group's
dynamics and conventions. If you're afraid of getting flamed, learning
how things are done around here before jumping in will help you avoid
that. Posting "please don't flame me, I'm new" out of the blue won't
help. If you do something that upsets people, you'll get flamed
whether you're new or not.
Lurking is educational. You learn things like "good posters use
punctuation."
-pam
Drew Gillmore
> Drew Gillmore <dr...@cncglobal.com> wrote:
> > wyn...@aol.com (Wynnd CR) wrote:
> > > Does anyone know how I can get into Texas DFS? I am just a
> > > newbie, please don't flame me!!!
> > Doesn't really look like there's going to *be* much of one.
> > If you want, e-mail me, not in response to this posting, but at
> > dall...@hotmail.com and I'll send you info on what we're doing.
>
> You can also check out my Tex'aran'rhiod page for info on the Texas
> Darkfriends & DFW Darkfriends groups descended from the old UT Austin
> group. The list is still running, but there hasn't been a social in a
> _long_ time.
I've tried on a couple of occasions to see if there would be any
interest.
We've got one going on tomorrow night. It's me, Rob Pfiefer from the
UK, and Noell from California.
Hell, I almost feel like moving out of state in order to attend.
Drew Gillmore http://www.spacebrain.com/sketch/
--
Key Features: Web Journal, Mini-FAQ, dissertation on bovine
circumcision.
Mark Loy
<dr...@cncglobal.com> wrote:
> Ralf Flicker <ra...@astro.lu.se> wrote:
> > Any who claims confidence in their own
> > speculations are both arrogant and ignorant, or they're just
> > stoned, and I think this NG is full of both kinds.
<....>
>
> Heres one for you: Can I be a wall-eyed, midget-squicking, elephant-
> testicle-licking, no-brained, crack-whore-fondling, overproud and
> overbearing whilst ever so overconfident, beatin' off with a handful of
> broken glass and enjoyin' it, redneck talkin', big ego havin',
> neurotic, manic depressive, psychotic, dog beatin' and cat eatin,
> possum huntin' for dinner', ugly, stupid, no good, (let's not forget
> lazy), downright worthless sumbitch ever to grace the net?
>
> Or is that spot reserved for Monahan?
Ha! Ha ha, hee hee, ha uh--stifle, stifle...er, um, I mean...ah-oh,
somebody's gonna get their ass handed to them in Vegas and it sure ain't
gonna be me cause I didn't really laugh at this as I was laughing...er,
uh, cause I just laugh, sometimes out of the blue, sponataneously, as it
were...for no particular reason. I'm just a laughing buffoon, is all.
Laugher, laughy, laugh-happy, laugh-man...that's me.
ML
Mike Kozlowski
P. Korda <ko...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[Some guy that I'd already killfiled asks why lurking is good.]
>Lurking for a week or two helps you get a feel for the group's
>dynamics and conventions.
And I'll note, for the benefit of Mr. No-Lurk, that lurking is something
that even experienced posters do when entering a new group. I never post
in a group without first skimming through at least the existing spool of
articles.
--
Michael Kozlowski
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/
Yorthen the High
>
> >> Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
> >> me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
> >> but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
> >> WTF is up with that?
>
> >And there are people who flame extravagantly for something as simple as
> >one misspelling.
>
> >People can be cruel.
>
> Well, in this group, you might get flamed by other newbies, but the
> regulars won't do it unless you do something flagrantly stupid. And if
> some newbie does flame you, chances are likely that the regulars will
> stomp on said newbie's head with jackboots for being such a jerk.
>
> You'll get corrections for grammar and spelling, and FAQ pointers up
> the wazoo [1] but those are hardly flames.
No regular flame here, they killfile :)
--
Yorthen the High
"Appearances can be deceiving."
"Indeed they can, Raphael, Angel of Light"-Flood
laughed-"but appearance is the shadow at least of
reality, don't you think?"
-The Losers, David Eddings
Lara Beaton
wrote:
>Lara Beaton wrote:
>> Well, in this group, you might get flamed by other newbies, but the
>> regulars won't do it unless you do something flagrantly stupid. And if
>> some newbie does flame you, chances are likely that the regulars will
>> stomp on said newbie's head with jackboots for being such a jerk.
>>
>> You'll get corrections for grammar and spelling, and FAQ pointers up
>> the wazoo [1] but those are hardly flames.
>No regular flame here, they killfile :)
No regulars flame? Pffft. We've had some of the most extensive,
thorough, and literate flames ever to grace this fine medium in this
group. Flames that make strong men fall into complete and utter
despair and lie sprawled on the floor, attempting to gather together
the tattered remnants of their dignity and self-respect. Flames that
could inspire song and story, should anyone ever get off their ass to
do so.
We have thermonuclear flames in this group. It's just that with that
sort of weaponry in our arsenal, we reserve it only for the truly
deserving. For mere twits and boneheads, the killfile is the
reasonable option, as that case is like killing mosquitos with orbital
lasers.
Bill Garrett
Ralf Flicker <ra...@astro.lu.se> writes:
} Moogle wrote:
} > [blah]
} > Therefore they cannot post with confidence.
}
} Who the hell can post with confidence hypotheses about
} fictitious characters in a fictitious fable that has yet to
} speculations are both arrogant and ignorant, or they're just
} stoned, and I think this NG is full of both kinds.
Confidence can mean one of (at least) two things, here.
On the one hand, confidence can mean posting speculations about the
future with the belief that they are all absolutely true. I agree
that that form of confidence is unwarranted and foolish.
On the other hand, confidence can mean posting with the knowledge
that you've thought out your speculation thouroughly, taken into
account all available evidence, and have diligently prepared your
written argument so that it is appealing and understandable to as
many people as possible. That sort of confidence is appropriate
and should be encouraged. Its opposite -- posting rash, inflammatory
statements with little or no forethought and poor use of style --
is discouraged.
--
Bill Garrett Misanthropology, n.: The study of why
wfg1 @ concentric.net so many people are so damn stupid.
Drew Gillmore
> In article <7m2efc$dic$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Drew Gillmore
> <dr...@cncglobal.com> wrote:
<Mega snip>
> > Or is that spot reserved for Monahan?
>
> Ha! Ha ha, hee hee, ha uh--stifle, stifle...er, um, I mean...
> ah-oh, somebody's gonna get their ass handed to them in Vegas
> and it sure ain't gonna be me cause I didn't really laugh at
> this as I was laughing...er, uh, cause I just laugh, sometimes
> out of the blue, sponataneously, as it were...for no particular
> reason. I'm just a laughing buffoon, is all. Laugher, laughy,
> laugh-happy, laugh-man...that's me.
Well it'll be about time. I've been looking for my ass for over a year
now, y'know. It's kind of hard to sit in all these god-forsaken
ergonomical chairs when all you've got on your posterior is a flat
surface. Get's mighty uncomfortable, let me tell you. A couple of
well rounded cheeks will go a long way toward saving me some back
trouble later in life.
And as far as your spontaneous laughing goes...That's not anything like
your spontaneous hand wandering habit, is it?
Drew Gillmore http://www.spacebrain.com/sketch/
--
Key Features: Web Journal, Mini-FAQ, and a nice tall glass of "SHUT
THE HELL UP!"
Jeff Stockwin
[snip: either lurk or deal with the flames--why?]
>On to the topic at hand, everyone should lurk, if only for a little
>while. I lurked six months before my first posting, which might be a
>little excessive, but you should at least lurk a week or two[1].
[snip]
>[1] Anyone who feels the need to make a comment about how much good
> that lurking did me can just keep that comment held back.
Please, Michael, please please, in the name of all that is decent and
holy, tell me this was intentional.
If it was, it was quite funny.
The Great Gray Skwid
Drew Gillmore <dr...@cncglobal.com> wrote:
> The Great Gray Skwid <sk...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Drew Gillmore <dr...@cncglobal.com> wrote:
> > > wyn...@aol.com (Wynnd CR) wrote:
> > > > Does anyone know how I can get into Texas DFS? I am just a
> > > > newbie, please don't flame me!!!
> > > Doesn't really look like there's going to *be* much of one.
> > > If you want, e-mail me, not in response to this posting, but at
> > > dall...@hotmail.com and I'll send you info on what we're doing.
> > You can also check out my Tex'aran'rhiod page for info on the Texas
> > Darkfriends & DFW Darkfriends groups descended from the old UT
Austin
> > group. The list is still running, but there hasn't been a social in
a
> > _long_ time.
> I've tried on a couple of occasions to see if there would be any
> interest.
> We've got one going on tomorrow night. It's me, Rob Pfiefer from the
> UK, and Noell from California.
> Hell, I almost feel like moving out of state in order to attend.
<boggle> What do you mean by we? Surely you don't mean that that many
notables will be gathered in this particular state?? Tomorrow night? I
have _got_ to get back into reading the 'froup!
I don't suppose by any freak chance you're doing this late tomorrow
night in the Houston area, are you? Usually I'm in North Dallas, but
I'm going down to Houston tomorrow night.
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"BOO!"--The Man in Gray http://skwid.home.texas.net/
Suzanne Hillman
> The poster formerly known as Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu>
> wrote:
<wondering what she's now known as!>
> >> Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
> >> me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
> >> but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
> >Um. Possibly that there *are* groups where newbies are flamed on sight.
> >And there are people who flame extravagantly for something as simple as
> >one misspelling.
Note that I was not saying that that is my problem, only that that may be
a possible explaination for others acting that way.
> some newbie does flame you, chances are likely that the regulars will
> stomp on said newbie's head with jackboots for being such a jerk.
jackboots? Not that I know what they are, but it sounds rather painful!
> You'll get corrections for grammar and spelling, and FAQ pointers up
> the wazoo [1] but those are hardly flames.
True. However, I *have* seen flames, true flames, for things as silly as
that.
> >Suzanne, talking way too much for a first-poster today.
> Don't worry so much. Talking lots, but not saying anything dumb is
> highly encouraged in this group. And everything you've said today that
> I've seen is intelligent and well thought out.
<nod> Yeah, but due to the fact that I have not been lurking long, I was
somewhat concerned that I was repeating things. Not concerned enough to
not do so, though, since most of what I said was opinion... <wry grin>
Suzanne
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
Get the facts first. You can distort them later. -Mark Twain
Suzanne Hillman
> > > Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
> > > me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
> > > but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
> > Um. Possibly that there *are* groups where newbies are flamed on sight.
> > And there are people who flame extravagantly for something as simple as
> > one misspelling.
> So? If you take the time to lurk in a group (and read the FAQ(s)), you
> *know* what the group dynamic is and you *know* what is expected by way
> of standards. If you don't like the group dynamic, don't post where you
> feel you must beg for mercy on your very first post.
<grin> Hey - I was answering the question, not commenting on whether or
not I believed that such actions were appropriate for this group. I do
agree that begging for mercy on a first post is not a wise thing to do; if
nothing else, it begs those people who *do* flame half the world to flame
you to a crisp!
> What some people call a flame (frex: "Are you out of your mind?" was
> dubbed a flame in another forum) borders on the ridiculously tame. To
> whine and cry to avoid such is beyond stupid.
True. However, I certainly would not call the above a flame, unless
combined with a whole lot of derogatory comments about your parentage, the
(improbably) sexual acts that you perform in public, or other such
less-than-pleasant things.
> Aside from that, acting the part of the cowering dog is a sure way to
> *invite* flames, not discourage them.
'Sactly.
> > People can be cruel.
> Welcome to Usenet. Hell, welcome to *Life*!
True. Nonetheless, I was responding to the question asked, not the
question implied.
> Do you, upon entering into debate in person, cringe, cower and whine
> "Please don't yell at me!", for fear that someone may disagree with
> you? No? Why do it on Usenet?
<grin> Hey - you're preaching to the converted. I *don't*, and never have.
> Read the FAQs yet?
All of it? Not even close. Got the normal basic 'rules of the road' type
stuff done, though, and am working on the thoughts about various aspects
of the books.
Suzanne
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
Ultimately, it's not really yours 'til you can effectively taunt others with it.
-George Zahora
Michael Bruce
>Michael Bruce stood on the rasfwr-j soapbox and proclaimed:
>
>[snip: either lurk or deal with the flames--why?]
>
>>On to the topic at hand, everyone should lurk, if only for a little
>>while. I lurked six months before my first posting, which might be a
>>little excessive, but you should at least lurk a week or two[1].
>
>[snip]
>
>>[1] Anyone who feels the need to make a comment about how much good
>> that lurking did me can just keep that comment held back.
>
>Please, Michael, please please, in the name of all that is decent and
>holy, tell me this was intentional.
>
>If it was, it was quite funny.
Unless you're thinking of something I'm not, then yes it was
intentional.
John Rowat
> We have thermonuclear flames in this group. It's just that with that
> sort of weaponry in our arsenal, we reserve it only for the truly
> deserving. For mere twits and boneheads, the killfile is the
> reasonable option, as that case is like killing mosquitos with orbital
> lasers.
But they splatter so NICELY!
Besides, as the classic statement goes, the objective is not to catch the
fish; the objective is to use the cannon.
-John (and you people are all full
of great quotes lately. )
Drew Gillmore
<snip Rob, Noell and I>
> <boggle> What do you mean by we? Surely you don't mean
> that that many notables will be gathered in this particular
> state?? Tomorrow night? I have _got_ to get back into
> reading the 'froup!
Well, I've been attempting to get into regular contact with regulars in
the state ever since I moved here last August. I managed to get in
contact with Paul Tibbet via Scottina, but other than that there has
been nada.
So I decided to import.
Yes, Rob has been in town all week, and Noell will be here as of
tonight.
> I don't suppose by any freak chance you're doing this late tomorrow
> night in the Houston area, are you? Usually I'm in North Dallas, but
> I'm going down to Houston tomorrow night.
Nope. Tomorrow night in Dallas. However, if you're not doing anything
this evening, we're also going out tonight. E-mail me.
Or the other option is Saturday night, if you're going to be back in
town then.
--
Drew Gillmore http://www.spacebrain.com/sketch/
Key Features: Web Journal, Mini-FAQ,
John S. Novak, III
>Why should anyone have to lurk before they post I've been writing the odd
>post (in fact quite alot of my posts are odd) but If I see a post that I
>disagree with I will post a reply and state my thoughts on the subject I
>have never asked not to be flame and infact quite enjoy some of the
>arguements a flaming starts.
Well, one main reason is so that you can understand the style of a
newsgroup. For instance, punctuation is very much in style. Aimless,
run-on sentences are out of style.
Granted, I learned that particular tidbit in grammar school. But
having failed to pick it up there, I could easily have learned it here,
through observation.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
John S. Novak, III
<Yor...@geocities.com> wrote:
>> You'll get corrections for grammar and spelling, and FAQ pointers up
>> the wazoo [1] but those are hardly flames.
>No regular flame here, they killfile :)
Lurk more.
Cassandra
Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Maggie wrote:
>
> > > > Cripes, every forum I read and post to gets these..."Please don't flame
> > > > me!" for the very first post, as if no one is capable of doing anything
> > > > but being an insufferable asshole unless they are begged for mercy.
> > > Um. Possibly that there *are* groups where newbies are flamed on sight.
> > > And there are people who flame extravagantly for something as simple as
> > > one misspelling.
> > So? If you take the time to lurk in a group (and read the FAQ(s)), you
> > *know* what the group dynamic is and you *know* what is expected by way
> > of standards. If you don't like the group dynamic, don't post where you
> > feel you must beg for mercy on your very first post.
>
> <grin> Hey - I was answering the question, not commenting on whether or
> not I believed that such actions were appropriate for this group. I do
> agree that begging for mercy on a first post is not a wise thing to do; if
> nothing else, it begs those people who *do* flame half the world to flame
> you to a crisp!
>
> > What some people call a flame (frex: "Are you out of your mind?" was
> > dubbed a flame in another forum) borders on the ridiculously tame. To
> > whine and cry to avoid such is beyond stupid.
>
> True. However, I certainly would not call the above a flame, unless
> combined with a whole lot of derogatory comments about your parentage, the
> (improbably) sexual acts that you perform in public, or other such
> less-than-pleasant things.
We say these things to our friends around here. Hell, we offer to
perform the improbable sexual acts half the time. Why do you think
we're having the Vegas Social?
and busting out the quote file, from Oilcan's visit to the land of
the rising sun...
If I'd gone so far as to attack your personal integrity or sexual
practices, and, say, suggest that you sleep with syphilis infested
goats regularly and in fact that is the precursor for you *being*
across the Pacific, then I would say, yes, you would have serious
cause to be offended.
..by Drew.
Although, looking over the quote file, a remarkable amount of it
is creative insulting of newbies and morons (St**nt makes several
appearances). Especially Novak. Almost everything in there that
Novak said is insulting. But memorable, so it must be justified.
(Or something.)
--
Cassandra fai...@yahoo.com
"The most important reason for going from one
place to another is to see what's in between."
-Norton Juster, _The Phantom Tollbooth_
Re-read it.
John S. Novak, III
<fai...@DEATH-TO-SPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
>Although, looking over the quote file, a remarkable amount of it
>is creative insulting of newbies and morons (St**nt makes several
>appearances). Especially Novak. Almost everything in there that
>Novak said is insulting. But memorable, so it must be justified.
>(Or something.)
I am so underappreciated.
Dave Rothgery
jdast...@limaindiasierra-alpha.com says...
> Rob Stevenson stood on the rasfwr-j soapbox and proclaimed:
>
> >Why should anyone have to lurk before they post
>
>
> Several reasons come immediately to mind:
>
> To learn not to snip attributions.
> To learn to snip .sigs.
> To learn that punctuation is expected.
units' argument. I lurked for all of one day here, and when I've screwed
up, it wasn't with anything that lurking would have helped with.
But then, I never really understood the notion of the net as a grammar-
free zone.
--
Dave Rothgery
dave...@altavista.net
http://members.xoom.com/drothgery/
Steve Monahan
<dr...@cncglobal.com> wrote:
>Or is that spot reserved for Monahan?
Sweet-talk all you want, you skinny little bitch.
You _still_ ain't gettin' a fuckin' thing without dinner & a
movie first.
--
Steve
USENET Redneck
Richard M. Boye'
>
> In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.990708...@mars.iol.unh.edu>,
> Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
[sacaigap]
> and busting out the quote file, from Oilcan's visit to the land of
> the rising sun...
I think it's time to share the quote file again. I could use the
diversion.
--
Richard M. Boye' ICQ:9021244
* wa...@webspan.net
* http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/
"Let's put the 'fun' back in 'dysfunctional'!"
Ralf Flicker
> As for the people here on the group, there are many. I guess I would
> say lurk some more, but that didn't seem to work the first time. So
> here's an idea Sparky: Go get yourself some abstract reasoning, a
> little common sense and a bag of logic and then come back and see us,
> 'kay?
Ouch! I actually didn't expect anyone would stoop to even
comment on my silly post, and normally I wouldn't dignify
this with an answer (dang, I just did!). How come you're so
upset...do you have a reason to be offended?
> > Any who claims confidence in their own
> > speculations are both arrogant and ignorant, or they're just
> > stoned, and I think this NG is full of both kinds.
>
> Just those two kinds, huh? So...Either I'm arrogant and ignorant, or
> I'm stoned.
>
[snip analysis of possible permutations of arrogant,
ignorant and/or stoned, culminating in a rather elaborate
insult]
Drew, you need to relax. Man, did someone rub you the wrong
way? In case it escaped you, I'm not (unlike you) jumping
out at anyone in particular. And where's your sense of
humor; I honestly posted this as half-joke half-serious, it
is a TAN post, after all.
really
ralf
Drew Gillmore
> Drew Gillmore wrote:
> > As for the people here on the group, there are many. I guess I
would
> > say lurk some more, but that didn't seem to work the first time. So
> > here's an idea Sparky: Go get yourself some abstract reasoning, a
> > little common sense and a bag of logic and then come back and see
us,
> > 'kay?
>
> Ouch! I actually didn't expect anyone would stoop to even
> comment on my silly post, and normally I wouldn't dignify
> this with an answer (dang, I just did!). How come you're so
> upset...do you have a reason to be offended?
I'm personally not offended. It takes quite a bit to offend me. You
might say that I was a litte miffed, as I am a person who posts with
confidence on several levels. Confidence in the fact that I can
usually get a laugh, even if it's just me re-reading my own post a day
or two later. Confident that I have some knowledge on what I'm talking
about, and can for the most part convey my points well. Confidence in
the on-topic material that I have posted on in the past due to my
cognitive ability and amount of time I spent researching my points.
Most of all I'm just a confident sort of guy.
Some people call it arrogance. Others self-confidence. Some say it's
meglomaniacal, which I don't even know whether or not is a word, but it
always sounds cool when I say it.
Or you could even say that I've got a Big Ego.
Whatever. The point is that while I see this and can laugh at myself
about it, making a statement like the one you did will only work as a
jest when you know the people involved. A rapport that you do not
have, so your post comes across as closed minded and uninformed, and
thusly is inclined to miff some people and possible offend others.
Not to mention you brought up the fact that no one can post confidently
in reference to a non-tangential subject in a tangential post.
Again, whatever. You obviously don't know me from Sam, so just be
content with the knowledge that if I was really upset and offended, or
if I really wanted to take to task something you said, you would know.
> > > Any who claims confidence in their own
> > > speculations are both arrogant and ignorant, or they're just
> > > stoned, and I think this NG is full of both kinds.
> >
> > Just those two kinds, huh? So...Either I'm arrogant and ignorant,
or
> > I'm stoned.
> >
> [snip analysis of possible permutations of arrogant,
> ignorant and/or stoned, culminating in a rather elaborate
> insult]
You forgot the crack and stupid part.
I mean, come on...this summation is just...lacking.
> Drew, you need to relax. Man, did someone rub you the wrong
> way? In case it escaped you, I'm not (unlike you) jumping
> out at anyone in particular. And where's your sense of
> humor; I honestly posted this as half-joke half-serious, it
> is a TAN post, after all.
Oh come on. I only called you just plain stupid. Well, I guess I kind
of mentioned your lack of common sense, inability to reason abstractly
and logic. But you haven't proven me wrong on those yet.
If you'll notice, the big insult was for Monahan, because that's the
kind of love I got for the Big Galoot. Gotsta give props to da man.
We have that kind of a relationship. He knew I was joking.
No one here could easily know you were.
> really
Really.
--
Drew Gillmore http://www.spacebrain.com/sketch/
Key Features: Web Journal, Mini-FAQ, The Monahan Shrine
Suzanne Hillman
> In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.990708...@mars.iol.unh.edu>,
> Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>
> > True. However, I certainly would not call the above a flame, unless
> > combined with a whole lot of derogatory comments about your parentage, the
> > (improbably) sexual acts that you perform in public, or other such
> > less-than-pleasant things.
> We say these things to our friends around here. Hell, we offer to
> perform the improbable sexual acts half the time. Why do you think
> we're having the Vegas Social?
<grin> Ah, but I think that you know what I meant. :)
> Although, looking over the quote file, a remarkable amount of it
> is creative insulting of newbies and morons (St**nt makes several
> appearances). Especially Novak. Almost everything in there that
> Novak said is insulting. But memorable, so it must be justified.
> (Or something.)
'memorable, so it must be justified'. Intriguing way to determine
justification!
<noting that creative methods tend to make just about anything justified,
in certain contexts>
Suzanne
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
A 14.4 modem makes ya want to get out and push.
Suzanne Hillman
> > In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.990708...@mars.iol.unh.edu>,
> > Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
> [sacaigap]
OK, *what*?
Suzanne
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
I'm tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin deep. That's
deep enough. What do you want - an adorable pancreas? -Jean Kerr
John Dilick
<shil...@iol.unh.edu> proclaimed:
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Richard M. Boye' wrote:
>
>> > In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.990708...@mars.iol.unh.edu>,
>> > Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>> [sacaigap]
>
>OK, *what*?
Snip All Context As Is Good And Proper.
--
John Dilick dili...@home.com
If at first you don't succeed, cheat. Cheat until caught, then lie.
Carlton Jenke
I lurked for a few weeks. This included reading the FAQ's, but the most
helpful was seeing others get corrected for messing up things similar to
those mentioned above. Having never posted anywhere before, I was
woefully ignorant about proper style. I still made a few errors, such as
posting in HTML instead of straight text, but I had already learned such
things as how to quote properly, which IMO greatly improves the flow of
understanding.
--
Carlton Jenke
The Great Gray Skwid
j...@concentric.net wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:48:08 -0700, Cassandra
> <fai...@DEATH-TO-SPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
> >is creative insulting of newbies and morons (St**nt makes several
> >appearances). Especially Novak. Almost everything in there that
> >Novak said is insulting. But memorable, so it must be justified.
> >(Or something.)
You know, John, no matter the fact that I've seen several pictures of
you, it happens so often that when I visualize the person typing your
posts, I see Dogbert. The cartoon show has only enhanced that by giving
this...Novakbert[1] character that I see a voice I can now hear.
Would somebody pass me a Haldol?
--
| | |\ | | | ) Theudegisklos "Skwid" Sweinbrothar
|/| |\ |/ | |X| ( SKWID, Vulture V4 pilot ( The Humblest Mollusc
| | | | | | | ) Evan "Skwid" Langlinais ) on the Net
"BOO!"--The Man in Gray http://skwid.home.texas.net/
[1] Yipes. That was scary just thinking it, much less typing it.
Maggie
Nutella on the kitchen wall...
> Drew Gillmore wrote:
> > > Any who claims confidence in their own
> > > speculations are both arrogant and ignorant, or they're just
> > > stoned, and I think this NG is full of both kinds.
> >
> > Just those two kinds, huh? So...Either I'm arrogant and ignorant, or
> > I'm stoned.
> >
> [snip analysis of possible permutations of arrogant,
> ignorant and/or stoned, culminating in a rather elaborate
> insult]
>
> way? In case it escaped you, I'm not (unlike you) jumping
> out at anyone in particular. And where's your sense of
> humor; I honestly posted this as half-joke half-serious, it
> is a TAN post, after all.
Um, Ralf?
You made an asinine generalization and got called on it. Did you really
expect you could do something that stupid and *not* get called on it?
Claiming that Drew needs to relax and get a sense of humor, after asking
you to clarify your statement is in no way helping you out.
As for humor and TAN posts: TAN stands for "TANgential", as in "Not
relating to the topic at hand (in this case, all things RJ)". It does
not stand for "All posts here are meant to be lame attempts at jokes."
--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://home.talkcity.com/EaselSt/princessmoo/
"Actually I find the overuse of emoticons to be the Usenet equivalent of
*drooling*..." --Scoots, on RMAAG
Jamie Bowden
> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Richard M. Boye' wrote:
>
> > > In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.990708...@mars.iol.unh.edu>,
> > > Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
> > [sacaigap]
>
> OK, *what*?
Snip All Context, As Is Good And Proper.
Jamie Bowden
--
If we've got to fight over grep, sign me up. But boggle can go.
-Ted Faber (on Hasbro's request for removal of /usr/games/boggle)
Carlton Jenke
>
> Drew Gillmore wrote:
> > As for the people here on the group, there are many. I guess I would
> > say lurk some more, but that didn't seem to work the first time. So
> > here's an idea Sparky: Go get yourself some abstract reasoning, a
> > little common sense and a bag of logic and then come back and see us,
> > 'kay?
>
> Ouch! I actually didn't expect anyone would stoop to even
> comment on my silly post, and normally I wouldn't dignify
> this with an answer (dang, I just did!). How come you're so
> upset...do you have a reason to be offended?
>
Clue = I don't think Drew was upset. Maybe slightly irritated. A little
sarcasm does not equal a flaming bonfire.
> > > Any who claims confidence in their own
> > > speculations are both arrogant and ignorant, or they're just
> > > stoned, and I think this NG is full of both kinds.
> >
> > Just those two kinds, huh? So...Either I'm arrogant and ignorant, or
> > I'm stoned.
> >
> [snip analysis of possible permutations of arrogant,
> ignorant and/or stoned, culminating in a rather elaborate
> insult]
>
> Drew, you need to relax. Man, did someone rub you the wrong
> way? In case it escaped you, I'm not (unlike you) jumping
> out at anyone in particular. And where's your sense of
> humor; I honestly posted this as half-joke half-serious, it
> is a TAN post, after all.
>
> really
This is Drew's sense of humor. This is another good reason to lurk; you
pick up on other people's personalities, and would have realized that
Drew, while being insulting, is just being Drew.
He is obviously a little irritated, and is trying to teach you a lesson.
Don't be so defensive, and try to learn from him. (Not his sarcasm,
hopefully!) :)
Clue #2 = Here's what Drew was trying to share [1] - to quote :
"It boggles the mind that anyone would lurk here and not figure out that
making a general statement that would insult more than half the
intelligent posters here is a Bad Idea."
Don't be so offensive. Even in a TAN (of course, about 50% of our
discussions are TAN).
I think the reason you were offensive is that people can have confidence
in their speculations, because : 1) RJ is a very detailed & logic
author, 2) many people here have spent vast amounts of time over the
past several years trying to figure out RJ's plan for the series, and
developing theories based on the evidence. Some authors do not lend
themselves to this type of close examination, where RJ practically begs
for it.
Telling these people they are arrogant, ignorant, or stoned is just
plain stupid. Just ask Novak if he's any of the above. Or Pam, or Loy,
or Drew, or Rich, or Maggie, or ... the list is almost endless, and a
roll-call of this newsgroup would be a listing of some of the more
intelligent and imaginative people in our society today.
<and Carlton bows out>
--
Carlton Jenke
[1] hope you don't mind me speaking for you Drew - if I get it wrong
feel free to drill me a new bum-hole.
Mark Loy
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 15:01:08 GMT, Drew Gillmore
> <dr...@cncglobal.com> wrote:
>
> >Or is that spot reserved for Monahan?
>
> Sweet-talk all you want, you skinny little bitch.
>
> You _still_ ain't gettin' a fuckin' thing without dinner & a
> movie first.
Yeah, you tell 'im, Stevo.
And hold out for a good dinner, too. Don't let him try to pawn off a Taco
Bell bean burrito on you or a Micky D's large french fry like he did
_me_. Nope. Make him take you someplace where they have waitresses and
the like. You know, a Denny's or somesuch at least.
And make sure the movie is a first-run epic type of flick. Make it _Star
Wars, the Phantom Menace_. Yeah. Now this..._this_ is a movie with
enough sexual material to get a nun in the mood for a gang-bang with
unwashed syphillic bikers. Take the scene where we get to see Mrs.
Jabba. Rowrrrr!! Now that's some saucy slug...er, uh Hutt, let me tell
you. And then there's the Queen's purty mouf with the weird lipstick
fetish shit...hubba hubba. Oh and...the scene where we get to see 3PO
neckid. Talk about your protocol droid stud! And R2 uses some more of
his prostethic tools and you know..._know_ he has some "special"
attachments manufactured by Crafsman from the galaxies largest Sears store
on Alderan that'll suck the chrome off the that fancy-schmancy shiny
cruiser they was a boncin' back and forth across the galaxy in. And then
there's Darth Maul. Be still, my heart. This guy is _so_ smooth and
debonair and graceful...kinda like a red and black Fred Astair on
steroids. And when he takes off his hood and shows us his nobby
skull...man I almost loosed my goose right there in the theatre. And
Anikin Skywalker's mother...foxy mommy ain't the half of it. And we find
out she's a _virgin_. Yeah, baby! Talk about all your Mary Mother of
Christ fantasies come true!! And the cute little pony tail on Obi Wan and
when he activated his light sabre and it got all...hard and throbbin' with
power--oh, mercy mercy.
Damn, Steve...this flick'll have you so wet and horny you'll be ready to
fuck a busload a migrant farmworkers.
And maybe you can get Drew to paint his face black and red for you or duct
tape a Sears Wet-n-dry shopvac to his ass and go..."Twweeet dee do...wooo"
for you.
ML
Bill Garrett
} I've never really bought into the 'you must lurk for at least X time
} units' argument. I lurked for all of one day here, and when I've screwed
} up, it wasn't with anything that lurking would have helped with.
Nowadays, for most groups, you need do little more lurking than
skimming through the messages available on the typical newsserver.
Guidelines like "Lurk for at least 2 weeks" were devised back when
most groups got only a handful of messages per day and propogation
was slow enough that a given discussion might only advance a few
steps a week. Back then, it would take reading 2+ weeks of messages
to get a feel for the group. Today, with so many groups experiencing
traffic of hundreds of messages per day, and near-instantaneous
propogation, it's only necessary to spend 30 minutes skimming a few
days' worth of backlog to get a feel for the group.
But even so, it's possible to misgauge a group. There are a number
of traits you can employ to minimize the severity of any mistakes
you make.
First, start by posting one or two messages, not ten. If you're
doing something wrong by local standards, or if you've missed some
obvious source of answers to your questions, it's a lot easier to
deal with it in response to one question than a shotgun attack.
You can post your other 8 or 9 questions later.
Second, if you're asking a largely factual question, or a question
that seems like a really obvious one for the subject matter of the
group, try to find a FAQ before posting. Many groups have them.
Third, try to write with courtesy, diplomacy, and good grammar.
These attributes seldom make a negative impression on anybody.
If they do -- eg, if the members of the group call you an elitist
for knowing correct spelling and writing in complete sentences --
they probably don't have any information or insights of value to
you anyway.
Fourth, remember that you're dealing with real humans. If someone
answers your question, he or she is spending valuable time helping
you instead of doing something else. Be thankful. If someone gets
upset about something provocative you wrote -- even if they're
misinterpreting you -- accept that as normal. Try not to be overly
provocative if you want a serious discussion.
--
Bill Garrett Misanthropology, n.: The study of why
wfg1 @ concentric.net so many people are so damn stupid.
Maggie
<snip great guidelines>
Mind if I archive this to give to people who post the "Why bother to ever
lurk?" questions in the future?
John S. Novak, III
>> [sacaigap]
>OK, *what*?
"Snipped all content as is good and proper."
A perfectly good example of people trying to look like members of an
arcane in-crowd by making an acronym out of any expression used more
than three or four times.
Avatar
> > fictitious characters in a fictitious fable that has yet to
> > be concluded?
>
> Ummm...about twelve people that I can name off the top of my head.
Ooh does that include Sammael? Or was he already dead?
Steve Monahan
<shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Richard M. Boye' wrote:
>
>> > In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.990708...@mars.iol.unh.edu>,
>> > Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>> [sacaigap]
>
>OK, *what*?
>
>Suzanne
"Snip All Context As Is Good And Proper"
[APGEOPTTLLMOAAI-CBMAAOOAEMTTOFT]
--
Steve
USENET Redneck
Mike Kozlowski
Steve Monahan <mo...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
>[APGEOPTTLLMOAAI-CBMAAOOAEMTTOFT]
You're an evil man, Mr. Monahan. Mostly because you beat me to this...
--
Michael Kozlowski
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/
Amy Bradburn
our reading pleasure:
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:12:09 -0400, Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>>> [sacaigap]
>>OK, *what*?
>
>"Snipped all content as is good and proper."
>
>A perfectly good example of people trying to look like members of an
>arcane in-crowd by making an acronym out of any expression used more
>than three or four times.
>
You must admit, though, when you're saying it to yourself mentally,
"SACK-AY-GAPP" rolls off the mental tongue much more nicely than the
actual words.
As always, YMMV.
--
Amelia Bradburn
ICQ: 33990873
Willum
Bill Garrett <wf...@concentric.net.REMOVE> wrote in message
news:1999Jul...@130.62.16.132...
> dave...@altavista.net (Dave Rothgery) writes:
<sensible and intelligent guidlines for newbies>
>Try not to be overly
> provocative if you want a serious discussion.
Feh.
Where's the fun in that. Theres nothing like a baptism of fire to kick
of your usenet journey.
--
Willum,
"One who is a Samurai must, before all things, keep constantly in
mind, by day and by night, the fact that he has to die."
- Daidoji Yuzan -16th C.
http://members.xoom.com/greatsword/index.htm
Bunnythor
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:12:09 -0400, Suzanne Hillman
><shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>>> [sacaigap]
>>OK, *what*?
>"Snip All Context As Is Good And Proper"
>[APGEOPTTLLMOAAI-CBMAAOOAEMTTOFT]
Damn!
I'm just too damn slow.
Fuck me raw.
--Tshen
Qodaxti Institute, 87th stratum
John Rowat
> [APGEOPTTLLMOAAI-CBMAAOOAEMTTOFT]
"Anally pounding green elves often purport to turn Linda Lovelace maroon
or aquamarine and instant-change Bob's moniker around, acting out often
agonizing excessive mutilation to tear out fatal thrombi"
Does this make me a bad person?
-John
--
"Enchained to a shadow of the past / He walks the paths of life
Carrying that old story like a cross / On which he will,
On which he may nail another star."
-Samael, "Moonskin"
Trent Goulding
[SACAIGAP-- now that we all know what it means, this a perfect time
to use it]
>Damn!
>I'm just too damn slow.
>Fuck me raw.
You'll have to wait another three weeks.
Patience, young bunny...
--
Trent
Laura M. Parkinson
blurted out:
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:12:09 -0400, Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>>> [sacaigap]
>>OK, *what*?
>
>"Snipped all content as is good and proper."
Actually it's "snipping all context as is good and proper."
>A perfectly good example of people trying to look like members of an
>arcane in-crowd by making an acronym out of any expression used more
>than three or four times.
Bah. It's useful. :p And you're just souring our grapes. Or something.
Meanie.
-'-,-'-<<0 Trickster 0>>-'-,-'- lpark...@mindspring.com
http://lparkinson.home.mindspring.com
"Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be
destroyed." -Richard Adams, Watership Down
Kevin Bangerter
Bill Garrett wrote in message <1999Jul...@130.62.16.132>...
> Today, with so many groups experiencing
>traffic of hundreds of messages per day, and near-instantaneous
>propogation, it's only necessary to spend 30 minutes skimming a few
>days' worth of backlog to get a feel for the group.
I lurked here for three years and didn't get it right. I posted a reply in
some thread about religion thinking that nobody would respond to a newbie
post.
-kgb
Cassandra
> On Thu, 08 Jul 1999 20:48:08 -0700, Cassandra
> <fai...@DEATH-TO-SPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Although, looking over the quote file, a remarkable amount of it
> >is creative insulting of newbies and morons (St**nt makes several
> >appearances). Especially Novak. Almost everything in there that
> >Novak said is insulting. But memorable, so it must be justified.
> >(Or something.)
>
> I am so underappreciated.
If you were underappreciated, you wouldn't take up a page and a half
of said quote file. You've got a bigger chunk than anyone else,
except Loy. And he's...special (and most of his comments require
more context).
You're just a preternaturally talented insulter. We wouldn't have
it any other way.
--
Cassandra fai...@yahoo.com
"The most important reason for going from one
place to another is to see what's in between."
-Norton Juster, _The Phantom Tollbooth_
Re-read it.
Cassandra
> Cassandra wrote:
> >
> > In article <Pine.SGI.4.10.990708...@mars.iol.unh.edu>,
> > Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>
> [sacaigap]
>
> > and busting out the quote file, from Oilcan's visit to the land of
> > the rising sun...
>
> I think it's time to share the quote file again. I could use the
> diversion.
E-mail me, and I'll send it to you. <fai...@yahoo.com>
That goes for all of you- anyone wants to see the latest version,
e-mail.
Kenneth G. Cavness
article <slrn7ocuv...@ts002d06.per-md.concentric.net>...
>
> "Snipped all content as is good and proper."
>
> arcane in-crowd by making an acronym out of any expression used more
> than three or four times.
You just don't like it because you didn't make it up.
Thbbbbbt.
--
--
Kenneth G. Cavness
http://conan.proxicom.com/~kcavness/
Steve Monahan
wrote:
>Mondo, King of Hollow Earths wrote:
>>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:12:09 -0400, Suzanne Hillman
>><shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Richard M. Boye' wrote:
>
>>>> [sacaigap]
>
>>>OK, *what*?
>
>>"Snip All Context As Is Good And Proper"
>
>>[APGEOPTTLLMOAAI-CBMAAOOAEMTTOFT]
>
>Damn!
>I'm just too damn slow.
>Fuck me raw.
Promises, promises...
--
Steve
"I've met Mark Loy. Don't believe me? Here, smell my finger."
Gabriel Wright
>
> On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 10:12:09 -0400, Suzanne Hillman
> <shil...@iol.unh.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 9 Jul 1999, Richard M. Boye' wrote:
> >
>
> "Snip All Context As Is Good And Proper"
>
> [APGEOPTTLLMOAAI-CBMAAOOAE MTTOFT]
You appear to have lost a U.
HTH
--
Gabriel
Marc Sanders
>
> Drew Gillmore wrote:
> [snip analysis of possible permutations of arrogant,
> ignorant and/or stoned, culminating in a rather elaborate
> insult]
>
> Drew, you need to relax. Man, did someone rub you the wrong
> way? In case it escaped you, I'm not (unlike you) jumping
> out at anyone in particular. And where's your sense of
> humor; I honestly posted this as half-joke half-serious, it
> is a TAN post, after all.
The group has been channeling Oilcan (who's probably enjoying all the
contention) for the past week or so. I've been staying out of it, for
the most part.
--
Marc Sanders (marc...@mindspring.com)
"Irony, thy name is Usenet." - John S. Novak, III
Marc Sanders
[snip]
> But then, I never really understood the notion of the net as a
> grammar-free zone.
It's the ICQ/Chat Anarchist Syndrome. "iTz k3wLl!!!!111!!!"
Ralf Flicker
> [snip some]
> about it, making a statement like the one you did will only work as a
> jest when you know the people involved. A rapport that you do not
> have, so your post comes across as closed minded and uninformed, and
> thusly is inclined to miff some people and possible offend others.
Point taken, I guess I'm turning out to be the one with no
sense of humor. But I am a little amazed still that you guys
are really trying to "put me straight". Carlton: I
appreciate your comments, more coherent than the most. And
maggie, "...asking you to clarify your statement..." is not
how I read Drew's reply. I concede that I have seriously
misjudged you people, though in which direction I cannot
fathom.
> Not to mention you brought up the fact that no one can post confidently
> in reference to a non-tangential subject in a tangential post.
Humbug and misquote.
> Oh come on. I only called you just plain stupid. Well, I guess I kind
> of mentioned your lack of common sense, inability to reason abstractly
> and logic. But you haven't proven me wrong on those yet.
I feel no need to prove myself to you Drew. True, if I
wanted to be taken seriously in this NG, I would certainly
have to come up with something that raised a few eyebrows
and created some scattered "ooh's" and "aah's". But here's
the thing, I'm happy to lurk, and even this I do only
occasionally. Even if I did have some serious WoT issues I'd
like to bring up (which, incidently, I had, a long time
ago), I could never post "with confidence", like you Drew.
Partly because of a lack of research (I have a job), but
mainly because of the nature of the subject as such - it is
not a science, unless you whish to invoke Asimov's
"psycho-history" (or something akin; I forget what he called
it). Any speculation you may produce is only just that, a
more or less educated guess. Someone wrote somewhere that RJ
designs his plots and timelines with a logic and consistency
uncommon to fantasy writers. Be that as it may (I hear he's
a once physicist), it is still a fable, not Boolean logic.
And if second-guessing the creator is a stimulating
exercise, it does not, to my mind, warrant the kind of
megalomanical (there's your favourite word:) behavior
displayed and even flaunted by some here. To my mind we are
all ignorant by definition, as we cannot know the mind of
the creator, and there are no deterministic laws (that we
know) describing it. Better by far to recognize this for a
fact than claiming omnipotence in the face of your minions.
Now you're gonna hit me with "Then why the smut did you post
that garbage in the first place?" Because a) at the time it
felt like the right thing to do, and b) I honestly didn't
see the potential offense in it - except in a few cases
where I deem it justified, and this was the sole purpose of
it.
I will not go into semantics (a mostly pointless exercise as
the words in my first post were not intended to be taken
literally anyway), though I would claim that the second
statement was not intended as, in maggie's words, an
"asinine generalization". Rather it is very specific, as I
will argue. In addition I used the word "think", as in "an
opinion or a speculation, not an assertive statement".
I'm not going to argue the point that many people here _are_
overly arrogant or that newbies _do_ get innocently flamed
by sarcastic mr know-it-all's for posting "without
confidence". This goes without saying. The only individual
likely to be personally offended from my post is one who
really is an arrogant asshole, and feel hit by my gibe. In
this case I would not withdraw anything. In any other case,
there is no cause for offense. In other words, a remark such
as the one I made goes out to those who deserve it. I'm not
gonna be the judge on who's a self-centered arrogant bastard
in need of a whuppin, who's a festering piece of snot or
who's just a plain descent jordanite wielding the one power.
A true jordanite should not take offense, but rather watch
for those who do. Besides, if the offense was that great,
where's all the hue and cry from the offended ones? Stikes
me as odd that only you veterans would bother to scold me if
my crime was that vile.
Well whatever my intentions, it seems it didn't work quite
that way though, and I've got some psychology to learn, or
jordanites aren't what I thought.
> If you'll notice, the big insult was for Monahan, because that's the
> kind of love I got for the Big Galoot. Gotsta give props to da man.
>
> We have that kind of a relationship. He knew I was joking.
>
> No one here could easily know you were.
Like said above, it wasn't all joke. Rather a serious point
expressed in a burlesque manner apparently lost on, well,
everybody. As of this I'm dropping the subject, I've got
better things to do.
ralf
Suzanne Hillman
> >> [sacaigap]
> >OK, *what*?
>
> "Snip All Context As Is Good And Proper"
>
> [APGEOPTTLLMOAAI-CBMAAOOAEMTTOFT]
Do I even want to know?
Suzanne
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
Years ago, I worked in a natural, organic health food store in Seattle,
Washington. One day a man walked in and asked, "If I can melt dry ice,
can I swim without getting wet?" -Steven Wright
Drew Gillmore
> Drew Gillmore wrote:
> > [snip some]
> > about it, making a statement like the one you did will only
> > work as a jest when you know the people involved. A rapport
> > that you do not have, so your post comes across as closed minded
> > and uninformed, and thusly is inclined to miff some people
> > and possible offend others.
>
> Point taken, I guess I'm turning out to be the one with no
> sense of humor. But I am a little amazed still that you guys
> are really trying to "put me straight". Carlton: I
> appreciate your comments, more coherent than the most. And
> maggie, "...asking you to clarify your statement..." is not
> how I read Drew's reply. I concede that I have seriously
> misjudged you people, though in which direction I cannot
> fathom.
Probably in many different directions, since we're not a Hive Mind and
each of us interprets each thing differently. Take what pieces of
advice you think fit, and use them. File the rest away for later use.
> > Not to mention you brought up the fact that no one
> > can post confidently in reference to a non-tangential
> > subject in a tangential post.
>
> Humbug and misquote.
I'll see your humbug and raise you a Harrumph.
Considering the conversation was initiated about a person who asked
about TXDFS's and was worried about getting flamed, it was a tangential
subject. Therefore it was not concerning the speculation that is
involved when making theories and predictions for the books, and
therefore you comment doesn't apply at all.
<Stupid, logic, reasoning, etc.>
> I feel no need to prove myself to you Drew. True, if I
> wanted to be taken seriously in this NG, I would certainly
> have to come up with something that raised a few eyebrows
> and created some scattered "ooh's" and "aah's".
Not really. Just make sure that you think things through, post with
coherency, try not to make general statements, and post with a little
confidence, eh?
> But here's
> the thing, I'm happy to lurk, and even this I do only
> occasionally. Even if I did have some serious WoT issues I'd
> like to bring up (which, incidently, I had, a long time
> ago), I could never post "with confidence", like you Drew.
> Partly because of a lack of research (I have a job),
Yeah? Well I had two near full-time jobs and went to school full-time
when I began posting here with a fervor.
As it is, I still have a job. Almost two.
So Nyah.
> but
> mainly because of the nature of the subject as such - it is
> not a science, unless you whish to invoke Asimov's
> "psycho-history" (or something akin; I forget what he called
> it). Any speculation you may produce is only just that, a
> more or less educated guess.
So you can't be confident about your educated guesses? A well-thought
out and sound theory can give you a great deal of confidence.
Besides, it's not just logical conclusions and controlled speculations
that lead to posting with confidence. It's the knowledge that your
post will be received well, or rather the belief that it will.
Grammar, punctuation, spelling, non-stream of thought paragraphs and
the like. Getting a feel for what is and is not accepted in a group
will go a long way towards making you feel comfortable posting to it.
Having spent some time posting to this group I can say that I post here
with quite a bit of confidence not because I know what I'm talking
about, (as most of the people here can tell you that I make up
everything as I go along) but because I have the necessary experience
in dealing with this group and the people in it.
> Someone wrote somewhere that RJ
> designs his plots and timelines with a logic and consistency
> uncommon to fantasy writers. Be that as it may (I hear he's
> a once physicist), it is still a fable, not Boolean logic.
> And if second-guessing the creator is a stimulating
> exercise, it does not, to my mind, warrant the kind of
> megalomanical (there's your favourite word:) behavior
> displayed and even flaunted by some here. To my mind we are
> all ignorant by definition, as we cannot know the mind of
> the creator, and there are no deterministic laws (that we
> know) describing it. Better by far to recognize this for a
> fact than claiming omnipotence in the face of your minions.
Who's claiming omnipotence? There's a large glaring step between
posting with confidence and declaring yourself God of the Group.
> Now you're gonna hit me with "Then why the smut did you post
> that garbage in the first place?" Because a) at the time it
> felt like the right thing to do, and b) I honestly didn't
> see the potential offense in it - except in a few cases
> where I deem it justified, and this was the sole purpose of
> it.
Well, saying that everyone who can post with confidence is either
arrogant and ignorant or stoned goes a long way towards insulting most
of the people I correspond with here.
Most of the people that are worth reading are worth it *because* they
post with confidence.
As for me, I was not insulted by your comment. As I said, I was a
little miffed, but not because I felt that you were insulting me, but
rather because general and all encompassing statements irritate me.
> I will not go into semantics (a mostly pointless exercise as
> the words in my first post were not intended to be taken
> literally anyway), though I would claim that the second
> statement was not intended as, in maggie's words, an
> "asinine generalization". Rather it is very specific, as I
> will argue. In addition I used the word "think", as in "an
> opinion or a speculation, not an assertive statement".
Saying 'I think anyone who "a" is therefore "b" or "c"' is pretty
general.
Especially when the statement is not related to the topic at hand and
patently false in the current discussion.
Regardless, qualifying the statement with "I think" isn't a "Make a
fool of myself for free" card. Rather, it should make you stop and
think real hard about how your presenting yourself.
> I'm not going to argue the point that many people here _are_
> overly arrogant or that newbies _do_ get innocently flamed
> by sarcastic mr know-it-all's for posting "without
> confidence". This goes without saying. The only individual
> likely to be personally offended from my post is one who
> really is an arrogant asshole, and feel hit by my gibe.
It's oddly ironic how far the door swings both ways. Yes, there are
such things as Arrogant Assholes on Usenet. Yes, I'm probably one of
them.
Yes, newbies do get unfairly set upon sometimes. No it doesn't happen
all the time.
This is life. You take the good with the bad. Whining about it will
go largely towards upsetting those around you that have learned better.
I've been on both sides of the spectrum, seen the Hive Mind and been a
victim of it, and been a part of what was called the Hive Mind. I
don't agree with everything everyone says here, but when the issue is
ignoring common sense in the interest of laziness, in order to
aggrivate, because you just don't care, or whatever, that's when you
have to stop and remember that it's called "common" sense for a reason.
The regulars, including the "sarcastic Mr.know-it-alls" are by far more
forgiving of basic and trite bullshit than many other groups I've read.
When a newbie is taken to task, it usually has a valid reason behind it.
> In
> this case I would not withdraw anything. In any other case,
> there is no cause for offense. In other words, a remark such
> as the one I made goes out to those who deserve it. I'm not
> gonna be the judge on who's a self-centered arrogant bastard
> in need of a whuppin, who's a festering piece of snot or
> who's just a plain descent jordanite wielding the one power.
> A true jordanite should not take offense, but rather watch
> for those who do.
"True jordanite"?
Oh, brother.
I'm definitely not a jordanite, let alone a "true" one. I like
Jordan's writings, but this group is so much more than that, which is
what makes it interesting for me. If all that ever happened here was
on-topic discussion or role-playing, I can assure you that the mean
intelligence of the group would drop tremendously because of all the
people that would leave.
> Besides, if the offense was that great,
> where's all the hue and cry from the offended ones? Stikes
> me as odd that only you veterans would bother to scold me if
> my crime was that vile.
Most of them didn't feel it warranted a response, realized that you
made a statement that only showed how little you knew the group and the
posters there-in, and decided to let you continue with your opinion.
I saw a ripe chance to make a point and a joke.
> Well whatever my intentions, it seems it didn't work quite
> that way though, and I've got some psychology to learn, or
> jordanites aren't what I thought.
Neither. You just need to stop making general statements and
assumptions, because your confidence in your speculation on people that
you haven't interacted with is unfounded. Stop making assumptions
about a group of people when you have no idea what the individuals are
like.
> > If you'll notice, the big insult was for Monahan, because that's the
> > kind of love I got for the Big Galoot. Gotsta give props to da man.
> >
> > We have that kind of a relationship. He knew I was joking.
> > No one here could easily know you were.
>
> Like said above, it wasn't all joke. Rather a serious point
> expressed in a burlesque manner apparently lost on, well,
> everybody. As of this I'm dropping the subject, I've got
> better things to do.
When you don't think anyone's getting what you're saying, it's a good
time to 1) Figure out a different way to say it, and C) Think about
what the *are* getting from what you're saying.
As for not being able to gett a serious point that was given in a
burlesque manner, I could easily point to my initial response and say
the same about you.
--
Drew Gillmore http://www.spacebrain.com/sketch/
Key Features: Web Journal, Mini-FAQ, and you know, "for kids".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Suzanne Hillman
> Who's claiming omnipotence? There's a large glaring step between
> posting with confidence and declaring yourself God of the Group.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<manical grin>
I claim this ng for... Spain! Yeah, that's the ticket...
Suzanne, feeling (and according to the subject line, obviously not
restraining) a powerful desire to declare herself God of this NG
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others. -Voltaire
Kenneth G. Cavness
article <378A8CED...@tninet.com>...
[snip all context, as is Good and Proper]
> [2] Getting away with it is kind of hard though as neither of us belongs
> to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
Hrm.
Wundur whar ah ayam awn this here panty-on thang.
Maggie
kcav...@proxicom.com painted in Nutella on the kitchen wall...
> rkv...@tninet.com foolishly gave up the right to remain silent in
> article <378A8CED...@tninet.com>...
> [snip all context, as is Good and Proper]
>
> > [2] Getting away with it is kind of hard though as neither of us belongs
> > to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
>
> Hrm.
>
> Wundur whar ah ayam awn this here panty-on thang.
KENN: According to RASFWRJ mythos, Kenn is the God of Fuschia and Self-
Deprecation. Often heard to exclaim, when suitably annoyed, "Shut up, or
I'll come over and do your hair!"
--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://home.talkcity.com/EaselSt/princessmoo/
"MAGGIE: In rasfwrj mythology, a minor fertility goddess and patron
goddess of Margaritas. Usually depicted as wearing a chainmail bra and
wielding a killfile." --Magnus Itland on RASFWRJ
John S. Novak, III
<kcav...@proxicom.com> wrote:
>> [2] Getting away with it is kind of hard though as neither of us belongs
>> to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
>Wundur whar ah ayam awn this here panty-on thang.
^
For one brief, horrifying moment, I thought that character was an 'o'.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
Janis Kronbergs
Suzanne Hillman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Drew Gillmore wrote:
>
> > Who's claiming omnipotence? There's a large glaring step between
> > posting with confidence and declaring yourself God of the Group.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> <manical grin>
>
> I claim this ng for... Spain! Yeah, that's the ticket...
Well, then I claim it for Canada. And if you have a problem with that
I'll Roshambo[1] you for it.
>
> Suzanne, feeling (and according to the subject line, obviously not
> restraining) a powerful desire to declare herself God of this NG
Ditto[2]
>
--
Janis Kronbergs
The Lurker from the Stars
[1]I'll kick you in the nuts as hard as I can and then you kick me in
the nuts and the first one to fall loses.
John Rowat
> rkv...@tninet.com foolishly gave up the right to remain silent in
>> [2] Getting away with it is kind of hard though as neither of us belongs
>> to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
> Wundur whar ah ayam awn this here panty-on thang.
Did anyone else find the image of Kenn with panties on just too disturbing
for words?
Anyway, that's easy. You're the God of Fuschia, and your Prophet is the
Great Doctor Jed.
Kenneth G. Cavness
<MPG.11f47873a...@news.stax.net>...
> In article <MPG.11f46486e...@news.21stcentury.net>,
> kcav...@proxicom.com painted in Nutella on the kitchen wall...
> > > to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
> >
> >
> > Wundur whar ah ayam awn this here panty-on thang.
> KENN: According to RASFWRJ mythos, Kenn is the God of Fuschia and Self-
> Deprecation. Often heard to exclaim, when suitably annoyed, "Shut up, or
> I'll come over and do your hair!"
Huh. You'da figured goats woulda been in there somewheres.
And, by the way, peoples: it's not an empty threat.
Kenneth G. Cavness
article <7me9gf$dkr$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
> As roses wither, so does Kenneth G. Cavness:
> >> to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
>
>
> for words?
>
> Anyway, that's easy. You're the God of Fuschia, and your Prophet is the
> Great Doctor Jed.
I find it notably stressing that not one, but two people independently
named me the God of Fuschia. I mean, it's a glorious, majestic,
sublime color, but to whom, exactly, do I minister?
Kenneth G. Cavness
article <slrn7olbi...@ts001d31.per-md.concentric.net>...
> >> to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
>
> >Wundur whar ah ayam awn this here panty-on thang.
> For one brief, horrifying moment, I thought that character was an 'o'.
I would look like a naked Sumo wrestler.
Amy Bradburn
reading pleasure:
>As roses wither, so does Kenneth G. Cavness:
>> rkv...@tninet.com foolishly gave up the right to remain silent in
>
>>> [2] Getting away with it is kind of hard though as neither of us belongs
>>> to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
>
>> Wundur whar ah ayam awn this here panty-on thang.
>
>Did anyone else find the image of Kenn with panties on just too disturbing
>for words?
>
Especially considering that I apparently am not the only one to have
initially read that as "panty-on thong."
Oyyy...
--
Amy Bradburn
ICQ: 33990873
Drew Gillmore
: > Ummm...about twelve people that I can name off the top of my head.
:
: Ooh does that include Sammael? Or was he already dead?
:
:
:
RAFO.
--
Drew Gillmore http://www.spacebrain.com/sketch/
Key Features: Drew's Reality, Mini-FAQ, and The Memoirs of a Teenage
Viagra User.
Jeff Huo
> Wundur whar ah ayam awn this here panty-on thang.
Hm...looking at this several ways..
-One good basis for Godhood might be "created realm in question;" in our case,
that would be anyone affiliated with the original Usenet call for votes to
establish the place. [1] While worthy, this doesn't leave a whole lot of room
for dynamism in the hiearchy.
-Another would be collector and keeper of the collective memory, which would
then associate the pantheon with the hierarchy of involvement behind the FAQ.
-Perhaps another handy way to pick out the deity from the crowd might be
smiting ability. Though there are many worthy candidates, I'd say the most
impressive examples of unleashed -controlled- smiting would belong to John
Novak. [2]
Thoughts?
-Jeff
--
Jeff Huo | http://www.starfall.com/~jeff
U. Michigan Med | je...@starfall.nospam.com
[1] To that end, http://hugin.imat.com/~garrett/jordan/history.html
[2] http://skwid.home.texas.net/novak.txt
cd skogsberg
>article <7me9gf$dkr$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
[Kkken as a member of the rasfwr-j pantheon]
>> Anyway, that's easy. You're the God of Fuschia, and your Prophet is the
>> Great Doctor Jed.
>I find it notably stressing that not one, but two people independently
>named me the God of Fuschia. I mean, it's a glorious, majestic,
>sublime color, but to whom, exactly, do I minister?
Fuchsians?
/cd
--
"Hon är inte en flicka, hon är en internetlösning."
-- Has kommenterar SaraW, 980815
Suzanne Hillman
> Suzanne Hillman wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Drew Gillmore wrote:
> > > Who's claiming omnipotence? There's a large glaring step between
> > > posting with confidence and declaring yourself God of the Group.
> >
> > I claim this ng for... Spain! Yeah, that's the ticket...
>
> Well, then I claim it for Canada. And if you have a problem with that
> I'll Roshambo[1] you for it.
<grin> I'm not even *from* Spain...
>[1]I'll kick you in the nuts as hard as I can and then you kick me in
>the nuts and the first one to fall loses.
<noting that kicking a woman in the nuts could be difficult, but
attempting it would still be quite painful, nonetheless>
> [2]Getting away with it is kind of hard though as neither of us belongs
> to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
Hmm. Where can I find this?
Suzanne, wondering who she's supposed to be worshipping
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Carlton Jenke
> Suzanne, wondering who she's supposed to be worshipping
Me, of course! (Worshipper applications being taken.)
To paraphrase an old quote from a member of this newsgroup (maybe Loy?):
"All nubile young females form a line to the left."
Everybody else, ... um, as you were.
--
Carlton Jenke
Suzanne Hillman
> Suzanne Hillman wrote:
>
> > Suzanne, wondering who she's supposed to be worshipping
> Me, of course! (Worshipper applications being taken.)
<grin> You require *applications* from your worshipers? That's hardly
going to encourage the masses to come knocking, you know...
> To paraphrase an old quote from a member of this newsgroup (maybe Loy?):
> "All nubile young females form a line to the left."
OOC (out of curiosity), why the left?
I think I'm going to try to figure out how to form a line from the
ceiling. If I manage that one, maybe I can convince some hapless soul to
worship *me*!
Suzanne, eyeing the .sig that decided to appear with this message, and
wondering if she should be worried.
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
i stood without clothes, danced in the sand i was aching with freedom and
kissing the damned. I said remember this as how it should be
-Indigo Girls _The Fugitive_
Alistair J. R. Young
Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> (== shillman)
praised Shub-Internet thus:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Janis Kronbergs wrote:
>> [2]Getting away with it is kind of hard though as neither of us belongs
>> to the true rawsfr-j pantheon.
> Hmm. Where can I find this?
> Suzanne, wondering who she's supposed to be worshipping
Why, Mr. GODLIKE NOVAK SIR!!! of course,,,
Alistair
--
Computational Thaumaturge, Deus Machinarum. -- Cerebrate of the Silicon Swarm.
e-mail: avata...@arkane.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.arkane.demon.co.uk/
"Computer memory and male genitals have one thing in common: Everyone says
size isn't necessarily important, but no-one quite believes it."
-- Platt's Sixth Law of Computers
Carlton Jenke
> I think I'm going to try to figure out how to form a line from the
> ceiling. If I manage that one, maybe I can convince some hapless soul to
> worship *me*!
>
> Suzanne, eyeing the .sig that decided to appear with this message, and
> wondering if she should be worried.
>
> --
> shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
> i stood without clothes, danced in the sand i was aching with freedom and
> kissing the damned. I said remember this as how it should be
> -Indigo Girls _The Fugitive_
If you followed the example of your sig, then I don't think you'd have
any problem getting _worshipers_. As matter of fact, try it out at Vegas
if you go to the NDFS, and see what results you get. On second thought,
I just remembered I won't be there, so strike the last bit. :)
--
Carlton Jenke
Suzanne Hillman
> Suzanne Hillman wrote:
> > I think I'm going to try to figure out how to form a line from the
> > ceiling. If I manage that one, maybe I can convince some hapless soul
> > to worship *me*!
> >
> > Suzanne, eyeing the .sig that decided to appear with this message, and
> > wondering if she should be worried.
> >
> > --
> > i stood without clothes, danced in the sand i was aching with freedom and
> > kissing the damned. I said remember this as how it should be
> > -Indigo Girls _The Fugitive_
>
> If you followed the example of your sig, then I don't think you'd have
> any problem getting _worshipers_. As matter of fact, try it out at Vegas
> if you go to the NDFS, and see what results you get. On second thought,
> I just remembered I won't be there, so strike the last bit. :)
<grin>
1) I don't know what NDFS *is*
2) I'm a poor college student who isn't sure she can afford next
semester, let alone going to Vegas
3) Generally, wandering around nude (esp if it's windy) tends to be a
rather *chilly* prospect. Due to my inate inability to keep warm, I think
I'll keep my clothes on. Well, that and being nude outdoors tends to be
kinda illegal.
Suzanne, recruiting worshippers 'cause she *can* (or at least can try)
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of
lightning. -Calvin, _Calvin & Hobbes_
Suzanne Hillman
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:30:58 -0400, in message <Pine.SGI.4.10.990713...@mars.iol.unh.edu>,
> Suzanne Hillman <shil...@iol.unh.edu> (== shillman)
> praised Shub-Internet thus:
>
> > Suzanne, wondering who she's supposed to be worshipping
> Why, Mr. GODLIKE NOVAK SIR!!! of course,,,
'k... why? Why's he godlike? (for that matter, I'm not sure I've been here
long enough to know who he is!)
Suzanne
--
shil...@iol.unh.edu http://pubpages.unh.edu/~shillman
Allow the world to live as it chooses, and allow yourself to live as you choose.
-_Illusions_, Richard Bach (paraphrased)
Mike Kozlowski
>> Why, Mr. GODLIKE NOVAK SIR!!! of course,,,
>
>'k... why? Why's he godlike? (for that matter, I'm not sure I've been here
>long enough to know who he is!)
He's just another newbie with delusions of grandeur.
--
Michael Kozlowski
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~mlk/
Carlton Jenke
> 3) Generally, wandering around nude (esp if it's windy) tends to be a
> rather *chilly* prospect. Due to my inate inability to keep warm, I think
> I'll keep my clothes on.
I seem to remember Avi having that problem, and finding a solution to
it. :)
--
Carlton Jenke
Drew Gillmore
> > praised Shub-Internet thus:
> >
> > > Suzanne, wondering who she's supposed to be worshipping
> 'k... why? Why's he godlike?
Cause he's sort a like God in that he tells you what to do a lot and
doesn't really explain why he wants it done. He also got this one
chick pregnant wihout ever touching her.
> (for that matter, I'm not sure I've been here long enough to
> know who he is!)
Blasphemer! Heretic!
We used to stone people like you, but nowadays we just go for a little
nuetrino bombardment.
You'll be feeling it in a couple years, let me tell you.
--
Drew Gillmore http://www.spacebrain.com/sketch/
Key Features: Web Journal, Mini-FAQ, Essays on a kindler, gentler
newsgroup.