THE LIE: Alt.Games.Doom.* is moving ...

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Steve Bushore

unread,
Dec 28, 1994, 1:48:34 PM12/28/94
to
In article <alt_78...@news.mantis.co.uk> vane...@maroon.tc.umn.edu (RGCD Steering Committee Chairman) writes:

>The old "alt.games.doom" groups will be removed, eventually. Be sure
>to subscribe to the new groups and post your articles there, because more
>and more people will abandon the old groups and move to the new ones.

NOT! As long as people keep post here, this group will stay alive for all of
us who do not wish to use moderated/coordinated/CENSORED newsgroups. The so
called RGCD Steering Committee is self appointed and has NO official status
and has NO athority to remove any newsgroup except the ones that they create.

>Before posting to the new groups, be sure to read the POSTING GUIDELINES
>article in the rec.games.computer.doom.announce newsgroup.

Wouldn't want to upset the "coordinator" (censor).

I am taking the liberty of also responding to "Mr" Ward's response to my last
post. This reply was over the holiday weekend and many of you may have
missed it so I repeat the text here for your information. I will hold my
reply until the end.

****************************************************************
[100+ lines of childish paranioa deleted]

You, chowderhead! Have you even tried reading the rec.games.computer.doom.*
newsgroups? Do you know what the fuck you are even talking about? I think
the answer to both of these questions is "no".

There is only _one_ moderated newsgroup in the rec.games.computer.doom.* area
and that is r.g.c.d.announce (which replaces alt.games.doom.announce (which is
also moderated, btw)). The rest of the newsgroups have coordinators. Do you
know what a coordinator does? I didn't think so. Coordinators do three basic
things:

1: Keep track of usefull information pertaining to the focus of thier newsgroup
and try and get that information to whomever needs it (they do not replace
"good samaritan" users who also help),

2: Re-route inapropriate posts from one newsgroup to the one it "belongs" in
(say, forwarding an WAD editing question from r.g.c.d.help to
r.g.c.d.editing)
Modorators do _not_ have the power to prevent _anyone_ from posting, nor
can they cancel other peoples posts,

3: Remind people that posting binaries to their newsgroups is frowned upon.

Why don't you _try_ the new newsgroups before bitching and moaning about them?
($10.00 bet that this clown is really AJ Peterson.)

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Richard Ward rrw...@netcom.com |
| Coordinator - rec.games.computer.doom.misc |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

*********************************************************

First, I believe it is common courtesy to both the readers and the person you
are responding to quote the material being responded to. If you cannot bring
yourself up to the level of common courtesy, I submit that you have no place
participating in any discussion.

Second, one wonders where someone who practices such levels of name calling in
place of responsible discussion has any place referring to another's response
as "childish paranoia". I am also informed by mental health professionals
that a child cannot, by definition, be paranoid.

Wrong, I have been following r.g.c.d.* since they were created.

As for the numerated items that you chose to write in defense/denial of my
suggestions of censorship in the r.g.c.d hierarchy, I submit that your own
words have proven my point. The groups all practice censorship and that is
alright as long as it is understood and the persons using the groups do not
mind this. However, some of us (I believe the majority of net users) abhor
control and censorship and choose to decide for themselves what is appropriate
and what to read or not read without someone else filtering (CENSORING) their
input.

Outright lie #1. Moderators CAN keep messages from being posted and CAN
delete messages posted in their moderated newsgroup - that is what a moderated
group is all about.

I will admit to incomplete information regarding the power of a so-called
coordinator, but I am certain that anyone who can "Re-route inapropriate
posts" can also cancel posts "inappropriate". I also notice that the
coordinated groups have become; "I'm the expert, ask me a question." in nature
rather than true discussion groups.

As I already said, I have and am trying the new groups and I still object to
the suppressive nature of them!

This is getting too long so I'll get to the bottom line. I actually have no
objection to the existance of the RGCD* groups, just in the inference from a
self-appointed non-official committee and their likewise unofficial chairman
lying to the net about the flavor of their created groups and their use of
lies, name calling and outright coersion to try to force the demise of the
unmoderated (and uncontrolled by them) alt.games.doom. You have a right to
create your own groups and run them however you choose, but you DO NOT have a
right to run/destroy any other group(s). We have a right to use or not use
the group(s) of our own choice without undue interference from you or anyone
else. In other words, go play in YOUR sandbox and leave OUR sandbox alone.

By the way, you can give the $10.00 that I win for not being AJ Peterson to
your local anti-censorship group.

Steve Bushore

All e-mail returned to sender unread.
Public posts ignored or responded to as I see fit.


+==================================================================+
| The death penalty is absolutly a deterent! I have yet to hear |
| of any criminal, once executed, who has committed another crime.|
+==================================================================+

Gregory Alan Lewis

unread,
Dec 28, 1994, 3:05:57 PM12/28/94
to
In article <bushore.4...@toontown.ssl.loral.com>,

Steve Bushore <bus...@toontown.ssl.loral.com> wrote:
>First, I believe it is common courtesy to both the readers and the person you
>are responding to quote the material being responded to. If you cannot bring
>yourself up to the level of common courtesy, I submit that you have no place
>participating in any discussion.

I'm quoting the material I'm responding to. Hopefully I now qualify as
being on the level of common courtesy, so that I may participate in your
discussion. Note that it's also common courtesy to trim your quotes to
the minimum necessary to keep the casual reader from paging through scads
of text. Some newsreaders I've used won't even let you post unless you
type more than you quote.

>Outright lie #1. Moderators CAN keep messages from being posted and CAN
>delete messages posted in their moderated newsgroup - that is what a moderated
>group is all about.

Moderators can do both of those things. However, this is not a lie by Mr.
Ward. He DID say that RGCD.announce is moderated, which it is. It's
exactly the same as a.g.d.a, which is moderated, and posts are not posted
there unless the moderator decides they are relevant. The remaining RGCD
groups all have coordinators.

>I will admit to incomplete information regarding the power of a so-called
>coordinator, but I am certain that anyone who can "Re-route inapropriate
>posts" can also cancel posts "inappropriate". I also notice that the
>coordinated groups have become; "I'm the expert, ask me a question." in nature
>rather than true discussion groups.

As far as I know anyone with sufficient knowledge can cancel posts. I
recall several monsth ago someone was killing posts on a.g.d. And yet you
claim a.g.d is uncensored. Besides, coordinators don't exist to be
rulers over whatever they coordinate and crush all unworthy posts. Theu
may very well have the power to kill posts, but they're there to try to
keep the groups on-topic, not kill them.


>
>As I already said, I have and am trying the new groups and I still object to
>the suppressive nature of them!

Can you give an example of their suppresive nature? They are kept on-topic,
and if you find that suppressive, well, so be it. In my eyes and the eyes of
most people who post there, it's actually a good thing. I'm sick of wading
through MAKE.MONEY.FAST posts, flames, and garbage.


>
>All e-mail returned to sender unread.
>Public posts ignored or responded to as I see fit.

And this is common courtesy? The pot calls the kettle black once again.

Greg


Black Kross

unread,
Dec 28, 1994, 2:21:48 AM12/28/94
to
In article <3dsgf5$d...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> gr...@umich.edu (Gregory Alan Lewis) writes:
>From: gr...@umich.edu (Gregory Alan Lewis)
>Subject: Re: THE LIE: Alt.Games.Doom.* is moving ...
>Date: 28 Dec 1994 20:05:57 GMT

> And this is common courtesy? The pot calls the kettle black once again.

> Greg

Did someone mention Black?

Black Kross (Creative Mis-Speller)

Richard Ward

unread,
Dec 28, 1994, 7:43:58 PM12/28/94
to
In article <bushore.4...@toontown.ssl.loral.com> bus...@toontown.ssl.loral.com (Steve Bushore) writes:
>
>I am taking the liberty of also responding to "Mr" Ward's response to my last
>post. This reply was over the holiday weekend and many of you may have
>missed it so I repeat the text here for your information. I will hold my
>reply until the end.

[the following is from me]


>
>There is only _one_ moderated newsgroup in the rec.games.computer.doom.* area
>and that is r.g.c.d.announce (which replaces alt.games.doom.announce (which is
>also moderated, btw)). The rest of the newsgroups have coordinators. Do you
>know what a coordinator does? I didn't think so. Coordinators do three basic
>things:
>
>1: Keep track of usefull information pertaining to the focus of thier newsgroup
> and try and get that information to whomever needs it (they do not replace
> "good samaritan" users who also help),
>
>2: Re-route inapropriate posts from one newsgroup to the one it "belongs" in
> (say, forwarding an WAD editing question from r.g.c.d.help to
>r.g.c.d.editing)
> Modorators do _not_ have the power to prevent _anyone_ from posting, nor
> can they cancel other peoples posts,
>
>3: Remind people that posting binaries to their newsgroups is frowned upon.
>

[end my post]

[snip]

>Wrong, I have been following r.g.c.d.* since they were created.

Did you bother to vote on them?

>As for the numerated items that you chose to write in defense/denial of my
>suggestions of censorship in the r.g.c.d hierarchy, I submit that your own
>words have proven my point. The groups all practice censorship and that is
>alright as long as it is understood and the persons using the groups do not
>mind this. However, some of us (I believe the majority of net users) abhor
>control and censorship and choose to decide for themselves what is appropriate
>and what to read or not read without someone else filtering (CENSORING) their
>input.

Um, how do my enumerated points prove your arguments?

>Outright lie #1. Moderators CAN keep messages from being posted and CAN
>delete messages posted in their moderated newsgroup - that is what a moderated
>group is all about.

I have explained to you before, the _only_ moderated newsgroup of the group is
rec.games.computer.doom.announce (which replaces alt.games.doom.announce -
which is already moderated (which is a good thing for an annouince newsgroup,
as almost all *.announce newsgroups I have ever seen are moderated)).

The rest of the newsgroups are not moderated, period.

>I will admit to incomplete information regarding the power of a so-called
>coordinator, but I am certain that anyone who can "Re-route inapropriate
>posts" can also cancel posts "inappropriate". I also notice that the
>coordinated groups have become; "I'm the expert, ask me a question." in nature
>rather than true discussion groups.

1: Do you know how we (the coordinators) reroute posts? We reply to them and
put the name of the correct newsgroup in the "Follow-Up To:" line of the
message header. The original post still goes through and so does the
followup. I could no more stop a message from going into
rec.games.computer.doom.misc than I could stop the sun from going nova.

(This brings up the point: Do you even know how a moderated newsgroup
works?)

2: The "expert" thing: As the coordinator of my newsgroup, I feel that it is
my duty to at least know where the answers to the newsgroups topics can be
found. This is not a formal part of the job (like I'm getting paid, right)
but is a personal feeling. It is true that the newsgroups do have a
"doctor in teh house" feeling, but as we (the coordinators) get comfortable
in our roles (and get over the urge to answer every question that we see)
things are getting better.

>As I already said, I have and am trying the new groups and I still object to
>the suppressive nature of them!

Fine, don't use them.

>This is getting too long so I'll get to the bottom line. I actually have no
>objection to the existance of the RGCD* groups, just in the inference from a
>self-appointed non-official committee and their likewise unofficial chairman
>lying to the net about the flavor of their created groups and their use of
>lies, name calling and outright coersion to try to force the demise of the
>unmoderated (and uncontrolled by them) alt.games.doom. You have a right to
>create your own groups and run them however you choose, but you DO NOT have a
>right to run/destroy any other group(s). We have a right to use or not use
>the group(s) of our own choice without undue interference from you or anyone
>else. In other words, go play in YOUR sandbox and leave OUR sandbox alone.

Except for the fact that you think all the new newsgroups are moderated, you
are mostlt right. However, the plans for these newsgroups where made public a
long time ago and you (and everyione else) had a long time to discuss them
(ever bother to read alt.config?) and vote on them.

I will say one more time (as you seem incapable of retaining this bit of
information): The rec.games.computer.doom.* newsgroups are _not_ moderated
(the .announce newsgroup excepted) and can not be censored. Post to them and
your post will go through.

Steve Bushore

unread,
Dec 29, 1994, 12:55:34 PM12/29/94
to
In article <rrwardD1...@netcom.com> rrw...@netcom.com (Richard Ward) writes:

>>Wrong, I have been following r.g.c.d.* since they were created.
>Did you bother to vote on them?

Actually, I had no opinion to express on whether r.g.c.d.* was created or not
and I still have no desire to eliminate them as you seem to be inferring. At
the time, I missed the part that you indended to eliminate a.g.d and not just
let people decide for themselves whether to move or continue to post here in
this wonderfully anarchic group.

>Um, how do my enumerated points prove your arguments?

Each of your enumerated points, which have been quoted and requoted enough
times, expressed some measure of control. To me any control or appearance of
control in a discussion group is a form of censorship.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

> (This brings up the point: Do you even know how a moderated newsgroup
> works?)

Yes. Absolute power of censorship in action. All post go to the moderator
who then must approve it before it is forwarded to the group. In all
fairness, not all moderators exercise this "filtering" to any great degree,
but the tools are there for the power hungry.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

All e-mail will be returned to sender unread.
Public posts will be read and ignored or responded to as I see fit.
(If it's worth saying, it's worth saying in public.)

Steve Bushore

unread,
Dec 29, 1994, 12:23:28 PM12/29/94
to
In article <3dsgf5$d...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> gr...@umich.edu (Gregory Alan Lewis) writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>Note that it's also common courtesy to trim your quotes to
>the minimum necessary to keep the casual reader from paging through scads
>of text. Some newsreaders I've used won't even let you post unless you
>type more than you quote.

Guilty as charged.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIG CLIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

> Can you give an example of their suppresive nature? They are kept on-topic,
>and if you find that suppressive, well, so be it. In my eyes and the eyes of
>most people who post there, it's actually a good thing. I'm sick of wading
>through MAKE.MONEY.FAST posts, flames, and garbage.

It pains me to hear a person that I believe to be a fellow American make a
statement like, but what you are describing is the sound of freedom and
if you are sick of that ...

All e-mail returned to sender unread.
Public posts ignored or responded to as I see fit.

(If it is worth saying, it is worth saying in public.)

Steve Bushore

Steve Bushore

unread,
Dec 29, 1994, 3:19:42 PM12/29/94
to
In article <3dv23a$m...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu> gr...@umich.edu (Gregory Alan Lewis) writes:

>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIG CLIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


>>It pains me to hear a person that I believe to be a fellow American make a
>>statement like, but what you are describing is the sound of freedom and
>>if you are sick of that ...

> I'm not sick of freedom, I rather enjoy it. What I AM sick of is the
>abuse of freedom. People have the freedom to post whatever they want to
>this particular group. They abuse that freedom when they post stuff that's
>stupid, pointless, offtopic, etc. I and many thousands of others (and you
>also, probably) subscribe to this group for information/news/tips/
>conversation on Doom. It's rude for others to post about other stuff that's
>irelevant. If I wanted to read about MAKE.MONEY.FAST, I'd subscribe to
>(or create) alt.make.money.fast. If I want flames, I'll go to alt.flames,
>etc. You'd think Americans would value the freedom they have, but
>apparently many are willing to abuse it.

> Greg

See my comment above, it still applies. Freedom includes the right to be
rude, flame others, and/or make the so-called "inappropriate posts".
Have a nice day, citizen.

Steve Bushore

All e-mail returned to sender unread.
Public posts ignored or responded to as I see fit.
(If it is worth saying, it is worth saying in public.)

Gregory Alan Lewis

unread,
Dec 29, 1994, 2:19:06 PM12/29/94
to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BIG CLIP <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>It pains me to hear a person that I believe to be a fellow American make a
>statement like, but what you are describing is the sound of freedom and
>if you are sick of that ...

I'm not sick of freedom, I rather enjoy it. What I AM sick of is the

bawi...@southwind.net

unread,
Dec 29, 1994, 4:26:29 PM12/29/94
to
>See my comment above, it still applies. Freedom includes the right to be
>rude, flame others, and/or make the so-called "inappropriate posts".
>Have a nice day, citizen.

WRONG!! Your freedom ends when it interfears with mine.
I don't want to waste my online time (which costs money) wading through
a bunch of crap that doesn't belong here. I have the right to have a
newsgroup that has only messages about the groups topic in it. If that
means someone is nice enough to read all the messages and reroute off
topic posts, then fine.

Your pathetic whining is attempting to interfear with my right to have
an on topic group. If you want to stay in the old group and post messages
to yourself while everybody else moves to the new group, whatever trips
your trigger.

Hopefully the new coordinator will start rerouting these worthless
posts of yours to alt.toilet so I don't have to wade through this bullshit.

=============================================================================
- Star Warrior - WARNING! Poster wears flame retardent underwear!
- Brit Willoughby -
- bawi...@southwind.net -
=============================================================================

Steve Bushore

unread,
Dec 29, 1994, 6:04:25 PM12/29/94
to

>>See my comment above, it still applies. Freedom includes the right to be
>>rude, flame others, and/or make the so-called "inappropriate posts".
>>Have a nice day, citizen.

> WRONG!! Your freedom ends when it interfears with mine.
>I don't want to waste my online time (which costs money) wading through
>a bunch of crap that doesn't belong here. I have the right to have a
>newsgroup that has only messages about the groups topic in it. If that
>means someone is nice enough to read all the messages and reroute off
>topic posts, then fine.

The actual quote is:"Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

Since I am not trying to interfer with your "nose" in any way by insisting
that this group not be removed your charge is unfounded. I am protecting MY
nose from the oppressors who would interfer with my freedom of open exchange.
Oh gee, I guess that makes me one of the victims instead of the attackers. I
am defending rights, not taking them away!

By the way, I do not see "freedom from expense" anywhere in my copy of the
constitution or it's amendments. Is this something new?

> Your pathetic whining is attempting to interfear with my right to have
>an on topic group. If you want to stay in the old group and post messages
>to yourself while everybody else moves to the new group, whatever trips
>your trigger.

My justified objection has absolutely nothing to do with you having an on
topic group. It has to do with the on-topic group trying to eliminate/censor
another group that they have not right to do. As I have said over and over,
you keep your new controlled groups, just leave this one that does not
belong to you alone.

> Hopefully the new coordinator will start rerouting these worthless
>posts of yours to alt.toilet so I don't have to wade through this bullshit.

Since I am not posting it in the restricted group, that would be a breach of
Netiquette. And contrary to your opinion, these posts ARE on-subject for this
(alt.games.doom) newgroup. What better place to post objections to removing a
group than the group you are trying to remove.


Steve Bushore

All e-mail returned to sender unread.

Public posts read and ignored or responded to as I see fit.


(If it is worth saying, it is worth saying in public.)

Night Child

unread,
Dec 30, 1994, 2:19:20 AM12/30/94
to
In article <3dv23a$m...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,

Gregory Alan Lewis <gr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> I'm not sick of freedom, I rather enjoy it. What I AM sick of is the
>abuse of freedom. People have the freedom to post whatever they want to
>this particular group. They abuse that freedom when they post stuff that's
>stupid, pointless, [.....]

I have stayed out of this argument until now, when I read this statement.

[Raving lunatic mode ON]
Abuse of freedom?!? Just listen to those words! Abuse of FREEDOM. These are
the very words of oppression. We should be thankfull that people can say
stupid things and still be heard. My God. Maybe I want to read posts about
how we are all satanists and nazis! Maybe I want to read someone asking for
the cheat codes for the millionth time! Thats MY right! I want Robert
Harrell back (remember him?)!
[Raving lunatic mode OFF]

Anyway, so it has been said that the new groups are not really moderated.
They are coodinated? Ok so what does that mean? Yeah yeah, I read the little
blurb describing it but it just didn't give enough. I want to know this:

Do the coordinators have the ability to do ANYTHING a "normal" reader/poster
cant do?

If so, this is not good. If not, then I hereby appoint myself coordinator of
all the Doom newsgroups :). I don't need a title to redirect posts to the
proper newsgroup. I don't need a title to make sure people get the help they
need. So what the hell is the point, unless they really DO have the power to
moderate??

- Night Child

Gregory Alan Lewis

unread,
Dec 30, 1994, 10:31:05 AM12/30/94
to
In article <3e0c9o$b...@news.iastate.edu>,

Night Child <ni...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>I have stayed out of this argument until now, when I read this statement.
>
>[Raving lunatic mode ON]
>Abuse of freedom?!? Just listen to those words! Abuse of FREEDOM. These are
>the very words of oppression. We should be thankfull that people can say
>stupid things and still be heard. My God. Maybe I want to read posts about
>how we are all satanists and nazis! Maybe I want to read someone asking for
>the cheat codes for the millionth time! Thats MY right! I want Robert
>Harrell back (remember him?)!
>[Raving lunatic mode OFF]

I'm not sure if "Raving lunatic mode" is a synonym for "satirical mode" or
not. I'll assume it isn't...
Freedom, lofty an ideal as it may seem, is not free. Freedom comes with
responsibility (which some, not necessarily you, are unwilling to take on).
There IS such a thing as "abuse of freedom." The point is, although posting
about nazis etc may be offtopic, it's probably not an abuse of freedom in
the legal sense. So what is it? Rude and pointless. I WANT to read about
Doom, not this other junk. Cheat codes? I couldn't care. an occasional
off-topic post doesn't bother me. But lots of posts on stupid topics bug me.
Like this thread.


>
>Do the coordinators have the ability to do ANYTHING a "normal" reader/poster
>cant do?

No.


>
>If so, this is not good. If not, then I hereby appoint myself coordinator of
>all the Doom newsgroups :). I don't need a title to redirect posts to the
>proper newsgroup. I don't need a title to make sure people get the help they
>need. So what the hell is the point, unless they really DO have the power to
>moderate??

The point is that they serve to direct traffic by rerouting posts and telling
offtopic people to take their posts elsewhere. You can appoint yourself a
coordinator if you want, doesn't matter, but if you don't do anything it's
pointless. They could take away their title of "coordinator", and still do
exactly the same stuff. The title is there so people recognize what they're
doing, rather than people just thinking they're some goon who's trying to
screw up or destroy a newsgroup on his own.

Greg


Night Child

unread,
Dec 31, 1994, 3:37:53 AM12/31/94
to
In article <3e193p$5...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,

Gregory Alan Lewis <gr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Do the coordinators have the ability to do ANYTHING a "normal" reader/poster
>>cant do?
>
> No.
>>
>>If so, this is not good. If not, then I hereby appoint myself coordinator of
>>all the Doom newsgroups :). I don't need a title to redirect posts to the
>>proper newsgroup. I don't need a title to make sure people get the help they
>>need. So what the hell is the point, unless they really DO have the power to
>>moderate??
>
> The point is that they serve to direct traffic by rerouting posts and telling
>offtopic people to take their posts elsewhere. You can appoint yourself a
>coordinator if you want, doesn't matter, but if you don't do anything it's
>pointless. They could take away their title of "coordinator", and still do
>exactly the same stuff. The title is there so people recognize what they're
>doing, rather than people just thinking they're some goon who's trying to
>screw up or destroy a newsgroup on his own.
>
> Greg

Although I still don't agree on your views about freedom, I want to
sincerely thank you for clearing up those questions. Thats really all I was
concerned about. Maybe you should explain that same thing to Black Kross (in
slow, simple english :)) and we could be done with this inane thread.

Peace & plasma rifles,
- Night Child


Jonathan Dean

unread,
Jan 2, 1995, 3:54:01 PM1/2/95
to
>>See my comment above, it still applies. Freedom includes the right to be
>>rude, flame others, and/or make the so-called "inappropriate posts".
>>Have a nice day, citizen.
>
> WRONG!! Your freedom ends when it interfears with mine.
>I don't want to waste my online time (which costs money) wading through
>a bunch of crap that doesn't belong here. I have the right to have a
>newsgroup that has only messages about the groups topic in it. If that
>means someone is nice enough to read all the messages and reroute off
>topic posts, then fine.

Actually, you don't because that would interfere with other peoples freedom
to post off-topic messages (I suppose you would consider this to be one).
Or, are your saying that your freedom is better than mine?

> Your pathetic whining is attempting to interfear with my right to have
>an on topic group. If you want to stay in the old group and post messages
>to yourself while everybody else moves to the new group, whatever trips
>your trigger.

I haven't seen a newsgroup an 100% on-topic newsgroup last for more than
a week. This newsgroup has a better signal-to-noise ratio, but that doesn't
mean you have "a right to have an on topic group."

Besides, this is relatively on topic (all things concerned) as it is
kinda-sorta discussing the fate of alt.doom.*. Then again, there is
about 0% chance that alt.doom.* will be completely erradicated from
the net. So enjoy it until your sysop removes it (if s/he ever does).

> Hopefully the new coordinator will start rerouting these worthless
>posts of yours to alt.toilet so I don't have to wade through this bullshit.

Sorry, that would not only interfere with the various posters rights, but
it would squash the freedoms of the articles themselves!

--
Jonathan Dean | "Those who write think.
jd...@psl.nmsu.edu | Think about it."

Vidgame528

unread,
Jan 4, 1995, 5:25:34 PM1/4/95
to
Freedom? What about RIGHTS??? Freedom and rights go together. You should
have the rights NOT to be flamed. I really hate it when people write a
childish, annoying, HORRIBLY insulting message, after smoking a closetful
of whatever, to you who hasn't offended them and doesn't know their name.
And you shouldn't have to read through messages that should be "forwarded"
to another topic or have nothing to do with ANYTHING on this planet (like
the blank message that had the topic "YOU GUYS KISS MY
[AOL-terms-of-service]") while just trying to get to the report on the
latest version of DEU. And no, the coordinators are NOT the same guys who
killed JFK.

Vidgame528

unread,
Jan 4, 1995, 5:34:58 PM1/4/95
to
Oh yeah, and there won't be any "you bunch of satanists!" messages in the
rec topic - do you like it NOW?

Michael Goldman, the person who identified the "Later Day Saints" guy as a
fake

Richard Ward

unread,
Jan 4, 1995, 8:06:43 PM1/4/95
to
In article <3ef78u$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> vidga...@aol.com (Vidgame528) writes:
[snip]

>And you shouldn't have to read through messages that should be "forwarded"
>to another topic or have nothing to do with ANYTHING on this planet (like
>the blank message that had the topic "YOU GUYS KISS MY
>[AOL-terms-of-service]") while just trying to get to the report on the
>latest version of DEU. And no, the coordinators are NOT the same guys who
>killed JFK.

I'm not!? That's a load off my mind! I mean, I was one bad-ass, mean
tempered fetus, it's kinda nice to know I didn't pop a gun out my mother's
<navel> and kill the prez (not that she was in Dallas in 1963...).

Richard
(Net Facist and all around control freak.)

Night Child

unread,
Jan 5, 1995, 1:50:37 AM1/5/95
to
In article <3ef78u$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

Getting off Doom and onto the freedom of speech again...how fun :).

Well, when you put the word "NOT" in there the whole concept changes. We all
have the right to do certain things, but the right to NOT see things?
Common! So if I have the right not to have to look at my ugly neighbor I can
just call the cops and have them take him away? Cool! You know, I don't want
to listen to that Rush guy on the radio...take him away! The point is, if
you don't want to read shit then DON'T. If the subject line fooled you into
thinking it was an on-topic post then just press 'n' or whatever and get on
with your life.

And if you are emotionally devastated by "HORRIBLY insulting messages" then
are you sure you should be playing Doom?

Joe Dydowicz

unread,
Jan 5, 1995, 4:56:07 PM1/5/95
to
In a post by jd...@nmsu.edu (Jonathan Dean)
on 2 Jan 1995 20:54:01 GMT
Msg-ID <3e9p59$m...@dns1.NMSU.Edu>

It was stated:


> In article <3dv9i7$8...@onyx.southwind.net> bawi...@southwind.net writes:
> >>See my comment above, it still applies. Freedom includes the right to be
> >>rude, flame others, and/or make the so-called "inappropriate posts".
> >>Have a nice day, citizen.
> >
> > WRONG!! Your freedom ends when it interfears with mine.
> >I don't want to waste my online time (which costs money) wading through
> >a bunch of crap that doesn't belong here. I have the right to have a
> >newsgroup that has only messages about the groups topic in it. If that
> >means someone is nice enough to read all the messages and reroute off
> >topic posts, then fine.

Then REMOVE these groups and got crawl up the asses of the r.c.g.d. groups
'coordinators' but be sure you dont post anything 'inapproiate' or
YOUR going to get plenty of 'inapproiate' posts from them. a.g.d LIKE IT
or LEAVE IT.. the essence of 'freedom'
Cause no ones ASKING you to waste your time or money here..

/*********************************************************************\
* j...@dynasoft.nacjack.gen.nz Auckland New Zealand *
* DynaSoft Software Systems "City of Sails" *
* BBS: Andromada Sector FidoNet 3:772/1190 *
* Andromeda.nacjack.gen.nz VRNET 297:2010/0 *
* *
* New Zealand Beta Testing and Support Site for EDMAP ** D1 and D2 *
* "Simply the best..better than ALL the rest.... *
\*********************************************************************/

Jon Abbott

unread,
Jan 5, 1995, 5:05:22 PM1/5/95
to
In article <bushore.5...@toontown.ssd.loral.com>
bus...@toontown.ssd.loral.com "Steve Bushore" writes:
[14 lines of quotation]
[2 lines of comment, namely:]
>
> Nope, you're not even close to being that "bad-ass", Richard. :-)

and let's count them
01>
02>
03> Steve Bushore
04>
05> All e-mail returned to sender unread.
06> Public posts read and ignored or responded to as I see fit.
07> (If it is worth saying, it is worth saying in public.)
08> +==================================================================+
09> | The death penalty is absolutly a deterent! I have yet to hear |
10> | of any criminal, once executed, who has committed another crime.|
11> +==================================================================+
12>
12 lines of the .sig that we've all come to know by heart.
Ah, I remember the good old days of Usenet, when people generally
observed the conventions of reading news.announce.newusers, following
the posting guidelines for each group, and even reading the FAQ beforehand.
If that happy state of affairs had persisted, there would probably have been
no need to create the rec.computer.games.doom groups that Steve so abhors,
because there would have been so much less repetitive, off-topic barf here
in a.g.d..

BTW, I hope your .sig is meant to be a joke - I know that you've had it
for some time, but it is in particularly poor taste at the moment, with
the execution yesterday of Jesse Dewayne Jacobs in Texas, for the crime of
murder - despite the fact that the state accepted that he did not actually
commit the crime. If you *do* believe in your .sig, at least do it (and
the rest of us) the courtesy of getting the spelling right - if we have
to download 12 lines, we might as well have the extra 2 characters.

Jon Abbott | Voice (day): | Taken as directed, Ubik provides
Southgate | +44 (0)1992 441111 | uninterrupted sleep, without morning-after
London | Voice (eve): | grogginess....
UK | +44 (0)181 882 1084 | Do not exceed recommended dosage.

Steve Bushore

unread,
Jan 5, 1995, 11:02:58 AM1/5/95
to
In article <rrwardD1...@netcom.com> rrw...@netcom.com (Richard Ward) writes:

>In article <3ef78u$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> vidga...@aol.com (Vidgame528)
>writes:

>> And no, the coordinators are NOT the same guys who
>>killed JFK.

>I'm not!? That's a load off my mind! I mean, I was one bad-ass, mean
>tempered fetus, it's kinda nice to know I didn't pop a gun out my mother's
><navel> and kill the prez (not that she was in Dallas in 1963...).

>Richard
>(Net Facist and all around control freak.)

Nope, you're not even close to being that "bad-ass", Richard. :-)


Steve Bushore

All e-mail returned to sender unread.

Public posts read and ignored or responded to as I see fit.

(If it is worth saying, it is worth saying in public.)

+==================================================================+


| The death penalty is absolutly a deterent! I have yet to hear |

| of any criminal, once executed, who has committed another crime.|

+==================================================================+

Steve Bushore

unread,
Jan 6, 1995, 6:50:24 PM1/6/95
to
In article <789343...@etrigan.demon.co.uk> J...@etrigan.demon.co.uk (Jon Abbott) writes:
>
>BTW, I hope your .sig is meant to be a joke - I know that you've had it
>for some time, but it is in particularly poor taste at the moment, with
>the execution yesterday of Jesse Dewayne Jacobs in Texas, for the crime of
>murder - despite the fact that the state accepted that he did not actually
>commit the crime. If you *do* believe in your .sig, at least do it (and
>the rest of us) the courtesy of getting the spelling right - if we have
>to download 12 lines, we might as well have the extra 2 characters.

I was unaware of the poor timing you mention and apologize for any unintended
timing offense and the spelling, but not for capital punishment in general.
I am sad to say that there is much need to change the laws, but the reference
in my sig refers to a new law here requiring lifetime in jail with no chance
of parole for three time felons. I think that puts a different light on my
position. I am also for MAJOR changes in our judicial system, but that
discussion is for another group.

short sig -> Steve Bushore

Ricardo Polo -FT-~

unread,
Jan 9, 1995, 6:53:24 PM1/9/95
to

what the fuck is all this shit about????

rp
--
Intel, Corp.
5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
Chandler, AZ 85226

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages