Kuwait v. Kosovo
John Kennedy
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>As far as I can tell, the barbaric treatment of Albanian citizens by the
>Serbs at least matches and probably exceeds the Iraqi performance in
>Kuwait. It appears that the moral (if not economic) issues at least
>match the situation in Kuwait. We'll know better when independent
>observers get back into Kosovo.
Let's examine the moral issue. If morality is subjective, how can the
intervention in the affairs of a nation by outsiders be justified?
If a moral subjectivist advocates such intervention isn't he simply
saying that he is willing to impose his subjective moral views on
others when he can?
John Kennedy
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>John, you should go sing your song on the grave of every Albanian slaughtered by
>Milosevic's thugs. And while you're at it, you can sing on the graves of any
>American servicemen or women who lose their lives in this conflict.
Are you suggesting that everyone should think Milosevic is wrong
because he is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks, or simply that
you will impose your moral views by force on people with sufficiently
different moral views when you can?
The former I would agree with, but it requires acknowledgement of the
existence of some objective moral standard by which anyone may judge
Milosevic wrong.
The latter is what you are left with if you assert morality is
subjective.
Plutarch
thread?
Plutarch
blathering about subjective and objective morality.
Plutarch
John Kennedy wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:32:36 -0600, Plutarch
> <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you try sticking to the subject if you're going to participate in this
> >thread?
>
> Why isnt the morality of armed intervention relevant to this thread?
Plutarch
that as justification, you're lost.
John Kennedy wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:29:04 -0600, Plutarch
> <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>
> >If you want to talk about Milosevic and Kosovo, fine. I've done with your
> >blathering about subjective and objective morality.
>
> You brought up the moarl issues. Apparently you feel morally
> justified to intevene.
>
> How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
> grounds?
Plutarch
discussing. Start a thread called "useless, circular, boring, irrelevant
philosophical arguments" and you and the other John can post to each other. I
think most of us find your arguments discredited and wearisome. You and your ideas
are oxymora.
John Logajan wrote:
> In mn.general Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> >>How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
> >>grounds?
>
> > That's rather simple. It is the moral responsibility of those who are able
> > to protect those who are not able from injustices.
>
> His question was directed at the belief by yourself and others that
> there is no objective morality. Therefore there can be no objective
> moral responsibility -- and subjective responsibility is an oxymoron.
>
> --
> - John Logajan -- jlog...@skypoint.com -- 651-633-8928 -
> - 4248 Hamline Ave; Arden Hills, Minnesota (MN) 55112 USA -
> - WWW URL = http://www.skypoint.com/members/jlogajan -
John Kennedy
wrote:
>kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) writes:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 23:08:34 -0600, Plutarch
>><procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>
>>>As far as I can tell, the barbaric treatment of Albanian citizens by the
>>>Serbs at least matches and probably exceeds the Iraqi performance in
>>>Kuwait. It appears that the moral (if not economic) issues at least
>>>match the situation in Kuwait. We'll know better when independent
>>>observers get back into Kosovo.
>
>>Let's examine the moral issue. If morality is subjective, how can the
>>intervention in the affairs of a nation by outsiders be justified?
>
>>If a moral subjectivist advocates such intervention isn't he simply
>>saying that he is willing to impose his subjective moral views on
>>others when he can?
>
> Good God! Did John Logajan change his name to escape killfiles?
Not to my knowlege.
John Kennedy
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>If you want to talk about Milosevic and Kosovo, fine. I've done with your
>blathering about subjective and objective morality.
You brought up the moarl issues. Apparently you feel morally
justified to intevene.
How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
grounds?
John Kennedy
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>Why don't you try sticking to the subject if you're going to participate in this
>thread?
Why isnt the morality of armed intervention relevant to this thread?
Steve Sheldon
>How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
>grounds?
That's rather simple. It is the moral responsibility of those who are able
to protect those who are not able from injustices.
If someone had a knife at your mother's throat, and you had a gun... Are
you saying that it would be immoral of you to use the gun to prevent the
harm to your mother?
--
Steve Sheldon email: she...@visi.com
'91 BSCS - Iowa State University url: <to be determined>
Microsoft Certified Professional 1999 Infiniti G20t
John Logajan
>>grounds?
> That's rather simple. It is the moral responsibility of those who are able
> to protect those who are not able from injustices.
His question was directed at the belief by yourself and others that
John Logajan
> Because innocents are being slaughtered. If your moral compass does not
> include that as justification, you're lost.
Interestingly enough, a compass without an external objective reference is
pretty darn useless, now isn't it?
Steve Sheldon
>In mn.general Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
>>>grounds?
>> That's rather simple. It is the moral responsibility of those who are able
>> to protect those who are not able from injustices.
>His question was directed at the belief by yourself and others that
>there is no objective morality. Therefore there can be no objective
>moral responsibility -- and subjective responsibility is an oxymoron.
That wasn't the question which was asked. Are you trying to win a debate
by reinventing the rules as you go along?
John Logajan
>>>>How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
>>>>grounds?
>>> It is the moral responsibility of those who are able
>>> to protect those who are not able from injustices.
>>His question was directed at the belief by yourself and others that
>>there is no objective morality. Therefore there can be no objective
>>moral responsibility -- and subjective responsibility is an oxymoron.
> That wasn't the question which was asked. Are you trying to win a debate
> by reinventing the rules as you go along?
Are you denying that you assert there is no such thing as absolute
morality -- yet you are lecturing us on "moral responsibility."
If morality is subjective whim, then moral responsibility must be to
subjective whim. Responsibility to whim?
How odd.
Steve Sheldon
>In mn.general Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>> That wasn't the question which was asked. Are you trying to win a debate
>> by reinventing the rules as you go along?
>Are you denying that you assert there is no such thing as absolute
>morality -- yet you are lecturing us on "moral responsibility."
>If morality is subjective whim, then moral responsibility must be to
>subjective whim. Responsibility to whim?
>How odd.
Debating by redefining terms. How incredibly convenient.
kenne...@my-dejanews.com
> >grounds?
>
I think so.
> It is the moral responsibility of those who are able
> to protect those who are not able from injustices.
A responsibility? Do you have a responsibility to sacrifice your life, or lay
it on the line to protect another? Do you have the right to lay the lives of
others on the line for such a purpose as well, say soldiers in the U.S.
military?
>
> If someone had a knife at your mother's throat, and you had a gun... Are
> you saying that it would be immoral of you to use the gun to prevent the
> harm to your mother?
Nope.
>
> --
> Steve Sheldon email: she...@visi.com
> '91 BSCS - Iowa State University url: <to be determined>
> Microsoft Certified Professional 1999 Infiniti G20t
>
John Kennedy
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mike =J.S
Horwath) wrote:
> I was wondering if these topics could just stay in mn.politics?
>
> Why does every message need to be crossposted to mn.general?
>
> It is quite annoying.
>
> If I wanted to read it, I would go to mn.politics!
Or you could hold another weiner whackoff "vote" in mn.config and
rename the group mn.general.horwath.topics.only
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com. +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
How Easter Eggs are made: http://www.sublimedirectory.com/pod.jpg
John Kennedy
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>Not in the context you want.
>
>John Kennedy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:32:36 -0600, Plutarch
>> <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>>
>> >Why don't you try sticking to the subject if you're going to participate in this
>> >thread?
>>
>> Why isnt the morality of armed intervention relevant to this thread?
In other words, you are not prepared to morally justify armed
intervention, you just want to do it.
John Kennedy
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>Because innocents are being slaughtered. If your moral compass does not include
>that as justification, you're lost.
So you are saying you have certain moral views you are willing to
impose on people on the otherside of the world, regardless of their
moral views?
>
>John Kennedy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:29:04 -0600, Plutarch
>> <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>>
>> >If you want to talk about Milosevic and Kosovo, fine. I've done with your
>> >blathering about subjective and objective morality.
>>
>> You brought up the moarl issues. Apparently you feel morally
>> justified to intevene.
>>
>> How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
>> grounds?
>>
>> >
John Kennedy
>Aliens and the CIA forced John Kennedy (kenne...@my-dejanews.com) to write:
>> So you are saying you have certain moral views you are willing to
>> impose on people on the otherside of the world, regardless of their
>> moral views?
>
>stepping in and saying "you can't just bloody haul off and kill
>innocent civilians" does not indicate the imposition of moral views on
>others. they're still welcome to believe whatever they want.
>
>--
> ._n_______n_. dr...@visi.com <http://www.visi.com/~drow/>
> | --------- |== ---------------------------------------------------------
> I"/""|"|Z/""' "Yes, I was aiming at him, but I've never hit anything
> lJ | | with a rocket launcher before, so I didn't think it
> |_l mattered." -- Axly
Bill Haverberg
=J.S) wrote:
>In article <a6NL2.296$7K6....@ptah.visi.com>, drec...@yuck.net (Mike
>Horwath) wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if these topics could just stay in mn.politics?
>>
>> Why does every message need to be crossposted to mn.general?
>>
>> It is quite annoying.
>>
>> If I wanted to read it, I would go to mn.politics!
>
>
> Or you could hold another weiner whackoff "vote" in mn.config and
>rename the group mn.general.horwath.topics.only
>
>
Sounds good to me...
Anyone else want to have colt38 cancel mn.general / mn.politics
crossposts? I admit there are valid times when there could be
crossposts, but right now its almost exclusively a small handful of
agenda seekers. The general quality of discussion in mn.general has
declined; this is of course, my subjective, unprovable opinion but I
suspect I would have a majority concensus re: quality of discussion.
I wonder how many regular posters / lurkers we've lost here?
--
When the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 A.D. and spread throughout the western
Roman empire, tales of their rape and pillage spread like wildfire. When a wealthy
landowner heard news of an advancing army, he fled his house in panic. While on
the road, a messenger relayed a letter from one of the advancing goths with an offer
to buy part of his estate.
The end of the world just isn't what it used to be.
Bill Haverberg
John Kennedy
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:34:13 -0600, thisf...@squashed.org (Mike
>=J.S) wrote:
>
>>In article <a6NL2.296$7K6....@ptah.visi.com>, drec...@yuck.net (Mike
>>Horwath) wrote:
>>
>>> I was wondering if these topics could just stay in mn.politics?
>>>
>>> Why does every message need to be crossposted to mn.general?
>>>
>>> It is quite annoying.
>>>
>>> If I wanted to read it, I would go to mn.politics!
>>
>>
>> Or you could hold another weiner whackoff "vote" in mn.config and
>>rename the group mn.general.horwath.topics.only
>>
>>
>Sounds good to me...
>
>Anyone else want to have colt38 cancel mn.general / mn.politics
>crossposts? I admit there are valid times when there could be
>crossposts, but right now its almost exclusively a small handful of
>agenda seekers. The general quality of discussion in mn.general has
>declined; this is of course, my subjective, unprovable opinion but I
>suspect I would have a majority concensus re: quality of discussion.
Is mn.general moderated? I was under the impression it was not. What
topics are permissible in mn.general? If mn. general is not moderated,
and you want a moderated group, why don't you create one?
Plutarch
apologize and will do it no more.
Bill Haverberg wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:34:13 -0600, thisf...@squashed.org (Mike
> =J.S) wrote:
>
> >In article <a6NL2.296$7K6....@ptah.visi.com>, drec...@yuck.net (Mike
> >Horwath) wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering if these topics could just stay in mn.politics?
> >>
> >> Why does every message need to be crossposted to mn.general?
> >>
> >> It is quite annoying.
> >>
> >> If I wanted to read it, I would go to mn.politics!
> >
> >
> > Or you could hold another weiner whackoff "vote" in mn.config and
> >rename the group mn.general.horwath.topics.only
> >
> >
> Sounds good to me...
>
> Anyone else want to have colt38 cancel mn.general / mn.politics
> crossposts? I admit there are valid times when there could be
> crossposts, but right now its almost exclusively a small handful of
> agenda seekers. The general quality of discussion in mn.general has
> declined; this is of course, my subjective, unprovable opinion but I
> suspect I would have a majority concensus re: quality of discussion.
>
Mike =J.S
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> >> Or you could hold another weiner whackoff "vote" in mn.config and
> >>rename the group mn.general.horwath.topics.only
> >>
> >>
> >Sounds good to me...
> >
> >Anyone else want to have colt38 cancel mn.general / mn.politics
> >crossposts? I admit there are valid times when there could be
> >crossposts, but right now its almost exclusively a small handful of
> >agenda seekers. The general quality of discussion in mn.general has
> >declined; this is of course, my subjective, unprovable opinion but I
> >suspect I would have a majority concensus re: quality of discussion.
>
> Is mn.general moderated? I was under the impression it was not. What
> topics are permissible in mn.general? If mn. general is not moderated,
> and you want a moderated group, why don't you create one?
Because that won't give them the same feeling of power.
Mike =J.S
Horwath) wrote:
> John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> : Is mn.general moderated? I was under the impression it was not. What
> : topics are permissible in mn.general? If mn. general is not moderated,
> : and you want a moderated group, why don't you create one?
>
> We don't want a moderated group,
Yes you do, you *lying* sack of shit.
> but we also don't want abuse.
>
> This constant crossposting is abuse.
No it isn't.
Mike =J.S
Horwath) wrote:
> Plutarch <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
> : I agree and I have been one of the people responsible for causing the
crossposting. I apologize and will do it no more.
>
> Very adult of you!
>
> THANK YOU!
<snicker>
Pinko Plutarch licks the cold, dead hand of Authority, and is rewarded.
Plutarch
caught it because I am now looking at the addresses for cross-posting.
All one really has to do is look at mn.general over the past few weeks to see
the impact of these long, drawn-out, esoteric threads. When I cross-posted
Wages of Greed I & II, I thought I was doing the right thing. My intentions
were good, but I see clearly now that it was the wrong thing to do. They took
on a life of their own that I had not anticipated. I must admit, in this
regard, that Mr. Lanz was correct in limiting his responses immediately to
mn.politics.
Mr. Horwath has no authority over me and I do not do any business with him.
Perhaps I should. In any event, he certainly is due the courtesy that
civilized people normally accord each other. You might want to try it
sometime.
Upaya
morality by trying to defend the ridiculous idea that the sole basis of
capitalism is morality. I know it's tough for an Adam Smithian like
yourself to grasp, but genocide IS a moral issue, not an economic one. You
and your ilk can't get your head around the idea that any conflict that
doesn't involve oil doesn't require you to delve into your shallow
receptacle of patriotism.
Capitalism isn't morality; the laws that establish the capitalist economy
aren't moral issues. Morality on the other hand is a moral issue. You're
still a soft-headed pedant.
John Kennedy wrote in message <36fed053...@news.ntplx.net>...
Upaya
John Logajan wrote in message <7dn4jg$3mh$4...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>In mn.general Plutarch <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>> Because innocents are being slaughtered. If your moral compass does not
>> include that as justification, you're lost.
>
>pretty darn useless, now isn't it?
>
all just what the 'external objective reference' is you're blabbering about.
Upaya
John Kennedy wrote in message <3700314e...@news.ntplx.net>...
>On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:39:29 -0600, Plutarch
><procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>
>>Because innocents are being slaughtered. If your moral compass does not
include
>>that as justification, you're lost.
>
>impose on people on the otherside of the world, regardless of their
>moral views?
>
home to proclaim 'Peace in our time'. A round-heeled appeasement-broker,
who would have thought?
Upaya
Steve Sheldon wrote in message ...
>kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) writes:
>
>>How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
>>grounds?
>
able
>to protect those who are not able from injustices.
>
>
>you saying that it would be immoral of you to use the gun to prevent the
>harm to your mother?
>
will.
Upaya
John Logajan wrote in message <7dmvih$1f1$1...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>In mn.general Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
>>>grounds?
>
>> That's rather simple. It is the moral responsibility of those who are
able
>> to protect those who are not able from injustices.
>
>His question was directed at the belief by yourself and others that
>there is no objective morality. Therefore there can be no objective
>moral responsibility -- and subjective responsibility is an oxymoron.
>
>
Upaya
Steve Sheldon wrote in message <2XEL2.269$7K6....@ptah.visi.com>...
>John Logajan <jlog...@mirage.skypoint.net> writes:
>
>>In mn.general Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
>>>>grounds?
>
>>> That's rather simple. It is the moral responsibility of those who are
able
>>> to protect those who are not able from injustices.
>
>>His question was directed at the belief by yourself and others that
>>there is no objective morality. Therefore there can be no objective
>>moral responsibility -- and subjective responsibility is an oxymoron.
>
>by reinventing the rules as you go along?
That would be typical of Logajan.
Upaya
John Logajan wrote in message <7dn75u$4fh$2...@shadow.skypoint.net>...
>In mn.general Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>>How do you feel intervention by force can be justified on moral
>>>>>grounds?
>
>>>> to protect those who are not able from injustices.
>
>>>His question was directed at the belief by yourself and others that
>>>there is no objective morality. Therefore there can be no objective
>>>moral responsibility -- and subjective responsibility is an oxymoron.
>
>> That wasn't the question which was asked. Are you trying to win a debate
>> by reinventing the rules as you go along?
>
>morality -- yet you are lecturing us on "moral responsibility."
>
>If morality is subjective whim, then moral responsibility must be to
>subjective whim. Responsibility to whim?
>
conscience? Stop evading the question.
Upaya
John Kennedy wrote in message <36fe77a1...@news.ntplx.net>...
>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 23:31:48 -0600, Plutarch
><procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>
>>John, you should go sing your song on the grave of every Albanian
slaughtered by
>>Milosevic's thugs. And while you're at it, you can sing on the graves of
any
>>American servicemen or women who lose their lives in this conflict.
>
>Are you suggesting that everyone should think Milosevic is wrong
>because he is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks, or simply that
>you will impose your moral views by force on people with sufficiently
>different moral views when you can?
>
>The former I would agree with, but it requires acknowledgement of the
>existence of some objective moral standard by which anyone may judge
>Milosevic wrong.
>
>The latter is what you are left with if you assert morality is
>subjective.
>
policy of genocide need to organize and oppose him. There's no need to
engage in the awful abuse of language you've stooped to in that amusing sort
of am pseudo-pedantic manner.
That's a lot different than trying to make a moral issue out of not liking
to pay taxes.
Upaya
John Kennedy wrote in message <36fed112...@news.ntplx.net>...
>On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:32:36 -0600, Plutarch
><procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>
>>Why don't you try sticking to the subject if you're going to participate
in this
>>thread?
>
>Why isnt the morality of armed intervention relevant to this thread?
>
Mike =J.S
Tim Starr tried to teach the pig to sing, but instead Plutarch grunted:
> All one really has to do is look at mn.general over the past few weeks to see
> the impact of these long, drawn-out, esoteric threads.
You're sure doing your part to make 'em that way.
Mike =J.S
Horwath) wrote:
> :> We don't want a moderated group,
>
> : Yes you do, you *lying* sack of shit.
>
> Uh, at what point have I said that was the goal?
Do you or do you not approve of "Colt .38"'s moderation?
If you answer "yes", then you were lying.
John Kennedy
wrote:
>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: Is mn.general moderated? I was under the impression it was not. What
>: topics are permissible in mn.general? If mn. general is not moderated,
>: and you want a moderated group, why don't you create one?
>
>We don't want a moderated group, but we also don't want abuse.
>
>This constant crossposting is abuse.
Abuse of what?
What topics are permissible in mn.geneal?
John Kennedy
wrote:
>Mike =J.S <thisf...@squashed.org> wrote:
>: In article <vgMM2.872$7K6.1...@ptah.visi.com>, drec...@yuck.net (Mike
>: Horwath) wrote:
>
>:> John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>:> : Is mn.general moderated? I was under the impression it was not. What
>:> : topics are permissible in mn.general? If mn. general is not moderated,
>:> : and you want a moderated group, why don't you create one?
>:>
>:> We don't want a moderated group,
>
>: Yes you do, you *lying* sack of shit.
>
>Uh, at what point have I said that was the goal?
>
>:> but we also don't want abuse.
>:>
>:> This constant crossposting is abuse.
>
>: No it isn't.
>
>You are a lost cause and an abuser as well.
>
>They are going to catch up to you, you know. I have given them hints
>on how to track you down.
NOW THAT'S FUNNY!
John Kennedy
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
What topics are permissible in mn.general?
Cross-posting with non mn groups has already been been effectively
banned, so if people want cross posts between mn groups banned I
assume they can go sacrifice some livestock to the usenet god of mn.
>me.general for follow-up? You really are sneaky, aren't you? Fortunately I
>caught it because I am now looking at the addresses for cross-posting.
>
>All one really has to do is look at mn.general over the past few weeks to see
>the impact of these long, drawn-out, esoteric threads. When I cross-posted
>Wages of Greed I & II, I thought I was doing the right thing. My intentions
>were good, but I see clearly now that it was the wrong thing to do. They took
>on a life of their own that I had not anticipated. I must admit, in this
>regard, that Mr. Lanz was correct in limiting his responses immediately to
>mn.politics.
>
>Mr. Horwath has no authority over me and I do not do any business with him.
>Perhaps I should. In any event, he certainly is due the courtesy that
>civilized people normally accord each other. You might want to try it
>sometime.
>
>"Mike =J.S" wrote:
>
>> In article <TgMM2.873$7K6.1...@ptah.visi.com>, drec...@yuck.net (Mike
>> Horwath) wrote:
>>
>> > Plutarch <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>> > : I agree and I have been one of the people responsible for causing the
>> crossposting. I apologize and will do it no more.
>> >
>> > Very adult of you!
>> >
>> > THANK YOU!
>>
>> <snicker>
>>
>> Pinko Plutarch licks the cold, dead hand of Authority, and is rewarded.
>>
sul...@visi.com
> On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:45:30 -0600, Plutarch
> <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
> What topics are permissible in mn.general?
> Cross-posting with non mn groups has already been been effectively
> banned, so if people want cross posts between mn groups banned I
> assume they can go sacrifice some livestock to the usenet god of mn.
Pretty much anything goes in mn.general to my knowledge. It is after all
a general group. People can and do post whatever they want to this group.
The reason for writing colt38 was the incessant crossposting to the
alt.(kook|conspiracy).dujour groups by Mike Schneider and his kook
counterparts. If they want to go through the effort of posting to
mn.general and the other groups separately, fine. But posting to the mn.*
groups and the other hierarchies has been prevented.
Evidently that simple restriction and additional step is a little too much
work for the people that feel they must save our souls from the dangers of
the days conspiracy. Thank goodness kooks are relatively clueless and
lazy. ;-)
I'm no big fan of intra hierarchy restrictions. The mn.* restrictions
seemed reasonable to me and have done a pretty good job of cleaning the
cruft. Based on the activity that I've seen, I won't be modifying colt38
to do intra hierarchy restrictions. That just seems a bit excessive.
[snip]
--
later...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Ulrich 80 58 D5 21 FB 79 28 C5 9D 53 53 4B 3C 74 DB D5
H:sul...@Geeks.ORG W:sul...@Visi.COM FINGER: sul...@visi.com
To reply to me, use the address specified in the RFC1036 compliant
From: line of this message.
sul...@visi.com
> sul...@visi.com wrote:
> : That just seems a bit excessive.
> But, Mike Schneider has statements from other people that it wasn't
> Monica that gave the president a blow job, that it was actually Vince
> Foster, while flying in TWA 800 and playing with handguns (which is
> what caused TWA 800 to go down - when he shot himself in the head he
> ruptured the cabin and the plane crashed) who performed oral sex on
> some unsuspecting Whitewater investor!
sigh . . . ;-)
kenne...@my-dejanews.com
In article <ur4N2.1063$7K6.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
sul...@visi.com wrote:
> John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:45:30 -0600, Plutarch
> > <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>
> > What topics are permissible in mn.general?
>
> > Cross-posting with non mn groups has already been been effectively
> > banned, so if people want cross posts between mn groups banned I
> > assume they can go sacrifice some livestock to the usenet god of mn.
>
> Pretty much anything goes in mn.general to my knowledge. It is after all
> a general group. People can and do post whatever they want to this group.
> The reason for writing colt38 was the incessant crossposting to the
> alt.(kook|conspiracy).dujour groups by Mike Schneider and his kook
> counterparts.
Ah, kooks like me.
>If they want to go through the effort of posting to
> mn.general and the other groups separately, fine. But posting to the mn.*
> groups and the other hierarchies has been prevented.
>
> Evidently that simple restriction and additional step is a little too much
> work for the people that feel they must save our souls from the dangers of
> the days conspiracy. Thank goodness kooks are relatively clueless and
> lazy. ;-)
Or then again, perhaps you're clueless. It has nothing to do wih difficulty,
you've simply made the mn groups far less attractive for anyone desiring a
wide conversation.
>
> I'm no big fan of intra hierarchy restrictions. The mn.* restrictions
> seemed reasonable to me and have done a pretty good job of cleaning the
> cruft. Based on the activity that I've seen, I won't be modifying colt38
> to do intra hierarchy restrictions. That just seems a bit excessive.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> later...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Ulrich 80 58 D5 21 FB 79 28 C5 9D 53 53 4B 3C 74 DB D5
> H:sul...@Geeks.ORG W:sul...@Visi.COM FINGER: sul...@visi.com
> To reply to me, use the address specified in the RFC1036 compliant
> From: line of this message.
>
John Kennedy
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Plutarch
search for a general understanding of values and reality.
You have been queried over and over again about what values your philosophy has
led you to and all you come back with is more crap about objective and
subjective morality.
You have been asked for your opinion on a number of realties, most specifically
in the Kosovo thread, and all you come back with is more crap about objective
and subjective morality.
As far as I can tell, your philosophical endeavors are nothing more than the
mantle of a coward who is afraid to address the real issues before us. You have
been discredited by your own words.
John Kennedy wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 02:13:22 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>
> >In mn.general John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >: Well I guess I've been discouraged then. Now what?
> >
> >Post political stuff to mn.politics and general stuff to mn.general?
>
> I focus on the philosophical basis of politics which I feel is really
> relevant to both.
>
> >
> >And why did you feel the need to add mn.politics to this thread?
>
> See above. Now what?
>
> >
> >: On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:12:10 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
> >
> >:>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >:>: On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:45:30 -0600, Plutarch
> >:>: <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
> >:>
> >:>: What topics are permissible in mn.general?
> >:>
> >:>From ftp://ftp.visi.com/pub/mn.charters/mn.general
> >:>
> >:>"Newsgroup Charter
> >:>
> >:> mn.general
> >:>
> >:>NEWSGROUP:
> >:> MN.GENERAL
> >:>
> >:>CHARTER:
> >:> MN.GENERAL is an unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion
> >:> of topics of interest in/about/by/for Minnesota and Minnesotans.
> >:>
> >:> Wide area crossposting is discouraged, including crossposting
> >:> of non-relevant topics into mn.general from other mn.*
> >:> newsgroups.
> >:>
> >:> - Commercial advertisements are prohibited.
> >:>
> >:>For your newsgroups file:
> >:>mn.general General discussion about Minnesota"
> >:>
> >:>I would think the part "... including crossposting of non-relevant
> >:>topics into mn.general from other mn.* newsgroups." should cover why
> >:>there is no reason to post political topics to mn.general. For the
> >:>same reason one should not post help wanted ads for for sale ads.
> >:>There are already groups for those posts.
> >:>
> >:>FYI. Here is a list of mn.* groups.
> >:>
> >:>mn.arts
> >:>mn.config
> >:>mn.general
> >:>mn.humor
> >:>mn.jobs
> >:>mn.online-service
> >:>mn.personals
> >:>mn.politics
> >:>mn.sf
> >:>mn.traffic
> >:>
> >:>
> >:>--
> >:>"The Computer made me do it."
> >
> >
> >--
> >"The pyramid is opening!"
> >"Which one?"
> >"The one with the ever-widening hole in it!"
> > -- Firesign Theater, "How Can You Be In Two Places At
> > Once When You're Not Anywhere At All"
John Kennedy
wrote:
>Mike =J.S <thisf...@squashed.org> wrote:
>: In article <EIYM2.1024$7K6.1...@ptah.visi.com>, drec...@yuck.net (Mike
>: Horwath) wrote:
>
>:> :> We don't want a moderated group,
>:>
>:> : Yes you do, you *lying* sack of shit.
>:>
>:> Uh, at what point have I said that was the goal?
>
>: Do you or do you not approve of "Colt .38"'s moderation?
>
>: If you answer "yes", then you were lying.
>
>So, now colt38 is a moderator?
>
>It is a way to stop your abuse and it works well.
>
>But I would not call it a moderator.
Of course it is. All the mn groups are moderated, didn't you know?
>
>A moderator does things like reviews what is about to be posted and
>posts those items that are relevant.
Other moderated groups use systems as simple, or nearly as simple as
mn.
>
>colt38 is a tool that looks for crossposting, and nothing else, and
>cancels the messages of the abusers, of which you are the biggest
>offender.
If the mn groups are unmoderated, then colt38 is abuse.
>
>Don't confuse colt38 with a moderator, they are different things.
>
>I saw some helicopters over your place last night, just so you know.
>
>--
>Mike Horwath Admin & Manager @ VISI.com WORK: drec...@visi.com
>IRC: Drechsau http://www.visi.com/ HOME: drec...@geeks.org
>The only Minnesota ISP with public statistics: http://noc.visi.com/
> Garbage In -- Gospel Out. - berkeley fortune(6)
John Kennedy
wrote:
>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: What topics are permissible in mn.geneal?
>
>It isn't a topic issue, it is a relevance issue.
Meaning political topics are not relevant to a general forum?
>
>If it is of a political nature, we have mn.politics.
>
>So, since we have mn.politics, why should it also be crossposed to
>mn.general?
Because the poster would like to more people to see it?
>
>Many of us believe it should not be.
>
>If it has relevance to mn.forsale, shouldn't it belong there and not
>mn.general as well?
So posts that are relevant to other newsgroups should not be posted in
mn.general? That don't leave much.
>
>Does this make sense?
Not much. But the way to acheive what you want is to have Cult86
cancel all cross-posts so everything goes in a neat little cubbyhole.
If that's not enough, create mn.general.moderated and cancel all posts
that are relevant to other newsgroups.
>Did you hear? Mr. Schneider (in case you didn't know his last name)
I know Mike.
>has undeniable proof that TWA 800 was actually a mockup? I mean, it
>wasn't a plane at all but a movie prop! It was done to attack the
>airline mechanics and the military forces at the same time. Kind of
>like 'Wag the Dog', but with a bigger explosion!
>
>Mr. Mike Schneider can also prove that Mr. Foster was killed by a
>potato gun. I have a tough time with this one, though, but when has
>Mr. Schneider ever lied or overexaggerated?
Well I know you just did.
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:12:10 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:45:30 -0600, Plutarch
sul...@visi.com
> Well speak of the devil.
*shrug*
> In article <ur4N2.1063$7K6.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
> sul...@visi.com wrote:
>> John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:45:30 -0600, Plutarch
>> > <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>>
>> > What topics are permissible in mn.general?
>>
>> > Cross-posting with non mn groups has already been been effectively
>> > banned, so if people want cross posts between mn groups banned I
>> > assume they can go sacrifice some livestock to the usenet god of mn.
>>
>> Pretty much anything goes in mn.general to my knowledge. It is after all
>> a general group. People can and do post whatever they want to this group.
>> The reason for writing colt38 was the incessant crossposting to the
>> alt.(kook|conspiracy).dujour groups by Mike Schneider and his kook
>> counterparts.
> Ah, kooks like me.
Whatever. If the shoe fits . . .
>>If they want to go through the effort of posting to
>> mn.general and the other groups separately, fine. But posting to the mn.*
>> groups and the other hierarchies has been prevented.
>>
>> Evidently that simple restriction and additional step is a little too much
>> work for the people that feel they must save our souls from the dangers of
>> the days conspiracy. Thank goodness kooks are relatively clueless and
>> lazy. ;-)
> Or then again, perhaps you're clueless. It has nothing to do wih difficulty,
> you've simply made the mn groups far less attractive for anyone desiring a
> wide conversation.
Perhaps I am. It really doesn't matter. The desired result has been
achieved. Wide conversation within the mn.* hierarchy is allowed, it's
just kept to its regional nature and/or scope. It's reasonable and no one
other than Mike S. has complained about. Additionally, if they don't like
it they can resurrect their posts. Nobody seems to have gone through the
trouble to do that if they're truly bothered by it.
If people are really zealous about having a wide discussion they can get
one.
John Kennedy
>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:55:10 GMT, drec...@yuck.net (Mike Horwath)
>: wrote:
>
>:>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>:>: What topics are permissible in mn.geneal?
>:>
>:>It isn't a topic issue, it is a relevance issue.
>
>: Meaning political topics are not relevant to a general forum?
>
>Not when when ther is a group that was formed for that more specific
>topic.
>
>:>If it is of a political nature, we have mn.politics.
>:>
>:>So, since we have mn.politics, why should it also be crossposed to
>:>mn.general?
>
>: Because the poster would like to more people to see it?
>
>Then you make an argument that it would not be abuse to post it to every
>newsgroup he/she could find to make sure LOTS of people see it.
No, you posed a specific question. My answer was specific, not a
general argument.
>
>:>
>:>Many of us believe it should not be.
>:>
>:>If it has relevance to mn.forsale, shouldn't it belong there and not
>:>mn.general as well?
>
>: So posts that are relevant to other newsgroups should not be posted in
>: mn.general? That don't leave much.
>
>What do you mean? That leaves a LOT. There are only a few specific mn.*
>groups. Anything else relivent to Minnesota should be posted to
>mn.general. Food, camping, travel, sports, traffic, beer ;), fishing,
>BWCA, biking, and on an on. All of these topics have been brought up
>from time to time.
I object to biking posts in mn.general beause there are other
newsgroups on usenet in which biking is relevant. Why should it be
here if it can be somewhere else?
>
>:>Does this make sense?
>
>: Not much. But the way to acheive what you want is to have Cult86
>: cancel all cross-posts so everything goes in a neat little cubbyhole.
>
>: If that's not enough, create mn.general.moderated and cancel all posts
>: that are relevant to other newsgroups.
>
>So what are you asking? All I am asking for is a place where we can
>talk, gripe, whatever about Minnesota specific topics. In the past
>things like politics were so popular that they split off into their
>own group. So what is your problem? It is NOT a freedom of speech issue,
>is it an issue of the place place to pracitce your freedom.
I didn't say I had a problem. I'm posting to mn.geneal what I think is
appropriate there. If you don't want to read it, fine., what's your
problem?
>
>:>Did you hear? Mr. Schneider (in case you didn't know his last name)
>
>: I know Mike.
>
>So you just like to be argumentitive?
No, I like lots of things.
>Well in that case you are a troll
>who has nothing better to do than piss in the sandbox so you can sit
>back and watch others be bothered by it.
No. I don't mind seeing you botherd by it, but that's just an
incidental bonus, not the reason I post here.
John Kennedy
Steve Sheldon
>In mn.general John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: Well I guess I've been discouraged then. Now what?
>Post political stuff to mn.politics and general stuff to mn.general?
>And why did you feel the need to add mn.politics to this thread?
Because he's immature?
--
Steve Sheldon email: she...@visi.com
'91 BSCS - Iowa State University url: <to be determined>
Microsoft Certified Professional 1999 Infiniti G20t
John Kennedy
>kenne...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> Well speak of the devil.
>
>*shrug*
>
>> In article <ur4N2.1063$7K6.1...@ptah.visi.com>,
>> sul...@visi.com wrote:
>>> John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
And you should have what you desire, right?
> Wide conversation within the mn.* hierarchy is allowed,
Allowed by whom?
>it's
>just kept to its regional nature and/or scope. It's reasonable and no one
>other than Mike S. has complained about. Additionally, if they don't like
>it they can resurrect their posts. Nobody seems to have gone through the
>trouble to do that if they're truly bothered by it.
>
>If people are really zealous about having a wide discussion they can get
>one.
And if people are zealous about moderating supposedly unmoderated
newsgroups I suppose they can do that too.
John Kennedy
>In mn.general John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: Well I guess I've been discouraged then. Now what?
>
>Post political stuff to mn.politics and general stuff to mn.general?
I focus on the philosophical basis of politics which I feel is really
relevant to both.
>
>And why did you feel the need to add mn.politics to this thread?
See above. Now what?
>
>: On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:12:10 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>
>:>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>:>: On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:45:30 -0600, Plutarch
>:>: <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>:>
>:>: What topics are permissible in mn.general?
>:>
>:>From ftp://ftp.visi.com/pub/mn.charters/mn.general
Duane Thilmony
Mike =J.S
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:12:10 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>
> >"Newsgroup Charter MN.GENERAL
> >
> > .......Wide area crossposting is discouraged....
>
>
> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
[quotes added]
It will be arbitrarily asserted by some that "wide area crossposting"
consists of only two newsgroups at their discretion, and that "discourage"
may mean any measure they are able to get away with, such as canceling
your posts after holding a meaningless vote of no authority in mn.config
to foster the faux appearance of a legitimate right to do so.
Like all fascists, they will do as they please until they are *shot*.
Mike =J.S
Sheldon) wrote:
> >And why did you feel the need to add mn.politics to this thread?
>
> Because he's immature?
Says the tyke who won't grow up and face the laws of physics.
In re: Found a suitable hill yet? Have glasses, will travel.
Mike =J.S
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
> Philosophy has been defined as a
> search for a general understanding of values and reality.
It's also been defined as "the science of thought", which would tend to
imply that anyone interested in it should attempt to acquire a passing
familiarity with both.
Mike =.S
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 15:28:27 GMT, drec...@yuck.net (Mike Horwath)
> wrote:
>
> >John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >: Is mn.general moderated? I was under the impression it was not. What
> >: topics are permissible in mn.general? If mn. general is not moderated,
> >: and you want a moderated group, why don't you create one?
> >
> >We don't want a moderated group, but we also don't want abuse.
> >
> >This constant crossposting is abuse.
>
> Abuse of what?
> What topics are permissible in mn.geneal?
Mr. Horwath opined, less than a year ago, than crossposting from
mn.general to alt.sex and alt.bunnies would be ok with him.
He's Minnesota's own "Red Queen" out of Alice in Wonderland, for whom
things are precisely and exactly what he wants them to be and absolutely
no other way -- until he changes his mind the very next day.
Mike =.S
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 05:37:40 GMT, drec...@yuck.net (Mike Horwath)
> wrote:
>
> >Mike =J.S <thisf...@squashed.org> wrote:
> >: In article <vgMM2.872$7K6.1...@ptah.visi.com>, drec...@yuck.net (Mike
> >: Horwath) wrote:
> >
> >:> John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >:> : Is mn.general moderated? I was under the impression it was not. What
> >:> : topics are permissible in mn.general? If mn. general is not moderated,
> >:> : and you want a moderated group, why don't you create one?
> >:>
> >:> We don't want a moderated group,
> >
> >: Yes you do, you *lying* sack of shit.
> >
> >Uh, at what point have I said that was the goal?
> >
> >:> but we also don't want abuse.
> >:>
> >:> This constant crossposting is abuse.
> >
> >: No it isn't.
> >
> >You are a lost cause and an abuser as well.
> >
> >They are going to catch up to you, you know. I have given them hints
> >on how to track you down.
>
> NOW THAT'S FUNNY!
<guffaw>
Who's "they"? Geesh....
"Welcome to the Snitch State": D.A.R.E. to turn in your comrades!
May they claw gold ore from the frozen earth in Siberia for eternity!
Mike =.S
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:51:32 GMT, drec...@yuck.net (Mike Horwath)
> wrote:
>
> >Don't confuse colt38 with a moderator, they are different things.
>
> If the mn groups are unmoderated, then colt38 is abuse.
Of *course* colt38 is a _moderator_.
It self-evidently *moderates* the group.
But we're now in an Orwellian universe where peace is war and slavery
is freedom and black is white and forge-cancels are not moderation.
Mike =.S
(John Kennedy) wrote (to Horwath):
> If that's not enough, create mn.general.moderated and cancel all posts
> that are relevant to other newsgroups.
Because the honest creation of a *real* moderated newsgroup wouldn't
serve the purpose of the loser Horwath being able to whack a throbbing
hard-on every time that 'bot is fired up in order to exercise *control*
over mere peons visiting what they thought, having read the charter, was
an "unmoderated" group. (If only he could find a girl, maybe this
power-obsession phase would pass.)
You'd *know* he'd squeal like a stuck pig if his posts were "moderated"
according to completely arbitrary criteria.
Mike =.S
> No one other than Mike S. has complained about [it].
Another lying sack of shit.
Fuck off, Urlick.
Mike =.S
> : Meaning political topics are not relevant to a general forum?
>
> Not when when ther is a group that was formed for that more specific
> topic.
So if, like, I'm a dictator in Germany, and I create special designated
places for Jews, they should all have to go there, right?
That would be implied by your, um, logic. As it were....
Mike =.S
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:49:10 GMT, sul...@visi.com wrote:
> > Wide conversation within the mn.* hierarchy is allowed,
[He says, as if a feudal lord "allowing" peons entry into his lands.]
> Allowed by whom?
By Steve Urlich, of course. "Colt38" is under his administration.
(BTW; John, have you noticed that most of the communazis here are
affiliated with Vector, AKA visi.com? Turds of a fester swirl
together....)
John Kennedy
wrote:
>In article <37057c2c...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
>(John Kennedy) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 01:49:10 GMT, sul...@visi.com wrote:
>
>> > Wide conversation within the mn.* hierarchy is allowed,
>
> [He says, as if a feudal lord "allowing" peons entry into his lands.]
>
>
>> Allowed by whom?
>
> By Steve Urlich, of course. "Colt38" is under his administration.
I knew that.
>
> (BTW; John, have you noticed that most of the communazis here are
>affiliated with Vector, AKA visi.com? Turds of a fester swirl
>together....)
I noticed.
John Kennedy
<procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>Heh. The philosophical basis of politics? Philosophy has been defined as a
>search for a general understanding of values and reality.
>
>You have been queried over and over again about what values your philosophy has
>led you to and all you come back with is more crap about objective and
>subjective morality.
>
>You have been asked for your opinion on a number of realties, most specifically
>in the Kosovo thread, and all you come back with is more crap about objective
>and subjective morality.
>
>As far as I can tell,
And there's the problem, right there....
> your philosophical endeavors are nothing more than the
>mantle of a coward who is afraid to address the real issues before us. You have
>been discredited by your own words.
>
>John Kennedy wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 02:13:22 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In mn.general John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> >: Well I guess I've been discouraged then. Now what?
>> >
>> >Post political stuff to mn.politics and general stuff to mn.general?
>>
>> I focus on the philosophical basis of politics which I feel is really
>> relevant to both.
>>
>> >
>> >And why did you feel the need to add mn.politics to this thread?
>>
>> See above. Now what?
>>
>> >
>> >: On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:12:10 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >:>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> >:>: On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 17:45:30 -0600, Plutarch
>> >:>: <procu...@chaeronea.greece> wrote:
>> >:>
>> >:>: What topics are permissible in mn.general?
>> >:>
>> >:>From ftp://ftp.visi.com/pub/mn.charters/mn.general
>> >:>
>> >:>"Newsgroup Charter
>> >:>
>> >:> mn.general
>> >:>
>> >:>NEWSGROUP:
>> >:> MN.GENERAL
>> >:>
>> >:>CHARTER:
>> >:> MN.GENERAL is an unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion
>> >:> of topics of interest in/about/by/for Minnesota and Minnesotans.
>> >:>
>> >:> Wide area crossposting is discouraged, including crossposting
>> >:> of non-relevant topics into mn.general from other mn.*
>> >:> newsgroups.
>> >:>
>> >:> - Commercial advertisements are prohibited.
>> >:>
>> >:>For your newsgroups file:
>> >:>mn.general General discussion about Minnesota"
>> >:>
>> >:>I would think the part "... including crossposting of non-relevant
>> >:>topics into mn.general from other mn.* newsgroups." should cover why
>> >:>there is no reason to post political topics to mn.general. For the
>> >:>same reason one should not post help wanted ads for for sale ads.
>> >:>There are already groups for those posts.
John Kennedy
=J.S) wrote:
>In article <37057064...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
>(John Kennedy) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:12:10 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Newsgroup Charter MN.GENERAL
>> >
>> > .......Wide area crossposting is discouraged....
>>
>>
>> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
> [quotes added]
>
>
> It will be arbitrarily asserted by some that "wide area crossposting"
>consists of only two newsgroups at their discretion, and that "discourage"
>may mean any measure they are able to get away with, such as canceling
>your posts after holding a meaningless vote of no authority in mn.config
>to foster the faux appearance of a legitimate right to do so.
That would be entertaining. I give the plan my full blessing.
sul...@visi.com
> In article <qseN2.1173$7K6.1...@ptah.visi.com>, sul...@visi.com wrote:
>> No one other than Mike S. has complained about [it].
> Another lying sack of shit.
> Fuck off, Urlick.
Were you writing to me? Whatever.
# ##
### #
# #
##### #
# #
### #
# ##
--
later...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Ulrich 80 58 D5 21 FB 79 28 C5 9D 53 53 4B 3C 74 DB D5
HOME: sul...@geeks.org finger: sul...@botWerks.com
John Kennedy
wrote:
>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>: On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:55:10 GMT, drec...@yuck.net (Mike Horwath)
>: wrote:
>
>:>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>:>: What topics are permissible in mn.geneal?
>:>
>:>It isn't a topic issue, it is a relevance issue.
>
>: Meaning political topics are not relevant to a general forum?
>
>Pretty much, with mn.politics around, there is no need to post
>political topics to mn.general.
>
>No big leap of logic there.
>
>:>If it is of a political nature, we have mn.politics.
>:>
>:>So, since we have mn.politics, why should it also be crossposed to
>:>mn.general?
>
>: Because the poster would like to more people to see it?
>
>Because they have an agenda that is more encompassing than just
>beating their own meat in mn.politics?
You're projecting. You need other hobbies.
>
>If I wanted to read it, I would go to mn.politics, and so would many
>others.
No one's making you read it anywhere.
This whining is really terribly undignified.
>
>But we don't want to read it, so why should we have to endure this
>crosspoing abuse?
Endure whatever you choose.
>
>: Well I know you just did.
>
>Hmm?
>
>Care to back your statement up?
I've read a great number of Mike's posts and your evaluation and
representation of them is wanting.
John Kennedy
Bill Haverberg
Kennedy) wrote:
>Well I guess I've been discouraged then. Now what?
>
Saying something constructive?
(shrug)
--
When the Visigoths sacked Rome in 410 A.D. and spread throughout the western
Roman empire, tales of their rape and pillage spread like wildfire. When a wealthy
landowner heard news of an advancing army, he fled his house in panic. While on
the road, a messenger relayed a letter from one of the advancing goths with an offer
to buy part of his estate.
The end of the world just isn't what it used to be.
Bill Haverberg
Slats
egotistical boob!
On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 02:32:57 GMT, kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John
Kennedy) wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 02:13:22 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>
>>In mn.general John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>: Well I guess I've been discouraged then. Now what?
>>
>>Post political stuff to mn.politics and general stuff to mn.general?
>
>I focus on the philosophical basis of politics which I feel is really
>relevant to both.
>
>>
>>And why did you feel the need to add mn.politics to this thread?
>
>See above. Now what?
>
>>
>>: On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:12:10 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
>>
>>:>John Kennedy <kenne...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
Mike -.S
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 03:49:51 -0600, thisf...@squashed.org (Mike
> =J.S) wrote:
>
> >In article <37057064...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
> >(John Kennedy) wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 02 Apr 1999 14:12:10 GMT, "Mr. Will" <wi...@yuck.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Newsgroup Charter MN.GENERAL
> >> >
> >> > .......Wide area crossposting is discouraged....
> >>
> >>
> >> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
> > [quotes added]
> >
> >
> > It will be arbitrarily asserted by some that "wide area crossposting"
> >consists of only two newsgroups at their discretion, and that "discourage"
> >may mean any measure they are able to get away with, such as canceling
> >your posts after holding a meaningless vote of no authority in mn.config
> >to foster the faux appearance of a legitimate right to do so.
>
> That would be entertaining. I give the plan my full blessing.
It's already been done. That's how "Colt .38" came about.
Mike -.S
> >> No one other than Mike S. has complained about [it].
>
> > Another lying sack of shit.
> > Fuck off, Urlick.
>
> Were you writing to me? Whatever.
>
>
> # ##
> ### #
> # #
> ##### #
> # #
> ### #
> # ##
>
_ _
|_| |_|
| | /^^^\ | |
_| |_ (| 'o' |) _| |_
_| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
| | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
| | /_ _\ | |
\ / / /|. .|\ \ \ /
\ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||U|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
ooO Ooo
Mike -.S
Horwath) wrote:
> I am sorry....
"Yeah; I can see you now....
....cryin'. Just a' cryin' and a humpin'."
-- High Plains Drifter
Mike -.S
> Keep political discussions in mn.politics.
No. I will discuss whatever I please in unmoderated "general" forums.
> Keep crossposting to a minimum
Two groups is as minimal as minimum crossposting can get.
> ...and use this forums without being abusive.
Define "abusive" in non-arbitrary terms.
> Is that so much to ask?
>
> I can care less if you like me or not, I can care less whether you
> wanna run off and post yet another article about baseless conspiracies
> and your beliefs on who shot who, and for what.
Liar. You obviously care a great deal about it.
> I do care about how the mn.* groups work, though, and I will do what
> it takes to keep abuse at a minimum.
Ah yes. The tyrant's credo: Doing What It Takes.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Horwath.
Mike -.S
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 1999 20:56:37 GMT, drec...@yuck.net (Mike Horwath)
> wrote:
>
> >Because they have an agenda that is more encompassing than just
> >beating their own meat in mn.politics?
>
> You're projecting. You need other hobbies.
Hey Horwath, when's the last time you were bare-naked with a girl?
sul...@visi.com
At least you represented yourself with the correct proportions. It's
always refreshing to see that you can come back with such a well phrased
and cogently formulated argument when you really need to make your point.
You really demonstrate your ability to stick to the issues and avoid
playground issues. Will I be making it to your poorly spell-checked
signature line again?
Mike -.S
> > _ _
> > |_| |_|
> > | | /^^^\ | |
> > _| |_ (| 'o' |) _| |_
> > _| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
> > | | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
> > | | /_ _\ | |
> > \ / / /|. .|\ \ \ /
> > \ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
> > \ \/ / ||U|| \ \/ /
> > \__/ || || \__/
> > ooO Ooo
>
>
> At least you represented yourself with the correct proportions....
Don't let the flaccid state fool you!
_ _
|_| |_|
| | /^^^^\ | |
_| |_ (| ' o' |) _| |_
_| | | | _ (_----_) _ | | | |_
| | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
| | /_ () _\ | |
\ / / /|.||.|\ \ \ /
\ / / / |_||_| \ \ \ /
\ \/ / ||OO|| \ \/ /
\__/ || || \__/
ooO Ooo
There we go.
Andy Yee
>> _ _
>> |_| |_|
>> | | /^^^\ | |
>> _| |_ (| 'o' |) _| |_
>> _| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
>> | | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
>> | | /_ _\ | |
>> \ / / /|. .|\ \ \ /
>> \ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
>> \ \/ / ||U|| \ \/ /
>> \__/ || || \__/
>> ooO Ooo
>
>
>always refreshing to see that you can come back with such a well phrased
>and cogently formulated argument when you really need to make your point.
>
>You really demonstrate your ability to stick to the issues and avoid
>playground issues. Will I be making it to your poorly spell-checked
>signature line again?
>
Hey..wear that like a badge of honor! I got that last year hehehe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Yee E-Mail: n...@yuck.net
President Home Page: http://www.visi.com/~nde
New Directions Engineering, Inc.
Question authority...and the authorities will end up questioning YOU!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary from Anoka
> > >> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
Well, for starters you could start acting like an adult and treat people with
a tad more respect than you usually do. Of course that would be asking a lot
from a person who really doesn't know who or what he is. You related to the
gov?
where all the...yada, yada, yada
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Kennedy
<garriso...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> thatf...@squashes.org (Mike -.S) wrote:
>
>
>> > >> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
>
>Well, for starters you could start acting like an adult and treat people with
>a tad more respect than you usually do.
Respect must be earned.
Craig Wilson
typed:
>
>Respect must be earned.
Are you saying that people you do not know are not worthy of any respect?
---------------------------------------------------
Craig (all 3 analog lines are 21,000ft and you can't use the ISDN line for DSL) Wilson
cr...@wavefront.com
Brian G Mueller
John Kennedy wrote in message <37095691...@news.ntplx.net>...
>On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:49:17 GMT, Gary from Anoka
><garriso...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>> thatf...@squashes.org (Mike -.S) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > >> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
>>
>>Well, for starters you could start acting like an adult and treat people
with
>>a tad more respect than you usually do.
>
>Respect must be earned.
>
amidst all the bullshit.
Mike .-S
> On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:52:55 GMT, kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy)
> typed:
>
> >Respect must be earned.
>
> Are you saying that people you do not know are not worthy of any respect?
That's not what he said at all.
John Kennedy
I'm courteous until some gives me a reason not to be. In my second
post to Sheldon this year I apologized sincerely for a careless
offhand remark that was based on a bad guess on my part.
He's the one who chose to make things personal.
>
>
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:52:55 GMT, kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy)
>typed:
>
>>
>>Respect must be earned.
>
>Are you saying that people you do not know are not worthy of any respect?
Well one doesn't know if they are worthy of respect or not, does one?
The proof is in the puddin', or in the puddin'heads as the case may
be.
Gary from Anoka
Brian G Mueller
general... but, if the barrel fits...
John Kennedy wrote in message <3709e63d...@news.ntplx.net>...
>On Tue, 6 Apr 1999 00:44:50 -0500, "Brian G Mueller"
><choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>John Kennedy wrote in message <37095691...@news.ntplx.net>...
>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:49:17 GMT, Gary from Anoka
>>><garriso...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> thatf...@squashes.org (Mike -.S) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> > >> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
>>>>
Gary from Anoka
> Yes, but courtesy does not. Haven't seen much of that flying around here
> amidst all the bullshit.
sel evident.
Brian G Mueller
John Kennedy wrote in message <370ea65b...@news.ntplx.net>...
>>>
>>You know what...screw courtesy... Shut the Hell Up!!!
>
>I'd like to thank Brian for not stooping to levels he deplores....
>
>...uh wait a minute....
>
>BELAY THAT ORDER!
I'd like to thank Kennedy for proving me wrong...
You deserve absolutely no respect and, hence, I offer you none...
Well, ya know what, I gotta hand it to you... Getting the best of someone
who's having a bad day and is in a bad mood anyway... now there's something
of which to be REALLY proud... you are the lowest common denominator and I
spurn you as I would spurn a rabid dog...
Good riddance you miserable excuse for a dingheap...
(i feel better already!)
Tim Starr
<choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> John Kennedy wrote in message <37095691...@news.ntplx.net>...
> >On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:49:17 GMT, Gary from Anoka
> ><garriso...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> >
> >> thatf...@squashes.org (Mike -.S) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> > >> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
> >>
> >>Well, for starters you could start acting like an adult and treat people
> >>with a tad more respect than you usually do.
> >
> >Respect must be earned.
>
> amidst all the bullshit.
Is that why you denied that the CPUSA was Stalin's puppet? Out of some sort
of sense of "courtesy"?
Tim Starr
Brian G Mueller
Tim Starr wrote in message <7em6fb$g2m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <7ec5r8$4me$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>, "Brian G Mueller"
><choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> John Kennedy wrote in message <37095691...@news.ntplx.net>...
>> >On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:49:17 GMT, Gary from Anoka
>> ><garriso...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> thatf...@squashes.org (Mike -.S) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> > >> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
>> >>
>> >>Well, for starters you could start acting like an adult and treat
people
>> >>with a tad more respect than you usually do.
>> >
>> >Respect must be earned.
>>
>> Yes, but courtesy does not. Haven't seen much of that flying around here
>> amidst all the bullshit.
>
>Is that why you denied that the CPUSA was Stalin's puppet? Out of some
sort
>of sense of "courtesy"?
>
>Tim Starr
>
John Kennedy
<choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Tim Starr wrote in message <7em6fb$g2m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <7ec5r8$4me$1...@news-2.news.gte.net>, "Brian G Mueller"
>><choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> John Kennedy wrote in message <37095691...@news.ntplx.net>...
>>> >On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:49:17 GMT, Gary from Anoka
>>> ><garriso...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> thatf...@squashes.org (Mike -.S) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> > >> Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
>>> >>
>>> >>Well, for starters you could start acting like an adult and treat
>people
>>> >>with a tad more respect than you usually do.
>>> >
>>> >Respect must be earned.
>>>
>>> Yes, but courtesy does not. Haven't seen much of that flying around here
>>> amidst all the bullshit.
>>
>>Is that why you denied that the CPUSA was Stalin's puppet? Out of some
>sort
>>of sense of "courtesy"?
>>
>>Tim Starr
>>
>You know what...screw courtesy... Shut the Hell Up!!!
I'd like to thank Brian for not stooping to levels he deplores....
John Kennedy
<choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>John Kennedy wrote in message <370ea65b...@news.ntplx.net>...
>
>>>>
>>>You know what...screw courtesy... Shut the Hell Up!!!
>>
>>I'd like to thank Brian for not stooping to levels he deplores....
>>
>>...uh wait a minute....
>>
>>BELAY THAT ORDER!
>I'd like to thank Kennedy for proving me wrong...
>
>You deserve absolutely no respect and, hence, I offer you none...
>
>Well, ya know what, I gotta hand it to you... Getting the best of someone
>who's having a bad day and is in a bad mood anyway... now there's something
>of which to be REALLY proud... you are the lowest common denominator and I
>spurn you as I would spurn a rabid dog...
>
>Good riddance you miserable excuse for a dingheap...
>
>(i feel better already!)
I aim to please.
cy...@visi.com
themselves, but respect is not mere company manners. It's an
appreciation of deeds, character, etc.. I can't say that I've ever
respected anyone just because they existed. It's necessary for me to
know something about them to feel any respect.
On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 01:58:19 GMT, cr...@wavefront.com (Craig Wilson)
wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:52:55 GMT, kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy)
>typed:
>
>>
>>Respect must be earned.
>
>Are you saying that people you do not know are not worthy of any respect?
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>Craig (all 3 analog lines are 21,000ft and you can't use the ISDN line for DSL) Wilson
>cr...@wavefront.com
---
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
I'm slow with answering mail. Months slow.
Tim Starr
>><choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>John Kennedy wrote in message <37095691...@news.ntplx.net>...
>>>>On Mon, 05 Apr 1999 15:49:17 GMT, Gary from Anoka
>>>><garriso...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>thatf...@squashes.org (Mike -.S) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well I guess I've been "discouraged" then. Now what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, for starters you could start acting like an adult and treat people
>>>>>with a tad more respect than you usually do.
>>>>
>>>>Respect must be earned.
>>>
>>>Yes, but courtesy does not. Haven't seen much of that flying around here
>>>amidst all the bullshit.
>>
>>Is that why you denied that the CPUSA was Stalin's puppet? Out of some sort
>>of sense of "courtesy"?
>>
>>Tim Starr
>
What if I don't? You gonna make me, Dupe?
I'm sorry if you find it frustrating to have the fact that you've been duped
exposed publicly, but the sooner you get past this denial, accept, & admit it,
the sooner you'll be able to move on with the rest of your life. You won't
have to keep evading this part of reality any more.
C'mon, wouldn't you like to get rid of that nagging feeling of guilt in the
back of your mind?
Why did you deny that the CPUSA was Stalin's puppet?
Mike J+S
The jabbering gasbag farted:
> In mn.general Tim Starr <tims...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> : In article <umxP2.205$b73.13934@paloalto-snr1>, "Brian G Mueller"
> : <choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :>You know what...screw courtesy... Shut the Hell Up!!!
>
> : What if I don't? You gonna make me, Dupe?
>
> Hmm...sounds like a challenge.
> Whatcha say?
>
> : Why did you deny that the CPUSA was Stalin's puppet?
>
> What does this have to do with mn.general?
> NOTHING!
Why do you not criticize Upaya and Mueller for their political opinions
posted to mn.general?
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com. +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
"Nazi/facist/communist/Democrat, whatever they want to call themselves,
they are collectivist pisspots. I enjoy removing them as much as I enjoy
scraping dog crap from my shoe. Sure, I'm glad its gone, but ewww, what
a thing to have to come in contact with." -- Bill Kasper
Mike J+S
<tims...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In mn.general Tim Starr <tims...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> : In article <umxP2.205$b73.13934@paloalto-snr1>, "Brian G Mueller"
> : <choi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :>You know what...screw courtesy... Shut the Hell Up!!!
>
> : What if I don't? You gonna make me, Dupe?
>
> Hmm...sounds like a challenge.
>
> Whatcha say?
>
> : Why did you deny that the CPUSA was Stalin's puppet?
>
> What does this have to do with mn.general?
> NOTHING!
Why do you not criticize Upaya and Mueller for their political opinions
posted to mn.general, you jabbering gasbag?