A Public Apology

wharfie

unread,

Jan 5, 1993, 9:21:55 AM1/5/93

to

In a recent article I mistook Joe Doheny for the author of
a thinly disguised albeit insipid flame and wrote that I thought that
Joe was a unidimensional Johnny One Note who seemed more interested
in keeping old animosities alive than in getting his own life. Well,
I'm sorry, but I seem to have gotten my Diamondbacks confused. I really
didn't mean all that mean stuff I wrote about poor Joe, who's an all right
guy even if he is overly emotional and too easily misled...

What I *really* meant, of course, is that Andrew the No Drugs Guy
has his toupee tightly wedged in some dark hollow where the sun don't
ever shine, and that while I'm sure the Net is a better place for him having
taken the time off from his never-ending campaign to make sure nobody
eats any chemicals he doesn't approve of I think it'd be a good idea if
he spent less time self-congratulatoryily fanning the dead embers of old
flame wars and more time listening to the Dead.

Sorry, Joe, and Sorry, Net, I'll try and keep these bozos straight
from now on...

Peter Meyer

unread,

Jan 6, 1993, 6:16:49 AM1/6/93

to

Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.

Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.
Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.

Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.

Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.
Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.

Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.

Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.
Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.

Never fucking apologize. Its a sign of weakness.

Max Minkoff

unread,

Jan 6, 1993, 7:37:04 AM1/6/93

to

In article <44...@unisql.UUCP> wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

Sorry, Joe, and Sorry, Net, I'll try and keep these bozos straight
from now on...

I have a better idea, wharfie:

Next time you feel like flaming someone publicly, instead of showing all
of us lucky people on the net how incredibly mean and acerbic, yet
eloquent you can be, why not stick _your_ head up _your_ butt. I doubt
anyone here is interested in your bitter rantings. (I doubt they're
interested in mine, either, but generally, I try not to say anything if
I have nothing nice to say. Granted, I've made an exception especially
for you!)

If this place is so shitty, why do you bother to come here?

Happy New Year,

Max

David J. Topping

unread,

Jan 6, 1993, 4:44:17 PM1/6/93

to

Meyer person of unknown sexual orientation,

Chill on the wasted bandwidth.

'nuf said...

wharfie

unread,

Jan 6, 1993, 7:35:52 PM1/6/93

to

In article <MAX.93Ja...@frabjous.u.washington.edu> m...@hitl.washington.edu (Max Minkoff) writes:
>Next time you feel like flaming someone publicly, instead of showing all

Why? I mean, why _shouldn't_ someone express themselves ?
Listen, I don't tell anal-retentive bozos prostituting themselves
for the military-industrial complex not to make snide remarks about
Secret Mailing Lists, do I? Hell, no! They've got a right to be
obnoxious pinheads. And *I've* got a right to flame 'em for it.

It's like all those people who say "Bobby shouldn't sing
*that*. I don't like it". You can always go to the bathroom until
that part's over, ya know.

wr

MAH...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com

unread,

Jan 7, 1993, 10:10:07 AM1/7/93

to

In article <44...@unisql.UUCP>, wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) says:
>
>In article <MAX.93Ja...@frabjous.u.washington.edu>
>m...@hitl.washington.edu
>(Max Minkoff) writes:
>>Next time you feel like flaming someone publicly, instead of showing all
>
> Why? I mean, why _shouldn't_ someone express themselves ?
> Listen, I don't tell anal-retentive bozos prostituting themselves
>for the military-industrial complex not to make snide remarks about
>Secret Mailing Lists, do I? Hell, no! They've got a right to be
>obnoxious pinheads. And *I've* got a right to flame 'em for it.

You're expressing yourself is making my experience here less desirable,
and I don't think that I am the only one who feels that way. And I'm not
talking about when its me that you are flaming. I come here to escape some
of the days realities, talk about the Dead, and share some smiles. And
repeatedly over the years I've seen you flame folks publicly again and again.
Somebody posts something here that may be what you, or the group as a whole
considers 'incorrect'. And sure as shit, what do we see, but Lou reaming the
guy or gal a new asshole. Using words like 'anal-retentive bozo' and
'obnoxious pinheads' to describe them. I can remember other choice vocabulary
which you have used in the past also. Yet I logon here with the intention of
having a little fun, and I have to read your crucifixion of fellow net.heads.
I don't want to read this shit, and I think if folks felt you were worth
replying to they would tell you the same thing. If you think that a person
is so wrong why embarass him in public? Why not try to be a nice person and
either tell the person in e-mail, or followup to his or her posting treating
the person like they were a fellow human being and not using the worst possible
adjectives you could find to describe them?

I don't want to tell people how to post. I've flamed people myself in the past
for telling others how to post. But you don't treat joe.average.net.head with
a different opinion than you like a human being. You treat them like shit,
and I don't think that belongs here. I've heard from others who feel the same
way. Sure, you have the right to put our friends with different opinions than
yours down. But I have the right to ask you to please treat others like you
would like to be treated.

Sure, my perception of what the net should be may not be the same as Lou's
perception of what the net should be. I think most of us would like a
friendlier environment where one doesn't have to worry that if he/she makes
a mistake they'll receive a thorough reaming from wharfie. Trying your
hardest to publicly embarass and name call a person is mean. I want a nice
place here. You can make fun of me for that if you want, but I'm going to
try my hardest to make that happen here. I've been guilty in the past of
calling people names publicly, and putting folks down in public. I may be
guilty in the future of doing so again. I would ask you to take a few minutes
and think about the reasons for following up by calling somebody all sorts of
names. What's the end result? Does anybody benefit by doing it publicly
instead of privately?

Joe Doheny

Max Minkoff

unread,

Jan 7, 1993, 6:54:35 AM1/7/93

to

In article <44...@unisql.UUCP> wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

In article <MAX.93Ja...@frabjous.u.washington.edu> m...@hitl.washington.edu (Max Minkoff) writes:
>Next time you feel like flaming someone publicly, instead of showing all

Why? I mean, why _shouldn't_ someone express themselves ?

There is a big difference, Lou, between expressing something that some
people may not want to hear and expressing something that is directly
hurtful. Should I express myself by spreading lies about you? Should I
express myself by publically embarassing you? Should I express myself
by lighting a stink bomb in your office? Should I express myself by
burning down your house? I'd _never_ do any of these things, of course,
but I think you can see that not _all_ expressions are valid.

Listen, I don't tell anal-retentive bozos prostituting themselves
for the military-industrial complex not to make snide remarks about
Secret Mailing Lists, do I? Hell, no! They've got a right to be
obnoxious pinheads. And *I've* got a right to flame 'em for it.

Actually, you don't, if you're referring to the First Amendment, Freedom
of Speech. No, I'm not a lawyer, but quoting directly from an ACLU
Hypercard stack:

"Freedom of Speech does not protect conduct or actions that intimidate,
harass, or threaten a specific individual...

"First Amendment rights mean that you can express your point of view,
even if it is unpopular or makes people very angry. However, acts of
violence are not protected by the First Amendment and can be punished
whether or not words are used."

I would take this to mean that while making remarks about a mailing
list, what the dead played or didn't play, or anything else that does
not directly relate to an individual are protected by the First
Amendment, but name-calling, abuse, threats, and general harassment
of an individual are not. And that goes for all of us, not just Lou
Marco. I don't know what impact the First Amendment legally has
on Usenet (but I doubt it will take long before it does), but if nothing
else, it's probably a pretty decent model, wouldn't you say?

It's like all those people who say "Bobby shouldn't sing
*that*. I don't like it". You can always go to the bathroom until
that part's over, ya know.

That's true. But I can usually find something redeeming in the worst
(imho) dead songs, which is something I can't say for a large number
of your posts, unfortunately. Hitting n doesn't really do it for me,
and doesn't help those on dead-flames. Of course I could just put
you in my kill file (which means I'd never see any of your posts, for
those of you who don't know - I'm not threatening wharfie :-), but I'm
generally opposed to kill files - I don't like to make sweeping
decisions about what I do and don't get to see. I'd rather you just
put a sock in it (again, only the personal nastiness - I enjoy the
rest of your postings), or at least save it for any other e-communities
you participate in, if they condone such behavior themselves.

Thanks,

Max

wharfie

unread,

Jan 7, 1993, 2:43:41 PM1/7/93

to

In article <93007.101...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> MAH...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>You're expressing yourself is making my experience here less desirable,

But your forbidding me to express myself makes *my* experience
here less desirable.

It's the same old conflict that's bugged every society that's
ever existed, y'see. Does my right to scream out my elation supersede
your right to make perfect tapes? Does your right to plant a mike stand
_right_ _there_ mean I have to go dance in the hallway? Does the fact that
I have a shoe on the seat set aside your right to sit there?

No, I'm afraid that some degree of tolerance for the actions
of others is a necessary condition for any community to exist. Of course,
this is a two-way street (actually, it runs in bisync: you do something and
then I provide feedback on it...) and the members of said community must
consider the effect of their own actions on other members and the community
as a whole.

So the question becomes one of whether my action of telling some
bogus little needledicked hairball that he should try engaging his brain
before he posts some piece of stupidity whose only purpose is to open old
wounds is harmful or beneficial to the community in general and the little
needledicked hairball in particular. I maintain that my actions are
beneficial, since if I find his actions despicable and childish there are
certainly others who feel that way and any action that might cause him to
do less of what he's doing is a Good Thing in at least some minds, and
anyway it makes me feel better. I also maintain that my actions cause no
harm, neither to the hairball (Really, it's not like I snuck into his
house and chopped of his fingers with a Bowie knife.) nor to the few who
object to anything that's not Pure Sweetness and Light (tm) being posted
here since these folks can just go to the bathroom or something until it's
over. Like they do for Miracle.

>You're expressing yourself is making my experience here less desirable,

I'm sorry, but given the above, I'm forced to respond thusly:

"Pffffftttt!!! So ignore me."

>I have to read your crucifixion of fellow net.heads.

Well, see, that's just the point. You DON'T have to read it.
If you don't want to deal with this place and can't ignore me then, uhh,
go join a private mailing list or somethin'...

W.rat

Ya know, I expected to harvest some
wind, but not all this hot air! :-)

wharfie

unread,

Jan 7, 1993, 2:49:12 PM1/7/93

to

In article <44...@unisql.UUCP> wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

> I'm sorry, but given the above, I'm forced to respond thusly:
> "Pffffftttt!!! So ignore me."

To forestall the inevitable comparison betwen an occasional flame
and 3 months of Diamondback bullshit, if I ever get into a 3 month flamewar
that consists mostly of people running sed 's/Dead/Neil/g' on the contents
of /var/spool/news/rec/music/gdead and posting that in the hopes of someone
telling them how clever they're being I promise to go away.

Ofer Estline

unread,

Jan 7, 1993, 5:49:19 PM1/7/93

to

Please folks - keep private wars off the airwaves. It's SO simple
to keep them private.
Talk amongst yerselves!!! Public confrontations bring much more
wrong than right to the net.
This, of course, is MHO.
--Ofer
!(Fade Away)

Chuck Stickelman

unread,

Jan 7, 1993, 6:03:54 PM1/7/93

to

In article <93007.101...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>, <MAH...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> writes:
> In article <44...@unisql.UUCP>, wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) says:
> >
> >In article <MAX.93Ja...@frabjous.u.washington.edu>
> >m...@hitl.washington.edu
> >(Max Minkoff) writes:
> >>Next time you feel like flaming someone publicly, instead of showing all
> >
> > Why? I mean, why _shouldn't_ someone express themselves ?
> > Listen, I don't tell anal-retentive bozos prostituting themselves
> >for the military-industrial complex not to make snide remarks about
> >Secret Mailing Lists, do I? Hell, no! They've got a right to be
> >obnoxious pinheads. And *I've* got a right to flame 'em for it.
>
> You're expressing yourself is making my experience here less desirable,
> and I don't think that I am the only one who feels that way. And I'm not

deleted LOTS of good words...

>
> Joe Doheny

Well Joe _IS_ right! I've been reading r.m.gd for many months. MANY times
(too many IMHO) I've seen WARFIE thrash someone. It's BULLSHIT!! I keep
hoping that this shit will stop and that the people w/ the bad attitudes
will go-away, but it doesn't happen. We all recently were exposed to yet
ANOTHER FLAMING IDIOT hell-bent on showing the whole net.world how big of
an idiot he can be!!! Why!? What's it prove!? I DON'T WANT A KILL FILE!!
I want to be able to think that everyone has an opinion worth hearing!

Oh well, life goes on! Maybe if EVERYONE just ignores this crap it WILL go
away!!?? I'm willin' to try.

ppppppppppppppp's
Chuck
ch...@cmhcsys.com

Julie Petersen

unread,

Jan 8, 1993, 2:39:57 AM1/8/93

to

In article <MAX.93Ja...@frabjous.u.washington.edu> m...@hitl.washington.edu (Max Minkoff) writes:
>
>I would take this to mean that while making remarks about a mailing
>list, what the dead played or didn't play, or anything else that does
>not directly relate to an individual are protected by the First
>Amendment, but name-calling, abuse, threats, and general harassment
>of an individual are not. And that goes for all of us, not just Lou

So, you don't think name-calling falls under the category of
protected speech? So, if I say George Bush is a Power-crazed
Nazi Motherf*cker, that's NOT PROTECTED?? Sounds to me
like an awfully strict interpretation of the First Amendment.
Or is it different because George Bush is a government official?
OK, how about 'Mike McCaskey is a penny-pinching pencil-neck
weeney'? You think that should be ILLEGAL SPEECH??

You can't include name-calling in the category of violence. There
is a VERY big difference between calling someone a Nazi, or a
motherf*cker, or even a n*gger f*ggot (if you feel you must), and
sticking that person with a knife or hitting him with tear gas and
night sticks.

Jim
pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Lisa M. Smith

unread,

Jan 7, 1993, 11:43:42 PM1/7/93

to

Wharfie writes:
" Why? I mean, why _shouldn't_ someone express themselves ?"
" Listen, I don't tell anal-retentive bozos prostituting themselves

for the military-industrial complex not to make snide remarks about.....
"...obnoxious pinheads. And *I've* got a right to flame 'em for it."

And he is correct; he has every right to say whatever he pleases. My
question is, just what kind of satisfaction does he get out of posting
ugly flames? Does it make him feel important, or something?

-Better living through chemistry.

lms

wharfie

unread,

Jan 8, 1993, 10:45:25 AM1/8/93

to

In article <1993Jan07.2...@cmhcsys.cmhcsys.com> ch...@cmhcsys.cmhcsys.com (Chuck Stickelman) writes:
> MANY times I've seen WARFIE thrash someone.

Well, they deserved it.

Mike Wagner

unread,

Jan 8, 1993, 1:33:20 PM1/8/93

to

wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
: Well, they deserved it.

Who is 'wharfie'? Or I guess the real question is...who cares?

...down by the docks of the city...

Laura Bassi

unread,

Jan 8, 1993, 1:52:53 PM1/8/93

to

chill folks...
pass them pppppppppppps

laura

Charles Wolff

unread,

Jan 8, 1993, 6:43:40 PM1/8/93

to

}somebody writes stuff like:

}" Why? I mean, why _shouldn't_ someone express themselves ?"
}" Listen, I don't tell anal-retentive bozos prostituting themselves
}for the military-industrial complex not to make snide remarks about.....
}"...obnoxious pinheads. And *I've* got a right to flame 'em for it."
}

So, anyway, I'm sitting here listening to the KPFA marathon
from last October, and in a flash of malchronicity, what with all
the references to the "upcoming election" and stuff, managed to
convince myself that all this wharfie flame war biz actually
happened last October and it's all over now and things are all
better. Feels good.

Hmm... I wonder, if I put on Europe '72, I could convince myself
that it all happened twenty years ago and nobody even remembers it?

Wait. I know. Get out the 4/1/92 Neil & the Boys DATs and pretend
it never happened at all. Yeah... oooh, that's... comfortable!

Kent Stewart

unread,

Jan 8, 1993, 6:01:26 PM1/8/93

to

(JED and Max Minkoff complain about wharfie flaming people publicly,
and what bad karma it is, and why can't such disagreements be handled
offline, etc, etc.)

And I can't help but feel that you're holding him to standards you
yourself have been unwilling to live by, Joe.

Have you already forgotten your unprovoked hate campaign against the
members of a private mailing list that was pretty much leaving r.m.gd
alone? You and Steve had people such as Max--who had *no* first hand
knowledge of the truth--publicly equating people such as myself with Nazis,
fer crying out loud. In a very short span of time you managed to generate
*far* more nastiness directed at us than we were being accused of. Far
more.

And what was the point? What was gained? What was the net contribution
to the enjoyment of people who read this group? Was this the good karma
you're asking wharfie to display? How do you dare, Joe? Don't you have
any mirrors in your house?

Wharfie has a quick fuse, and sometimes sees black and white in situations
where I see lots and lots of greys, but as far as I've been able to get to
know him over the years, he seems to be a pretty honest guy. Opinionated,
yes. Devious, no. He may have no qualms about saying he thinks someone
is an asshole, but I seriously doubt if he would spread lies about people,
or encourage others to do so.

So I think that telling him to clean up his act--while folks like Steve,
and yourself, and andrejko, and "Joseph Hack", and everybody else that's
anxious to join a public lynching of someone they don't even know over
alleged deeds they know nothing about...while this whole cast of diverse
and caustic charcaters does whatever the fuck they please--is spurious,
absurd and hypocritical.

Sure, I'm all in favor of a kinder, gentler usenet. But I also remember
very clearly who started the last shitstorm. It wasn't Wharf Rat. Nor was
it myself. So just who are the good karma police, eh?

--bongo (guitarist, nethead, wheelie, alleged nazi)

"and in the end the love you take
is equal to the love
you make."

wharfie

unread,

Jan 8, 1993, 7:38:35 PM1/8/93

to

In article <MfHNASK00...@andrew.cmu.edu> ls...@andrew.cmu.edu (Lisa M. Smith) writes:
>Does it make him feel important, or something?

Flaming is a dying art, unique to the net and practiced in attenuated
form by most modern people. I'm keeping ancient artforms alive, don't ya
see... Besides, it's fun. You should try it.
wr

MAH...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com

unread,

Jan 9, 1993, 5:48:02 AM1/9/93

to

In article <1993Jan8.2...@ptdcs2.intel.com>, kste...@ptdcs2.intel.com

(Kent Stewart) says:
>
>Have you already forgotten your unprovoked hate campaign against the
>members of a private mailing list that was pretty much leaving r.m.gd
>alone? You and Steve had people such as Max--who had *no* first hand
>knowledge of the truth--publicly equating people such as myself with Nazis,

I didn't "HAVE people such as....". I explained initially what the wheel
was, showed him a few rounds, etc. You accuse me of starting a 'unprovoked
hate campaign'. What happened in actuality was that was that somebody on
the wheel told one of my friends that I know where everybody is going to.
When I joined the wheel, I was told how secret the thing was. Yet I guess
I was supposed to lie and tell the person Oh no, I don't know what they
were talking about? That sounds damned provoked to me.

As far as folks not having first hand knowledge of the truth, we CAN
fix that, can't we? I have all the wheel rounds from the time I was
there. We could set up a FTP sight and allow folks freedom to gain
first hand knowledge.

>fer crying out loud. In a very short span of time you managed to generate
>*far* more nastiness directed at us than we were being accused of. Far
>more.

BULLSHIT. You folks generated more nastiness. You created your little
mailing list, which from day one on there I read was WAY better than
bignet. When large contributers of r.m.gd got on, they left the net.
That to me sounds like you stole the future contributions of those
folks from the net. Sure, some of the wheelies still post here. But
the larger amount of folks just stopped. This is a fact, not my opinion.
I pointed it out. I pointed out the truth.

>And what was the point? What was gained? What was the net contribution
>to the enjoyment of people who read this group? Was this the good karma

The point was, that we had read all these pathetic goodbye notes from
long.time.net.folks telling us how much shit our place was, and that they
were leaving. Then I find that all these folks have banded together
and sat in their secret and special little place stating how great they
are and how shitty bignet is. They took from us when the going was good
but when the going got tough they left.

>you're asking wharfie to display? How do you dare, Joe? Don't you have
>any mirrors in your house?

I have never used the word karma. I asked Lou to try to be a little nicer
to the net.folks around here. "Don't I have mirrors?" What I did back in
the wheelie saga was point out to the net.folks "Where have all the people
gone". You know what I was against there, I've made that public. I spoke
about the things I didn't like there, and a large group of people here also
didn't like those things. Yet wheelies put the blame of this disliking
thier attitudes on me. I didn't create their attitudes, I pointed them
out.

>Wharfie has a quick fuse, and sometimes sees black and white in situations
>where I see lots and lots of greys, but as far as I've been able to get to
>know him over the years, he seems to be a pretty honest guy. Opinionated,
>yes. Devious, no. He may have no qualms about saying he thinks someone
>is an asshole, but I seriously doubt if he would spread lies about people,
>or encourage others to do so.

Are you accusing me of spreading lies about your special group? If so,
please, make your accusations public and specific. We'll discuss it,
and if it turns out that I have done this, I'll offer a public apology.
I consider myself an honest man. I try not to go to bed with no lies,
and I awake with none.

>So I think that telling him to clean up his act--while folks like Steve,
>and yourself, and andrejko, and "Joseph Hack", and everybody else that's
>anxious to join a public lynching of someone they don't even know over
>alleged deeds they know nothing about...while this whole cast of diverse
>and caustic charcaters does whatever the fuck they please--is spurious,
>absurd and hypocritical.

You see, thats the reality of it all. You folks won't let me make the
wheel rounds public that I've got lying around. You never allowed me to
create a posting quoting some of the more 'choice' reading material I was
subject to in my short stay there. Up to this point in time, I've pretty
much kept them private. You accuse me and Steve and others of doing
whatever the fuck we please, but during my time on the wheel, it looked
to me like a bunch of old net.heads doing exactly that.

>Sure, I'm all in favor of a kinder, gentler usenet. But I also remember
>very clearly who started the last shitstorm. It wasn't Wharf Rat. Nor was
>it myself. So just who are the good karma police, eh?

That's the bullshit statment of last year Bongo. I pointed out the way
the wheel was. Sure, I concentrated on the bad things that went on there
and there were some nice things. I pointed out the folks who professed here
a life of non-prejuduice, yet I found living a life of prejuduice against
net.heads on the wheel. And wheelies have placed the entire blame for
net.heads not liking this attitude which they held on me. When I was there
the wheel was already a year old. You could have removed that prejuduice
from there by then if it bothered you. But it mustn't have bothered you
as it went by as Standard Operating Proceedure. Then wheelie folks point
their fingers at me and again push the blame on me for not fixing it. I
left instead of trying to fix it. I've been your scapegoat.

Had I to do it the same way again, I would. You want me to shut up about
the subject, then you shut up about the subject. But if you point your
finger at me, or other net.folks to vent the blame and I'm going to tell
my point of view. And I'll do it til the day I die. It's you're call,
I'll play ball with you if you want. Styfle me in you own private forum,
you're not going to do it here.

Joe Doheny

Kent Stewart

unread,

Jan 10, 1993, 6:36:15 PM1/10/93

to

I'm going to try and keep this short, Joe, because the net doesn't need the
noise and I still find your perception of events so unbelievably skewed
that we're really not talking about the same thing at all, making
mutual understanding highly unlikely.

I will respond to a couple of points.

>
>>In a very short span of time you managed to generate
>>*far* more nastiness directed at us than we were being accused of. Far
>>more.
>
>BULLSHIT. You folks generated more nastiness. You created your little
>mailing list, which from day one on there I read was WAY better than
>bignet. When large contributers of r.m.gd got on, they left the net.
>That to me sounds like you stole the future contributions of those
>folks from the net.

People walked away from r.m.gd. long before the wheel ever existed, and
will continue to walk away from it, whether alternatives exist or not.
None of those people are in any way responsible for the enjoyment of those
who choose to stay. This is life.

Nobody can "steal" contributions. Contributions are voluntary actions
one is either moved to make or is not. If I get married and settle down,
and stop spending all my free time at the corner bar, did my wife steal
me away from my barroom buddies? I say no! And if one of those buddies
considers me a selfish asshole for coming to the bar less often, there's
a limit to how much I can afford to care.

Now if I occassionally drop by the bar just to tell everybody there what
losers they are, that *is* being an asshole. I agree.

I know of two people out of about 70 on the wheel who chose to do this.
I and many others thought that that was wrong and unkind, and told them
so.

Sure, some of the wheelies still post here. But
>the larger amount of folks just stopped. This is a fact, not my opinion.
>I pointed it out. I pointed out the truth.

People have lives, Joe. A *lot* of people drift away from forums like
this because the signal to noise ratio makes the huge time investment seem
less worthwhile. Finding or creating something that works better merely
accelerates a very natural process.

Even on the Wheel--where I consider the signal to noise ratio usually very
good--there are months in a row where a lot of these good people you blame
for leaving r.m.gd. don't have the time to contribute. Life goes on.
Sometimes we can come out to play, and sometimes we can't. I've been
around usenet enough years that I think walking away from it eventually
is a very natural thing for a lot of people, whether or not they create
or find something similar they like better.

>The point was, that we had read all these pathetic goodbye notes from
>long.time.net.folks telling us how much shit our place was, and that they
>were leaving.

Like I say, I remember two. I remember two others who chose to stay and
try to help make r.m.gd. more enjoyable who eventually decided that the
obstinance of the diamondback sect made their efforts seem unfulfilling.

> Then I find that all these folks have banded together
>and sat in their secret and special little place stating how great they
>are and how shitty bignet is.

That's what you chose to see. I saw a bunch of people talking about cats,
computing, kids, music, relationships, politics, words, humor and the
weather. A couple of people out of 70 may well have expressed unfavorable
opinions about usenet, but it was hardly what we were about, any more than
secrecy was what we were about. You are the only person out of 70 that
saw this spectre of insidious evil and nastiness you apparently felt
duty bound to expose. Any forum of diverse people is going to generate
topics some consider noise. Stuff I payed little attention to, and
which generated such a tiny proportion of the overall volume, is what
you chose to see as our charter and reason for existence. And this is
what you told the world.

No, I don't think you're lying. I just think the reality you believe in
bears virtually no resemblance to the one I live in.

> They took from us when the going was good
>but when the going got tough they left.

Interesting statement! If what they were doing was "taking from you",
why do you resent them so for leaving?

I say many of these people *gave* for a period of time, many of them
for years and years, and eventually some of them stopped. Usenet is
what it is, and many good people--not just r.m.gd. readers--eventually
decide to spend their time and efforts elsewhere.

You might argue that usenet is not what it is, but rather is what we
make of it.

The counterargument would be that the level of voluntary cooperation is
not high enough to make that statement meaningfull. There are some
determinedly pig-headed people who *will* intentionally lower the quality
of the forum, just because they can.

This is true throughout usenet. R.m.gd. has never been exempt from it.

>>Sure, I'm all in favor of a kinder, gentler usenet. But I also remember
>>very clearly who started the last shitstorm. It wasn't Wharf Rat. Nor was
>>it myself.
>

>That's the bullshit statment of last year Bongo. I pointed out the way
>the wheel was.

No, you pointed out what your mind thought was real. Isn't it odd that
not one of the other 70 eye-witnesses saw any more than faint threads
of truth in your dire indictment? And that among these 70 people are
many kind, intelligent, sensitive and caring individuals who have a
pronounced dislike for nastiness?

Do we all lack your acute powers of perception, or are we all evil
conspirators, unrepentant of our foul deeds?

No, Joe, the Wheel didn't start the last shitstorm. A couple of people
were publicly and privately unkind, perhaps. A drop in the bucket in the
the caustic flamefest of usenet. And a personal decision by two people.

And that's the thing about voluntary forums: one can only control one's
own contributions. I could no more prevent those two people from posting
their nasty goodbyes than I could prevent andrejko from posting his little
"year in review" bullshit. I can respond when I think somebody is mistaken.
That's what I've done w.r.t. public nastiness, and that's what I'm doing
now with you.

>Styfle me in you own private forum,
>you're not going to do it here.

I'm not out to stifle anybody, in any forum. I'm just pointing out that
you accusing people of spreading ill will seems pretty ironic to me. I know
you probably don't see it that way, but I'm far from the only one who does.

apologies to digest readers who really didn't want to read this crap.
--bongo

"if you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own."

Joseph Hack

unread,

Jan 11, 1993, 5:38:43 AM1/11/93

to

Shouldn't that be...

--bongo (dweeb, snively little whiner, wheelie, alleged nazi, etc)

Joseph Hack

unread,

Jan 11, 1993, 5:46:13 AM1/11/93

to

In a previous article, wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) says:

>In article <MfHNASK00...@andrew.cmu.edu> ls...@andrew.cmu.edu (Lisa M. Smith) writes:

>>Does it make him feel important, or something?
>

> Flaming is a dying art, unique to the net and practiced in attenuated
>form by most modern people. I'm keeping ancient artforms alive, don't ya
>see... Besides, it's fun. You should try it.

I couldn't agree more. Nothing gets the adrenalin flowing like a good
flame war. If you can't handle it, then go away. Simple as that.

MAH...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com

unread,

Jan 11, 1993, 6:38:04 AM1/11/93

to

bongo writes:

>I'm going to try and keep this short, Joe, because the net doesn't need the
>noise and I still find your perception of events so unbelievably skewed
>that we're really not talking about the same thing at all, making
>mutual understanding highly unlikely.

Maybe if we write how joe has a 'perception of events so unbelievably
skewed', he will be less believable? You write that I am one of only
70 individuals there who saw something wrong in what was going on there.
Yet I, and MANY others have read the note from your sysop where he stated
that he saw exactly what I saw. Maybe he doesn't agree with it now that
it is as public as it has become. While I was there, the invitation
process alone was enough to disgust me, and laugh at the wheel. The process
of bringing up a net.person's name, then discussing the good or bad things
the person has done in the past, then voting on that person. Folks whom
in the past I've read postings on the net who I thought played fair ball
showed me that it only was 'do as I say, not as I act'. While I was there,
not ONE person expressed discontent with the invitation process. Yet, of
course, that too was my fault, right? I should have changed it if I saw
it as being such a bad thing.

You try to say that I am an oddball for seing things the way I do. You
say that 70 people see it differently. Your sysop saw it exactly as I
did, and many of us net.folks saw that note. I pointed out what I saw
wrong on the wheel. I point out the invitation process as being a
popularity contest, wherein you get to take cheap shots behind the back
of net.heads without their knowing it, then vote on wheather the person
is worthy or not. I pointed out the attitude that you are all better
than us DACKS. Might I enlighten you on the words one wheelie said to me
at RFK wrt keeping the setlist correct? Hows about "Never send a DACK to
do the job of a wheelie". Might I remind you of the ticket offer I read
on the wheel, while I was there? "Wheelies ONLY No DACKS". I had a problem
with this attitude. And yes, I am one of only 70 (although one was willing to
say so until he realized how public). My 'perception of events is unbelievably
skewed' isn't it? Bongo, TELL ME that when you had an invitation process
where you through out a person's name, and folks either patted the person on
the back, or spit on him/her, behind his back. Tell me that that isn't
something I or joe.average.net.head should find offensive. Call me a liar
Bongo, point out to the net that these statements I make are just shots at
the character of the wheel. Come on Bongo, I dare you :-)

Joe Doheny

wharfie

unread,

Jan 11, 1993, 1:26:08 PM1/11/93

to

In article <93011.063...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com> MAH...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com writes:
>of bringing up a net.person's name, then discussing the good or bad things
>the person has done in the past, then voting on that person. Folks whom

By the Holy Hog, Joe, haven't you ever had to decide on a new
roommate? Or ever interviewed people for a job? Found a good dentist?
A vet? How _else_ do you do that but by introducing a person for
consideration, discussing why or why not that person might be suitable or
desired or NOT desired, and coming to a consensus? Instead of beating
us over the head with the fact that we found it necessary to talk about things
you should be *congratulating* us on finding a way to make 75 people agree
on something...

And I don't see why it's necessary to **still** be discussing the
Evil Nazi Sneeches on that awful Mailing List. Can't we just accept that
all the Wheelies are nasty scum and that the Wheel is a little electronic
den of vipers and let it go? Let's talk about how sexist Sugar Magnolia is,
instead.

W.rat