Message-ID: <34953663.5639@thomson.net> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 08:53:39 -0500 From: "James A. Barrow" Reply-To: redfalcon@thomson.net Organization: Red Falcon Armouries X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.250.239.87 Lines: 13 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!atl-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.new-york.net!metro.atlanta.com!news.gabn.net!199.250.239.87 Greetings all. I find it rather remarkable that the newsgroup of an organization that supposedly prides itself on honor and chivalry is capable of carrying on such childish drivel as this thread has become (read in, take it to e-mail). Direct all flames and comments on improper grammar and spelling to DILLIGAFF.com -- BESMU! James A. Barrow ###### Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Distribution: world From: Holly_Sullivan@elric.maximumaccess.com (Holly Sullivan) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Dec 97 08:44:53 PDT Organization: The Techno-Mages' Guild * DLG Pro HQ Lines: 15 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!recycled.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!usc!newshub.cts.com!narwhal.maximumaccess.com!elric!Holly_Sullivan > From: "James A. Barrow" > I find it rather remarkable that the newsgroup of an organization that > supposedly prides itself on honor and chivalry is capable of carrying on > such childish drivel as this thread has become (read in, take it to > e-mail). All true. However, this newsgroup is NOT an official part of the Society in any way. -- Via DLG2000 v1.2.4 :)---Holly---<--<-@ * holly@cheerful.com * FunAmigaSysopPaganSexGoddessQuiltArtistSCACostumerAtLarge BBS 619 549-0278 http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4201 ###### Message-ID: <34958100.6202A57F@marsweb.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 12:12:00 -0700 From: Yumitori no Kiyoshi Reply-To: yumitori@marsweb.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread References: <34953663.5639@thomson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: mso135.marsweb.com Lines: 19 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.ism.net!mso135.marsweb.com Haifuku! > I find it rather remarkable that the newsgroup of an organization that > supposedly prides itself on honor and chivalry is capable of carrying on > such childish drivel as this thread has become (read in, take it to > e-mail). > > Direct all flames and comments on improper grammar and spelling to > DILLIGAFF.com > -- > > BESMU! > James A. Barrow Heh. Why should you be surprised? Anyone can post to a newsgroup. How could we possibly police those who read here? We don't seem to able to even manage the behavior of our members at events... Yumitori ###### From: shipbrk@gate.net (Jeff Lee) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:53:16 GMT Organization: a.r.s. Central Committee Lines: 28 Message-ID: <6746o1$23es$1@news.gate.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tpafl3-2.gate.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-sea-19.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.227.0.16!news.gate.net!not-for-mail Holly_Sullivan@elric.maximumaccess.com (Holly Sullivan) wrote: > >> From: "James A. Barrow" >> I find it rather remarkable that the newsgroup of an organization that >> supposedly prides itself on honor and chivalry is capable of carrying on >> such childish drivel as this thread has become (read in, take it to >> e-mail). > > All true. However, this newsgroup is NOT an official part of the Society in > any way. That is true, also. But is that any reason to eschew those ideals which we claim to hold dear? Perhaps some people can act honourably and courteously only at official events, and act rudely elsewhere. Most of the courteous SCAdians I know, however, are courteous both mundanely and in an SCA context. (Conversely, rude SCAdians are rude in both "worlds" as well.) -- Godfrey -- Jeff Lee (KoX/SP5/INTJ) shipbrk@gate.net http://www.gate.net/~shipbrk/ "The only thing that helps me maintain my slender grip on reality is the friendship I share with my collection of singing potatoes." ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin (reply remove nospam.) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: 15 Dec 1997 23:27:36 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 From: "James A. Barrow" > I find it rather remarkable that the newsgroup of an organization that > supposedly prides itself on honor and chivalry is capable of carrying on > such childish drivel as this thread has become (read in, take it to > e-mail). Holly Sullivan writes: > All true. However, this newsgroup is NOT an official part of the Society in > any way. Yes all too true. But even if it were an official part of SCA, Inc. What would that make it different in this respect? It is first of all a Usenet/NetNews group. And the technology used for this unfortunately permits any discussion to go on as long as _anyone_ (including the non-chivalric) thinks they need to post something into it. This is like a disturbing person at an event but without the possibility of grabbing them and dumping them on the ground outside your tent. Just count the "this discussion is finished when I want, not because you say so" remarks, despite calls from multiple people (including this new thread now about 6 of them). The only known technological solution would be a moderated group. But many people (including myself) find that cure worse than the illness (anyone for all posted messages to be reviewed/approved/dropped by the BoD?). This unfortunately results in such flame-feasts every so often when a few non-chivalrous combattants get a bee into their bonnets. All we can do is wait for them to get tired of waisting their time on fruitless bickering. And remember their names as dishonourable (that is the period way). Oh, and be thankfull that this newsgroup is a lot better than many others. Yours, in service of the chivalric side of SCA and rec.org.sca -- Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486 ###### From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: 16 Dec 1997 06:52:00 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 43 Message-ID: <676120$jn1@nntp02.primenet.com> References: X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.178 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail Neil Franklin (reply remove nospam.) wrote in message ... >It is first of all a Usenet/NetNews group. And the technology >used for this unfortunately permits any discussion to go on as >long as _anyone_ (including the non-chivalric) thinks they need >to post something into it. I disagree with your characterization of this aspect of USENET as being "unfortunate". In my opinion, it is nor more "unfortunate" than Freedom of the Press. >This is like a disturbing person at an event but without the >possibility of grabbing them and dumping them on the ground outside >your tent. This is a poor analogy. At an event, a person can force people to notice their misbehavior, by volume and proximity. On USENET, no one can force you to read a thread. I myself ignore most posting on most newgroups I read: not with a Killfile or anything, just by choosing what to read and what not to read. This is easier now (with GUI newsreaders like GNUemacs' GNUS or the Microsoft or Netscape ones) than it was back in the old days of "rn", but even with "rn" it was easy enough. >Just count the "this discussion is finished when I want, not because >you say so" remarks, despite calls from multiple people (including >this new thread now about 6 of them). More to the point, several people have continued the discussion well past the first "this thread os over" post, showing that such declarations of thread-EOL are foolish. >The only known technological solution would be a moderated group. Or, having learned to read, people could also learn to not read. This latter solution also works well for people who would otherwise feel the need to ban books they don't like. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com ###### Message-ID: <3496BAA7.2551@thomson.net> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:30:15 -0500 From: "James A. Barrow" Reply-To: redfalcon@thomson.net Organization: Red Falcon Armouries X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.250.239.96 Lines: 26 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!155.229.2.176!metro.atlanta.com!news.gabn.net!199.250.239.96 Holly Sullivan wrote: > > > From: "James A. Barrow" > > I find it rather remarkable that the newsgroup of an organization that > > supposedly prides itself on honor and chivalry is capable of carrying on > > such childish drivel as this thread has become (read in, take it to > > e-mail). > > All true. However, this newsgroup is NOT an official part of the Society in > any way. > > -- Via DLG2000 v1.2.4 > > :)---Holly---<--<-@ * holly@cheerful.com * > > FunAmigaSysopPaganSexGoddessQuiltArtistSCACostumerAtLarge > BBS 619 549-0278 http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4201 I did not mean to imply that it was. -- BESMU! James A. Barrow known in the SCA as Jaime Alejandro del Halcon ’78 XLH "The Mutt" armourer to Red Falcon Armouries http://www.thomson.net/rfa "if you can’t blind ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with BS" ###### From: yahoudi@eagle.cc.ukans.edu ([Yahoudi]) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: 16 Dec 1997 16:18:51 GMT Organization: University of Kansas Computing Services Lines: 13 Message-ID: <6769lb$1ut$1@raven.cc.ukans.edu> References: <34953663.5639@thomson.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.cc.ukans.edu X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!198.82.160.249!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.cc.ukans.edu!eagle.cc.ukans.edu!yahoudi James A. Barrow (redfalcon@thomson.net) wrote: : Greetings all. : I find it rather remarkable that the newsgroup of an organization that : supposedly prides itself on honor and chivalry is capable of carrying on : such childish drivel as this thread has become (read in, take it to : e-mail). Some people use honor and chivalry as a justification for their childish drivel, which I think is how the whole "do you fight" thread got started in the first place. Giraude ###### From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: 17 Dec 1997 00:14:01 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 28 Message-ID: <677u3p$mo6@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <676120$jn1@nntp02.primenet.com> <677q80$kuv@nntp02.primenet.com> <01bd0ab7$f9b31d00$4e58ab95@GB-078.gsbme.unsw.edu.au> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.81 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail Geoffrey Brent wrote >Actually, if you want people to take a thread to email the best >thing to do is to _email_ them with that request - preferably >with a copy of the post, so they've already got it in their >mailbox and it's easy for them to mail it. Yep, for that purpose, a polite e-mail is far more effective (in my experience) than a public posting. >The number one reason why threads don't die when they >should is the people who feel that they can only win by >being the last person to post in public. That's more true of low-quality flame wars than of theads in general, I think. Some threads mutate instead of dieing. Undead mutant threads ... AAGGHH ! >> "BTW, flaming flamers is still a flame." > >Sad but true. But only a problem if you don't believe in using flame. :-) -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin (reply remove nospam.) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: 17 Dec 1997 03:52:32 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 70 Message-ID: References: <676120$jn1@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 neil> unfortunately permits any discussion to go on dennis> I disagree with your characterization of this aspect of USENET as being "unfortunate". That is a question of "for who". For those annoyed by a flame war it _IS_ unfortunate. Of course it is not unfortunate for those flaming. dennis> opinion, it is nor more "unfortunate" than Freedom of the Press. IMHO there is a great difference. Freedom of the Press (or Web) doesn't get in others way. Books/Web are there to look at if one wants. Usenet is thrown at one, the same as Email. I would strongly compare flames with spam, both are sent without regard for the reciever. Spammers also "defend" themselves with the same argument of freedom. But "Freedom ueber alles" is anti-social. Both fail to see that respect for others (thats the essence of chivalry) is a virtue that imposes a limit on the freedom to do anything one wants. Unlike most of mundane society most SCAdians regard chivalry as a worthy ideal to strive for. See the "SCA the dream" discussions. neil> This is like a disturbing person at an event dennis> This is a poor analogy. At an event, a person can force people to notice their misbehavior, by volume and proximity. On USENET, no one can force you to read a thread. And so also on Usenet: once one has chosen a newsgroup one has no choice but to download all of it (modem time, we pay connection time over here in Europe, even on local calls), having it displayed in the message summary, having to step through/over it (even if not actually reading it). Just because Usenet makes it a smaller form of disturbance, doesn't make it no disturbance at all. You may notice that a few of the follow up posters support my point of view on this analogy being correct. dennis> newsreaders like GNUemacs' GNUS or the Microsoft or Netscape I use GNUS, so at least it appears as one thread, but it does not disappear. neil> Just count the "this discussion is finished when I want, not because you say so" remarks dennis> More to the point, several people have continued the discussion well past the first "this thread os over" post, showing that such declarations of thread-EOL are foolish. I agree that they are often ineffective (including this case). But they _DO_ give a hint to stop or go to Email. This does work sometimes (particulatly after multiple of them). So they aren't foolish, just unreliable, but better than nothing. IMHO Flames ARE foolish, they never change the targets point of view. They just lead to defensive behaviour, flames back, degenerate to war. neil> The only known technological solution would be a moderated group. dennis> Or, having learned to read, people could also learn to not read. This latter solution also works well for people who would otherwise feel the need to ban books they don't like. I was talking about technical solutions to the news system. Ignoring messages would be an user solution after the news system. Works, but not ideal. -- Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486 ###### From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: 16 Dec 1997 23:08:00 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 196 Message-ID: <677q80$kuv@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <676120$jn1@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.81 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!europa.clark.net!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail Neil Franklin (reply remove nospam.) wrote in message ... >neil> unfortunately permits any discussion to go on >dennis> I disagree with your characterization of this aspect of USENET > as being "unfortunate". > >That is a question of "for who". For those annoyed by a flame war it >_IS_ unfortunate. Of course it is not unfortunate for those flaming. Is the philosophical basis for supporting free speech unfamiliar to you ? >dennis> opinion, it is nor more "unfortunate" than Freedom of the Press. > >IMHO there is a great difference. Freedom of the Press (or Web) doesn't >get in others way. Books/Web are there to look at if one wants. Usenet >is thrown at one, the same as Email. No, it isn't. E-mail is like mail : something sent to you. USENET is like a bulletin board (a real one) that people stick things on that you can read if you like, or not read. If I send you e-mail, I intend you to read it. If I post to a USENET group, odds are (since more people read than post) I don't even know you exist. > I would strongly compare flames with spam, both are sent without > regard for the receiver. That can only be because you are completely ignorant of the meaning of both terms. This is not uncommon, but it is unfortunate. Now either someone has to educate you about the terms you are misusing, or the discussion has to cease. I guess I have to educate you. Story of my life. > Spammers also "defend" themselves with the same argument > of freedom. You are obviously new to these issues. Spam is either commercial postings to a group where commercial posting is not allowed, massively cross-posted postings, endlessly repeated postings that are not newsgroup FAQs (known as "canned spam" or "spambots") or a combination of all of the above. (I may have forgotten some categories of SPAM: others feel free to add.) Without regard to the actual content of the messages, the powers-that-be (mainly, those who pay for the Internet) do not generally like Spam. So they discourage it and even fight it, as is their right since they are paying the freight. Flames, on the other hand, are (in purest form) none of the above. To be a flame, IMHO, a posting need only contain remarks derogatory to someone else. Like "Geez, Neil Franklin seems completely ignorant of the meaning of net.terms, yet he freely and liberally tosses them about and compare them. The ignorance of the terms I can excuse, we all start ignorant. It's Neil's conceit in using terms he hasn't bothered to learn the meaning of to attack other people's behavior I have a problem with." Now, as nicely put as that is, it's a flame, because it insults YOU. (It also seems to be factually correct). Such a flame is non-commercial, is appropriate to this newsgroup because it addresses behavior within this newsgroup, and is not merely a "spambot" posting but an original commentary. >But "Freedom ueber alles" is anti-social. Only an idiot would think that "Freedom of the Press" or "Freedom of Speech" referred to unlimited, irresponsible freedom. Slander, libel and yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is none are all well-understood examples of the limitations of these freedoms. Therefor, I find this argumentative tack you are taking to be at best an extremely hyperbolic distortion of what I was saying, and at worst a completely irrelevant issue you are introducing to try to sidetrack the debate. Either way, I dismiss it, for the reasons I give above. >Unlike most of mundane society most SCAdians regard chivalry >as a worthy ideal to strive for. See the "SCA the dream" discussions. Is "Chivalry" another term you feel free to use without really knowing what it is ? Feel free to demonstrate otherwise: tell us what chivalry is. Or rather, tell us YOUR version, which will no doubt differ from what others say. >neil> This is like a disturbing person at an event >dennis> This is a poor analogy. At an event, a person can force people > to notice their misbehavior, by volume and proximity. On > USENET, no one can force you to read a thread. > >And so also on Usenet: once one has chosen a newsgroup one has no >choice but to download all of it Really ? I don't, and never have had to, not in any of the half-dozen newsreaders I've used in the past decade (GNUemacs GNUS, rn, various Netscape and Microsoft ones). What newsreader are you using that forces you to download all the text of all the articles ? And if you are using such a lame newsreader, why aren't you pissed about the large archery-FAQs that were posted here ? >(modem time, we pay connection time over here in Europe, >even on local calls), Boy, then those archery-FAQs must really have you steamed, eh ? But really, you ought to be ashamed of yourself: here you are posting a 4KB message that could easily have been e-mailed, that obviously has nothing to do with the MiddleAges: why, by your standards, is this more appropriate than my various postings ? Or are you just being a hypocrite: is "I Alone have the Right to take Others to Task for their Net.Behavior" your motto ? >You may notice that a few of the follow up posters support my point of >view on this analogy being correct. And you think THIS is a logically valid way to argue ? It isn't: appealing to the opinion of the mob is just a lamer's way of admitting their argument sucks. >I use GNUS, so at least it appears as one thread, Then unless you have seriously misconfigured it, your comments about being "forced to download" articles is b*llsh*t. I use GNUS every day at work. I've even customized it with some custom Lisp code I wrote. It doesn't force you to download articles, just headers, like every other newsreader I know of. >neil> Just count the "this discussion is finished when I want, not because > you say so" remarks >dennis> More to the point, several people have continued the discussion > well past the first "this thread is over" post, showing that such > declarations of thread-EOL are foolish. > >I agree that they are often ineffective (including this case). Oh Puh-lease, spare me your naivete'. In my long experience on USENET, I have found they are always ineffective, and often counter-productive. *Nobody* cares whether self-appointed arbiters of thread completion declare a thread is "dead", unless it pisses them off and spur them to post. >But they _DO_ give a hint to stop or go to Email. Bullshit. >This does work sometimes (particularly after multiple of them). Really ? Prove it. Show me even one example of such posts bringing a thread to a close. Prove that they caused it. >So they aren't foolish, just unreliable, but better than nothing. Really ? Again, show me an example. Hit the archives, and dig up an example. >IMHO Flames ARE foolish, they never change the targets point of view. Actually, you are wrong. For a fact I have changed people's points of view, and for a fact I have had my own POV changed, by flames. Christ, you are just full of this stuff you know is true that is actually completely false, aren't you ? One of the most valuable skills you can have is to be able to distinguish what you really know from everything else. I suggest you acquire that skill. >They just lead to defensive behaviour, flames back, degenerate to war. Bzzt. Wrong again. I have often seen entire newsgroups achieve a bit of Enlightenment as a result of a flame war. "Consciousness-raising", as its called. >neil> The only known technological solution would be a moderated group. >dennis> Or, having learned to read, people could also learn to not read. > This latter solution also works well for people who would otherwise > feel the need to ban books they don't like. > >I was talking about technical solutions to the news system. There is no technical solution. Get used to the fact that some or even MOST posts to a newsgroup will not be interesting to you, personally, just as most books in the library won't be. Realize how little that matters. Then learn to deal with it. -- Dennis O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com "BTW, flaming flamers is still a flame." ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin (reply remove nospam.) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: 17 Dec 1997 23:59:35 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 32 Message-ID: References: <676120$jn1@nntp02.primenet.com> <677q80$kuv@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 "Dennis O'Connor" wrote: >Neil Franklin (reply remove nospam.) wrote in message ... >>neil> unfortunately permits any discussion to go on >>dennis> I disagree with your characterization of this aspect of USENET >> as being "unfortunate". >> >>That is a question of "for who". For those annoyed by a flame war it >>_IS_ unfortunate. Of course it is not unfortunate for those flaming. > >Is the philosophical basis for supporting free speech unfamiliar to you ? [and so on. snipped to save bandwidth] *****!!!!ROTFL!!!!***** Great. I nominate this with my "best case of missinterpreting of a senders intentions" award of the year 1997. I could now post a long message trying to show you how I come to the above statement. What I consider wrong in your interpretation of me. You will no doubt post back, me, you... Annother flame war. No thanks. I'm just going to save us and the rest of rec.org.sca from this. Exiting thread... Thanks for your attention. *****still rolling***** -- Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486 ###### From: "Dennis O'Connor" Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: The "B.J. Maloney do you fight?" thread Date: 17 Dec 1997 22:42:00 -0700 Organization: Primenet Services for the Internet Lines: 48 Message-ID: <67ad38$3hl@nntp02.primenet.com> References: <676120$jn1@nntp02.primenet.com> <677q80$kuv@nntp02.primenet.com> X-Posted-By: @206.165.26.19 (dmoc) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Path: ccw.ch!aetna.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!news.primenet.com!not-for-mail Neil Franklin (reply remove nospam.) wrote in message ... >"Dennis O'Connor" wrote: >>Neil Franklin (reply remove nospam.) wrote in message ... >>>neil> unfortunately permits any discussion to go on >>>dennis> I disagree with your characterization of this aspect of USENET >>> as being "unfortunate". >>> >>>That is a question of "for who". For those annoyed by a flame war it >>>_IS_ unfortunate. Of course it is not unfortunate for those flaming. >> >>Is the philosophical basis for supporting free speech unfamiliar to you ? > >[and so on. snipped to save bandwidth] > >*****!!!!ROTFL!!!!***** > >Great. I nominate this with my "best case of missinterpreting of a >senders intentions" award of the year 1997. Actually, as I did not post anything at all about your "intentions", I don't see how you can credibly claim I "misinterpreted" them. More likely you are making some kind of guess about why I asked the question I asked, and apparently, you guessed wrong. -- Dennis O'Connor http://www.primenet.com/~dmoc/ >I could now post a long message trying to show you how I come to the >above statement. What I consider wrong in your interpretation of me. >You will no doubt post back, me, you... Annother flame war. No thanks. > >I'm just going to save us and the rest of rec.org.sca from this. > >Exiting thread... Thanks for your attention. > >*****still rolling***** > >-- >Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch, http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ > for Geek Code, Papernet, Voicenet, PGP public key see http: >Any computer, that is running optimally, is outdated; including my Cx486