jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/21/90)
I think a head-to-head-to-head vote on *.aquaria is a good
idea. But we need to pick the proverbial innocent bystander
to count the votes (i.e., Richard, Peter, Oleg, me, Trish, and
Chuq would be prima facie ineligible).
If we take this step, perhaps the illwill generated by the
actions and counteractions regarding *.aquaria can die
down. "'Tis," as a certain young Dane once put it, "a
consumation devoutly to be wished."
BTW, bowing to a rather wide desire that the arguments
amongst Trish, Tom, and me cease, I'm going to let most
of their silliness slide from now on. There were two
reasons for that: (1) the realization that, no matter how
many times folks correct them, Trish would be unwilling
(or unable) to curb her irascability, and Tom would be
unwilling (or unable) to return to Earth from whatever
bleak pseudo-universe it is he inhabits; and (2) I wanted
to see how long it would take them to turn on each other!
Finally, a note on soc.culture.iranian. I agree that the
actions of the Iranian government are reprehensible ...
but let's not deprive net.Iranians --- and anyone else who
receives soc groups --- of the chance to explore this
culture.
As I've said of other lands, there's more to Iran than
the Ayatollah. For instance: will Iran's Baha'is stay,
or leave? Has the supply of gold been totally wiped out
by the war with Iraq? How is the country's Jewish population
treated? What is the literacy level? If many Moslems
adhere to Islam's prohibition on interest, how do the
banks handle savings accounts -- and loans? And so on.
Let's direct any retribution toward the actual offenders.
Collective guilt is an irrational concept, and collective
"justice" is a contradiction in terms.
Jeff
--
"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good ...
Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!"
-- The Animalsdave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/22/90)
In article <_DW17VCxds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: > > > > I think a head-to-head-to-head vote on *.aquaria is a good > idea. If find this vastly amusing. Alt.aquaria is just that: an ALT group. You want to discuss it, go to alt.config. There was only one aquaria group until the pithy screamers got involved: sci.aquaria. The aquaria people didn't call for the REC group, it was CREATED without discussion and/or vote. I seem to remember something about a POLL. Maybe you should ask around and see WHO CREATED THE PROBLEM HERE. There was one group. You jokers made the second one. Now you want to take THREE groups, one of which is NONE OF YOUR CONCERN, and create a single group. Wonderful. Simply wonderful. If you want to call for the deletion of a newsgroup let's talk about REC.aquaria, you know, the one that was created without ANY regard to the net.guidelines. Dave
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) (02/23/90)
In article <59198@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: > In article <_DW17VCxds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: > > > > > > > > I think a head-to-head-to-head vote on *.aquaria is a good > > idea. > > If find this vastly amusing. > > Alt.aquaria is just that: an ALT group. You want to discuss > it, go to alt.config. You have a good point there. Suggestions -- such as mine -- of a tripartite vote are out of line. Sorry! > > There was only one aquaria group until the pithy screamers > got involved: sci.aquaria. Well, no need to get pithed off. But the fact is that many people consider sci.aquaria illegitimate, not only because it defrauds some siteadmins, but because of questions about the vote. > The aquaria people didn't call for the REC group, it was > CREATED without discussion and/or vote. I seem to remember > something about a POLL. Maybe you should ask around and > see WHO CREATED THE PROBLEM HERE. Well, see above. > If you want to call for the deletion of a newsgroup let's > talk about REC.aquaria, you know, the one that was created > without ANY regard to the net.guidelines. Or, to eliminate any questions of legitimacy, and *possibly* even the longrunning illwill, let's go ahead and match the two head to head. Jeff Daiell Say -- you and I could go into business together, and call the company Hill and Daiell! Has a ring to it! -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/23/90)
In article <38952@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: > > >Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) > >REC.aquaria. > > Fact: There was discussion. Fact: there was a vote. Fact: this vote and > discussion were validated by the very same newsgroup administrators who > validated Richard's group. Horseshit. There was NO discussion. There WAS a discussion about the fact that there was NO discussion. You maintained that the discussion about sci.aquaria had been enough to cover the REC group. There was NO vote. You called a POLL. You LATER started calling your POLL a VOTE. Many many people did not participate in your POLL simply because they felt it was a complete waste of time, really silly, and in very very poor taste. Now that Richard is (temporarily) off the net you seem to be pulling out all the stops to KILL sci.aquaria. So what's your problem? Why all the phony attempts at looking legitimate? You created rec.aquaria OUTSIDE the guidelines, why bother to stay in them now? Have some juevos, son: RMgroup the sucker. That's what you want to do isn't it? That's what you've been trying to do for MONTHS now. Either stop your whining and do it or stop your whining and don't do it. Dave
" Maynard) (02/24/90)
I was hoping that this dead, rotting equine carcass would finally be allowed to rest in peace; instead, we get disinformation: In article <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: >There was only one aquaria group until the pithy screamers >got involved: sci.aquaria. Actually, there was only one aquaria group until Richard Sexton went nuts: alt.aquaria. Then Richard decided to defraud the admins of the net, and create sci.aquaria to improve its distribution. Any claim otherwise, when Richard has been documented to say that the improved distribution was the reason for sci.*, is disinformation. >The aquaria people didn't call for the REC group, it was >CREATED without discussion and/or vote. I seem to remember >something about a POLL. Maybe you should ask around and >see WHO CREATED THE PROBLEM HERE. Any answer other than Richard Sexton is disinformation. >There was one group. You jokers made the second one. There was one group. Richard created the second one, and the third was created to try to correct the results of Richard's fraud. Your answer is more disinformation. >Now you want to take THREE groups, one of which is NONE OF >YOUR CONCERN, and create a single group. Actually, the idea is to take two groups, one of which is the product of outright fraud, and make one, at which time the need for the third will go away. Your comment is disinformation. >If you want to call for the deletion of a newsgroup let's >talk about REC.aquaria, you know, the one that was created >without ANY regard to the net.guidelines. Your call for deleting the group that fits properly in the hierarchy is disinformation. The group was created in regard for the guidelines - more so than Richard's group, which was created in violation of the guidelines about a name consensus. sci.aquaria is the group that needs to go away. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Free the DC-10!
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/24/90)
In article <::X1644xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: > > Well, no need to get pithed off. But the fact is that many people > consider sci.aquaria illegitimate, not only because it defrauds > some siteadmins, but because of questions about the vote. Yeup that's it: a conspiracy to defraud hundreds if not thousands of siteadmins out of inodes. The two aquaria groups are up and running, even though rec.aquaria was created outside the usenet guidelines, and seem to be doing just fine thank you. Perhaps someone can explain just what the problem is, I mean besides "Richard Sexton did it so we don't like it." That is the basic argument, no? I mean I don't see anyone screaming that rec.aquaria is illegitimate because it was created without discussion or vote? Richard wanted .aquaria in sci and Peter wanted it in rec. You don't think .aquaria belongs in the sci hierarchy, therefore Richard's vote is 'tainted' and Peter's POLL is legitimate? Marvelous. You folks haven't been discussing the merits of rec vs. sci. You've simply been campaining against the SCI group. And the only reason is because Richard Sexton championed the group. Dave
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/25/90)
In article <K5-+QD&@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > I was hoping that this dead, rotting equine carcass would finally be > allowed to rest in peace; instead, we get disinformation: > > In article <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: > >There was only one aquaria group until the pithy screamers > >got involved: sci.aquaria. > > Actually, there was only one aquaria group until Richard Sexton went > nuts: alt.aquaria. Then Richard decided to defraud the admins of the > net, and create sci.aquaria to improve its distribution. Any claim > otherwise, when Richard has been documented to say that the improved > distribution was the reason for sci.*, is disinformation. The alt group is not the concern of this group. You want to discuss alt go to alt.config. And take your disinformation with you. And which was it Jay? Did Richard try to create sci.aquaria SIMPLY to defraud, to maim the Holy Hierarchy of usenet, or was he trying to create a useful (in his eyes) newsgroup? > >The aquaria people didn't call for the REC group, it was > >CREATED without discussion and/or vote. I seem to remember > >something about a POLL. Maybe you should ask around and > >see WHO CREATED THE PROBLEM HERE. > > Any answer other than Richard Sexton is disinformation. Richard called for a newsgroup. It was created. Richard was perfectly happy. He went off and started posting in the new group. Then the pithy screamers started: "USENET IS SOILED" "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) REC.aquaria. And the pithy screamers continue: "USENET IS SOILED" "DEATH TO SCI.FISHIES" And now people in news.groups talking about removing an alt group. An ALT group. Marvelous. Answer me again: Who's creating the problem here? > >There was one group. You jokers made the second one. > > There was one group. Richard created the second one, and the third was > created to try to correct the results of Richard's fraud. Your answer is > more disinformation. I'll say it again: Leave the ALT group out of this. It's alt's concern. Sci was the FIRST group of concern here. And what "fraud" do you keep alluding to? No one has EVER shown any fraud in any of these discussions. Your answer is more disinformation. And libelous. But I'm glad to see that you agree that the REC group was created OUTSIDE the usenet guidelines. > >Now you want to take THREE groups, one of which is NONE OF > >YOUR CONCERN, and create a single group. > > Actually, the idea is to take two groups, one of which is the product of > outright fraud, and make one, at which time the need for the third will > go away. Your comment is disinformation. Again with the fraud. You an expert or something? No Jay, that is not the idea. The idea you people have been campaigning for is the removal of ALL aquaria groups. You want the sci group out because Sexton was involved in it's creation. You want the rest out because, I dunno. Why? You tell me. Give me some sort of real-world answer. You out of INODES? Can't handle one more newsgroup with about 20 postings a day? Jeez, maybe we should take up a collection and get you a bigger disk. > >If you want to call for the deletion of a newsgroup let's > >talk about REC.aquaria, you know, the one that was created > >without ANY regard to the net.guidelines. > > Your call for deleting the group that fits properly in the hierarchy is > disinformation. The group was created in regard for the guidelines - > more so than Richard's group, which was created in violation of the > guidelines about a name consensus. It's Mr. Disinformation himself. Jay the BIG LIE won't work here. Rec.aquaria was created without discussion OR vote. Peter held a poll and when it went HIS way he created rec.aquaria. He and his ilk IMMEDIATELY began campaigning for the removal of the sci group. > sci.aquaria is the group that needs to go away. NEEDS. Very telling that. What NEED? Demonstrate some NEED. Show me how sci.aquaria is causing irrepairable damage to usenet. Explain to me why sci.aquaria has no right to exist. Thrill me with the NEED to remove sci.aquaria. If you would stop to READ the groups you'd see the difference between the rec group and the sci group. The rec group is most definitely a 'hobby' group. Novice fish keeping questions. The sci group is carrying as much hard science as any of the other sci groups. How doesn't it fit into the hierarchy? It's a sci group, they talk sci. What's the problem? You don't think fishies are science, fine, that's YOUR problem, not the nets. But of course, gathering facts and making decisions based on them doesn't seem to be your forte. Dave
rissa@rpp386.cactus.org (Patrician Reality Maps) (02/25/90)
In article <_DW17VCxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >idea. But we need to pick the proverbial innocent bystander >to count the votes (i.e., Richard, Peter, Oleg, me, Trish, and >Chuq would be prima facie ineligible). Add to that list Nelson Broat and K*nt Dolan. But I agree with Brad Templeton -- enough is enough. No more voting on .aquaria. >BTW, bowing to a rather wide desire that the arguments >amongst Trish, Tom, and me cease, I'm going to let most >of their silliness slide from now on. Smart move. > There were two >reasons for that: (1) the realization that, no matter how >many times folks correct them, Trish would be unwilling >(or unable) to curb her irascability, Oh, I'm not angry, dear, no more than you are. After all, it's just the net, it's hardly worth getting upset about. [re Tom Maddox] (2) I wanted >to see how long it would take them to turn on each other! Tom and I have been close net.friends for years. In fact, Jeff, most of the many folks who correct the silliness you write are all very good net.friends.
rissa@rpp386.cactus.org (Patrician Reality Maps) (02/25/90)
In article <K5-+QD&@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >nuts: alt.aquaria. Then Richard decided to defraud the admins of the >net, and create sci.aquaria to improve its distribution. Any claim Oh calm down, Jay, no one has ever denied this. But tell me something -- why is it wrong to switch from a rec group to a sci group in order to get better distribution but not wrong to switch from a talk group to a soc group for exactly the same reason? You're being very hypocritical on this issue which lends credence to Dave Hill's assertion that the only reason for all this fussing and fighting about sci.aquaria is because it was Richard Sexton's propo- sal. It doesn't have anything to do with defrauding anyone. It has to do with net.politics.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (02/25/90)
> Yeup that's it: a conspiracy to defraud hundreds if not > thousands of siteadmins out of inodes. Actually, a conspiracy to defraud the folks paying to ship usenet over the Atlantic out of long distance phone services. > The two aquaria groups are up and running, even though rec.aquaria > was created outside the usenet guidelines, and seem to be doing > just fine thank you. There was a call for discussion (by Richard Sexton), a call for votes (by me) with an appropriate charter. I merely gave popel the choice of what group to vote for. > Perhaps someone can explain just what the problem is, I mean > besides "Richard Sexton did it so we don't like it." I've supported other things Richard Sexton has proposed, so that's pure balderdash. The problem is that the vote he ran did not establish the consensus on what the name and charter of the group should be. It was technically a win, but the sheer volume of votes really left it too close to call. > Richard wanted .aquaria in sci and Peter wanted it in rec. Richard started out wanting it in rec. The original rec.aquaria failed. Then he decided to run a new vote some time later... but because he believed that the Europeans wouldn't get the group in rec (a false assumption, as it turned out) he decided to call for a vote in sci. He told me this himself in just about as many words. > You don't think .aquaria belongs in the sci hierarchy, > therefore Richard's vote is 'tainted' and Peter's > POLL is legitimate? Actually, I was expecting a flood of votes from Richard Sexton and friends putting my VOTE(*) firmly on the sci side as well. --- (*) As Brad Templeton frequently points out, the words "poll", "vote", and "survey" as used on Usenet are effectively equivalent. Are you really slamming me because I didn't utter the magic incantations right? Amazing. I'd expected to be slammed for using STV rather than a yes/no poll. Followups requested to be directed to /dev/null. There is no magic idiocy in the header... I have this quixotic belief that if you treat people like adults they'll behave like adults. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything with this message, but I don't care to have revisionist history stand uncallenged. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (02/25/90)
In article <59391@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: > Perhaps someone can explain just what the problem is, I mean > besides "Richard Sexton did it so we don't like it." > > That is the basic argument, no? I mean I don't see anyone > screaming that rec.aquaria is illegitimate because it was > created without discussion or vote? > > Richard wanted .aquaria in sci and Peter wanted it in rec. > You don't think .aquaria belongs in the sci hierarchy, > therefore Richard's vote is 'tainted' and Peter's > POLL is legitimate? > > Marvelous. > > You folks haven't been discussing the merits of rec vs. sci. > > You've simply been campaining against the SCI group. > > And the only reason is because Richard Sexton championed > the group. > Hmm. Two inaccuracies here: one, I had no problem with Richard before this started; two, there were some pretty heavy charges about the voting itself, and my pointing to them has nothing to do with the group being inappropriately placed. And if Peter's procedure was equally improper, a head-to-head vote can clear *all* of our points of contention away. Jeff -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (02/25/90)
Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. Jay Maynerd is calling for the removal of an alt group in news.groups and he thinks that his opposition is nutty? Could someone please direct this poor boy to news.announce.newusers? The ONLY reason that Jay and the ficcites have renewed their clamor over sci.aquaria is that they know durn well that their chief antagonist's machine is no longer in service. The minute that I saw that gryphon was going to the great Usenet in the sky I KNEW that they would try to pull a fish.boner. Of sci.aquaria and rec.aquaria only sci.aquaria was created in accord with the commonly accepted guidelines. You guys had your verification period in which to check out the votes. If you had reason to believe that there was fraud involved, why didn't you simply verify the votes? I'll tell you why - because you knew very well that each and every person on that list knew exactly what they were voting for. Do you expect anyone to believe that this is anything other than a pathetic attempt to get the "last word" in now that gryphon is gone? You should be ashamed of yourself. -- John Berryhill 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
NMBCU@CUNYVM (02/25/90)
In article <18025@rpp386.cactus.org>, rissa@rpp386.cactus.org (Patrician Reality Maps) says: > >In article <_DW17VCxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >>idea. But we need to pick the proverbial innocent bystander >>to count the votes (i.e., Richard, Peter, Oleg, me, Trish, and >>Chuq would be prima facie ineligible). > >Add to that list Nelson Broat and K*nt Dolan. Sorry honey, I'm not biased. Just becuase I voted against sci.aquaria's creation does not make me biased and a very bad risk to hold a vote. Just because I didn't agree with Richard's distribution reasoning does not make me biased and a bad risk to hold a vote. Just because you happen to think we don't carry and distribute sci.aquaria and alt.rissa at my site is not a reason for adding me to the list of people who can't be trusted to hold a vote fair and square. Like for example, whats makes you think I think you're biased. I never thought for one instant you were nor did I ever say that. And although there was a time that we didn't carry sci.aquaria, that time passed long ago. But at no time did my software stop distributing it. Heck, if a place that we feed wants alt.* and sci.* and *.*, then by god they may have whatever we get whether we want it or not. We never hold up the distribution of any group. So Trish, why did you add me to the list. Just because I'm a rec.aquaria champion? And I'm not to high on sci.aquaria. Not a very good reason at all Trish. Suppose we never had any aquaria group at all and I came along to create one, would you then say that I'm biased and therefore shouldn't be allowed to hold the vote because I'm the "group in question" champion and I'm biased. If I'm misinterpreting your meaning then perhaps a more indepth explaination or your part is in order. Please post it to the net however and not via e-mail. Since you sought to insult me publicly you might as well continue your assault publicly. I'm not hurt. After the last thing that happened in my life which hurt me very much (personal stuff), nothing as trivial as a bonafide flame fest between you and I can hurt me that much. After a while on the net you become numb to it all. So go ahead Trish, flame away. Isn't that what you want anyway? As always seems to be the case between you and everyone else. Nelson Broat
NMBCU@CUNYVM (02/25/90)
In article <12118@nigel.udel.EDU>, berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) says: > >Do you expect anyone to believe that this is anything other than a pathetic >attempt to get the "last word" in now that gryphon is gone? Sorry John, GRYPHON may be gone, but Rich and Oleg are still connected to the net. I communicate with them via *.aquaria. I'm kinda glad they're still with us. Kinda makes life interesting. :) Don't you think. :) Nelson Broat
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (02/26/90)
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: >alt go to alt.config. And take your disinformation with you. Speaking of massive disinformation, Dave: >Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) >REC.aquaria. Fact: There was discussion. Fact: there was a vote. Fact: this vote and discussion were validated by the very same newsgroup administrators who validated Richard's group. If you're going to accuse people of lying, at least pretend to get your own facts straight. >It's Mr. Disinformation himself. I couldn't have said it better myself. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> chuq@apple.com <+> [This is myself speaking] I don't know what's scarier: President Reagan saying he had no inkling of his aides doing anything illegal, or an ex-president who uses the word inkling.
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (02/26/90)
In article <38952@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: #dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: # #>alt go to alt.config. And take your disinformation with you. # #Speaking of massive disinformation, Dave: # #>Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) #>REC.aquaria. # #Fact: There was discussion. Sorry, wrong. There was NO discussion about creating a rec.aquaria group. There was some discussion about sci.aquaria being the wrong name and that it should be in rec. This is not the same thing as discussion about creating a rec.aquaria group. # Fact: there was a vote. This is marginally correct. There was a non-standard poll about the name rec.aquaria. This was converted into a vote on the groups existance after the fact. After the "vote" it was said that the novel poll method was ok'd with the current keeper of the guidelines. The first problem is that nobody else was notified of that. The second problem is that the keeper of the guidelines had NO authority to ok anything of the kind. # Fact: this vote and #discussion were validated by the very same newsgroup administrators who #validated Richard's group. Finally you get some facts straight. #If you're going to accuse people of lying, at least pretend to get your own #facts straight. You, on the other hand, do a very good job of pretending. #>It's Mr. Disinformation himself. # #I couldn't have said it better myself. I just did. Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)
" Maynard) (02/27/90)
In the interests of saving CPU and I/O resources for those who have this topic in their kill files, I'm consolidating replies to the three remaining Richard Sexton Sycophants(tm) in this one posting. First, to Mr. Disinformation himself, Dave Hill: (ref: <59506@ccicpg.UUCP>) In article <K5-+QD&@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: |> In article <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: |> >There was only one aquaria group until the pithy screamers |> >got involved: sci.aquaria. |> Actually, there was only one aquaria group until Richard Sexton went |> nuts: alt.aquaria. Then Richard decided to defraud the admins of the |> net, and create sci.aquaria to improve its distribution. Any claim |> otherwise, when Richard has been documented to say that the improved |> distribution was the reason for sci.*, is disinformation. |The alt group is not the concern of this group. You want to discuss |alt go to alt.config. And take your disinformation with you. You asked for it, you got it, Toyota. Voila! alt.config has now been dragged into the war. That still does not change the fact that there was an aquaria group before the sci.* fraud was even conceived, let alone perpetuated. |And which was it Jay? Did Richard try to create sci.aquaria SIMPLY |to defraud, to maim the Holy Hierarchy of usenet, or was he trying |to create a useful (in his eyes) newsgroup? He wanted a rec group, but he wanted better distribution than rec.* gets, so he chose to defraud the admins of the net by advertising a rec group as a sci group. |Richard was perfectly happy. He went off and started posting in |the new group. Sure, he was happy. He got what he wanted, or so he thought: a rec group with sci distribution. His con job succeeded. |Then the pithy screamers started: | "USENET IS SOILED" "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" Careful...your "pithy screamers" includes nearly all of the true net.pioneers - those who have put man-years into making the net fly. Nearly all of them were opposed to the sci fraud, because it _was_ fraud. |Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) |REC.aquaria. Chuq von Rospach debunks this one, in <38952@apple.Apple.COM>: |Fact: There was discussion. Fact: there was a vote. Fact: this vote and |discussion were validated by the very same newsgroup administrators who |validated Richard's group. What more can I say? rec.aquaria is legit. |And the pithy screamers continue: | "USENET IS SOILED" "DEATH TO SCI.FISHIES" sci.aquaria DID soil the net. Your attempts to label it as "pithy screaming" don't change the facts. |And now people in news.groups talking about removing an alt |group. An ALT group. Marvelous. This is not the first time people in news.groups have discussed removal of an alt.group; in fact, each time an alt group has been duplicated by a mainstream group, this discussion has cropped up. What makes it so eeeeeeeeevil now? Who died and made you net.defender.of.alt.that.is.holy? |Answer me again: Who's creating the problem here? Richard started the problem; you and the other two Sycophants(tm) are perpetuating it. |> >There was one group. You jokers made the second one. |> There was one group. Richard created the second one, and the third was |> created to try to correct the results of Richard's fraud. Your answer is |> more disinformation. |I'll say it again: Leave the ALT group out of this. |It's alt's concern. |Sci was the FIRST group of concern here. Like it or not, the alt.net is viewed by most of the world as an extension of the mainstream net. This discussion is neither unusual nor unnatural. |And what "fraud" do you keep alluding to? No one has EVER shown |any fraud in any of these discussions. You're being disingenous, or just plain stupid. I've been defining the kind of fraud I mean: defrauding net.admins by placing a rec.group under sci. |But I'm glad to see that you agree that the REC group was created |OUTSIDE the usenet guidelines. I agreed to nothing of the sort. The rec group was created following a more than full and fair discussion, and after a full and fair vote. |> >Now you want to take THREE groups, one of which is NONE OF |> >YOUR CONCERN, and create a single group. |> Actually, the idea is to take two groups, one of which is the product of |> outright fraud, and make one, at which time the need for the third will |> go away. Your comment is disinformation. |Again with the fraud. You an expert or something? The facts don't change. |No Jay, that is not the idea. The idea you people have been |campaigning for is the removal of ALL aquaria groups. You want |the sci group out because Sexton was involved in it's creation. Stop putting words in my mouth. There's an obvious and well-proven need for an aquaria group...at least as much as there is ever a need for a group. The group is properly placed in rec.aquaria. I want the sci group out, not because Richard conned it through, but because it doesn't belong where it is. I'd be just as firm in my opposition if Gene Spafford had done it (but he has much, much, much better sense than to try to con people.) |Jeez, maybe we should take up a collection and get you a bigger disk. Feel free. I won't turn it down. |> >If you want to call for the deletion of a newsgroup let's |> >talk about REC.aquaria, you know, the one that was created |> >without ANY regard to the net.guidelines. |> Your call for deleting the group that fits properly in the hierarchy is |> disinformation. The group was created in regard for the guidelines - |> more so than Richard's group, which was created in violation of the |> guidelines about a name consensus. |It's Mr. Disinformation himself. Jay the BIG LIE won't work here. Then why do you keep trying it? |Rec.aquaria was created without discussion OR vote. Peter held a |poll and when it went HIS way he created rec.aquaria. He and |his ilk IMMEDIATELY began campaigning for the removal of the |sci group. Terabytes of discussion. Probably the single longest, most voluminous discussion in the history of the net about a group; perhaps the biggest on any subject. "Without discussion." Suuuuuure. What do you call a vote? Peter's vote was taken openly and fairly. The results were posted for all to see. The only difference is that nobody went out campaigning for votes to that one. |> sci.aquaria is the group that needs to go away. |NEEDS. Very telling that. What NEED? Demonstrate some NEED. |Show me how sci.aquaria is causing irrepairable damage to usenet. |Explain to me why sci.aquaria has no right to exist. |Thrill me with the NEED to remove sci.aquaria. As much as anything needs to happen on the net...It has no right to exist because it was created fraudulently. |But of course, gathering facts and making decisions based on them |doesn't seem to be your forte. Weeeell...at least I don't try to con people into getting my way. -- Next is the founding Sycophant, John Berryhill: (ref: <12118@nigel.udel.EDU>) |Unbelievable, simply unbelievable. I'll second that. I can't believe that you people are still doing this. |Jay Maynerd is calling for the removal of an alt group in news.groups |and he thinks that his opposition is nutty? Again, this is not the first time this kind of thing has been discussed. Why is it now such a heinous crime? Is it, perchance, because it's YOUR pet ox getting gored? |The ONLY reason that Jay and the ficcites have renewed their clamor over |sci.aquaria is that they know durn well that their chief antagonist's |machine is no longer in service. The minute that I saw that gryphon |was going to the great Usenet in the sky I KNEW that they would try |to pull a fish.boner. While I count the departure of gryphon as, on balance, a Good Thing, I was prepared to let the horse carcass rot in peace. Only after Dave Hill resumed his disinformation campaign did I feel compelled to respond. |Of sci.aquaria and rec.aquaria only sci.aquaria was created in accord |with the commonly accepted guidelines. You guys had your verification |period in which to check out the votes. If you had reason to believe |that there was fraud involved, why didn't you simply verify the votes? |I'll tell you why - because you knew very well that each and every |person on that list knew exactly what they were voting for. Haw. There's better than a misconception per sentence in the preceding paragraph. sci.aquaria ignored a key guideline: There should be a consensus on the name. Richard could have avoided the entire controversy by creating rec.aquaria first, and then doing sci.aquaria if the need existed. Instead, he chose to push for the sci group because it would get better distribution. Yes, there was a verification period; checking out every last vote - even those that had been shamelessly campaigned for - would not have changed the basic fraud, because (as I, among others, have been saying ever since Richard ignored net.consensus and called for sci.aquaria) the fraud was not in the votes counted, but rather in the name of the group itself: it was intended to mislead net.admins into think a group whose contents were recreational in nature was really about hard science. Finally, I don't believe that every one of the 400-odd YES voters really understood the issues involved; most of them simply wanted an aquaria group, and didn't care whether or not it was in the right place. |Do you expect anyone to believe that this is anything other than a pathetic |attempt to get the "last word" in now that gryphon is gone? I do, and already some posters have. Further, that last sentence sounds like you feel inadequate because you don't have the support of the mighty Richard Sexton. (Sycophants need the approval of their leader to feel adequate.) I've even seen postings from rsex@somewhere.or.other that sound like Richard, and had seen some before I wrote the referenced posting; I had assumed that it was Richard himself. (Say HALLELUJAH!) (Blech.) |You should be ashamed of yourself. Why? For refusing to let disinformation pass? -- Finally, for the Sycophant(tm) Sweetheart, Patricia O Tuama: (ref: <18026@rpp386.cactus.org>) (John, I thought you had better sense than that...) |In article <K5-+QD&@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: |>nuts: alt.aquaria. Then Richard decided to defraud the admins of the |>net, and create sci.aquaria to improve its distribution. Any claim |Oh calm down, Jay, no one has ever denied this. Oh yeah? See above. |But tell me something -- why is it wrong to switch from a rec group |to a sci group in order to get better distribution but not wrong to |switch from a talk group to a soc group for exactly the same reason? Which one are you referencing, pray tell? |You're being very hypocritical on this issue which lends credence to |Dave Hill's assertion that the only reason for all this fussing and |fighting about sci.aquaria is because it was Richard Sexton's propo- |sal. It doesn't have anything to do with defrauding anyone. It has |to do with net.politics. How can I be hypocritical when I don't even know what you're talking about? BTW, does this mean you're back to being willing to talk about sci.aquaria? Or are you going to ignore yet another of my responsive answers to your inflammatory questions? -- Just for Jeff Daiell, here's a net.attaboy, to Chuq von Rospach: (ref: <38952@apple.Apple.COM>) (directed to Dave Hill:) |If you're going to accuse people of lying, at least pretend to get your own |facts straight. |>It's Mr. Disinformation himself. |I couldn't have said it better myself. Nor I, Chuq. Tell me, do you write for a living? :-) :-) -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within." - Charles Hannum
spenser@ficc.uu.net (Spenser Aden) (02/28/90)
About this fish.frenzy - This seems pretty silly IMHO. Disinformation. Fraud. Alt is different. Stupid. Richard. Peter. Jay splut. Jeffd. Tainted vote. Tainted love. Sex, Lies, and Videotape. If you guys really get off to this, and think it's worthwhile discussing what HAPPENED IN THE PAST and why, fine. I suppose this is the place for it. But why not this: rmgroup sci.aquaria and rec.aquaria, and recall for votes without discussion (I think that breaking the rule is ok this time, since plenty of discussion has gone on). So what if the sci vote was fraud - it won't pass this time if it really made a difference. And so what if the rec vote was valid before - it'll pass again if so. Set up mailing lists for a month if you can't do without your fish-fix for a month. You all know who you WANT to hear from anyway, right. Do something, don't just squabble and flame. It's pretty silly. But then such things will occur. If you choose to flame me, fine. I wasn't around when the initial barfing over this occurred, but the rehash is enough for me. Just recall for votes and see again. BTW, send flames in e-mail. They needn't contribute to this fish.frenzy. And by all means, leave alt out of it. (That's the only valid point I've really seen that deals with today's problem). -Spenser -- S. Spenser Aden (713) 274-5000 | This may have been a test of the emergency Ferranti International Controls | flame-throwing system. Had this been an spenser@ficc.uu.net | actual flame, you would have been instructed Only my opinions, not Ferranti's.| where to follow-up. This was only a test.
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (02/28/90)
In article <CR_+.Z-@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: It's always nice to see someone live up to their handle. > He wanted a rec group, but he wanted better distribution than rec.* > gets, so he chose to defraud the admins of the net by advertising a rec > group as a sci group. Horsie-doodoo, you ignorant splut. Richard said two things: He wanted a serious aquaria group AND better distribution. Where's the fraud you keep screaming about? They're talking SCIENCE in sci.aquaria. Where's the fraud? > Sure, he was happy. He got what he wanted, or so he thought: a rec group > with sci distribution. His con job succeeded. Better than that. He got a SCI group for serious discussion AND a REC group for the more hobby minded. > |Then the pithy screamers started: > | "USENET IS SOILED" "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" > > Careful...your "pithy screamers" includes nearly all of the true > net.pioneers - those who have put man-years into making the net fly. > Nearly all of them were opposed to the sci fraud, because it _was_ > fraud. I don't care if they wired the net with their own veins, they are screaming needlessly. I'll ask you one more time as you seem to be incredibly dense: What fraud? Let us in on your little secret. Tell us JUST WHAT you're talking about, rather than running around like Chicken Little screaming "fraud fraud the USENET sky is falling." > |Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) > |REC.aquaria. > > Chuq von Rospach debunks this one, in <38952@apple.Apple.COM>: > > |Fact: There was discussion. Fact: there was a vote. Fact: this vote and > |discussion were validated by the very same newsgroup administrators who > |validated Richard's group. > > What more can I say? rec.aquaria is legit. I am not the only person on the net that has challanged this. Many others remember precisely what happened. The rec group WAS created WITHOUT DISCUSSION or VOTE. Talk about FRAUD. Talk about disimformation, you guys are bloody gold medalists. > This is not the first time people in news.groups have discussed removal > of an alt.group; in fact, each time an alt group has been duplicated by > a mainstream group, this discussion has cropped up. What makes it so > eeeeeeeeevil now? Who died and made you net.defender.of.alt.that.is.holy? So they were WRONG then and you're WRONG now. Why am I not surprised that you can't see that? > You're being disingenous, or just plain stupid. I've been defining the > kind of fraud I mean: defrauding net.admins by placing a rec.group under > sci. AHA! Finally. Hey ace, have you READ the sci group yet? Oh, you don't carry it, huh? Too bad, they seem to be talking REAL science there. Sure it has to do with breeds of fish, oxygenation of water, solubility of trace elements in water, plant species and their various lighting problems/solutions but HEY THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Chemistry, physics biology but it sure as HELL ain't science, huh? > I agreed to nothing of the sort. The rec group was created following a > more than full and fair discussion, and after a full and fair vote. That is a complete and utter LIE. There was NO formal discussion for the creation of rec.aquaria, and NO formal vote. I'll say it again: There was a discussion about the lack of discussion. There was a POLL that was supposed to gather OPINION about the group NAME. It was NEVER a FORMAL VOTE. > Stop putting words in my mouth. Why? Peter and Chuq do it all the time. Dave
cj@modernlvr.sgi.com (C J Silverio) (02/28/90)
--- dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: |Marvelous. | |You folks haven't been discussing the merits of rec vs. sci. | |You've simply been campaining against the SCI group. | |And the only reason is because Richard Sexton championed |the group. The more I hear from opponents of the *.aquaria thing, the more I think Dave is right. Especially when I read unbearably emotional postings like the ones Jay Maynard has been writing. The only plausible explanation for his whinging is a personal grudge against Richard Sexton. --- ucbvax!brahms!silverio C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 cj%modernlvr.wpd@sgi.com
series@well.sf.ca.us (Frank Korzeniewski) (02/28/90)
In article <CR_+.Z-@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) on returning from a trip thru an alternate reality writes: > > [lots of fancifull stuff devoid of applicability to real life] > Hey, jay. Wake up guy. Boy that was sure some nightmare you just went thru. You can relax now. You are back in the real world and all is safe and calm. By the way. Richard Sexton has just been declared king and he has been asking about you. We'll tell him you are right here. Gotta run. Bye. P.S. Say jay, you didn't pick up that name from a smoking habit by any chance, did you? Frank Korzeniewski (well!series)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (02/28/90)
I love to say I told you so, so I will. People started debating fish again. I said, "stop, you'll cause flame wars." You said, "no, there are many people who want to engage in serious discussion on this and resolve this problem." I said, "perhaps, but if I know this topic, it's not possible. You'll get flame wars that annoy everybody no matter how good your intentions." I can't stop 'em now, but let this be a lesson to the next person with good intentions they wish to use as paving stones. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jmi@devsim.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler - MDC - Douglas Aircraft - Long Beach, CA) (02/28/90)
In article <90056.105351NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: > In article <12118@nigel.udel.EDU>, berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) says: >> >>Do you expect anyone to believe that this is anything other than a pathetic >>attempt to get the "last word" in now that gryphon is gone? > > Sorry John, > > GRYPHON may be gone, but Rich and Oleg are still connected to the net. > I communicate with them via *.aquaria. I'm kinda glad they're still > with us. Kinda makes life interesting. :) Don't you think. :) > > Nelson Broat Sorry Nelson, GRYPHON is not gone, just its users. I too had the impression that it went away. I was mislead by Richards messages but recient E-Mail has proven that the site still exists and that the admin chose to lower the number of users at the site. [you all may now continue to post your chosen disinformation] jmi jmi@dac.mdcbbs.com
richardb@cognos.UUCP (Richard Brosseau) (03/01/90)
In article <12118@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes:
+
+Unbelievable, simply unbelievable.
+
+Jay Maynerd is calling for the removal of an alt group in news.groups
+and he thinks that his opposition is nutty?
+
+Could someone please direct this poor boy to news.announce.newusers?
+
+The ONLY reason that Jay and the ficcites have renewed their clamor over
+sci.aquaria is that they know durn well that their chief antagonist's
+machine is no longer in service. The minute that I saw that gryphon
+was going to the great Usenet in the sky I KNEW that they would try
+to pull a fish.boner.
Gee, I was wondering why its been so quite on the net lately. So when's
the party?
--
RIP Gryphon:198?-1990:'The day-care center from hell finally died'
Richard Brosseau Cognos Inc. decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardbrissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) (03/01/90)
In article <90056.104623NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: [long, strange article mostly deleted] My goodness gracious, Nelson, where did all that come from? The reason I think you're biased is because you were rather vocal dur- ing the aquaria discussion last fall. Anyone who posted more than a couple of articles on this discussion is probably biased in one direction or another and is therefore, an unsuitable candidate for vote-taker. Especially someone who is now actively campaigning to get the job. > Like for example, whats makes > you think I think you're biased. Nelson, what are you talking about? When did I say you think I'm biased? Look, this is all I wrote: In article <_DW17VCxds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) writes: >idea. But we need to pick the proverbial innocent bystander >to count the votes (i.e., Richard, Peter, Oleg, me, Trish, and >Chuq would be prima facie ineligible). Add to that list Nelson Broat and K*nt Dolan. Message-ID: <18025@rpp386.cactus.org> How on earth did you take this simple sentence and manage to come up with all that weird stuff you wrote accusing me of all sorts of bizarre things? > So go ahead Trish, flame away. Isn't that what you want anyway? Not particularily, no. Watching you flame yourself in my name is far more amusing than anything I could say about you.
rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) (03/01/90)
In article <CR_+.Z-@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >Finally, for the Sycophant(tm) Sweetheart, Patricia O Tuama: Ahhhhh, how nice. Hey, Richard, did you see this? >Which one are you referencing, pray tell? Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you read news.groups on a regular basis. Those of us who do know I was referring to soc.religion.eastern which started off as a talk group and was switched to a soc group in order to get better distribution. The vote on this just ended a week ago, Jay. Where have you been? >BTW, does this mean you're back to being willing to talk about >sci.aquaria? No, it doesn't, dear. I would like to know, however, why you're being such a hypocrite about this business with distribution. Your primary argument turns on the notion that s.a is fraudulent because it "cheats" unsuspecting sysadmins by causing them to pay for a rec group as part of the sci hierarchy. I would like to know why you're not just as concerned about unsuspecting sysadmins having to pay for a talk group as part of the soc hierarchy. . t r i s h a o t u a m a just another Sycophant(tm) Sweetheart on the Usenet of Life
jcoper@ccu.umanitoba.ca (03/01/90)
In article <31@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) writes her .sig as: > . > t r i s h a o t u a m a > just another Sycophant(tm) Sweetheart > on the Usenet of Life Hi Trisha... no one's been nice to you in a while so I figured I just say a friendly "Hi." Hi! Well, enough of that... Catch you all later. Joe.
NMBCU@CUNYVM (03/01/90)
In article <30@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>, rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) says: > >In article <90056.104623NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> NMBCU@CUNYVM writes: >[long, strange article mostly deleted] > >My goodness gracious, Nelson, where did all that come from? The >reason I think you're biased is because you were rather vocal dur- >ing the aquaria discussion last fall. If I choose to be vocal about something on the net, I have that right. As does anyone else. And using your own reasoning, since Richard was very vocal with his views last fall he was also very biased. > Anyone who posted more than >a couple of articles on this discussion is probably biased in one >direction or another ... You are correct here and yet also incorrect. While it is rather difficult to post many articles stating ones own viewpoint and yet be totally unbiased, it is also wrong to think that someone who takes the time to get involved in a discussion is biased. People can post to a particular discussion and yet take neither side. And yes Trish, during last fall's aquaria discussion period, neither Richard or myself were non-biased mediator's. But they do exist. Honest they do. :) And I don't think (nor did I ever), that there was anything wrong with Rich taking the vote (see below). > ... and is therefore, an unsuitable candidate for >vote-taker. As I said originally, if someone is calling for an initial discussion for a particular group, then yes, of course they are biased. But there is nothing wrong with that person taking the eventual vote on said group. I never had any complaints with Richard taking the vote because he was Richard nor because he was biased. I only had complaints with his distribution reasoning, and the name that he had choosen. Thats the operative sentence here. Things would have gone a lot smother if he had not gone against the majorities wishes. I told him via private e-mail that another sci.aqu name might go down a little smother if he was still going to ignore the majorities wishes and not use the rec.aqua name. But he choose ignore rather than listen to reasoning. That made everyone angry. Then they became angrier still when he began to solicite votes from readers of other groups having nothing to do with aquariums. (But then I told you all this via private e-mail last fall). >How on earth did you take this simple sentence and manage to come >up with all that weird stuff you wrote accusing me of all sorts of >bizarre things? From my past e-mailings with you and seeing how you correspond with others on the net. You can be nasty when you wanna be, Trish. :) P.S. - Your followup group name, won't work with me. News.Groups.Paranioa indeed... knock knock knock WHOSE THERE!!! WHOSE THERE!!!! STAY AWAY FROM ME!!!! STAY AWAY!!! :) :) :) Nelson Broat
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/02/90)
In article <4646@odin.SGI.COM>, cj@modernlvr.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes: > --- > dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: > > |Marvelous. > | > |You folks haven't been discussing the merits of rec vs. sci. > | > |You've simply been campaining against the SCI group. > | > |And the only reason is because Richard Sexton championed > |the group. > > The more I hear from opponents of the *.aquaria thing, > the more I think Dave is right. > > Especially when I read unbearably emotional postings > like the ones Jay Maynard has been writing. > > The only plausible explanation for his whinging > is a personal grudge against Richard Sexton. > Ahh, but did this grudge come about *because of* the con.aquaria business? -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (03/02/90)
rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you read news.groups on a regular basis. > Those of us who do know I was referring to soc.religion.eastern > which started off as a talk group and was switched to a soc group > in order to get better distribution. Actually, the relevant fact was that it was MODERATED, so it belonged with the other moderated soc.religion groups and not with the unmoderated talk.religion groups. What's the point of a free-speech hierarchy if there's a potential censor in charge of each group? -Dan Veditz dveditz@dbase.A-T.com Vote NO on moderated talk.* groups { uunet | ncar!cepu }!ashtate!dveditz
okunewck@shire.cs.psu.edu (Phil OKunewick) (03/03/90)
In article <449@dbase.A-T.COM> dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) writes: >What's the point of a free-speech hierarchy if there's a potential >censor in charge of each group? Hi. Would you care to provide us a list of moderators who are warping the discussion, by censoring articles that disagree with ther views? I'm having a hard time finding any. (Clue: A censor feels that truth is bad. A moderator feels that irrelevant drivel is bad. There's a slight difference there.) If you post something in rec.humor, I'm not going to read it. Not that it isn't funny; I just don't feel like wading through the 95% crud to find the 5% humor (it *is* rec.humor, y'know). If you mail it to Brad and it's actually funny, I will see it. Brad is a (*gasp!*) moderator. But because of him, I'm more likely to hear what you have to say. Can this "censorship" actually be enhancing your freedom of speech? Do you still want to post drivel? You can still do it! Try alt.stupidity, alt.flame, rec.humor, alt.rissa... Now: Do you still feel that you are being censored by these moderators? If so, then why do you want to infringe on *MY* right to read things that interest me, by cluttering my favorite newsgroups with trash? -- ---Phil (This is yet another self-referential .signature .)
bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) (03/03/90)
In article <S-Z15=Gxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Actually, I was expecting a flood of votes from Richard Sexton and friends >putting my VOTE(*) firmly on the sci side as well. >--- >(*) As Brad Templeton frequently points out, the words "poll", "vote", and >"survey" as used on Usenet are effectively equivalent. What Brad likes to point out isn't what it's called but what it *IS*. (He's saying that our "votes" are really not "votes" but "surveys". Maybe he's right. Anyway, he seems to think that a "survey" is something different from a "vote"). > Are you really slamming >me because I didn't utter the magic incantations right? Amazing. I'd expected >to be slammed for using STV rather than a yes/no poll. We are slamming you because you misled people into thinking that you were NOT gathering an official vote, but rather doing a poll just to see what people thought about the subject. And of course it matters how things are done. How can you put so many hours and so many messages into discussing different kinds of surveys and then say that IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER when it comes to yourself taking a vote??? *Of course* you should have posted your vote the formal (guidelines-) way if that's what you wanted to do. Isn't that obvious? Why can't you just admit that you did something wrong and then be done with it? Or apologize for being unclear? Do you even _know_ how to apologize? >Followups requested to be directed to /dev/null. There is no magic idiocy in >the header... I have this quixotic belief that if you treat people like adults >they'll behave like adults. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything with >this message, but I don't care to have revisionist history stand uncallenged. And stop giving us this "I'm so very grown up and reasonable and you should be too"-thing! Self-appraise stinks. -- Bengt Larsson - Dep. of Math. Statistics, Lund University, Sweden Internet: bengtl@maths.lth.se SUNET: TYCHE::BENGT_L
bbc@rhea.rice.edu (Benjamin Chase) (03/04/90)
Well, (Jeff D.,) if we're saying our "Amen"s, I'd like to cast mine for Bengt Larsson's <bengtl@maths.lth.se> reply to Peter Da Silva: Bengt writes: >We are slamming you because you misled people into thinking that you were >NOT gathering an official vote, but rather doing a poll just to see what >people thought about the subject. Yes, exactly. I think it's pretty clear that when someone asks for a show of hands regarding the creation of a newsgroup, the magic incantation to use is "call for _votes_", not "survey", "poll", etc. If you don't know that much, you should let someone else take the vote. And Bengt writes: >And of course it matters how things are done. How can you put so many >hours and so many messages into discussing different kinds of surveys >and then say that IT SIMPLY DOESN'T MATTER when it comes to yourself >taking a vote??? *Of course* you should have posted your vote the >formal (guidelines-) way if that's what you wanted to do. Isn't that >obvious? Yeah. I think Peter's inconsistency in this is kind of strange. And Bengt writes this too: >Why can't [Peter] just admit that [he] did something wrong and then be >done with it? Or apologize for being unclear? [Does he] even _know_ >how to apologize? That is one of the great unsolved mysteries of life. Peter writes: >>Actually, I was expecting a flood of votes from Richard Sexton and friends >>putting my VOTE(*) firmly on the sci side as well. >>--- >>(*) As Brad Templeton frequently points out, the words "poll", "vote", and >>"survey" as used on Usenet are effectively equivalent. Peter, if you still wonder why the sci.aquaria fishheads didn't vote heavily for your "poll"*, perhaps you should devote a second or even a third neuron to the problem. I can come up with several reasons: They didn't take your vote seriously. They didn't care anymore, since they had their group. They didn't think there would be any action taken based on the results from a poll, especially one that bore no resemblance to an official call for votes, and so figured the poll didn't need their opinion added to it. They conciously boycotted your poll. They had put you and ficc in their kill file long before you solicited opinions. Perhaps you mistake this post as an attack on rec.aquaria? No, I'm in favor of keeping it _and_ sci.aquaria, and improving their propagation, too. I just am tired of you trying to gloss over your role in this whole mess. Seriously, for you to dress up your poll as an official vote now is such pure bullshit. Why do you keep shoveling this to news.groups, with such lame excuses as "well, Brad says that polls are votes"? Please don't show us next what your mommy says polls are. We don't want to hear about it. (*) I'm quoting Peter with these quote marks. That _is_ the word he used at the time, in case any of you are in doubt after reading his paragraph that shouts "VOTE", as if that were what he'd said at the time. -- Ben Chase <bbc@rice.edu>, Rice University, Houston, Texas