rsex@stb.UUCP (02/28/90)
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 Jay Maynard in this one posting. Jay Maynard: >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. No. He wanted a sci group. An advanced aquarists newsletter if you prefer. I assumed somebody would then see this and fill in rec.aquaria for the ``the rest of you''. Hey, how was I to know Peter da Silva would be the one. Go figure. >|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. Oh my. Name dropping are we? Gene Spafford is against it. Brian Reid is for it. Greg Woods is against it Erik Fair is for it Chuq vot Wetspot is against it. Mark Horton is for it. How bloody, bloody, silly. >|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. Sure if you believe what he wrote. What Chuq is claiming as facts, are not, however. Peter held a poll and decided to call it a binding vote when it went his way. No doubt it would have just remained a poll if it hadn't gone his way. >|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. No no. The rec group is under rec. The sci group is under sci. Darn. I thought we were making progress on the issue of the differencde between the two groups. Or hasn't your machine finished unpacking that article yet, Jay ? I was going to respond to the rest of your article Jay, but I fell asleep and ny head bounced in the keyboard hitting ``:.,$d'' and wiped out the rest of your article. Sorry. And no, I'm not interested in using Emacs, thank you.