jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/05/90)
Is it possible Thom jumped to conclusion that Richard had
messed with Thom's attempt at group creation because of the
air of hanky-panky surrounding the creation of con.aquaria?
Jeff Daiell
--
"You can't add cold. You can only take away heat."
-- Stan Fine, co-developer of Fino-Cardian Mathbill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/05/90)
In article <.:ZI=Fxds10@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes:
: Is it possible Thom jumped to conclusion that Richard had
: messed with Thom's attempt at group creation because of the
: air of hanky-panky surrounding the creation of con.aquaria?
After the garbage that Sexton has perpetrated, I wouldn't put
anything past him. His latest e-mail to me shows that he is just
plain sick. He also likes to say things that are demonstrably
false. Yes, he is a liar or so intellectually negligent that it
is almost criminal.
This is personal to Sexton:
Post anything at all in response to this message and I'll
cheerfully post that garbage you sent to me. Send me further
e-mail and I'll sue you. And whoever owns the machine you send it
from.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comgreg@gryphon.COM (Greg Laskin) (01/06/90)
In article <1990Jan5.073857.24939@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >Post anything at all in response to this message and I'll >cheerfully post that garbage you sent to me. Send me further >e-mail and I'll sue you. And whoever owns the machine you send it >from. T. William sent me e-mail threatening to sue me if I allow Sexton to send him any more nasty e-mail. Personal to T. William: You do not have the personal resources to bring a successful action against me, monetarily, intellectually or legally. On the other hand, bringing third parties into your petty little pedantic squabbles can have consequences that are completely unexpected. You are walking on very thin ice. Be very careful. -- Greg Laskin greg@gryphon.COM <routing site>!gryphon!greg gryphon!greg@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/08/90)
In article <24327@gryphon.COM>, greg@gryphon.COM (Greg Laskin) writes: > You do not have the personal resources to bring a successful action > against me, monetarily, intellectually or legally. > > On the other hand, bringing third parties into your petty little pedantic > squabbles can have consequences that are completely unexpected. You > are walking on very thin ice. Be very careful. Bill may not have *grounds* to sue -- I don't know the law on such transmissions, altho I believe it's more pro-recipient than the analagous law vis-a-vis hard copy mail. But how do you know he doesn't have the monetary resources? As for Bill's intellect ... to be really snide, it seems clearly superior to that of any of the three gryphonies whose postings I recall. In fact, it's rather impressive. Jeff Daiell -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/08/90)
Jeff, Bill, and others. Greg Laskin doesn't deserve your condemnation. He
has, so far as I know, stayed aloof from the whole mess. He has acted, so
far as I know, perfectly reasonably. In fact I believe he has acted in
the past to restrain some of the more outrageous activities of certain users
of his system.
And on a more direct level, baseless accusations and threats don't do any
good. They just make you look bad. And there are enough people out there
who do deserve your approbium.
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>
\_.--._/
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/09/90)
In article <04.+V8xds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > Jeff, Bill, and others. Greg Laskin doesn't deserve your condemnation. I wasn't attacking Greg so much, Peter, as defending Bill Wells. Jeff Daiell -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (01/09/90)
In article <04.+V8xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >And on a more direct level, baseless accusations and threats don't do any >good. They just make you look bad. And there are enough people out there >who do deserve your approbium. I would never have believed it :-) ...Peter Duh Silva resembling someone remotely defending Sexton. You just seem to have some sort of aura... some sort of charm, Richard. -- Allen Gwinn sulaco!allen DISCLAIMER: So SUE me... see if I care. >>>>> VOTE NOW! T?D FOR NET.IDIOT <<<<<
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (01/09/90)
In article <04.+V8xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
: Jeff, Bill, and others. Greg Laskin doesn't deserve your condemnation.
As far as that goes, I hadn't condemned Mr. Laskin. Something he
didn't mention was that I sent my missive to postmaster@gryphon.com
rather than to him personally. I did not know who that was, nor
did (or do) I care. The simple fact is that the owner of a machine
is, at least morally and almost certainly legally, responsible for
what he permits to be done with the machine.
Then again, Mr. Laskin's comments about my resources are, on the
one hand, demonstrably false, and on the other hand, would, for
him to have known the validity of them, have to be partly based on
information which he would have had to have committed a felony to
have obtained. Not the mark of a person who is thinking very hard.
And the not-so-veiled threat which he ended his post with was not
too bright, all things considered.
So I would say that Mr. Laskin has, now, earned himself a bit of
contempt.
: He
: has, so far as I know, stayed aloof from the whole mess. He has acted, so
: far as I know, perfectly reasonably. In fact I believe he has acted in
: the past to restrain some of the more outrageous activities of certain users
: of his system.
Well, were that so, we'd not know, eh? On the face of it, I'd say
he's doing a piss poor job of restraining them.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comrissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/09/90)
In article <I=+OP4xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >As for Bill's intellect ... to be really snide, it seems clearly >superior to that of any of the three gryphonies whose postings >I recall. In fact, it's rather impressive. You know, that's what I've heard, too -- how very unfortunate Bill so seldom demonstrates it on the net or in email. ps: I'm sorry you deleted my mail without bothering to read it, Jeff, but since it was a peace offering, I suppose it's just as well. I made the mistake of thinking you were fairly reasonable but your original posting under this Subject: makes it clear that you're just as malicious as Daffy is.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/10/90)
In article <1990Jan9.082626.24809@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <04.+V8xds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >: Jeff, Bill, and others. Greg Laskin doesn't deserve your condemnation. > >As far as that goes, I hadn't condemned Mr. Laskin. Something he >didn't mention was that I sent my missive to postmaster@gryphon.com >rather than to him personally. C'mon, Billy, sue the flock out of Dickie and Greg. A chimpanzee in single-breasted pinstripe could beat you into the ground if you used arguments like that, and I want to watch. (C'mon. Tell me you expect me to come out of retirement just to fit the clothes...) >I did not know who that was, nor did (or do) I care. You pedal backwards almost as fast as Greg Lemond does forwards. Call for votes: To choose T. William ("Bone-Dry") Wells as the recipient of the 1990 Usenet Reverse Laurent Fignon Award. >The simple fact is that the owner of a machine >is, at least morally and almost certainly legally, responsible for >what he permits to be done with the machine. And do you include answering rapacious allegations to be an illegal or immoral act? Many states, and the federal government, do include language in their laws that recognizes mitigation due to "fighting words." Is it worth lots and lots of money to find out you're a poor semanticist? >Then again, Mr. Laskin's comments about my resources are, on the >one hand, demonstrably false, and on the other hand, would, for >him to have known the validity of them, have to be partly based on >information which he would have had to have committed a felony to >have obtained. Not the mark of a person who is thinking very hard. I, think, you resemble, your ,remark,s too much., And it's not a felony to ask around about someone's financial status. There are almost always a few people with enough releasable info to develop a figure with two or three significant digits. Besides, he only doubted you; now he's certain, and so am I. You couldn't fund a court battle against someone with real depth to their pockets. >And the not-so-veiled threat which he ended his post with was not >too bright, all things considered. Just don't drop the soap in my bathtub, either, Billy. --Blair "Here. Have a fish."
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/10/90)
In article <1990Jan9.082626.24809@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >And the not-so-veiled threat which he ended his post with was not >too bright, all things considered. See, this is what I mean about T. William so infrequently demonstrating his giant intellect in public. What about the outright threat with which you ended your recent post- ing on this subject, T. William? Where you stated that you were going to sue gryphon et al? The one single solitary stupidest, most asinine thing you can do on Usenet is threaten to sue someone based on what he or she has posted or sent through email. Greg is absolutely correct when he said you don't have the resources to maintain such a suit as- suming you could even find a court that would agree to hear your case. You have no proof of anything, you have no evidence to support any of your allegations. You can spend the rest of your life and all of the money you will ever earn on this, T. William, but you will never get anywhere with it. But please, go ahead and try. I wanna watch. >So I would say that Mr. Laskin has, now, earned himself a bit of >contempt. Yeah, and I'm sure he feels real bad about it, too, hon.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/10/90)
In article <380@sulaco.Sigma.COM>, allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) writes: > I would never have believed it :-) > > ...Peter D[a] Silva resembling someone remotely defending Sexton. You > just seem to have some sort of aura... some sort of charm, Richard. Peter wasn't defending Tricky Dicky, but rather Tricky Dicky's boss. But, then again, I wasn't attacking Tricky Dicky's boss, but, rather, defending Bill Wells. Jeff -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/10/90)
Trisha writes: > In article <I=+OP4xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >As for Bill's intellect ... to be really snide, it seems clearly > >superior to that of any of the three gryphonies whose postings > >I recall. In fact, it's rather impressive. > > You know, that's what I've heard, too -- how very unfortunate Bill > so seldom demonstrates it on the net or in email. > Oh, he demonstrates his intelligence frequently. He also demonstrates too much temper, I'll admit, but his intelligence is unquestionable. > > ps: I'm sorry you deleted my mail without bothering to read it, I *did* read it, and was happy to get it ... that's why I was sorry I accidentally zapped it (and it *was* an accident). > Jeff, but since it was a peace offering, I suppose it's just as > well. I made the mistake of thinking you were fairly reasonable > but your original posting under this Subject: makes it clear that > you're just as malicious as Daffy is. How is it being malicious to defend Bill's intellectual resources??? And who is "Daffy"? I don't recall anyone bringing Dan Quayle into this discussion! {|8^)] Pro Libertas, Jeff -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
gsmith@garnet.berkeley.edu (Gene W. Smith) (01/11/90)
In article <I=+OP4xds8@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc (jeff daiell) writes: >As for Bill's intellect ... to be really snide, it seems clearly >superior to that of any of the three gryphonies whose postings >I recall. In fact, it's rather impressive. Bill thinks Ayn Rand is a philosopher and Richard thinks keeping lion-headed goldfish alive is a science. At least I'm impressed. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "These people aren't fascists, they are merely concerned that the trains run on time." -- Barry Shein
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/11/90)
In article <NT:AE6xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Oh, he demonstrates his intelligence frequently. He also demonstrates >too much temper, I'll admit, but his intelligence is unquestionable. Could send me a sample, please? It's just that I've read a lot of his articles and a lot of his email and I've never seen any signs of unquestionable intelligence on his part. >How is it being malicious to defend Bill's intellectual resources??? Go back to your first article on this subject. The one about Richard and Pink, Floyd. Cancellation and Suspicion, remember now? >And who is "Daffy"? Daffy??? Oh come on, Jeff, you know who Daffy is. Everyone knows who Daffy is. I don't recall anyone bringing Dan Quayle into >this discussion! {|8^)] No, silly, Quayle's nickname is Chip or Scooter or something. Or Chuq. >Pro Libertas, Inter alia....
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/12/90)
In article <NT:AE6xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Trisha writes: >> you're just as malicious as Daffy is. > >And who is "Daffy"? I don't recall anyone bringing Dan Quayle into >this discussion! {|8^)] _THAT_'s who he reminds me of! --Blair "Except maybe for the haircut and the blue blazer..."
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/12/90)
In article <10939@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > >How is it being malicious to defend Bill's intellectual resources??? > > Go back to your first article on this subject. The one about Richard > and Pink, Floyd. Cancellation and Suspicion, remember now? That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no air of hanky-panky during the con.aquaria vote. Since there was, my posting was quite reasonable. > > >And who is "Daffy"? > > Daffy??? Oh come on, Jeff, you know who Daffy is. Everyone knows > who Daffy is. Yeah, but you shouldn't call poor Richard that. Even if he does use "irregardless". > > > > >Pro Libertas, > > Inter alia.... Actually, Libertas is good for *whatever* alia. Jeff Daiell If anyone has Elise Breen's email address, please send it to me. -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/14/90)
In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no >air of hanky-panky during the con.aquaria vote. Since there was, my >posting was quite reasonable. No, your posting wasn't reasonable, Jeff. Not at all -- even if you could prove the assertion you are making here, it was malicious behav- ior on your part to have given into hTom Rounds' hysteria especially given that you've been on the net long enough to know that what he was saying was utter nonsense. >Yeah, but you shouldn't call poor Richard that. Even if he does >use "irregardless". Richard isn't Daffy, dear. But I must compliment you on the level of merriment you have excited amongst many of our fellow netters. My mailbox has been ringing all day with people rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter at your misinterpretation.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/14/90)
In article <10979@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no > >air of hanky-panky during the con.aquaria vote. Since there was, my > >posting was quite reasonable. > > No, your posting wasn't reasonable, Jeff. Not at all -- even if you > could prove the assertion you are making here, it was malicious behav- > ior on your part to have given into hTom Rounds' hysteria I think it's evident there was an air of hanky-panky surrounding the vote, Trisha (or are you one of those who claim Watergate will prove to be a mere mistake when all the facts come out?). Starting with the misnaming for the purpose of defrauding certain sites, and going on to various questions about the vote. Given that and the general level of nastiness Richard exhibited then and since, I don't blame Thom for being a bit antsy. And, no, I'm not asking you to be ladylike, or gentlemanly, either, for that matter. I just think it would be nice if you didn't frequently act like something that has its meals tossed to it from a safe distance by someone armed with a tranq rifle. Jeff -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
jpp@tygra.UUCP (John Palmer) (01/14/90)
In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: }In article <10979@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: }> In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: }> >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no }> >air of hanky-panky during the con.aquaria vote. Since there was, my }> >posting was quite reasonable. }> }> No, your posting wasn't reasonable, Jeff. Not at all -- even if you }> could prove the assertion you are making here, it was malicious behav- }> ior on your part to have given into hTom Rounds' hysteria } }I think it's evident there was an air of hanky-panky surrounding }the vote, Trisha (or are you one of those who claim Watergate will prove }to be a mere mistake when all the facts come out?). Starting with }the misnaming for the purpose of defrauding certain sites, and going }on to various questions about the vote. Given that and the general }level of nastiness Richard exhibited then and since, I don't blame }Thom for being a bit antsy. } }And, no, I'm not asking you to be ladylike, or gentlemanly, either, }for that matter. I just think it would be nice if you didn't }frequently act like something that has its meals tossed to it from }a safe distance by someone armed with a tranq rifle. } } }Jeff I for one am getting TIRED of listening to CHILDREN bicker back and forth about various things in this newsgroup. Personal attacks are low class and unprofessional, and thats what I'm seeing here. Isn't this newsgroup supposed to be for discussion of proposals for new newsgroups and network policy? -- = CAT-TALK Conferencing Network, Prototype Computer Conferencing System = - 1-800-825-3069, 300/1200/2400 baud, 8/N/1. New users use 'new' - = as a login id. E-Mail Address: ...!uunet!samsung!sharkey!tygra!jpp = - <<<Redistribution to GEnie PROHIBITED!!!>>>> -
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/15/90)
In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <10979@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no >> >air of hanky-panky during the con.aquaria vote. Since there was, my >> >posting was quite reasonable. >> >> No, your posting wasn't reasonable, Jeff. Not at all -- even if you >> could prove the assertion you are making here, it was malicious behav- >> ior on your part to have given into hTom Rounds' hysteria > >I think it's evident there was an air of hanky-panky surrounding >the vote, Trisha (or are you one of those who claim Watergate will prove >to be a mere mistake when all the facts come out?). Starting with >the misnaming for the purpose of defrauding certain sites, and going >on to various questions about the vote. Given that and the general Hanky panky my slattern aunt Fanny! Dickie came out at the very beginning and stated the reasoning for the name of the group, and was badgered and hooted by a load of net.fascist.morons for having the gumption to do something about net.prejudice against rec groups. Then when it became obvious that those opposed to the group were waging a bush-beating campaign to prevent its accession, he began politicking in order to save the proposal. In the resulting fistfight, sides were taken and a few unscrupulous persons, contrary to the wishes and in flagrant disregard of the efforts of the vote-takers, did a few unconscionable things that, nevertheless, had absolutely no material effect on the outcome. You and I and the rest of the net know that 99% of the yes- votes for this group were genuine, that even if 6% had been forged and subsequently disqualified the group still would have passed, and that there was forgery in the dissenting votes as well as attempts to reduce Dickie's capacity to complete the vote count (although this was predicated on the load it was generating at gryphon, rather than the politics of gryphon's administration). Nowhere in there did Dickie ever give the impression that he would cause to fail anyone else's vote on any topic whatsoever. In fact the only conclusion you could assume is that he'd be in favor of creation of almost any newsgroup, no matter how it may extend beyond the de facto parameters of the known net. Your position that he is marked by his past actions as a net.person not to be trusted are, therefore, totally without rational basis. --Blair "Look who's asking 'Who is Daffy?'!"
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/15/90)
In article <5275@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > Dickie came out at the very beginning and stated the reasoning > for the name of the group, This is revisionist history. First of all, he loudly and frequently denied that distribution had anything to do with the name choice until the vote itself. And then he mentioned it in passing as something that had been brought to his attention. Prior to the vote itself, He called me on the phone and we talked for about an hour. About the first thing he said to me was "The only reason I'm putting the group in sci is to get it into Europe". I told him I would drop my objections to the name sci.aquaria if he would come clean on that, and moderate it. He did neither, but I kept my part of the bargain nevertheless... I voted NO, but did not respond to any of his messages and stayed out of the discussion until it became clear that he wasn't going to keep his. > and was badgered and hooted by a load > of net.fascist.morons for having the gumption to do something > about net.prejudice against rec groups. And he did not do anything about net.prejudice against rec groups, unless you count demonstrating such prejudice himself as "doing something about it". The way to do something about such prejudice would be to create more high quality rec groups and demonstrate that such prejudice was unfounded. -- _--_|\ 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?" `-_-'
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill Haroldmegrhondapooh Vajk) (01/15/90)
In article <1990Jan9.082626.24809@twwells.com> T. William Wells writes: > The simple fact is that the owner of a machine > is, at least morally and almost certainly legally, responsible for > what he permits to be done with the machine. Seems you're a fine one to be commenting on responsible behavior. One thing you'll never be accused of is conspiring with a brain. > So I would say that Mr. Laskin has, now, earned himself a bit of > contempt. Contempt from your sort is a badge of honor to be sought, earned, and cherished. I'm tempted to start an alt.net.suers newsgroup as there are several of you now. Perhaps the several of you could find a home there and talk about how badly the rest of the net mistreats you. On the other hand, I might just call it alt.sewers, in keeping with the value of your diatribes. Bill Vajk | They threatened to sue you too ? Welcome to the club....
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/15/90)
In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >I think it's evident there was an air of hanky-panky surrounding >the vote, Trisha Yes, we know you do, Jeff, so do lots of other netters. I repeat, your article linking something you think happened (fraud and the sci.aquaria vote) with something you absolutely positively know did -NOT- happen (Richard cancelling Rounds' postings) was malicious. Or are you one of those who claim Watergate will prove to be a mere mistake when all the facts come out? >And, no, I'm not asking you to be ladylike, Yes, you were, Jeff. And you did it again in this posting as well. >for that matter. I just think it would be nice if you didn't >frequently act like something that has its meals tossed to it from >a safe distance by someone armed with a tranq rifle. Ooooooh, I love the imagery, Jeffie! Come by and see me if you ever get up the courage to take off your armor, hon. And don't forget to bring your "rifle."
link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (01/15/90)
In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <10979@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no Could you please leave your personal diatribes off the net. I'm here to discuss fish, not your personal opinions of others. Richard Link, Ph.D. Space Sciences Laboratory P.S. Apologies to other readers for using up bandwidth responding to these turkeys. However, I guess tha point needs to be made.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (01/15/90)
Patricia O Tuama invites: > > Come by and see me Wasn't that line "Why don't you come on up and see me sometime"? Followups to rec.arts.cinema. Jeff -- Here's how to tell my twins apart: Colleen is smart, sweet, and pretty, while Kelly is smart, sweet, and pretty.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/16/90)
In article <:C21J84ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <5275@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >> Dickie came out at the very beginning and stated the reasoning >> for the name of the group, > >This is revisionist history. First of all, he loudly and frequently denied >that distribution had anything to do with the name choice until the vote >itself. And then he mentioned it in passing as something that had been >brought to his attention. This is crap. The only person he didn't tell was you. >Prior to the vote itself, He called me on the phone and we talked for about >an hour. About the first thing he said to me was "The only reason I'm putting >the group in sci is to get it into Europe". So he told you. So stop your damn whining. >And he did not do anything about net.prejudice against rec groups, unless you >count demonstrating such prejudice himself as "doing something about it". The >way to do something about such prejudice would be to create more high quality >rec groups and demonstrate that such prejudice was unfounded. Which you know is not the reason rec groups are kept out of the distributions of most systems that avoid them. Those places do the sci and comp groups because they see that as profitable information as it's good for the currency of the education of their employees. The rec groups take up disc space that may simply be unavailable. Making the rec groups better will not change the fact that they can't afford to manage that part of the heirarchy (no matter how easy it is). If anything, once the people who import sci.aquaria realize that rec groups are pretty innocuous (which they would be if you and chuq would quit expectorating in sci.aquaria) they might just be inclined to start carrying them the next time they have the opportunity to make that decision, but it will do no good to make more rec groups that they won't even see, anyway. --Blair "Revisionist my unsubtly flatulent uncle Floyd."
tims@cci632.UUCP (Tim Sullivan) (01/16/90)
In article <1990Jan15.084206.13755@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>In article <10979@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >>> In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>> >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no > >Could you please leave your personal diatribes off the net. >I'm here to discuss fish, not your personal opinions of others. > Agreed, I enjoy reading postings of fish related articles. If you folks must take shots at each other please do it privately!
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/16/90)
> >> Dickie came out at the very beginning and stated the reasoning > >> for the name of the group, > >This is revisionist history. First of all, he loudly and frequently denied > >that distribution had anything to do with the name choice until the vote > >itself. And then he mentioned it in passing as something that had been > >brought to his attention. > This is crap. The only person he didn't tell was you. This is a lie. Go back and find a single posting by Richard Sexton in news.groups during the discussion period where he admitted that the reason for naming the group sci.aquaria was distribution. Every posting by him prior to the call for votes denied that distribution had anything to do with it. Go back to alt.flame. -- _--_|\ 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?" `-_-'
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/16/90)
In article <33123@cci632.UUCP> tims@ccird5.UUCP (Tim Sullivan) writes: >In article <1990Jan15.084206.13755@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >>In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>Could you please leave your personal diatribes off the net. >>I'm here to discuss fish, not your personal opinions of others. >Agreed, I enjoy reading postings of fish related articles. If you folks must >take shots at each other please do it privately! Please leave my name out of this -- Jeff Daiell has repeatedly directed followups to the aquaria groups (all of which I have ignored) and has in- sisted on continuing this discussion there himself. I suggest you com- plain to him personally, maybe you'll have better luck persuading him to move his remarks to some other newsgroup. Followups to alt.flame. And that means you too, Jeff.
mesard@bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) (01/17/90)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> >This is revisionist history. >> This is crap. >This is a lie. This is boring. -- Wayne();
hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (01/18/90)
In article <50972@bbn.COM> mesard@labs-n.bbn.com (Wayne Mesard) writes: #peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: #>> >This is revisionist history. #>> This is crap. #>This is a lie. #This is boring. This is USENET... hb