TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (12/28/89)
I already posted the call for votes for rec.music.pfloyd. Many people have told me that they never saw it and subsequently sent me 'NO' votes because I told them it was there and they didn't notice it. This is very immature, but I am forced to accept these votes. For those of you who didn't see it, it WAS posted, I don't know why you didn't see it, and I don't care. It's there. You may vote. I am the vote taker. Any questions?
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (12/30/89)
[ A flame of Thom's diatribe appears in alt.flame for your viewing pleasure. ] In <TAR.89361214219@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > I already posted the call for votes for rec.music.pfloyd. Where? When? Under what title? Script started on Fri Dec 29 13:29:24 1989 $ foo () { > echo Total articles in $1 -- `ls $1 | wc -l` > echo > echo From Thom Rounds: > egrep "^Subject: " `egrep -l "From:.*TAR@MAINE\.BITNET" $1/*` /dev/null > } $ foo news/groups Total articles in news/groups -- 323 From Thom Rounds: news/groups/9544:Subject: Re: Suggestions for new Pink Floyd newsgroup news/groups/9572:Subject: Re: You're Not A Kid! news/groups/9634:Subject: My apologies news/groups/9658:Subject: Re: new Pink Floyd newsgroup news/groups/9763:Subject: Re: Pink Floyd Voting news/groups/9820:Subject: Re: new Pink Floyd newsgroup news/groups/9854:Subject: You people can start voting now... news/groups/9855:Subject: For all of you concerned with rec.music.pfloyd $ foo news/announce/newgroups Total articles in news/announce/newgroups -- 90 From Thom Rounds: $ foo rec/music/misc Total articles in rec/music/misc -- 352 From Thom Rounds: rec/music/misc/18781:Subject: You people can start voting now... $ foo alt/rock-n-roll Total articles in alt/rock-n-roll -- 91 From Thom Rounds: alt/rock-n-roll/4583:Subject: Re: are YOU Steve? alt/rock-n-roll/4637:Subject: You people can start voting now... $ exit script done on Fri Dec 29 13:36:12 1989 I keep two weeks of news at rpi.edu, except for news.announce.newgroups which has a month and a half to hang around. I also just double checked all of the articles there with a case insensitive search for "rounds" to make sure that Greg hadn't changed the From: line such that it wouldn't match the pattern I used above. It returned nothing. The "My apologies" article, where you bemoan that people are not voting, appeared six days after the current cut-off mark of this morning's expire run. You never did say how long ago the call was posted, but given both your impertinent attitude and the "Re: Suggestions for new Pink Floyd newsgroup" article still being around and not mentioning that a vote was in progress, I suspect it was sometime in this six day period that you attempted to post/dreamed you posted the call for votes. > Many people have told me that they never saw it and subsequently > sent me 'NO' votes because I told them it was there and they didn't > notice it. This is very immature, but I am forced to accept these > votes. Yes, it is. You wouldn't have been forced to accept them if you just acknowledged that a screw-up happened somehow in getting the call for votes out. Then you could have started with a (relatively) clean slate. At this point though, since you have been so insistent about how right you are, you're just going to have live with the fact that you've pretty much doomed the group which you championed. -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) (12/30/89)
In article <TAR.89361214219@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > I already posted the call for votes for rec.music.pfloyd. Many people have >told me that they never saw it and subsequently sent me 'NO' votes because I >told them it was there and they didn't notice it. This is very immature, but I >am forced to accept these votes. For those of you who didn't see it, it WAS >posted, I don't know why you didn't see it, and I don't care. Pretty silly stuff. Obviously something is amiss with this proposal and while you may not care, other people do. A 'no' vote seems appropriate to me if you're going to insist on carrying out the vote regardless of the fact that many (most?) people never saw any discussion of this proposal on news.groups. All you had to do was repost your call. That's all; no big deal and only a slight delay. Seems like the simplest kind of net courtesy to me.
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (12/30/89)
In article <24003@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) says: > >You havn't seen any call for votes for a Pink Floyd newsgroup, nor >will you. I've been cancelling many of his articles, including >the calls for Pink Floyd votes. > >There will be no Pink Floyd newsgroup. Anyone who fakes control messages to create newsgroups would and can do so. Is this an honest claim, Richard? You did threaten to do EXACTLY what you claim to have done. Did you follow through? Don't forget, I keep alot of things on file not only here but on my UUCP node as well. I can dig them up if you wish. If you have indeed been doing so, Richard, kindly tell the net why other than the fact that you hate me and would do anything to piss me off and you're doing a very good job if your claim holds true. As I said, you did make alot of threats. The call for votes never got to my UUCP node. Are you responsible? I really would not put it past you Richard. You get cheap thrills out of put- ting people down. Go ahead and cross post this, Richard, as I know you will. I am pissed, now. VERY pissed. You have succeeded, Richard. You have truly pissed me off. I admit it. You won, Richard. Are you happy? --Thom Rounds 'I don't make threats. But I am a man of my word. I could smell you from a mile away when this whole thing went sour. If you are responsible, I *will* get my revenge. As I said, I don't make threats.'
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (01/01/90)
Okay. Let's get this all out in the open. In article <50201@bbn.COM>, rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) says: > >In article <TAR.89361214219@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) : >writes >> I already posted the call for votes for rec.music.pfloyd. Many people >have >>told me that they never saw it and subsequently sent me 'NO' votes because I >>told them it was there and they didn't notice it. This is very immature, but >I >>am forced to accept these votes. For those of you who didn't see it, it WAS >>posted, I don't know why you didn't see it, and I don't care. > > >Pretty silly stuff. Obviously something is amiss with this proposal >and while you may not care, other people do. A 'no' vote seems >appropriate to me if you're going to insist on carrying out the vote >regardless of the fact that many (most?) people never saw any >discussion of this proposal on news.groups. > >All you had to do was repost your call. That's all; no big deal and >only a slight delay. Seems like the simplest kind of net courtesy to >me. I did repost the call. It went the way of the first post. Cancellation. Control message faking. Mostly by a certain Internet personage who thinks it's funny or something. I won't name him, as that seems to be what he wants. Pub- licity. He wants to make a man of himself, or something like that. Why do I say these things? I'll tell you. Number one, he EXPLICITLY threatened to do so. Number two, he admitted to doing so, even going so far as to brag about it. I cross-posted his article to this group. It's there (he hasn't gotten around to removing it yet), under the subject Re: Pink Floyd voting (I think). I put it there just so you all would know that I am not making un-founded accusations. Due to this fact, I have post-poned the call for votes. I will re-post it when I'm sure it will not go away again. --Thom Rounds
wombat@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Chris Conway) (01/02/90)
In article <TAR.89364002032@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: >In article <24003@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) says: >> >>You havn't seen any call for votes for a Pink Floyd newsgroup, nor >>will you. I've been cancelling many of his articles, including >>the calls for Pink Floyd votes. >> >>There will be no Pink Floyd newsgroup. WHAT!!!!!! I sure hope someone is kidding or something here. Has someone been cancelling someone else's messages?????!!!! I haven't said anything up to now on this whole thing. I like PF. I would enjoy a group. But the flaming and name calling and downright fanatacism has kept me out. But this is TOO MUCH! Is this quote for real? I did not receive such an article here (but then, we have an insanely short expiration time on this system). If this is real, this Richard Sexton should have his fingers cut off. Debate is one thing. He can debate all he wants. But you do not have the right to prevent me from hearing Mr. Rounds words, Mr. Sexton. FOAD. Christopher M. Conway wombat@jupiter.nmt.edu wombat@juliet.ll.mit.edu
dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) (01/03/90)
In article <TAR.89361214219@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > > I already posted the call for votes for rec.music.pfloyd. Many people have > told me that they never saw it and subsequently sent me 'NO' votes because I > told them it was there and they didn't notice it. This is very immature, but I > am forced to accept these votes. For those of you who didn't see it, it WAS > posted, I don't know why you didn't see it, and I don't care. It's there. You > may vote. I am the vote taker. Any questions? Sorry Htmo, your call for votes wasn't received here either. We are reasonably well connected so this is very disconcerting. Did you post your notice as a "Call For Votes" or did you just mention it in another posting ie, 'oh BTW let's make a pink floyd newsfroup, send me your votes'? Was there a discussion period? When was the discussion period? Do you know what a discussion period is? Is this a vote or a poll? To what address should votes be sent? Do you have any idea how USENET is supposed to work? Dave
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (01/03/90)
In article <52999@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) says: > >In article <TAR.89361214219@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) >writes: >> >> I already posted the call for votes for rec.music.pfloyd. Many people e >hav >> told me that they never saw it and subsequently sent me 'NO' votes because I >> told them it was there and they didn't notice it. This is very immature, butI >> am forced to accept these votes. For those of you who didn't see it, it WAS >> posted, I don't know why you didn't see it, and I don't care. It's there. >You >> may vote. I am the vote taker. Any questions? > >Sorry Htmo, your call for votes wasn't received here either. We are >reasonably well connected so this is very disconcerting. > Not suprising. Have you read Richard's articles lately? >Did you post your notice as a "Call For Votes" or did you just mention it >in another posting ie, 'oh BTW let's make a pink floyd newsfroup, >send me your votes'? > I posted it as CALL FOR VOTES: Creation of rec.music.pfloyd >Was there a discussion period? Yes. >When was the discussion period? 14 days, ending Dec. 17 >Do you know what a discussion period is? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. > >Is this a vote or a poll? > A vote. >To what address should votes be sent? > /dev/null. This voting period has been cancelled. The call for discussion will be re-posted, and I doubt it will disappear this time. >Do you have any idea how USENET is supposed to work? > Yes. I have been following all the necessary steps. Someone else has decided that he is God and can cancell my articles. You and I both know him. > > Dave --Thom
dianeh@gryphon.COM (Diane Holt) (01/03/90)
In <TAR.89361214219@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > I already posted the call for votes for rec.music.pfloyd. Many people have >told me that they never saw it and subsequently sent me 'NO' votes because I >told them it was there and they didn't notice it. This is very immature, [...] As opposed to the maturity involved in saying, "I *did* post it -- I di-id. I did. I did. Mommmmm..." (BTW: I didn't vote "'NO'" yet [how could I have? -- I never saw your call-for-votes posting], but if I were to, it would be for the exceedingly mature and rather simple reason that I don't think someone who's never heard of a comma should have a newsgroup for themselves.) >Any questions? Yes. Why is the sky blue? Is there such a thing as free will? Do we really keep living our lives over and over until we get them right? Is there really some kind of parallel universe that requires some sort of matter-exchange with ours? (We get their wire-hangers; they get our pens...) Can "sexual friendships" ever really work? What happened to my other blue sock? Thanks. Diane Holt (dianeh@binky.UUCP) "Oh -- the guy's BITNET. Never mind."
pcr1_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Pablo) (01/04/90)
In <TAR.89365205754@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > Okay. Let's get this all out in the open. And proceeds to beat around the bush in the name of openness. > I did repost the call. It went the way of the first post. Cancellation. >Control message faking. Mostly by a certain Internet personage who thinks it's >funny or something. I won't name him, as that seems to be what he wants. Pub- >licity. He wants to make a man of himself, or something like that. Why do I say >these things? I'll tell you. Number one, he EXPLICITLY threatened to do so. >Number two, he admitted to doing so, even going so far as to brag about it. I >cross-posted his article to this group. It's there (he hasn't gotten around to >removing it yet), under the subject Re: Pink Floyd voting (I think). I put it >there just so you all would know that I am not making un-founded accusations. And he caused the California Quake, too! I know he did, 'cause he bragged about it. Stop with the accusations, kiddo. You're making yourself look rather childish in the eyes of the net. > Due to this fact, I have post-poned the call for votes. I will re-post it >when I'm sure it will not go away again. Yo, Thom! Didja ever think that at least _some_ people would've seen your post before someone in CALIFORNIA could see it and cancel it? Perhaps you should try crossposting to misc.test next time you call for votes and see where the ACKs come in from, and when. Good luck with the group. With you pulling for it, it'll need all the help it can get. Pablo
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (01/04/90)
In <TAR.90003001734@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > Yes. I have been following all the necessary steps. Someone else has > decided that he is God and can cancell my articles. You and I both > know him. You are really being a pest. Please stop. You truly are a fanatic. It is very apparent to those of us who have a better grasp of the machinations of USENET than you do that you are letting your feelings, or perhaps just your inexperience, cloud your judgement regarding whatever events really _did_ happen. So you continue to whine in the faces of several people who know the score, can tell you've been had by one joke made by Richard (in words only) and who will likely, if it is their wont, be able to prevent you from ever getting this group since you insist on insulting them and denying the facts. At least present them. Show the call for votes, the repost and/or the cancellations which removed them. Full headers would be nice, but we're capable enough to track this down with just a couple of Message-IDs, if indeed any of the afforementioned articles/control messages made it into the mainstream USENET. When Richard made his joke, I checked on our server to find any cancellation messages that had been received in the fourteen days immediately prior to his assertion. 17 Decemeber fell within that time frame (his article was posted 29 December) and so, obviously, was this "few days later" that you have mentioned as being when you re-posted the call for votes. This was all in plenty of time before Greg went on vaction, too; there were other articles posted to news.announce.newgroups in the interim. Please note that Greg uses the original Message-ID from the sending site in his postings. What I discovered were two cancellations posted back-to-back by Chandu Bhavsar on 20 December to nuke two articles in alt.rock-n-roll.metal. Mail to him at IO80448@MAINE.BITNET will probably show these to be genuine cancellations of postings he made under the titles, "Re: Origin of "Heavy Metal"" and "Re: Classic Metal Albums FOR SALE". I haven't bothered confirming this with him because they didn't show up until the 20th. That might explain the mysterious disappearance of the re-post, but not of the article you had posted three days prior. As Blair has pointed out, which you should have seen by now even if you didn't see it when you made the posting to which I am now following up, there would almost certainly be a trail lying around. B News sites don't forward cancellations which they receive for articles which have not appeared on their machine, but C News sites do. Once your article gets out of the psuvm!cunyvm!maine.bitnet land to psuvax1, it is C News to here (rpi!brutus!psuvax1). In fact, once it hits psuvax1 it is on this machine within a matter of seconds. Even if Richard were capable of instantaneously producing a cancel message for your article the moment it reached gryphon, then it would still take a moment longer for it to make the gryphon -> two nasa sites -> usc -> zaphod -> back to rpi.edu journey. I might not have seen the original call but certainly my machine would have, if indeed it ever made it to the net. Now would you please grow up a little more and get the facts before you continue this whole rec.music.pfloyd debate? Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
gt1020a@prism.gatech.EDU (Ken Yousten) (01/04/90)
In article <TAR.90003001734@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > Yes. I have been following all the necessary steps. Someone else has >decided that he is God and can cancell my articles. You and I both know him. Honestly, Richard, if you (or anyone else, for that matter) can discover how to completely and tracelessly cancel Htom's posts, may I humbly ask that you find the common courtesy to kill everything he says? Don't just tease us by only killing calls for discussion or votes. o Ken Yousten oo 90% of everything is crap o o arpa: gt1020a@prism.gatech.edu oo --Sturgeon's Law o o uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt1020a
ralph@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) (01/04/90)
In article <52999@ccicpg.UUCP> dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes: >Was there a discussion period? Yes, there was a discussion period. I think there were about seven or eight articles about it in news.groups. You probably didn't notice because of the endlessly fascinating debates over *.aquaria overwhelming just about anything else. Boy, this is fun! We don't get alt.flame here, so I just subscribe to news.groups.... >When was the discussion period? >Do you know what a discussion period is? > >Is this a vote or a poll? > >To what address should votes be sent? > >Do you have any idea how USENET is supposed to work? > > > Dave -- Ralph Brandi ralph@lzfme.att.com att!lzfme!ralph Work flows toward the competent until they are submerged.
dschuetz@umd5.umd.edu (David Schuetz) (01/04/90)
In article <4598@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt1020a@prism.gatech.EDU (Ken Yousten) writes: >In article <TAR.90003001734@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET > (Thom Rounds) writes: >> Yes. I have been following all the necessary steps. Someone else has >>decided that he is God and can cancell my articles. You and I both know him. > >Honestly, Richard, if you (or anyone else, for that matter) can discover how >to completely and tracelessly cancel Htom's posts, may I humbly ask that you >find the common courtesy to kill everything he says? Don't just tease us by >only killing calls for discussion or votes. Now this is getting silly. And annoying. I, for one, would like to see the floyd group succeed. I don't know either this Richard fellow, or Thom, nor do I even recognize their names. I care not if Thom is a twit, or Richard, or anyone else for that matter. I just want to see the Pink Floyd group become a reality. With all this quibbling, it seems to me that that will never come to pass. And why? Partially because of the Thom/Richard squabble, and partially because other people are perpetuating the argument, as above. So, I'd like to make a simple request: For once, everyone, please, refrain from flaming or commenting. Just let it be. Once all the voting is over, and we either have or don't have rec.music.pfloyd, then you can flame Thom to your heart's content. But all this stupid name-calling is just going to ruin it for all of us who'd like to see the group, simply because of one bad apple that everyone wants to yell about. thank you. david.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/06/90)
In article <TAR.90003001734@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: >In article <52999@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) says: ^ First of all, would YOU buy a used posting from a man with a gap like that? >>Do you have any idea how USENET is supposed to work? > > Yes. I have been following all the necessary steps. Someone else has >decided that he is God and can cancell my articles. You and I both know him. God has a news partition? or Thom, you don't know from carasso-dung. Dickie didn't cancel so much as a reservation at McDonald's. You're paranoid. You even think _I_ am being hostile. Yes you do, jerk! Tell ya what, Thom, you go back into your corner for a few days and RTFM a couple of times and then figure out how to crosspost properly so that your whine-for-votes will get through and I'll only have to 'n' past it once. >> Dave > --Thom --Blair "Way to plagiarize a signature style, Thom."