richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (01/02/90)
In article <1990Jan1.194234.1679@lth.se> bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) writes: >In article <TAR.89363215302@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: >> >> I will no longer take any votes. It is unanymously no. Fine. I'l just start >>over. > >Well, Mr Rounds, you and I have had our differences (in e-mail), but I think >it is sad that you are giving up the vote on such grounds (that your articles >was cancelled). > >If it is true that Richard Sexton has been cancelling your articles he >should be tarred and feathered. > >I think you should re-post your call for votes (now that you know who has >been cancelling them). Alright you idiots. There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered. But not for this. There is also no doubt that I posted the article wherein I claimed to be cancelling all of Htom Rounds articles. I posted it to talk.bizarre and alt.flame. I don't like using these things, but clearly, one is needed here: :-) Yich. Now, as to why nobody ever saw Htoms call for votes, do you suppose there is any chance that he posted it to that there MODERATED group that has all the OFFICIAL newsgroup announcements, and that since it's holiday season and Greg is in Bora Bora there might be a little delay in posting Htoms article ? Just a guess...
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (01/03/90)
In article <24104@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) says: > >In article <1990Jan1.194234.1679@lth.se> bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) >writes: >>In article <TAR.89363215302@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) >writes: >>> >>> I will no longer take any votes. It is unanymously no. Fine. I'l just >start >>>over. >> >>Well, Mr Rounds, you and I have had our differences (in e-mail), but I think >>it is sad that you are giving up the vote on such grounds (that your articles >>was cancelled). >> >>If it is true that Richard Sexton has been cancelling your articles he >>should be tarred and feathered. >> >>I think you should re-post your call for votes (now that you know who has >>been cancelling them). > >Alright you idiots. > >There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered. But not for this. > >There is also no doubt that I posted the article wherein I claimed >to be cancelling all of Htom Rounds articles. > >I posted it to talk.bizarre and alt.flame. > >I don't like using these things, but clearly, one is needed here: > > > > > :-) > >Yich. > > > >Now, as to why nobody ever saw Htoms call for votes, do you suppose >there is any chance that he posted it to that there MODERATED group >that has all the OFFICIAL newsgroup announcements, and that since >it's holiday season and Greg is in Bora Bora there might be a little >delay in posting Htoms article ? > >Just a guess... Nice try, Richard. But, my call for votes was ALSO posted to alt.rock-n-roll and rec.music.misc. And ALSO, I posted the call for discussion in those four aforementioned groups, at the end of November. The original call for votes went out and Dec. 17. The repost went out two or three days later. Now then, at least the people on the unmoderated groups should have seen them. They did not. And I couldn't help but remember your threat to cancel my art- icles and your constant nagging and saying 'The Floyd group will fail'. Now, just putting two and two together wind up with you. You are the only real ex- paination, Richard. NOBODY saw the call fo Votes, and only a few people saw the call for Discussion. Now, take those facts and all the things you've said and done in the past, and what do you get? --Thom
greg@phoenix (greg Nowak) (01/04/90)
In article <TAR.90002231847@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE (Moth Rounds) writes: > Nice try, Richard. But, my call for votes was ALSO posted to >alt.rock-n-roll and rec.music.misc. And ALSO, I posted the call for discussion >in those four aforementioned groups, at the end of November. The original call >for votes went out and Dec. 17. The repost went out two or three days later. >Now then, at least the people on the unmoderated groups should have seen them. >They did not. And I couldn't help but remember your threat to cancel my art- >icles and your constant nagging and saying 'The Floyd group will fail'. Now, >just putting two and two together wind up with you. You are the only real ex- >paination, Richard. NOBODY saw the call fo Votes, and only a few people saw the >call for Discussion. Now, take those facts and all the things you've said and >done in the past, and what do you get? > > --Moth A BITNET twit who doesn't know how USENET works, and can't spell besides? It's precisely because _no one_ saw the articles that it's likely you screwed up in typing the newsgroup names, and so the articles never got to valid newsgroups. Think a bit, Moth -- for Richard to have cancelled an article, he would have to have known of its existence. In other words, it had to get from BUTTFUCK.MAINE.BITNET to California, Richard had to read it, decide to cancel it (ooo that evil man) and then the cancel message had to make its way back across the county, all before anyone in the Floyd Patrol saw it. Highly unlikely. Much more likely that you munged a newsgroup name or two, and you have one of those braindead posting programs that punts the article if even one of several newsgroups in the list of newsgroups is bogus. Oops, I forgot, you're BITNET, you call them "conferences" or "boards" or something. rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "Most news readers are not UNIX sophisticates and do not have the capability of using KILL files or even know that such a thing is possible." -- Tim Maroney
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/04/90)
In article <TAR.90002231847@MAINE.BITNET> TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: >NOBODY saw the call fo Votes, and only a few people saw the >call for Discussion. Now, take those facts and all the things you've said and >done in the past, and what do you get? A pretty piss-poor job of trying to blame Dickie for your screwup. Thom, a cancel message, especially one from a distant node, takes time to propagate itself and to do its work. Further, it leaves a trail of its own. Therefore: a. Some number of people would see your article before it was cancelled; and, b. There would be a record of the cancellation. So. There may yet be nodes where they article still exists, no matter whether it was cancelled or not, and there should be nodes with big disks where the cancel request exists unexpired. You can go whining to news.admin for some kind soul to help you track down the evidence. Besides, I don't think Dickie could do such a thing this cleanly. I'd look for a trail of aged water, killifish fry, and wristwatch parts leading halfway down the hall if I suspected him of sabotaging something of mine. --Blair "Have your lawyer call my lawyer and we'll do discovery."
chip@ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) (01/04/90)
According to TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds): > Nice try, Richard. But, my call for votes was ALSO posted to >alt.rock-n-roll and rec.music.misc. [...] >Now then, at least the people on the unmoderated groups should have seen >[it]. They did not. Learn how the news software works, Htom. They would not have seen it. HTOM: A sterling example of BITROT. Er, BITNET. -- You may redistribute this article only to those who may freely do likewise. Chip Salzenberg at A T Engineering; <chip@ateng.com> or <uunet!ateng!chip> "The Usenet, in a very real sense, does not exist."