muller@mirsa.UUCP (Christophe Muller) (12/06/89)
I also think the new Floyd group should be rec.music.smth. What about
rec.music.floyd ?
It's nicer than pfloyd, and remember, what was the last name of "pink" in
``The Wall'' ? :-)
Christophe.
-- muller@phoenix.src.umd.edu (email)
One quarter for posting to the News - Do you accept the charge ?drd@cec1.wustl.edu (David Reed Donat) (12/07/89)
I think this is a fantastic idea. I have only been reading the net for a relatively short period of time, but it is my impression that Floyd has one of the biggest followings on alt.r&r. Also, I have noticed quite a few comments complaining about "all these Pink Floyd discussions". This certainly seems like enough justification for giving us a newsgroup by ourselves. Alt.r&r always has a lot of traffic on it, and this would make a good supplement, as well as allowing the many die-hard Floyd fans in netland the opportunity to voice their opinions about Floyd, without getting the many complaints from a general forum (at least not as many). Let's do it. - Dave Donat
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (12/12/89)
I'd like to make a suggestion, here. We seem to have a proliferation
of newsgroups under rec.music for individual artists and groups. These
could be lumped together under the classification "shows" (since
virtually all of them perform publicly at one time or another--
Steeley Dan being a notable exception). There's currently four
(r.m.beatles, r.m.dylan, r.m.gaffa, and r.m.gdead) and now a
Pink Floyd newsgroup being proposed. As the net continues to grow
(at least, we all hope so :-) ) there will probably be more.
How about creating a news sub-hierarchy under rec.music that all
of these could be placed into? I suggest rec.music.shows to hold
these individualized groups. Other possible names might be "bands",
"artists", or "groups" (even the individual "names" generally carry
a band with them; they just get together a new bunch for each tour).
For those who have favorite shows, this would allow better tracking
of what's going on, and make it easier to find out about other
shows of interest. (Psssst...it'll also clean up the namespace a
little, but don't tell anyone...)
Incidentally, I recommend the term "shows" because that's the term
used in the industry--I used to be a theatrical support technician.
(This job pays better and is less hassle--and there isn't any glory
for the grunts in that business, either.)
--
Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager
SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers)
Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (12/13/89)
In article <475@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) says: > >I'd like to make a suggestion, here. We seem to have a proliferation >of newsgroups under rec.music for individual artists and groups. These >could be lumped together under the classification "shows" (since >virtually all of them perform publicly at one time or another-- >Steeley Dan being a notable exception). There's currently four >(r.m.beatles, r.m.dylan, r.m.gaffa, and r.m.gdead) and now a >Pink Floyd newsgroup being proposed. As the net continues to grow >(at least, we all hope so :-) ) there will probably be more. > I don't see what's so bad about seperate newgroups. At least the traffic is well sorted, and if you lump all of these together, you'll have one HUGE news- group, and I certainly won't even look at a newsgroup > 200 articles. I don't have time to sort through all of that stuff, like I already have to in rec.music.misc and alt.rock-n-roll. That is the whole reason I am demanding a new newsgroup (note the use of the word demand, not propose, I'm just demanding nicely :->). And lumping them all together won't alleviate the problem of traffic, it will all just wind up in one place instead of five. Get my point? >How about creating a news sub-hierarchy under rec.music that all >of these could be placed into? I suggest rec.music.shows to hold >these individualized groups. Other possible names might be "bands", >"artists", or "groups" (even the individual "names" generally carry >a band with them; they just get together a new bunch for each tour). > Pardon my impetuity, but how can these groups be 'individualized' if they are all congealed and agglutinated? >For those who have favorite shows, this would allow better tracking >of what's going on, and make it easier to find out about other >shows of interest. (Psssst...it'll also clean up the namespace a >little, but don't tell anyone...) > If I'm interested in a Grateful Dead show, I'll look in rec.music.gdead. If I'm interested in Pink Floyd going on tour, I'll look in rec.music.pfloyd when it's created, and while I live, it will be. >Incidentally, I recommend the term "shows" because that's the term >used in the industry--I used to be a theatrical support technician. >(This job pays better and is less hassle--and there isn't any glory >for the grunts in that business, either.) > Golly, I'm just a simple layman, and I use the term show as well. I think most people do. The bottom line to this whole thing is I am not going to give up now. On December 17, the call for votes shall be put out. If it's cast down (which I doubt, knowing all the support I've received through e-mail), I'll start over again. As long as I have a telephone, I'm going to do what I can to put rec.music.pfloyd in it's proper place on the net. >-- > Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager > SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) > Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say. ------- | Thom Rounds _ /| | \'o.O' | INTERNET: tar%maine.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu =(___)= | BITNET: TAR@MAINE U | UUCP path: psuvax!psuvm.bitnet!maine!tar Ack! Phht! | | Disclaimer: NONE
davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) (12/15/89)
She said that he said that she said that TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) said:
->
-That is the whole reason I am demanding a
-new newsgroup (note the use of the word demand, not propose, I'm just demanding
-nicely :->). And lumping them all together won't alleviate the problem of
-traffic, it will all just wind up in one place instead of five. Get my point?
Demand? Pardon my arrogance, but who are you to *demand* a newsgroup?
- The bottom line to this whole thing is I am not going to give up now. On
-December 17, the call for votes shall be put out. If it's cast down (which I
-doubt, knowing all the support I've received through e-mail), I'll start over
-again. As long as I have a telephone, I'm going to do what I can to put
-rec.music.pfloyd in it's proper place on the net.
I've seen support for rec.music.pfloyd. Fine, a call for votes is in order.
However, should the vote for r.m.p fail, the only proper place for it will
be in junk. And if you call for another vote soon afterwards, I may feel
it my duty to politic in a way that put the whole sci.aquaria thing to shame.
Btw...have you considered a mailing list? Or an alt group?
--
David Bedno, Systems Administrator, The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Email: davidbe@sco.COM / ..!{uunet,sun,ucbvax!ucscc,gorn}!sco!davidbe
Phone: 408-425-7222 x5123 Disclaimer: Speaking from SCO but not for SCO.
"You pull the trigger, and the gun fires. Dumb, dumb, dumb." - robertb@sco.COMgary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (12/19/89)
In article <89346.135842TAR@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: > In article <475@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (I) said: > > > >I'd like to make a suggestion, here. We seem to have a proliferation > >of newsgroups under rec.music for individual artists and groups. These [ ..... ] > I don't see what's so bad about seperate newgroups. At least the traffic is > well sorted, and if you lump all of these together, you'll have one HUGE news- > group, and I certainly won't even look at a newsgroup > 200 articles. > [ .... ] That is the whole reason I am demanding a > new newsgroup (note the use of the word demand, not propose, I'm just demanding > nicely :->). [ .... ] > >How about creating a news sub-hierarchy under rec.music that all > >of these could be placed into? I suggest rec.music.shows to hold > >these individualized groups. [ .... ] > Pardon my impetuity, but how can these groups be 'individualized' if they > are all congealed and agglutinated? By doing it the way I suggested in the preceeding paragraph, if you bothered to read it (don't worry, I've had the same problem myself). To explain the proposed structure more clearly (in laymans' terms, perhaps): A new hierarchy would be created: rec.music.shows rec.music.beatles would become: rec.music.shows.beatles rec.music.gdead would become: rec.music.shows.gdead rec.music.gaffa would become: rec.music.shows.gaffa And if you don't induce too much antagonisim with your "demand", rec.music.pfloyd would instead be: rec.music.shows.pfloyd Ok? Is that a little clearer? The newsgroups remain separate newsgroups, the articles are not mixed, you don't have to dig thru the beatles articles to find out about the Deads' upcoming concert schedule, the groups are simply moved-- NOT combined, mixed, agglomerated, congealed or agglutinated. There could also be a rec.music.shows.misc to start up new specialized newsgroups (it's easier to get a newsgroup created if you can say "there's 48 postings per day about this in the .misc group"). > >For those who have favorite shows, this would allow better tracking > >of what's going on, and make it easier to find out about other > >shows of interest. (Psssst...it'll also clean up the namespace a > >little, but don't tell anyone...) > If I'm interested in a Grateful Dead show, I'll look in rec.music.gdead. > If I'm interested in Pink Floyd going on tour, I'll look in rec.music.pfloyd > when it's created, and while I live, it will be. Fine. With the arrangement I proposed, you can still find the info you want, in a newsgroup dedicated to a specific show. None of that would be changed. I wouldn't dream of making Usenet harder to use for anyone. There's no point in that. By the way, do you intend to commit seppu ku if the vote fails? > >Incidentally, I recommend the term "shows" because that's the term > >used in the industry--I used to be a theatrical support technician. > Golly, I'm just a simple layman, and I use the term show as well. I think > most people do. Really? I hear lots of people talking about seeing "a band" or a specific performer. Ask Madonna if people come to see her or her band. Ask Elton John. Or Rod Stewart, Tone Loc, Belinda Carlile, or any other "name" performer. The fans come to see them, not a band. Conversely, Expose', White Snake, Bad English, and so on are there as a group. "shows" is a generic term that encompasses individuals, groups, or mixtures of the two. An alternative could be "acts". > The bottom line to this whole thing is I am not going to give up now. I wasn't aware anyone ask you to. I just suggested an alternate place for it to go. (Of course, if this turns into an extended flamefest, I may make a few other suggestions as to where you could put it. :-) ) > On > December 17, the call for votes shall be put out. If it's cast down (which I > doubt, knowing all the support I've received through e-mail), I'll start over > again. Remember the six-month waiting period before resubmittal of a new newsgroup proposal, though. > As long as I have a telephone, I'm going to do what I can to put > rec.music.pfloyd in it's proper place on the net. A modem might be useful, too. I'm not trying to prevent the start of a Pink Floyd newsgroup. I just think the "proper place in the net" is rec.music.shows.pfloyd. > > Gary Heston [ full .sig below ] > ------- > | Thom Rounds > _ /| | > \'o.O' | INTERNET: tar%maine.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu > =(___)= | BITNET: TAR@MAINE > U | UUCP path: psuvax!psuvm.bitnet!maine!tar > Ack! Phht! | > | Disclaimer: NONE -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (12/20/89)
In article <506@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) says: > >In article <89346.135842TAR@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) >writes: >> In article <475@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (I) said: >> > >> >I'd like to make a suggestion, here. We seem to have a proliferation >> >of newsgroups under rec.music for individual artists and groups. These > > [ ..... ] > >> I don't see what's so bad about seperate newgroups. At least the traffic >is >> well sorted, and if you lump all of these together, you'll have one HUGE - >news >> group, and I certainly won't even look at a newsgroup > 200 articles. >> [ .... ] That is the whole reason I am demanding a >> new newsgroup (note the use of the word demand, not propose, I'm just >demanding >> nicely :->). [ .... ] > >> >How about creating a news sub-hierarchy under rec.music that all >> >of these could be placed into? I suggest rec.music.shows to hold >> >these individualized groups. [ .... ] > >> Pardon my impetuity, but how can these groups be 'individualized' if >they >> are all congealed and agglutinated? > >By doing it the way I suggested in the preceeding paragraph, if you >bothered to read it (don't worry, I've had the same problem myself). > >To explain the proposed structure more clearly (in laymans' terms, >perhaps): > >A new hierarchy would be created: rec.music.shows > >rec.music.beatles would become: rec.music.shows.beatles >rec.music.gdead would become: rec.music.shows.gdead >rec.music.gaffa would become: rec.music.shows.gaffa > >And if you don't induce too much antagonisim with your "demand", >rec.music.pfloyd would instead be: rec.music.shows.pfloyd > >Ok? Is that a little clearer? The newsgroups remain separate >newsgroups, the articles are not mixed, you don't have to >dig thru the beatles articles to find out about the Deads' >upcoming concert schedule, the groups are simply moved-- >NOT combined, mixed, agglomerated, congealed or agglutinated. > I don't see how this is going to help. All I see it doing is making the name longer. As it is right now, you don't have to dig thru .gdead to find .beatles stuff. And besides, we'll be disussing more than shows, and the chart- ers of the current aforementioned groups discuss more than shows. Therefore, the addition of 'shows' to the titles will not change anything and will just make the names longer. >There could also be a rec.music.shows.misc to start up new >specialized newsgroups (it's easier to get a newsgroup >created if you can say "there's 48 postings per day about >this in the .misc group"). > You already can say that. There's a rec.music.misc. I don't see how your idea would help any. >> >For those who have favorite shows, this would allow better tracking >> >of what's going on, and make it easier to find out about other >> >shows of interest. (Psssst...it'll also clean up the namespace a >> >little, but don't tell anyone...) > >> If I'm interested in a Grateful Dead show, I'll look in rec.music.gdead. >> If I'm interested in Pink Floyd going on tour, I'll look in rec.music.pfloyd >> when it's created, and while I live, it will be. > >Fine. With the arrangement I proposed, you can still find the info >you want, in a newsgroup dedicated to a specific show. None of that >would be changed. I wouldn't dream of making Usenet harder to use >for anyone. There's no point in that. > >By the way, do you intend to commit seppu ku if the vote fails? > No, but the way you talk, homicide comes to mind. Why don't you grow up? >> >Incidentally, I recommend the term "shows" because that's the term >> >used in the industry--I used to be a theatrical support technician. > >> Golly, I'm just a simple layman, and I use the term show as well. I >think >> most people do. > >Really? I hear lots of people talking about seeing "a band" or a >specific performer. Ask Madonna if people come to see her or her >band. Ask Elton John. Or Rod Stewart, Tone Loc, Belinda Carlile, or >any other "name" performer. The fans come to see them, not a band. >Conversely, Expose', White Snake, Bad English, and so on are there >as a group. "shows" is a generic term that encompasses individuals, >groups, or mixtures of the two. An alternative could be "acts". > Excuse me, but you haven't mentioned a single show. You've named bands. 'Radio K.A.O.S.' is a show. Roger Waters is a performer. 'Delicate Sound of Thunder' was a show (boy, was it ever!). Pink Floyd is a band. What is your point?? >> The bottom line to this whole thing is I am not going to give up now. > >I wasn't aware anyone ask you to. I just suggested an alternate place >for it to go. (Of course, if this turns into an extended flamefest, I >may make a few other suggestions as to where you could put it. :-) ) > Oh, boy, am *I* impressed at this show of masculinity. >> On >> December 17, the call for votes shall be put out. If it's cast down (which I >> doubt, knowing all the support I've received through e-mail), I'll start >over >> again. > >Remember the six-month waiting period before resubmittal of a new newsgroup >proposal, though. > >> As long as I have a telephone, I'm going to do what I can to put >> rec.music.pfloyd in it's proper place on the net. > >A modem might be useful, too. > Thank you, wise ass. >I'm not trying to prevent the start of a Pink Floyd newsgroup. I just think >the "proper place in the net" is rec.music.shows.pfloyd. > I don't. And I don't see why you do. >> > Gary Heston [ some .sig below ] >> Thom Rounds >-- > Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (12/23/89)
In article <TAR.89353230738@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) writes: [ recommendation, misinterpretation, and explanation deleted ] > I don't see how this is going to help. All I see it doing is making the > name longer. As it is right now, you don't have to dig thru .gdead to find > .beatles stuff. And besides, we'll be disussing more than shows, and the chart- > ers of the current aforementioned groups discuss more than shows. Therefore, > the addition of 'shows' to the titles will not change anything and will just > make the names longer. It would localize discussions of a similar nature--most showgoers are probably not concerned about how to program a synthesizer. I think that it would make life easier for the readers. A slightly longer name is a reasonable tradeoff if it makes it easier to find what you want. The worst impact is that someone posting an original article (not a followup) would have to type six more characters. > >There could also be a rec.music.shows.misc to start up new > >specialized newsgroups (it's easier to get a newsgroup > >created if you can say "there's 48 postings per day about > >this in the .misc group"). > > > You already can say that. There's a rec.music.misc. I don't see how > your idea would help any. Yes. Currently the articles about shows/bands/acts are mixed in with how many others? How easy is it to determine that a show/band/act is generating enough activity to justify a individual group? First, you have to filter all the noise in rec.music.misc. Localizing the articles about shows in another area would make the process easier. > >By the way, do you intend to commit seppu ku if the vote fails? > > > No, but the way you talk, homicide comes to mind. Why don't you grow up? I believe you mentioned something about getting a group one way or another, or "die trying". You are probably more in need of growing up. Incidentally, homicide or threat thereof is a criminal act. A felony, in this state. [ explanation of terminology deleted ] > Excuse me, but you haven't mentioned a single show. You've named bands. > 'Radio K.A.O.S.' is a show. Roger Waters is a performer. 'Delicate Sound of > Thunder' was a show (boy, was it ever!). Pink Floyd is a band. What is your > point?? A show is a performance done by one or more individuals or groups, for an audience. It may be public or private, live, recorded, or broadcast. The point is to come up with a understandable term to group things together. Since you're unwilling to consider the grouping, I don't expect you to get the point. Incidentally, Madonna is not a band. She's a performer. And a good one. [ .... ] > >may make a few other suggestions as to where you could put it. :-) ) > Oh, boy, am *I* impressed at this show of masculinity. You obviously haven't been introduced to the concept of a "smiley", sometime called a "net.smiley". See news.newuser.questions for an explanation. [ .... ] > >A modem might be useful, too. > Thank you, wise ass. You're welcome. Try the term "usenet access" next time. It's clearer. > >I'm not trying to prevent the start of a Pink Floyd newsgroup. I just think > >the "proper place in the net" is rec.music.shows.pfloyd. > I don't. And I don't see why you do. Simple. We have different opinions. You feel yours is untouchable, and don't care about anyone elses' that would change your idea in any way. > >> > Gary Heston [ some .sig below ] Speaking of growing up, was there any particular reason you changed the word "full" in the above line to "some"? Do you really think the people reading this newsgroup are so dumb that they won't notice the change? And then you deleted most of the followup .sig, and made it a point to remove your entire .sig from the posting. You seem to be going to a lot of effort to make me look bad. That type of behavior will do more damage to your reputation than mine. Not to mention hurting the prospects for a pfloyd group. > >> Thom Rounds > >-- > > Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager Go ahead and call for a group, under whatever name you wish. Prior to your flammage, I'd have probably voted for it. Now, I don't know that I will. I doubt that I'll vote against it--Pink Floyd isn't responsible for your behavior. The net can decide about a newsgroup. -- Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.
TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (12/25/89)
In article <507@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) says: > >In article <TAR.89353230738@MAINE.BITNET>, TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) >writes: > >[ recommendation, misinterpretation, and explanation deleted ] > >> I don't see how this is going to help. All I see it doing is making the >> name longer. As it is right now, you don't have to dig thru .gdead to find >> .beatles stuff. And besides, we'll be disussing more than shows, and the >chart- >> ers of the current aforementioned groups discuss more than shows. Therefore, >> the addition of 'shows' to the titles will not change anything and will just >> make the names longer. > >It would localize discussions of a similar nature--most showgoers are >probably not concerned about how to program a synthesizer. I think that >it would make life easier for the readers. A slightly longer name is a >reasonable tradeoff if it makes it easier to find what you want. The >worst impact is that someone posting an original article (not a >followup) would have to type six more characters. > Huh? Take a look in some of these groups sometime, all the discussion ARE of a similar nature! That's why they're called newsGROUPS. You never see incstruction on how to program a synthesizer in rec.music.gdead! And I don't know why you think the longer name is a reasonable tradeoff, because adding 'shows' wouldn't have any effect! The same people would read the group and say the exact same things! It doesn't make it easier to find DIDDLY if all the in- dividual rec.music.* groups become rec.music.shows.*! Please tell me how it does!! I really want to know how you think it does! >> >There could also be a rec.music.shows.misc to start up new >> >specialized newsgroups (it's easier to get a newsgroup >> >created if you can say "there's 48 postings per day about >> >this in the .misc group"). >> > >> You already can say that. There's a rec.music.misc. I don't see how >> your idea would help any. > >Yes. Currently the articles about shows/bands/acts are mixed in with >how many others? How easy is it to determine that a show/band/act is >generating enough activity to justify a individual group? First, you >have to filter all the noise in rec.music.misc. Localizing the articles >about shows in another area would make the process easier. > If you have to put that much effort into finding a discussion, I don't think it even warrants a newsgroup, now does it? >> >By the way, do you intend to commit seppu ku if the vote fails? >> > >> No, but the way you talk, homicide comes to mind. Why don't you grow up? > >I believe you mentioned something about getting a group one way or another, >or "die trying". You are probably more in need of growing up. Incidentally, >homicide or threat thereof is a criminal act. A felony, in this state. > Nice stab at trying to put me down. It didn't work. If you want me to face charges in your state for something I wrote in my state, I think you'd better get a real good lawyer. i.e., What is your point? >[ explanation of terminology deleted ] ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ - Yep, and it is all I talk about in the next paragraph, so you remove it and make people guess as to what you said. Nice. > >> Excuse me, but you haven't mentioned a single show. You've named bands. >> 'Radio K.A.O.S.' is a show. Roger Waters is a performer. 'Delicate Sound of >> Thunder' was a show (boy, was it ever!). Pink Floyd is a band. What is your >> point?? > >A show is a performance done by one or more individuals or groups, for an >audience. It may be public or private, live, recorded, or broadcast. The >point is to come up with a understandable term to group things together. >Since you're unwilling to consider the grouping, I don't expect you to >get the point. Incidentally, Madonna is not a band. She's a performer. >And a good one. > That's nice. But as I said, we will not be discussing just shows. We will be discussing EVERYTHING pertaining to Pink Floyd. Why are you so dead-set on having 'shows' added to the title. >[ .... ] > >> >may make a few other suggestions as to where you could put it. :-) ) > >> Oh, boy, am *I* impressed at this show of masculinity. > >You obviously haven't been introduced to the concept of a "smiley", >sometime called a "net.smiley". See news.newuser.questions for >an explanation. > Bug off. If doesn't matter if you say something like that with a smiley added or not it is still quite pompous. The smiley makes no difference with a line like that one. And I'm not an idiot. I've been using that stupid smiley for six years, I think there's a chance that I just might know what it's for. >[ .... ] > >> >A modem might be useful, too. > >> Thank you, wise ass. > >You're welcome. Try the term "usenet access" next time. It's clearer. > My, my, my, aren't WE a perfectionist who expects US to jump when you say 'frog'!!! First you tell me what to name the newsgroup I'm working to create and THEN you tell me how I should talk and what sentences I should use! Just who the hell do you think you are? >> >I'm not trying to prevent the start of a Pink Floyd newsgroup. I just think >> >the "proper place in the net" is rec.music.shows.pfloyd. > >> I don't. And I don't see why you do. > >Simple. We have different opinions. You feel yours is untouchable, and >don't care about anyone elses' that would change your idea in any way. > Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!! The reason I don't see why you think rec.music.shows.pfloyd is proper is because you haven't explained why! All you've done for the past five days is describe the word 'show'. Kindly explain the REASONS and not the terminology!! Or do YOU feel that your opinions are untouchable? Hmmn? And besides, if I did understand your idea, it probably wouldn't change my opinion anyway! There's no point in what you suggest! At least not that you've explained! Kindly explain your point and stop flaming me! >> >> > Gary Heston [ some .sig below ] > >Speaking of growing up, was there any particular reason you changed the >word "full" in the above line to "some"? Do you really think the people >reading this newsgroup are so dumb that they won't notice the change? >And then you deleted most of the followup .sig, and made it a point >to remove your entire .sig from the posting. You seem to be going to >a lot of effort to make me look bad. That type of behavior will do >more damage to your reputation than mine. Not to mention hurting the >prospects for a pfloyd group. > And what's this? I wasn't trying to make you look bad. I was trimming the size of the article, and trimmed you .sig to the important stuff. Since your 'full .sig' wasn't enclosed, I changed the line to 'some .sig below' since that was more accurate. And you know that. Why are YOU trying to make ME look bad? And besides, I don't USE my .sig anymore. A one-line signature is much better. >> >> Thom Rounds >> >-- >> > Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager > >Go ahead and call for a group, under whatever name you wish. Prior to >your flammage, I'd have probably voted for it. Now, I don't know >that I will. I doubt that I'll vote against it--Pink Floyd isn't >responsible for your behavior. The net can decide about a newsgroup. > You really are paranoid, you know that? I wasn't flaming you. I asked you questions. You couldn't give me any valid answers, so you had to abuse me instead. I don't deserve putting up with you attitude, so kindly either explain your views or don't mention them if you can't. >-- > Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager > SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) > Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say. I'm a jerk, folks. I only posted the first line of his .sig last time. Well for those of you who have been in suspense the whole time here is his entire .sig. Thank you for waiting.
gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) (12/28/89)
I've decided it's pointless to continue this discussion, and have sent
mail to Rounds indicating that.
Sorry so much bandwidth was used on this, I now know better than to
make suggestions.
--
Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager
SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers)
Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say.TAR@MAINE.BITNET (Thom Rounds) (12/29/89)
In article <511@sci34hub.UUCP>, gary@sci34hub.UUCP (Gary Heston) says: > >I've decided it's pointless to continue this discussion, and have sent >mail to Rounds indicating that. > I never got any mail. >Sorry so much bandwidth was used on this, I now know better than to >make suggestions. > It's not the making of suggestions that bugs me, it's the fact that you did not give any valid explainations of your viewpoints. You abused me and flamed me instead. *That* bugs me. >-- > Gary Heston { uunet!sci34hub!gary } System Mismanager > SCI Technology, Inc. OEM Products Department (i.e., computers) > Hestons' First Law: I qualify virtually everything I say. --Thom Rounds