webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/09/88)
WIDGET WARS! In article <6960@ncoast.UUCP<, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: < As quoted from <696@brandx.rutgers.edu< by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): < +--------------- < | groups had more messages than comp.sources.bugs. This is really a case < | where using the old n key is the real answer! There are groups on the < | net that had over a thousand messages last month -- GET REAL. < +--------------- < < Mr. Webber, the newsgroup rules say NOTHING about required volume. If we <had to wait for a newsgroup to reach the volume of soc.singles, we might never < see any new newsgroups... and often there are valid reasons for those news- < groups. The rules say "100 more yes votes than no votes" -- which obviously < there are in the case of comp.sources.bugs.games. No. The rules say 100 more yes votes after 30 days. But anyway, I never said the rules said anything about ``volume''. However, since ``volume'' is the ``justification'' offered for creating such a group, it seemed worthwhile pointing out that it was a bogus ``justification.'' < +--------------- < | In article <1795@epimass.EPI.COM<, jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes: < | < Computer Center <cca.ucsf.edu!root< < <---------------------------------^^^^ Pay attention, Mr. Webber! *ROOT*! I saw that. Given the way some machines are run, I did not find it surprising that someone decided to put a building in charge of a machine. < | < Lord of the Rats <uunet!ucscc.UCSC.EDU!therat%ucscb.UCSC.EDU< < | < Snoopy <snoopy@doghouse.GWD.TEK.COM< < | < | Hmmm. Would the three you want to add happen to be a building, a < | rodent, and a cartoon character? For that matter, it looked like < | someone out in California even let a Beach Bum vote. This looks like < | the most flagrant case of ballot stuffing I have ever seen. < +--------------- < < The fact that someone chooses to use a "funny pseudonym" (longstanding net < tradition, just as with .signatures) or posts from their root account does < not mean that they are false users. *Or* false votes, in this case. In What makes you think they are ``pseudonyms?'' < particular, a vote posted from a *root* *account* is, if anything, *more* < *valid* than other votes. I see nothing particularly awe-inspiring about someone who uses the root account for things that don't require root privs. < Kindly cease the pointless filibustering, Mr. Helms -- er, Webber. filibustering? does this look like the floor of the senate to you? ------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)