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
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."