bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (01/15/90)
In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <10979@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no >> >air of hanky-panky during the con.aquaria vote. Since there was, my >> >posting was quite reasonable. >> >> No, your posting wasn't reasonable, Jeff. Not at all -- even if you >> could prove the assertion you are making here, it was malicious behav- >> ior on your part to have given into hTom Rounds' hysteria > >I think it's evident there was an air of hanky-panky surrounding >the vote, Trisha (or are you one of those who claim Watergate will prove >to be a mere mistake when all the facts come out?). Starting with >the misnaming for the purpose of defrauding certain sites, and going >on to various questions about the vote. Given that and the general Hanky panky my slattern aunt Fanny! Dickie came out at the very beginning and stated the reasoning for the name of the group, and was badgered and hooted by a load of net.fascist.morons for having the gumption to do something about net.prejudice against rec groups. Then when it became obvious that those opposed to the group were waging a bush-beating campaign to prevent its accession, he began politicking in order to save the proposal. In the resulting fistfight, sides were taken and a few unscrupulous persons, contrary to the wishes and in flagrant disregard of the efforts of the vote-takers, did a few unconscionable things that, nevertheless, had absolutely no material effect on the outcome. You and I and the rest of the net know that 99% of the yes- votes for this group were genuine, that even if 6% had been forged and subsequently disqualified the group still would have passed, and that there was forgery in the dissenting votes as well as attempts to reduce Dickie's capacity to complete the vote count (although this was predicated on the load it was generating at gryphon, rather than the politics of gryphon's administration). Nowhere in there did Dickie ever give the impression that he would cause to fail anyone else's vote on any topic whatsoever. In fact the only conclusion you could assume is that he'd be in favor of creation of almost any newsgroup, no matter how it may extend beyond the de facto parameters of the known net. Your position that he is marked by his past actions as a net.person not to be trusted are, therefore, totally without rational basis. --Blair "Look who's asking 'Who is Daffy?'!"
link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) (01/15/90)
In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <10979@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >> In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >> >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no Could you please leave your personal diatribes off the net. I'm here to discuss fish, not your personal opinions of others. Richard Link, Ph.D. Space Sciences Laboratory P.S. Apologies to other readers for using up bandwidth responding to these turkeys. However, I guess tha point needs to be made.
tims@cci632.UUCP (Tim Sullivan) (01/16/90)
In article <1990Jan15.084206.13755@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>In article <10979@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>, rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >>> In article <LB01M66xds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>> >That posting could only be considered malicious if there had been no > >Could you please leave your personal diatribes off the net. >I'm here to discuss fish, not your personal opinions of others. > Agreed, I enjoy reading postings of fish related articles. If you folks must take shots at each other please do it privately!
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/16/90)
In article <33123@cci632.UUCP> tims@ccird5.UUCP (Tim Sullivan) writes: >In article <1990Jan15.084206.13755@agate.berkeley.edu> link@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Richard Link) writes: >>In article <QZ11Ixds8@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >>Could you please leave your personal diatribes off the net. >>I'm here to discuss fish, not your personal opinions of others. >Agreed, I enjoy reading postings of fish related articles. If you folks must >take shots at each other please do it privately! Please leave my name out of this -- Jeff Daiell has repeatedly directed followups to the aquaria groups (all of which I have ignored) and has in- sisted on continuing this discussion there himself. I suggest you com- plain to him personally, maybe you'll have better luck persuading him to move his remarks to some other newsgroup. Followups to alt.flame. And that means you too, Jeff.