[comp.sys.apple2] Why comp.sys.apple2.d Is Needed

jac@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) (05/09/90)

lyle@netcom.UUCP (Lyle Fong):
> Look who's wasting bandwidth!  Do you have a problem with posts?  Seems the
> way you look at it, all posts are bullshit.  If you're so F******     
> conservative, why don't you go out there and lick up some trash for
> gods sake!  I don't know why the H#$% people are so ignorant as to not
> being able to accept a post, but..  I don't care to know what you're smoking.

Are you 12 years old?  (I ask this in all seriousness.)  Your poor grammar,
ubiquitous diction mistakes, and continual misunderstanding of the meaning
of various words tend to support such an opinion.

You seem to think that this newsgroup is your property to shit in as you
like.  It is not.  An Apple group existed long before you ever came along
and we always seemed to manage without the "Mac versus Apple II" diatribes.
You don't seem to understand -- these postings are boring, repetative, and
seem to break out every few months like some sort of mutant social disease.
While one can argue "just say 'n'" this prescription fails when one is forced
to say 'n' to most of the postings.

This is not Compuserve or some "rad" high-school BBS.  The newsgroup can be
very useful.  But only if people treat it as such, instead of using it like
some sort of soap-box for content-free rants (as you advocate).

Why don't we take a vote for comp.sys.apple2.d?  That way we can see if
everyone favors a newsgroup full of soap-box position statements or one
filled with technical information.  Or, keep comp.sys.apple2 for the
soap-box and create comp.sys.apple2.tech for the technical material.


Jonathan A. Chandross
Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu
UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac

lyle@netcom.UUCP (Lyle Fong) (05/09/90)

In response to Jonathan Chandross's post;

No, I am not 12 years old.  Obviously, there are some people on here who
would rather this newsgroup to be kept for completely techincal material,
but there are others who would slightly more variety.  When someone
posts a simple message, he gets an elephant crawling down his back.  It may
be, that you are getting sick of these computer debates.  Being new to Usenet,
I saw some messages on the topic of these computer wars, specifically,
people going towards IBM rather than the IIgs b
not because it is a better computer, but because they think that since everyone
else is using IBMs, the IBM must be better than the IIgs.  I wanted to point
out that that was not the case.  You may think it was repetitive, but
the fact that someone here thinks that the IIgs sucks shows that that
the facts are not communicating properly.  If you got offended by the
post, there would be room for retaliation.  But it seems you d
just didn't want to waste your time reading something that someone thought
was real important.  If that was the case, why couldn't you just let it go?
You tell me that I'm being childish, if you just look back at what you wrote,
that kind of outbreak is not appreciated on the net either.  You may think
that my retaliation was not justified, but I can tell you; your 
first statements weren't either.  I still can't see why you took my post
the way you did.  There are constantly new people on this net, it's not like
you own it.  As I said, I am new to this net, and many others seem to be
pouring in every day.  I was told this was a very friendly and close
system, with helpful and encouraging users.  I try to do something helpful,
and...  Oh well...  I do not wish to continue this conversation.  It is 
causing me headaches...

Lyle @ netcom

-------------------------------------------------------------------
A user who ONCE thought the IIgs was a great friendly computer
-------------------------------------------------------------------