🚀 go-pugleaf

alt.is.too has been redefined by the current population as the
"alternative.Internet.System.too, for inclusion in ALL censorship
articles.

In <Dn3KGn.C7n@midway.uchicago.edu> haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Bill H.)
writes: 
>
>In article <Pine.BSF.3.91.960218134540.26661D-100000@alex>,
>The Night Hawk  <darkness@intersurf.com> wrote:
>>On 18 Feb 1996, Dr. Grubor wrote:
>>
>>> This LOW-Life Scumbag Terry R. cuts the alt.is.too newsgroup JUST
>>> to try and speak of the Doctor behind his back. 
>>
>>	We cut the alt.is.too newsgroup BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!!!!!  
>>I DARE you to answer this, because I'll send you the FULL NEWSGROUP
list 
>>and show your sorry ass that it's only a figmentation of your news 
>>server's imagination.
>
>Ahem.  Much as I hate to agree with the Kook Brigade, I'm afraid I'll
>have to burst your bubble on this one:
>
>alt.is:     created moderated,   by Tim Skirvin,        12 Dec 1995
>alt.is.too: created unmoderated, by Matt L. Armstrong,  31 Oct 1991
>alt.is.not: created unmoderated, by Geoff Spear,         3 Mar 1994
>
>Granted, they aren't carried at many sites; however, they do exist.
>
>Of them all, only "alt.is.too", seems to have a charter, being
dedicated
>to the pursuit of "is not/is too" arguments.  This would seem to
indicate
>that Grubor's and Boursy's posts, if few others', are on-topic for 
>"alt.is.too".  However, unless you're engaging in silly "is not/is
too"
>arguments with the Trolls, you're correct not to post there.  Since
this
>post constitutes just such an argument, I will indeed it crosspost it
to
>"alt.is.too", and have set followups to "alt.is.too", as the most
>appropriate newsgroup for continuing discussion of the existence/non-
>existence of alt.is.*  :-)
>
>- Bill Hazelrig (haz1@kimbark.uchicago.edu)


alt.is.too has a new mission, and that is to eliminate censorship 
on this usenet by ending all cancellations.

DrG

alt.is.too
Cyberlogician