🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <49lb0i$kbe@felix.junction.net>,
Bob nelson <rsnelson@portage.net> wrote:
>Reference statistics:
>Follow-up to article: <49i6ct$g0l@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>
>Viewed in USENET newsgroup: can.config
>Posted by: clewis@bnr.ca (Chris Lewis) who spaketh thusly:

>>On the contrary, Dawn's FAQ is quite simple.  And vague.  And accurate.
>>A very accurate reflection of reality.  Specifically: inconsistent,
>>vague, subject to the phases of the moon.

>Fine. Remove reference to policies, practices, and procedures related
>to the operation of the major (global) newsgroups in the can.config
>FAQ.

Every newcomer seems to think that the big 8 procedures apply to can.*.
The bit on the big 8 process in the can.config FAQ is necessary merely to
point out that it _doesn't_ apply to can.*.

>Convoluted means to roll one part over another or inward from
>side to side.  The can.config FAQ should be written in clear, concise,
>and defined terms,

It isn't a clear, concise and defined topic.  Therefore, a clear, concise
and defined" description isn't possible.  That doesn't seem difficult
to understand, now does it Bob?

>and be a stand alone reference for the can.*
>hierarcy, that can be read an understood by everyone, not just those
>"in the know". Stop wrapping "fish" in the Big 7/8's newspaper.

Sorry Bob, strawman.  Nobody who knows the slightest bit about what
they're talking about does that.  Neither does the FAQ.  So, perhaps,
_you_ should stop doing it.

>The can.* stands for Canadian.  People are more like to respect the
>can.* usenet boundaries, if they are well defined, and documented.

Who said that the boundaries were well-defined?

>The way it stands now it's closer to the alt.* hierarcy, than the
>asperations of the big 7/8.

That's correct - can.* is just like alt.*.  I wouldn't mind a voting
system in the slightest.  Makes deciding what to create a whole lot
easier.  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way most prefer it
at the moment.  And I don't get to decide how it's done.  So quit
blaming me for it.

>Canadian governments at all levels have stated some degree of
>commitment to the development of the Information highway concept in
>Canada. You are foolish to think that at some point this won't have
>an impact on the Canadian usenet domain, especially when it has the
>Canadian label attached.

Ah, but you see there's this one problem.  _Noone_ can control can.*
without the cooperation of the systems that implement it.  If governments
somewhere think that they can dictate how it's done, they'll just
find the whole thing evaporate underneath them.  You can't order
volunteers to do things they don't wanna.

>>Which just serves to demonstrate that I was right that you don't know
>>what czar means.  "Czar" in this context means that there is a voting
>>process.  There isn't.

>I'm not going to get into some esoteric discussion on word meanings,
>contextual applications, and evocative or provocative phrasings.

This seems in marked contrast to your demands for "clear, concise and
defined".  Oh, I get it.  We have to be perfectly "clear, concise
and defined".  You didn't choose the term "czar" out of any sense of
historical/technical accuracy.  You didn't choose the term "czar"
because you wanted to discuss this in a reasonable detailed fashion.

Instead, the only thing you were trying to do was be obnoxious.

I'm glad that bit of confusion is all cleared up.  I love you too.

>There
>is a community that appreciates how many elfs can dance on a head
>of a pin. User friendly flies...the rest is roadkill.

I sense disgust for "clear, concise and defined" in your position Bob.
Doesn't this seem to imply a rather, um, convoluted, inconsistent
and contradictory position Bob?  I think it's time you rewrote your
position in "clear, concise and defined terms" Bob.

>>Uh... Bob ... Bob ... yo Bob, That's RFD/CFV.  "RFC" stands for
>>"Request For Comments" which is what all of the Internet standards
>>are called.

>Truly amazing. You don't happen to use those little white plastic
>pocket protectors in your shirt do you... 

Gee Bob, can't take what you dish out, can you?

If you must know, I don't wear shirts.  It would obscure my manly
chest, and my secretaries would all file grievances against me.
What a pain.

>>What are you trying to say anyways?

>Somewhere you objected to my "oblique" approach. Did you ever
>consider the other side of the coin. Your approach seems to be
>somewhere between bleak and oblique. Your prowess with a
>computer system is well known and respected. Some of your
>attitudes on other issues really bite.

You're no bowl of cherries either Bob.

My approach tends to mirror the approach made to me. If you
weren't trying this "obnoxious heretic" nonsense, you would
have been received differently.

I don't get paid to do this job.  So I don't have to be polite or
helpful to those being rude.  But as you say, I've already been
restrained longer than you expected from your intentional
provocations.  I did that because I thought that you merely needed to
learn a bit more about Usenet, and that my restraint could lead to you
becoming a reasonably knowledgeable Usenet citizen.  It seems I was
mistaken.  That's unfortunate.  I'll think about becoming less
restrained.

>You are not a god,

I keep saying I'm not a god.  When was the last time you had
your eyes tested?  You're definately having problems in reading
comprehension Bob.

>although I do appreciate your sense of humour
>on that subject, you are however a most valuable asset. So
>where's your legacy when the information highway expropriates
>your house.

My "house" as you put it, exists only as long as I volunteer
time and resources to make it exist.  It cannot be expropriated -
because it ceases to exist the instant I stop volunteering.

Ordering volunteer organizations around is rather like pushing
on a rope.

As to legacy, well, Bob, it doesn't ring my chimes.  And whatever
it is Bob, it certainly doesn't rely on my position, real or
otherwise with can.*.

>Maybe you and the team should do some thinking about usenet politics.

ROTFL![*]  You really are terribly funny Bob.

>heretic- n.1. One who holds beliefs or opinions contrary to the
>established doctrines of his religion. 2. One who maintains
>unorthodox or controversial opinions on any subject.

know-it-all- n.1. One who has the ego to think he holds
unorthadox, controversial, or original new opinions on a
subject, but, instead, is simply ignorant and confused about what
everybody else understood years ago.  See "Usenet newbie".

>And you can look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.[+]

Gosh Bob, after all that paranoia from you about your postings being
"censored" and disappearing from the net, you'd think you'd be a little
more gracious about someone spending the time to explain "Usenet article
expiration" to you.

Before complaining about something, it's usually a good idea to learn
it.  You obviously have a _long_ way to go.

footnotes:

[*] "Roll on the floor laughing".

[+] Funk and Wagnalls?  Let's have none of that American nonsense here.
Collins or Oxford if you please!

-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_
Latest psroff: ftp://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/psroff3.0pl17/*
Latest hp2pbm: ftp://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/hp2pbm/*
NNTP AUTHINFO GENERIC info: ftp://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/generic/*