🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr13.070739.1716@gagetalker.com>
scotty@gagetalker.com (Scott Turner) writes:

>In article <1992Apr10.074920.7384@darkcube.radig.de>
>vhs@darkcube.radig.de (Volker Herminghaus-Shirai) writes:

>>When will SEF finally appear in the NeXT FAQ?

I wonder if I am in a small minority of the regular readers
(not necessarily the most vocal ones) who wishes the
nonsense about Sean Fagan, and RTF, and a number of other
such topics would finally make its exit from csnm.

There isn't anything anyone who finds it increasingly silly,
as I do, can do to deter the perpetrators, if they are not
willing to restrain themselves.  

But though probably Scott is a nice person, there is in his
posting a kind of overt malice coupled with pseudo-macho,
pseudo-tough-guy, sex images.  I mean, now really: is that
what people want here?  Look at this, and try to forget for
a moment all the past stuff we've had on all this:

>No!  This is *EXACTLY* what he wants!  He'd print the FAQ
>out, frame it, and hang it on his wall.  And every time he'd
>glance at it his dick would get hard.

At the level of fantasy, this is a mighty peculiar remark.
It's pretty difficult to connect that with *any* reality.
So it's the sort of thing high-school kids say to and about
each other, sexualizing anything and everything.  Though I
think maturity is one of the most highly overrated concepts
on earth, surely there is *some* level of ideation, beneath
which "immature" is an appropriate criticism.

So I wonder about the rest of you.  I *know* there are a few
people who would agree that this sort of Sean-bashing and
our recurring flame-fests over RTF postings are completely
ridiculous.  Some other faction would aggressively disagree,
another faction would advise simply n-ing past the nonsense,
and finally possibly the largest sector would be too bored
with it all to bother commenting.

>And it's a know behavioral pattern that people in pain tend
>to act even more irrationally.  After SEF wound up with
>"blue balls" from staring at the FAQ he'd be even *more*
>unpleasant.  And I don't think we'd want that.

This has all the charm of picking your nose in public.  It's
hard to imagine a remark more irrational than that one, so
it's odd Scott brought that idea up.  And I wonder, therefore,
what "we" he has in mind; surely not me, because this stuff
is too dumb *even* for Usenet.

It's a cooperative venture, in the long run, and something
more like genuine cooperation -- it's perfectly possible to
disagree and still cooperate -- would be a real boon to this
precinct.  It's not like there were no subjects of genuine
interest to us here.  So how about it?  Can't "we" -- each
of us, individually -- give that up now, for the general
welfare?

-- 
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888