🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct8.160442.23928@netcom.com>, jef@netcom.com (Jef Poskanzer)
writes:
>- It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of right and wrong.
>  I realize that some people don't understand the difference, but
>  most do.

It is a matter of opinion over right and wrong. Given that alt has no arbiter of
right and wrong, even by popular consensus, differences of opinion are possible.
Which part of this do you reject?

>- It's not at the expense of the rest of us, it's at the expense of
>  the small and shrinking number of news admins who still haven't
>  figured out how to shut off alt.graphics and keep it shut off.

Whether I have it shut off or not has little to do with either set of control
messages, or the frequency with which I receive them. What I was referring to is
the annoyance of receiving email from my news system giving me the blow-by-blow
on your war with the forger. The last thing any news admin (or in this case,
every news admin) needs is more annoyance. This doesn't seem to be a
consideration for either of you.

>- There is no difference between this and Becker's activities because
>  Becker is the forger.

OK. I'll grant the point since it is irrelevant. 

>- It's clear that I get targetted by the few critics simply because
>  the guilty party is not openly available.  

I believe my statement implied equal culpability. If not I apologize. I meant to
do so. I consider you both equally at fault. You are both guilty of sending out
messages that annoy large numbers of news admins with no consideration for our
feelings in the matter. If either of you would stop, so would the other. The
fact that neither of you will is, as I said, pure pig-headeness at the expense
of the rest of us.

>  Terry's outraged email
>  over the forgery that took his name in vain made this fairly clear
>  in his case.

I think my email did admit that I didn't know if the outrage was directed at you
or the forger. Since you claim to know his identity, you have my full permission
to forward that email to its intended recipient. Sorry to send you something you
didn't deserve, but I'd say your reply evened the score. But that is a side
issue to the control messages themselves.

>- Since it would require positive action on my part to stop the weekly
>  rmgroups, it's not likely that I'll "back down".  Not so much
>  pig-headedness as simple automation.  There are of course conditions
>  under which I'd shut it down.  Three months without any forged
>  newgroups would do it.

You can't expect us to believe that shutting them off is difficult. So what you
are saying is that since it costs you nothing to annoy us, you aren't about to
stop. I wouldn't doubt that the forger's postings are also automated. So we have
2 automated posting mechanisms fighting out a "battle" that costs neither of you
any effort at all and will never acheive anything, since neither one will ever
be shut down. 

The only net result is that a lot of news admins are continually annoyed over an
issue that none of us really give a damn about by 2 people who know that no
other result will ever be achieved, and with no concious effort on their parts.
Arrogance, plain and simple.
--
Terry Poot <tp@mccall.com>                   The McCall Pattern Company
(uucp: ...!rutgers!depot!mccall!tp)          615 McCall Road
(800)255-2762, in KS (913)776-4041           Manhattan, KS 66502, USA