🚀 go-pugleaf

Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> Was it really necessary to include so many copies of your sigfile in
> this posting?  A responsible poster would have edited these out.  Heal

A reasonable comment. But a highe amount of work for little reward.

> thyself.  I've also got to laugh that you've now posted every word of
> postings which you'd previously cancelled.  Of course, now that they're

Yup. Well it wasn't my idea.

> not in their proper threads, there's even *less* chance that anyone is
> going to care what they say.  I think one of the most idiotic things 

Yes, and your point is:

> I've seen here is Wayne McDougall, net crusader, posting 450k worth of
> something nobody will ever read, as justification for cancelling posts
> which among other things, wasted bandwidth.

Ditto.

> I also notice that though in a previous post you say that you never
> contacted anyone's service provider, you have in most cases set the
> reply-to address to the person's own postmaster, which effectively
> contacts their provider if they dare question you, and have not noticed
> that the reply-to address is not your address.  Personally, I think
> that's the mark of an asshole.

Ok, let's look at possible outcomes:

Person doesn't reply:
=>

Person thanks me for offering guidance (most common outcome)
=>confused postmaster

Person acts for guidance on using usenet
=>postmaster doing what they should have done in the first place

Person sends torrent of abuse and threats
=> postmaster finds out what sort of user they have and can deal with it;
   I don't have to

Person doesn't exist/has invalid address
=> postmaster finds out about forgeries/abuse of their system

Person wants to talk to me, but doesn't figure out what they are doing
=> probably too busy swinging through trees, grunting, and picking fleas
   off colleagues to offer a worthwhile discussion

Now I don't have a problem with any of the above outcomes. Of course, there
is also the "postmaster never checks or reviews email", but that isn't my
responsibility.

> I myself had one post cancelled by you - admittedly one in which I did
> not trim the newsgroups or followups - and would have accepted an
> admonishment much more readily than the action you took.  In private

Yes, but I can't judge that at the time. As we discussed, it is not just
your post, but the followups it incites.

> e-mail you admit that nz.general is not a moderated newsgroup and you
> are not its moderator, so I would request that you get off your high
> horse and let me separate the wheat from the chaff and decide what I 
> wish to read.

Some people like to make an initial separation by choosing the newsgroup
to subscribe to. Whereas you have made it clear you are too lazy to look
for messages of interest to you, but are happy to launch into them even
if irrelevant, as long as they drop into a newsgroup you are reading
anyway.


--
system@codeworks.gen.nz  Wayne McDougall ICHTHUS <*> Impeach President Clark!!
        A U C K L A N D   D E B A T I N G   A S S O C I A T I O N   (Inc)
Interested in debating, public speaking or adjudicating in Auckland?
Send me email or write to President@ada.org.nz, or ADA, P O Box 3233, Auckland