🚀 go-pugleaf

Wayne W. McDougall wrote:
> 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.

Little reward?  I'd think a holier-than-thou crusader like yourself would
*strive* for perfection in such an endeavour.  Lazy at best.

> > 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.

Of course.  And you lack the mental capabilities to form a decision on
your own.
 
> > 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.

Glad to see we agree on something.
 
> > 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:
> =>

Probably their best course of action, considering with who they're dealing
with. 

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

And you miss out on their gratitude!  Just out of interest, how many of 
those who actually replied to you expressed thanks, and not apologies
prompted by their net provider?
 
> Person acts for guidance on using usenet
> =>postmaster doing what they should have done in the first place

Haven't you already seen to this in your initial email?  Why trouble their
postmaster with it?
 
> 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

Sure.  Poke it with a stick and then run away.
 
> Person doesn't exist/has invalid address
> => postmaster finds out about forgeries/abuse of their system 
Of course, most forged posts change the domain name, so neither your e-mail
nor any followup would ever get to their postmaster, right?

> 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

Here we see some of Wayne's true colours.  Don't offer constructive advice
to a newbie - they're obviously too stupid to be here and should have their
accounts pulled immediately.  I especially like the way you cancelled the
*apology* of that one fellow, after which he posted another apology to 
nz.general only, seemingly prompted by his service provider.  Asshole.
 
> 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.

Of course.  Your only responsibility is to cancel any postings which you
personally feel do not follow the nz.general charter.  Nobody else gets any
say.  Wayne knows best.  Wayne also likes to play with newbies, tricking
them into complaining about themselves to their own service providers, while
claiming that *he* didn't tell their postmaster.  Infantile.  Self-important.
 
> > 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. 

But aren't you the infallible Wayne W. McDougall, sole arbiter of what 
constitutes a valid post to nz.general?  Surely your judgment extends 
further to allow you this capability.  If it does not *Don't cancel other
people's posts*.  Simple as that.

> As we discussed, it is not just your post, but the followups it incites.

I let other people decide which newsgroups to follow up to.  I don't play
little games with them, like posting the original post in this thread to
nz.general but then removing that newsgroup from the followups list.  Any
particular reason for that?

> > 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.

As I previously pointed out in private email, my motivation for not trimming
the newsgroups was that the post I was replying to contained a notorious
piece of misinformation, which regrettably, many people believe.  I made
passing comment in my post to the range of newsgroups it was being posted 
to - I was aware of the crossposting.  I felt the need to post to all of those 
groups to follow up on a bit of misinformation which already existed there. I 
can assure you, I considered *not* doing this, but I felt that the need to 
correct the misinformation justified the crossposting.  Lazy has nothing to
do with it.  Lazy is not trimming 100 copies of your sigfile from a post.
Idiotic is posting the 450k document which contains 100 copies of your sigfile 
in the first place.

One more point:  in private email, where I pointed out to you that there were 
at least four people from .nz who were posting to the thread, you stated that
at least two were reading it outside of nz.general (your post implied an
acceptance that Alan Brown and myself were reading it there).  This would 
seem to imply that Ian Riddler was following the thread elsewhere, but I see
in a recent posting of his on the topic of your censorship that he specifically
mentions nz.general.  Just curious - how do you know which newsgroup people
follow a thread in?  Or was this just a little white lie on your part?

Once again, nz.general is *not* a moderated newsgroup.  If you want it to be,
organise a call for votes.  Maybe you can even be the moderator if you're a good
boy.  Maybe you can suggest a cancelbot like they're discussing on s.c.n-z.  But
until you have the approval of the users of this newsgroup, butt out and let us
choose what we want to read.