🚀 go-pugleaf

Wayne W. McDougall wrote:
> Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

[snip]

> > 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

> Not at all. But whenever I syart something new I try and educate myself
> to avoid looking like an idiot. I have taken the limited steps available
> to make information available to newbies. Educational sessions by email
> is not a service I feel I need to provide.

You sure looked like an idiot when you posted that 450k document yesterday.
Have you cancelled it and sent yourself an admonishment by email yet?

> > *apology* of that one fellow, after which he posted another apology to
> > nz.general only, seemingly prompted by his service provider.  Asshole.

> As noted, "Sorry, I was tired" completely out of any context wasn't
> recognisable as an apology to me. He was emailed; he had the option to
> reply again with more clarity, and he did. Where is the problem?

His apology was quite readily recognisable to me and I don't see how anyone that
followed the thread could have misinterpreted it.  He also seemed quite sincere,
and you unilaterally decided to throw it back in his face.  Nice guy, you.

> > 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

> 1. It is not just "personal". As near as can be, I try and make it
> objective. I only target the most blatant breaches. Feel free to point out
> any example where you think I have erred. I'm happy to recalibrate my
> target levels.

I've seen your recently posted missive on, among other things, where messages
should be posted.  However, it seems to be somewhat contradictory.  In the 
section on where to post messages (your "personal summary"), it seems to say 
that nz.general is the place to post things that don't fit anywhere else - 
that sports should be discussed in nz.rec, politics in nz.politics, tv shows
in nz.arts.  The FAQ to which you provide a pointer, though, describes 
nz.general as "The cesspool of the nz.* heirarchy, Everything tends to be
discussed here with other groups only picking up the scraps."  Well, Wayne, 
which is it?  With the number of transitions and tangents that a typical 
thread may go through over its life, I'm completely happy with the latter.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

> 2. I don't just cancel the posts. I also email each person (for the first
> offence at least), explaining why, and what they should do as an
> alternative.

So that they may live their lives (or at least post) according to *your* 
precepts.  Cos as everyone knows, Waynefulness is next to Godliness.

> Well I *didn't* tell their postmaster. Think about it. The only thing
> anyone tells their postmaster (and we've yet to see any evidence that anyone
> has), is what they choose to say. If they choose to rant and rave about
> their right to post in any newsgroup they like and no one can stop them,
> well I think that they bring it on their own heads. We will probably have
> to just agree to disagree on this one.

You played a clever trick, and some of them fell for it.  Take a bow, Wayne,
you're *so* smart.

[snip]

> > 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?

> Yes, of course. I don't believe this discussion belongs in nz.general.
> I believe it belongs in nz.net.admin and aus.net.news (the latter I'm told).
> So I set follow-ups accordingly. The first post was to nz.general to let
> people know it was there; I don't know how many people read nz.net.admin
> on a regular basis.

> So you deliberately overrode a follow-up, ignoring the wishes of the poster,
> for your own reasons. I'm not to impressed. Follow-ups have been reset
> again.

You must be forgetting, Wayne, that in private e-mail you invited me to
discuss this issue in front of this audience.  Forgot to take your pills today?

[snip]

> > 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? 
> You can see where people have posted/read before. Ian Riddler's post
> hadn't come through at the time I corresponded with you.

Yeah, right.  I might just have a cruise through your 450k posting to check up
on that story.
 
> > Maybe you can suggest a cancelbot like they're discussing on s.c.n-z.  But 
> No. One of the reasons I am making my little contribution is to try and
> precent cancelbots being introduced. They lack the discretion of human
> beings; there are some cases where cross-posting to nz.wanted and nz.general
> is (currently) acceptable. I have pleaded with some people that
> education is the answer, rather than automatic eliminations. Their response
> was prove it. So I am trying.

You have not been elected moderator.  You are making a mockery of a public
forum.

> > until you have the approval of the users of this newsgroup, butt out and let us
> > choose what we want to read. 
> 1. You can read whatever you like - I'd suggest you even go to the newsgroups
> that have things you want to read.
> 2. People have chosen what they want to read, by choosing to read
> nz.general. I'm educating people like you who violate their rights by
> forcing on them things they have agreed they don't want to read.

If people have read the nz.* FAQ, then they should be aware that they are swimming
in a "cesspool".  I don't think I can subject them to much worse than that.