🚀 go-pugleaf

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

> > 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?

> Yes, I thought so. But you thought I should publish an activity report.
> No, I havent' cancelled it, or admonished myself. There are no accepted
> guidelines that can be objectively applied for rejecting articles based
> on size.

Please, Wayne, show me where I asked you to publish an activity report.  This
is the second time you've put words in my mouth.

> > > 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 t
> > followed the thread could have misinterpreted it.  He also seemed quite since
> 
> Ok, well I did. We aren't going to agree on this one, but again, where is
> the harm. As I emailed to him, he could always, as he did (admittedly he
> chose fewer groups) to post it again, with clarity.

Anybody reading a properly threaded newsfeed or with a reasonable short term 
memory should not have had any problem with this.  Especially someone with the
usenet skills and experience of yourself.

> > I've seen your recently posted missive on, among other things, where messages
> 
> the "recently" is not accepted, in case you want to make a point of it
> later.

Huh?  Perhaps it's been posted before, however the post I refer to was dated 
10 February 1997.  Seems recent enough, at least recent enough for you to
recall your own guidelines so you don't violate them.  Interesting how in 
private email, where I questioned why you posted other people's email, you
evaded the accusation by stating that it was *your* email, though it contained
quotes from a multitude of others, myself included.  Pretty weak, dude.

> > 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.

> As noted elsewhere that is a recent change.
> But I really admire the way you demonstrate your skill with selective
> (with spelling errors) quoting. Let's quote the next sentence as well:

> If at all posssible, you should use a more specialized nz.* group in order
> to make sure your post stands out from the clutter.

This sounds like me as advice to make *your* post more visible, not to reduce
the clutter in general.  Doesn't make any judgment on the clutter.

> You seem to be picking up on a descriptive comment and treating it as
> prescriptive. 

And *you* are the one that pointed people to this comment as something they
should read before posting.  Kind of sets the tone for them, huh?

> Let's take a simple case where we can get a YES/NO, nice
> boolean answer: do you believe that this FAQ as it stands, accepts that
> commercial for sale messages are acceptable in nz.general?

Of course not - they piss me off as much as anyone else.  The FAQ directs
commercial posts to an appropriate newsgroup.  It seems, though, that 
commercial posts are a small portion of what you've chosen to censor.  I
would object to your cancelling of them, though.  Complain to their ISP,
get yourself elected moderator, or set up some sort of bot (after following
proper procedures).  

> It is very simple: show me which of these precepts isn't accepted by the
> usenet community (let's take 85% as a target level of acceptability). 
> Stop waffling about vague generalities, and get down to specifics.
> If you can.

Cancelling other people's posts without the explicit authority of the
portion of the community in question is something I would think is unacceptable
to just about all of the usenet community.
 
> > You played a clever trick, and some of them fell for it.  Take a bow, Wayne,
> > you're *so* smart. 
> You still didn't respond to any of my points. Nice snipping. What mail
> posting software doesn't show you the sender?

Mine does.  That's why I redirected my response to your postmaster.  No reply
from him or her, either.  I wonder if you might occupy that position?
 
> > 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 toda

> Look, just cut the personal attacks and debate the issues. If you are going
> to override of followups, you should say so. If you *really* think
> nz.general is interested, fine. But having alerted them to the subject,
> I think the best place is nz.net.admin.

Thanks, I'm comfortable in the cesspool.  Sorry if you don't like the smell
around here.
 
> > > > mentions nz.general.  Just curious - how do you know which newsgroup peop
> > > > 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 u
> > on that story.

> How inane. Dopn't post on what you plan to do. Why not do it, and then
> report back, rather than making insinuations.

Your cancelling of the Riddler post was indeed after our email exchange.  I have
no way of knowing whether or not it appeared at your site before that.  I would 
note that when I referred to four .nz posters, I was considering myself, Alan
Brown, Ian & Tracy Riddler, and Tony Sutorious.  I recognised all of these as
contributors to nz.general.  You stated to me that two .nz posters (though I
recognise not necessarily of these four) were following the thread in other 
newsgroups.  Please state who these posters were, and how you know that they
were following the thread elsewhere.  "You can see where people have posted/read
before" just doesn't cut it.

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

> Gratis asserta, gratis negata.

Have you been elected moderator?

> I believe you make a mockery of this public forum. Who is right?

I see several recent posts from regular, reputable posters which are in line with
my assertion.
 
> > If people have read the nz.* FAQ, then they should be aware that they are swimmi
> > ng
> > in a "cesspool".  I don't think I can subject them to much worse than that.

> If that is the consensus that nz.general *should* be accepted as a cess-pool,
> then I will happily desist in all activities. I have better things to do
> with my time.

Well, folks, here's your chance to have a say.  Post here, email him privately, let
him know what you think.