🚀 go-pugleaf

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

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

Again, I thought that was clear from your statements. But if that was
not your intent, I apologise for putting words into your mouth.

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

I see you've cut out the actual thread so people could judge for themselves.
So far, out of three people, two didn't recognise it as an apology.
I challenge you to say what it was an apology for.

>
> > > I've seen your recently posted missive on, among other things, where mess
> > 
> > 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 

My concern that your unnecessary use of the word "recent" was to imply that
it was something new  and recently on the scenes, as opposed to being
over 15 years old.

> 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 containe
> quotes from a multitude of others, myself included.  Pretty weak, dude.

Well, that was just one of my comments. I accept your point.

> 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.

I don't see this going anywhere, so I just leave it to stand, in view of
below...

> > 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?

Duoh! As I have said, it has changed. And it is descriptive. You didn't
quote the prescriptive section.

>
> > 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 

And here you are being inconsistent. Gotcha!

You can't one the one hand say the description for nz.general says it is
a wide ranging sewer, and criticise me for directing people to other more
appropriate newsgroups for their post
and then on the other hand, arbitrarily use other sections to justify
why commercial posts should not go in nz.general.

> commercial posts are a small portion of what you've chosen to censor.  I

1. They are not censored. You've already conceded that argument by your
total fail to respond to it. Feel free to take it up again. I'd suggest
you first accept my definition of censorship, or offer an alternative, and
we can take it from there.
2. Commercial posts would be the second most common reason for offering
guidance to posters.

> would object to your cancelling of them, though.  Complain to their ISP,

Oh yes. And I get criticised for setting reply-tos to postmasters, and now
you want me to complain to ISPs. I find:

a) a simple explanation to the poster has invariably (to date) been welcomed
(when I get feedback) - most aren't aware of nz.biz.misc
b) the cancellation ensures that copy-cats don't mislearn by emulation

> get yourself elected moderator, or set up some sort of bot (after following
> proper procedures).  

As I've said before, BOTs lack the human touch and discretion. I have no
desire to be moderator. If don't validate everything. I only focus on the
undeniable, over-the-top, blatant, unquestionable breeches.

> > 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 unacceptab
> to just about all of the usenet community.

Converesely, posting messages in violation of the charter agreed by the
community is also unacceptable. an two wrongs make a right? Well I think it
can help.

> > > You played a clever trick, and some of them fell for it.  Take a bow, Way
> > > 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?

Yup, and I did reply.

> Have you been elected moderator?

No.

> I see several recent posts from regular, reputable posters which are in line
> with my assertion.
  [that Wayne McDougall is making a mockery of nz.general]

Really? I must have missed those. Care to quote them?





--
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