🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8705222242.AA19131@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>>					        Much more so than any of the
>>condescending pompous nonsense that you've been writing.  Who are you to tell
>>us what belongs in this newsgroup?  Do you own it?
>
>Who am I to tell you all what belongs in this newsgroup?  OK, then, I'll
>TELL you who I am.

Followed by some typical posturing about who this fellow thinks he is. 
Listen, Mr. Obnoxio, I said it once before, and I'll say it once more.
I don't care about your personal versions of the "manifesto" for this
newsgroup, and judging from the mail I've been getting neither does anyone
else.  I don't care about what position you think you hold in the grand
scheme of the network, or what status of net.god you perceive yourself to be.
My point was this.  You declared that your opinion about this newsgroup
was some gospel law that others were required to follow.  Given your penchant
for saying nothing but self-serving twaddle, I thought this was a bit much.
To my recollection, nothing you have ever said in any newsgroup has amounted
to anything worthwhile.  Most of what you have written served only to
attempt to prove to everyone how intelligent you are instead of conveying
some relevant or useful information.  So my question was who are you to
tell others what to and not to say?  A lot of people have begun to talk
about a variety of different interesting topics.  I continue not to be
concerned that you regard this newsgroup with some territorial imperative
by which you think you determine what belongs here.  Regardless of whatever
original proposal you may have come up with, and what words you included or
excluded in that proposal about appropriate topics.

>>				     Do you own it?
>
>This group was actually supposed to be moderated, and by accident in the
>renaming, it came through unmoderated.  I am currently in communication
>with various backbone net.gods, and there's a good chance that it will
>turned back into a moderated group, with yours truly as moderator.  Does
>that answer your question?

Yes, and it makes me quiver thinking that network administrators would give
someone like you free rein over a newsgroup like this.  Especially after
hearing what follows.

>I do not like the idea of being moderator--acting responsibly and censor-
>ing myself has never been my idea of fun.

That is for sure!  I would wonder whether you would be capable of either.

>>							    I personally
>>don't care what you keep in your .plan file,
>
>Don't be ridiculous.  I merely invited, in passing, anyone who wants to
>try one of the world's greatest puzzles to get a copy.  I did not post a
>full article about my .plan file, and only by intentionally being a bozo
>about it did this brief comment of mine come back for further discussion.

I was just pointing out an example of your pomposity and the self-centered
boastful nature of almost everything you post.

>>			       I happen to have an interest in some of the
>>fields of study you cover in your articles, but I find your ridiculous
>>babbling and opinionating to be nauseating at best.
>
>Then use the 'n' key, instead of being cloying about it.  Just don't post
>articles about touch screens and the like, and don't followup to people
>who do.  That's all I asked.

Could someone explain why it is considered appropriate for people who
disagree with Mr. Obnoxio's choice of topics to hit the 'n' key, but it
is not appropriate for him to do the same when it comes to topics he
doesn't like?

>on.  If this group turns into something that was never voted on, then I
>will implore the net.gods to simply remove it.

Great!  So if the tone of the newsgroup as determined by readers and
posters does not please Mr. Obnoxio, he will implore the net.gods to
remove it.  I suppose he would implore the net.gods to delete soc.singles
because married people post to it and because a wider variety of topics
have found a home there than was originally planned for.  Does it occur
to Mr. Obnoxio that it is the voice of the readership, not decrees from
on high, that determine how people choose to use the net?  Here was an
underutilized newsgroup.  The topics that Obnoxio had supposedly suggested
this newsgroup for received little if any response.  Suddenly, when other
people began using the newsgroup for other topics, Obnoxio speaks up and
attempts to shout them down.

>No.  Until this group takes off, with its subscribers generally in the
>clear about its purpose, I will hound each and every offender without
>ceasing.  I guarantee it.
>
>Do we understand each other now?

We do.  You will attempt to determine who the "offenders" are (people
whose ideas don't follow yours) and root them out through a process of
hounding.  Meanwhile, those who don't agree with you will hopefully stand
up to you and ignore your egomaniacal decrees.  Sounds like a large scale
waste of time to me.  Wouldn't we all be better off if you just crawled
back into your hole?

I apologize if this is appearing to become a personality issue or a flame
war.  My only concern is the single minded blockheaded attempt by one
person to declare policy for other people, especially when in the final
analysis that person has so little to say himself.  I pay out of my own
pocket for net service.  This person gets his service for nothing as a
student at a major university.  I resent having someone who apparently
doesn't even have administrative authority within his own local environment
telling other people, many of whom pay for the privilege of using the net
at a personal or corporate level, what to do.
								-- Rhonda