🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mike" <du@b> wrote in message


Mike most people that use and have an interest and care about Usenet look
down on Netcops as probably the lowest form of user. Netcopping does have
its place however you yourself have mentioned a few examples. Chris Buckley
and myself have had people go to far in what they have said and done. And I'
m not ashamed to admit I've reported individuals on more that one occasion.



You originally defended Chris saying that he has only ever reported when
flamed to the extreme (Flaming is never an acceptable reason for netcopping)
or when people go too far much too far. See you quotes below.



"He only ever did that when people got personal and took Usenet
banter to RL. *Anyone* who takes this shit to RL deserves what
they get and a good netcopping is the least of what I'd do to
anyone who threatened the welfare of me or *my* family."



"And you know that CB isn't a netcop per se, you know that he's
only ever resorted to abuse@ when people go too far, much too
far."



You have even conceded that in the case of Mike H that Chris did act
hastily.



"Perhaps he did jump a bit too quick.. But I don't think either of
you should let this become an issue now, I know Chris bears no
grudge and prolly hopes you don't either."



Now i know he's a friend and you are loyal that's a commendable quality but
when you allow that friendship to totally cloud your objectivity that shows
a weakness in your character. Chris frivolusly reported Mike H that's a
fact. You should just shut the fuck up. No amount of post can change that
FACT.



Chris has said it was a serious matter but you don't quite see it that way
do you?



No doubt you will simply Flame this post (and its spelling mistake lameO),
that's the predictable route or you may try and counter it reasonable that
would be refreshing, but you can't change what you have already said. You
may ignore it which will simply be confirming that what I've said is true!



What's it to be?

Get a Friend to reply?