NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/bizarre/23276

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-25 | 9.3 KB

Xref: sparky talk.bizarre:23276 alt.politics.clinton:709 alt.politics.bush:229
Newsgroups: talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall
From: [e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: BUSH-Ra
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: talk.bizarre
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 20:18:34 GMT
Lines: 215

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Starcap'n Ra) writes:
>[e-mail] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>> >> That's nice, but why don't you try sending dozens of these by mail to
>> >> individual people
>> >
>> >     Instead of posting like *you* did, you silly
>> >hypocrite?
>>
>> I tried mail.  You weren't amenable.
>
>     Ah, I see.  When things don't go your
>way, you and only you get to break your rules.
>When anyone else tries email and it doesn't
>work, they on the other hand must still follow
>your rules.

No, you simpering fool.  I'm simply treating you by YOUR rules.
Perhaps everyone in all the alt.politics.* groups should do the same.
Since I think you're outnumbered, I would think it would make more
sense for you to simply do as I suggested in the first place; send
mail to the people who accidently post to the wrong group, don't
follow-up to annoy everyong else, and after a few days it's all over.
But not you, little Rara.  You want to play the jerk.  Well, suit
yourself.

>
>> Since you stated that your position was to continue to be as
>> annoying as possible,
>
>     Why Freddie, that's not what I said at all!
>You haven't the slightest idea what my "annoying
>as possible" might be.  What I did say in private
>correspondence was that I would continue to do
>what I was doing (to wit: asking your people to
>leave talk.bizarre politely, but publicly rather
>than in email):

And what, pray tell, is the point of bombing several other groups
because some people accidently posted to yours, Puss-ra?  The only
possible reason I can think of is to be annoying.  So I elected to be
annoying back.  Don't like it when you're treated as you treat others?

>
>    You:  Have you ever considered doing this via mail instead of bombing
>          newsgroup and pissing off the world?
>
>    Me:       Not the world -- just alt.politics.bush and
>          alt.politics.clinton.
>
>              And yes, I've considered your suggestion.  I've
>          been around awhile.  Trust me, the method I'm employing
>          now is far more effective.
>
>     Where do I say I'm going to be as annoying as
>possible, Freddie?  Can you see now that what I said
>was that I'd continue doing what I was doing, and
>that I evidently thought it the best way to arrive
>at a quick resolution of the problem?

And are you convinced you were wrong yet?  Or do you consider
inter-newsgroup flamewars to be "far more effective" at achieving what
you want to do?  Seems so, judging by your own recognition of the
liklihood of one.

>
>>  even to the point of causing inter-newsgroup
>> 'flamewars', why, I just figured that that was what you preferred.
>
>     Why, that's that's not what I said at all,
>Freddie.  Here's what I said in private correspondence:
>
>    You:  It strikes me as a great way to start an inter-newsgroup flamewar
>
>    Me:      Well as a matter of fact, as you may or may not
>          be aware, that has happened in the past with talk.bizarre
>          and various newsgroups.  It wouldn't surprise me if
>          it happened again.
>
>     "It wouldn't surprise me if it happened
>again."  A logical conclusion in the face of the
>facts.  Where do I say I plan to be annoying as
>possible, even to the point of starting an
>inter-group flame war, Freddie?  Do you have
>trouble comprehending the written word, Freddie,
>or are you just a liar?

I think perhaps you just made the mistake of showing too much of the
truth.  Your position is that what you are doing is the "best way to
arrive at a quick resolution of the problem", yet you immediately
state that you expect that there will be an inter-newsgroup flamewar.
Rather leaves one wondering just what your idea of 'quick resolution'
is and just what 'problem' you are trying to address.

So, taking those two remarks in conjunction, it would seem that it is
you who are the 'liar', little Fib-ra.

>
>> >     But getting back to your question, sorry,
>> >but no.  We're getting swamped with scores of
>> >these Bush/Clinton articles.  I don't have time
>> >to individually write people for a week to ten
>> >days to two weeks or whenever the stupid thread
>> >dies, as meanwhile more and more people come out
>> >of the woodwork and respond to the thread and
>> >change its subject, etc.
>>
>> Just like the folks you're deliberately annoying don't have time to
>> read dozens of your complaints.
>
>     Well the simple solution is to quit posting
>political garbage to talk.bizarre, Freddie.  Then
>it's all over in a day or two rather than two weeks.
>But it seems you'd rather petulantly continue to
>crosspost because you don't like being told you're
>wrong.

Perhaps you should reread your own paragraph.  It seems so appropriate
to what you're doing.  Like you said, all you have to do is quit
posting and then it's all over in a day or two rather than two weeks.
But it seems that you consider the two week course to be the "best
way", and would rather petulantly continue to crosspost because you
don't like being told you're wrong.

>
>> So, just what do you think you have accomplished so far?
>
>     Well, crossposts are way down from yesterday.
>There's a few people who either have very slow
>newsfeeds and haven't read up about all the fuss
>yet, or are just simply clueless.  And then,
>of course, there's your posts, Freddie, monuments
>to your petulant defiance.

And of course, there are people like me who think that you aren't
entitled to any manners or consideration until you learn some.  And of
course, it doesn't occur to you that you would have had a better
effect by simply mentioning the problem ONCE in the political groups
and sending mail to the people who accidently crossposted.  No, it
never does, to people like you.

>
>> >     This way everything is out in the open,
>> >there's a brief fuss, and then it's over.  Or
>> >people get upset and start a massive war.
>> >Whatever.  Either prospect is far more tolerable
>> >than wading through two more weeks of articles
>> >from alt.politics.bush and alt.politics.clinton,
>> >and even worse, articles that really should be
>> >posted to talk.abortion but are cluelessly
>> >posted to alt.politics.bush and
>> >alt.politics.clinton and hence wind up in
>> >talk.bizarre.
>>
>> Ah, I see.  Better to try to trash things for everyone rather than
>> dealing with the problems like a grown-up.  Hey, I can dig it.
>
>     No, you're having problems reading again,
>Freddie.  My way, things are a mess for a day
>or two and then the whole thing is over (unless
>of course more of your people share your immature
>view and continue to crosspost defiantly and
>invite an inter-newsgroup war).

Your way, things are a mess for a day, unless other people think you
should be treated the way you act, in other words.  My way
(pre-RaBaby), things don't become any more of a mess than they already
were, you wait a day, and then everything is ok.  But no, little
whine-Ra has to mess up other places in his iddy-biddy tantrum.  Awww,
de poor bay-bee.

>
>     By the way, why are my very brief postings
>(which while considerable in number, still
>pale in comparison to the quantity of bush/clinton
>crosspostings) asking people to leave "trashing
>things up for everyone" any more than countless
>bush/clinton posters sending reams upon reams of
>stuff into talk.bizarre?

Because most of those (except the ones that are follow-ups to folks
like you) are ACCIDENTS.  Once apprised of the situation (which would
take one post like yours, not dozens), most people would make a
greater effort not to send them.  Except you had to spread the mess
around to make yourself feel better.  Poor iddle Ra-ra.

>
>     And I'm also curious to know:  Is continuing
>to petulantly crosspost into talk.bizarre your idea
>of "dealing with the problem like a grown-up," Freddie?

I call it 'treating Ra like he acts'.  Surprisingly enough, he doesn't
like it when it's done to him, either.

>
>> >     So far.  I'm just the first scout.  At least
>> >I've been polite, if somewhat annoying.  If I don't
>> >come back alive, the reinforcements come and then
>> >the shit *really* hits the fan.  By then I'll just
>> >be a pleasant memory and these will be the good
>> >old days.
>>
>> Well, I hope everyone will remember who the 'first scout' was who
>> started it all, then.
>
>     Alas, Freddie, I'll probably just get lost
>in the shuffle.

In other words, your little threats didn't accomplish what you wanted.
Well, life's a bitch, bitch-Ra.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.