home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.irc
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!morale
- From: morale@rs6110.ecs.rpi.edu (Enrique Morales)
- Subject: Re: IRC operators: All bad ? (Silek apologizes to some)
- Message-ID: <gn!zgjk@rpi.edu>
- Nntp-Posting-Host: rs6110.ecs.rpi.edu
- References: <1992Sep15.203909.19804@njitgw.njit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:54:49 GMT
- Lines: 30
-
- lcm1501@hertz.njit.edu (Lawrence C. Mc Abee) writes:
-
-
- > Hello.
-
- > Well, first let me thank each and every person who sent me such
- >charming e-mail. Second, let me say something I either did not make clear
- > or failed to say (and thanks scorpio for pointing this out). Not all
- > operators are bad. Some (perhaps 55% ?) are helpful. Perhaps I should have
- > pointed out only bad operators I knew instead of lumping almost all operators
- > in a group.
- > The thing is, the bad operators overshadow the good ones. It is
- > an unfortunate thing. I will say this to any operators I may have offended,
- > IF I was wrong, I apologize. I know operators exists that are very helpful.
- > But to the ones I know are bad, I would refer you to my first post on this
- > subject.
-
- > (p.s. Anyone interested in getting a "Top 20 Worst Operators " List?)
-
- YESS PLEASE!!!!!! (so I know who to stay away from)
-
- > Later,
- >--
- > "When you have eliminated the possible, whatever remains,
- > however improbable, must be the TRUTH !" Sherlock Holmes.
-
- I think there should be some screening process to exclude "bad" operators.
- That 55% should be more like >90% (10% accounts for people who can lie with a straight face).
-
- Juggler
-