Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 11:19:35 -0400 
From: Conrad Poelman <cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Perot drops out!!!!
	<DOCONNOR.92Jul16090058@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<rdippold.711400892@qualcom>
	<DOCONNOR.92Jul17162954@potato.sedona.intel.com>
	<UeOWHZa00h5yE4Ujcb@andrew.cmu.edu>
	<DOCONNOR.92Jul20083249@potato.sedona.intel.com>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.politics.elections: 20-Jul-92 Re: Perot drops
out!!!! Dennis O'Connor@sedona.i (626)

> cp2w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Conrad Poelman) writes:
> ] Also, since your newsreader's "quoter" evidently doesn't include the
> ] date or subject of the article you are quoting,

> Do you know what a "References" line is ? This post has one,
> it's 6 entries long. 

My apologies.  My newsreader hides them from me, although if I thought
to specifically look, I could have seen them - even then, they're in
this tiny and unreadable font.

So it was message-id: rdippold.711400892@qualcom.  You're all upset over
the "bailed from the Navy" comment?!?  And they said Perot was
thin-skinned...

> ] you really should try to leave *something* there so we know what
> ] you're so upset about...

> 1. I'm not upset, I'm disgusted with the net.LP
Ok, but this wasn't what your first post implied.  You said "Forget what
I said earlier.  Ron Dippold has convinced me to never vote for the
Libertarians."  So I looked at some of his previous posts and didn't see
anything particularly inflammatory.  So actually Ron "bailed from the
Navy" comment was just "the straw that broke the camel's back"?

> 2. I have no obligation to help you at all ( classic LP line, right ? )
Of course not.  In fact, I'm trying to help you.  Communication is
pointless when you don't give enough information for people to
understand what you're talking about or don't contribute to discussion. 
There are plenty of people on this bboard who just post stuff like "<x>
is a jerk!" or even "<50 lines of quote> Yeah, right on!" and they're
only embarassing themselves by not contributing anything to the
conversation.  I wouldn't want you to join their ranks.  But sure, I'm
also personally interested in figuring out what angered you so.

3. Learn to use the "References" line
My apologies, I'll do that.  I think our newsreader considers those
things rather un-user-friendly message identifiers and thus refers to
posts by their author, date, and subject - it really makes you work to
see the references.  I have to scroll the message to the "hidden"
section, copy the text, and paste it somewhere else in order to change
the font to something readable.

> 4. What do you mean "we" ? Are you a King ? Do you "speak for the net" ?
"We" is the first person plural, meaning I'm talking about myself and
others.  There's no implication in using "we" that I am an official or
unofficial representative of the group, or that I "speak for" the group.
 Would you prefer me to say that you should try to point out what you're
angry at so that "other bboard readers and I" will know what you're so
upset about?  I don't see any difference.

By the way, I too am angry that Perot "bailed out" or "wimped out" of
the race. Especially after hearing now what his platform consisted of,
I'm fairly sure I would have voted for him.  I think he should have
stayed in the race and presented his platform, even if it would have
made him immediately lose half of his support.  If he lost to Clinton or
Bush, then in 1996, the deficit would still be huge and the economy only
crawling, and Perot would be a shoo-in on the "I told you so" platform.

Perot's never-announced platform looks to me like the bad news America
needs to hear.  He even out-grinched Paul "I'm not Santa Claus" Tsongas.
 He should have stayed in to present it.

--Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush