From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: My experience
Summary: the defense rests, the prosecution rises
Keywords: rec.games.frp.campaign.waste.waste.waste
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:53:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: charnel.1dnt9cINNpdb
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: hairball.ecst.csuchico.edu

cbnorman@cayley.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>My obvious inexperience in proposing newsgroups was jumped on by Tim Dunn, an
>avid opponent of my proposed group.  He publicly accused me of being a "newbie"
>(shocked gasp), and inferred that as a newbie my proposal should be automaticly
>dumped.  Yes, he did not say that, but he most certainly suggested it.  

Hmm?  I thought I was the prosecution.  <consults notes>  Oh, well.  I guess
I should defend my position as well.  Sigh.

In-fer: [in.fur'] v.t. to draw as a conclusion; to deduce; to conclude...
	(Websters Dictionary for Everyday Use, 1986)

I would rather not have my thought process erronously explained as above.
Instead, I read the proposal, found it lacking and asked, "who is this
person?"  Yes, I inferred that the proposal was worthy of /dev/null, but
solely on it's (lack of) strengths.  I followed the debate for a few days
(re: cbnorman vs. world@large) and found the proponent lacking as well,
both in social graces and evident net.experience.

Were this to be someone whom I have had discourse before, I would have
given them credit, and asked them why the (evidently) faulty proposal.
As this was not the case, and I did not recall cbnorman from my (ahem)
extensive experience in the net <giggles from audience>, I inquired.
And thus, ladies and gentlemen of the court, is the beinning of our
disagreement.

>I retaliated with that I have been a user of UseNet for five years,
>which shut him up...for a day or two.

I rest my case on his evident lack of social graces.

>I posted a message stating that I would be more than willing to reveal this
>information to him, and to others, if the request was made in e-mail.  

And I wondered, both out loud, and in email with Mr. cbnorman, why he was
so ready to submit to the net his figure of five years for his length of
exposure to UseNet, but not the figure (below) of his length of exposure
to r.g.f.*.  I still find that somewhat inconsistent.  Don't you?

>Tim then mailed everyone a piece of e-mail requesting everyone to ask me 
>how long I've read .frp.

I felt the figure was relevant, cbnorman did not.  He did, on the other
hand, promise to reveal it in email, a condition I still am questioning.
I felt it necessary to insure the everyone pertaining to the discussion
be aware of these facts, especially my grounding in 'charges' of net.
inexperiences.  <tdunn smirks at this remark>

>In these past few weeks, it has undergone a baptism of fire 

<inchantment> You are now em-pow-ered to give grief to ot-her bad
              pro-po-sals.  A--men.

>Up until this point, whether Bob's idea is good or bad has been determined by
>a length discussion.  Bob's idea might start out rough, but in the discussion
>it may be refined, and in the end emerge as an excellent proposal.

Generally, coals don't get mounted on gold settings.  A poor foundation,
such as a moderated discussion group (an oxymoron in most cases) will not
get the group anything but trouble.  Time and flames may change coals to
diamonds, but we're talking lots of both.

>Tim seems to wish to change this process such that not only should the 
>proposal be discussed, but Bob himself should be discussed.  

Hmm?  Eh?  I would like to object to this statement.  Were I to seem thus,
it is indeed my error, for I do not seek this.  Otherwise, I would have no
grounds for objecting, eh?  For I am sure there are readers about who with
smiles remember my first faulty attempts at posting (but they were not RFD's)

No, all I would like to have happen is that a good proposal be passed, and
a poor proposal be sent back to the originator.  Most experienced users 
will know what the difference betwixt the twain are, and how to dispatch
the poor one.  I propose that a poor proposal (and this may be one itself)
be given due credit of its originator, and such credit be in the form of
guarded skepticism for a known originator, and polite queries of credentials
of unknown ones.

Oh?  That is how is exists already?  Then why all this fuss?

>I suggest that if Tim really believes in this policy, he should make a 
>formal request to change the guidlines for creating a new group
>to include this clause.  

Please see above.

>And for the reccord, if anyone cares, here is all the information that he
>might ever ask of me.  
>My name is Bruce Norman

Glad t'metcha, Bruce.  I'm Tim.  Been 'round these parts long?

>I am male, white, heterosexual

I am confused, annoyed, aggravted what this has to do with it all.
(secret smiley for you members of the secret smileys.  You know who you are)

>I've been reading Usenet for five years

I'll see your five and up you three.  Then again, why should I?  I'm
not the one making a faulty proposal.

>I've been reading the .frp hierarchy for two months

Let's see, take the natural log of that, cube it, trunc to integer, 
take the factorial, permute over one, reduce to lowest prime factors
and sum....  What does that give you?  Nothing, but it was a fun 
way to get there.

>I voted Concervative in the last election

You voted for the Concert party?  Cool!  I voted for the Dance party.

>I don't like salad dressing

Why not?  Enquiring minds want to know!

>While this information may be vitally important to Tim.  I truly, greatly, hope
>that no one else gives a damn.

This has all been worth the paper it is written on.  It goes to /dev/null
at undergrad.math.uwaterloo.edu, so why not your site?  It goes in one
ear and out the posterior pore in one instance, so <deleted by taste police>

-- 
This is National Non-Dairy Creamer Week.
Newsgroups: news.groups