Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism,alt.activism,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Life's a bitch, you know? (was Re: You missed it.)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 3 Aug 92 12:32:13 EST
 <1992Aug3.044226.25117@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Aug3.052038.24978@wam.umd.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: this is fun, and a nice break from socialism vs. capitalism

In article <1992Aug3.052038.24978@wam.umd.edu>, jns@wam.umd.edu (J. N. Shaumeyer) writes:
> Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu) fibs *just* a bit:

	Not really:
>  
>> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>> >Oh, poor baby.  Why weren't you complaining about this before, when 
>> >we in soc.motss had to make our way through all that alt.individualism
>> >nonsense?  I'm sorry you're discomfited.  I'll stop as soon as you
>> >hetboys learn how to trim soc.motss off the newgroups line when you
>> >decide to crosspost.  Is that a deal?
>> 
>> There you go with the "you" again.  I knew.  I didn't crosspost.  It didn't
>> make one bit of difference.
> 
> Ooops, don't Libertarian ideals hold at all with the concept of truth?
> 
> "I didn't crosspost."

	Which he didn't, given the time frame stated (i.e., prior to this
little xpost flamewar).

> Why, *just* a couple of articles ago, you presented soc.motss with:
> 
> -> From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
> -> Subject: You missed it.
> -> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 04:10:23 GMT
> -> 
> -> brian@odie.cs.mun.ca (Brian Paquet) writes:
> -> >Common guys Could someone trim the old cross posting
> -> >....
> -> >
> -> The ostensible point is that this cross-posting is a response to cross-posts
> -> which people outside of soc.motss started, so they're just giving people back
> -> as good as they got.  Except, of course, that it's not the same people.  It
> -> doesn't matter that _you_ didn't accidentally cross-post to soc.motss; it's
> -> enough that you share a newsgroup with someone else who does, and you 
> -> therefore get to share the punishment.
> 
> But, hon, Mr. Paquet's original article appeared *only* in
> alt.individualism, alt.activism, and talk.politics.misc.

	But notice that that was in response to the initiation (escalation) of
war.

> Tsk, tsk.  We noticed that Mr. Paquet, bless his kind heart,
> *didn't* accidentally cross-post to soc.motss, as you say,
> because that article wasn't cross-posted here.
> 
> No, no, now he gets to share the punishment that you brought
> on by reintroducing soc.motss in the newgroup line, although
> you persist in lying about it.

	The "punishment" (really, your attempts pale next to a salvo from
talk.bizarre) was initiated by soc.motss, and they are the ones who "brought it
on".  No doubt Saddam feels the same way you do (he was, after all, *forced* to
invade Kuwait :\) but feeling righteous isn't a sufficient condition for being
right.

	One would think "please don't xpost" would suffice.  But then that
doesn't score any points amongst our peers, does it?

:)

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:41072 alt.politics.elections:11180 alt.politics.clinton:2478 alt.politics.bush:2389