From: poirier@bnr.ca (Daniel Poirier)
Subject: Re: Learn to make a kill file
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:28:24 GMT

I know I'll get flamed for this, so redirect it to /dev/null, I am NOT interested and
will NOT respond to any flames. Also, I apologize for the length of this article, but I
wanted to preserve the original text, so that I can add my comments "in context". I've
read enough flaming to get me really pissed off, and simply have to let the steam out.
By the way, most of my comments here are addressed to nobody in particular. I am using
other people's quotes to address a larger audience, as this applies to MANY people. If the
shoe fits, wear it.

   In article <1992Nov18.144316.18786@eng.umd.edu> georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
   >In article <1992Nov17.195445.24993@cs.nott.ac.uk> nlc@vulcan.xtel.co.uk (Neil Cook) writes:
   >>In article <1992Nov17.081616.13238@abo.fi>, abulsari@aton.abo.fi writes:
   >>|> 
   >>|> If you want to avoid reading a person's postings, e.g. mine,
   >>|> edit the kill file by typing Ctrl-k and then entering a line
   >>|> /Abhay/h:j or /abulsari@aton.abo.fi/h:j
   >>|> 
   >>|> Kill files make life easier for everyone.
   >>|> 
   >>
   >>This is simply not true. Kill files are an artifact which have had to be 
   >>created to deal with people such as yourself. Shouting rhetoric on street 
   >>corners with the excuse "You can put your hands over your ears if you want",
   >>is a good analogy. I don't want to have to use my kill file. It is a
   >>necessary evil, not a good thing.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to get everyone to agree on something so complex as nutrition, and
the somewhat associated animal-rights concepts. Now, given that we can't all have the
same opinion, how do you propose we proceed with this? Would YOU want everyone to shut 
up, except for those you agree with?????!!!??? Just use the darned kill file, and let
us get on with this.

   >>
   >>In real life, people follow social conventions. However, there are always
   >>some people who will carry on talking even if nobody is listening, no matter
   >>how many times people tell them to push off. 
   >>
   >>Despite your belief in kill files, there is (was) such a thing as net
   >>etiquette. Posting any old rubbish with the words "use the kill file" is 
   >>a cop-out. 
   
Rubbish is YOUR oipinion of what is being posted, not everyone's.

   >>
   >>If you and Ted moderated your postings, perhaps offering to email people
   >>with interesting articles, or at least finding out if anyone wants to read them
   >>first, then you might not be flamed so much.
   >>
   >>Finally, there is such a thing a MONEY. It costs a lot of money to post
   >>an article to the world. Doing such a thing which
   >>1) Most people don't want to read

How do YOU know what I want or do not want to read ?????!!!???

   >>and
   >>2) Generates enormous amounts of pointless followups/flames etc.
   >>
   >>Is a waste of resources, bandwidth and time (of people reading/killing etc).

The resources and bandwidth were establishe specifically to allow this kind of 
discussion(s) to go on. Perhaps YOU need to refrain from reading the news, or
maybe you should switch off this newsgroup and read something that is more pleasing
to you. I personally enjoy the group (but NOT the flames), and want to keep it that
way. When someone posts a recipe with eggs in it or shrimp (or anything else I don't
eat), I simply skip it, I don't flame the poor bugger to a crisp! Do you also get
offended when the newspaper publishes a story you're not interested in ???!!!???

   >>
   >>|>        All signatures deleted to preserve some of that "precious" bandwidth
   >>
   >
   >Neil, your feedback here is most appropriate, and your thoughts are
   >well articulated.
   >
   >This past week alone, Abhay posted at least five unsolicited articles on
   >environmental issues in rec.food.veg. Each perhaps exceeded 100 lines of
   >text. The articles were inappropriate both for their length and their content,
   >and since nobody followed up with comments, we can assume there was little
   >interest.

Unsolicited? All articles in news (except for responses to flames) are unsolicited.
In case you don't know (and although I am personally NOT and animal rights person),
environmental issues ARE one (of the) good reason(s) some vegetarians are vegetarian.
Why would this be inappropriate? I got something out of those articles, and I can't 
tolerate some of the more radical groups (especially talk.politics.animals). Therefore,
this group allows me to read some usefull information. If I don't like what I read
in a newsgroup, I turn the darned thing off, that's all!

   >
   >Rather than post at sci.environment, talk.environment, and
   >talk.politics.animals, Ted and Abhay would rather do their grandstanding
   >here in rec.food.veg among a less willing audience.
   >
   >If the payment for posting these lengthy, unsolicited articles came from
   >money out of their own pockets, maybe they'd see matters from our
   >point of view.
   >

If YOU had to pay to read it (and flame it), perhaps you'd use the darned KILL file!


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Daniel Poirier  e-mail: Daniel.Poirier@x400gate.bnr.ca  (613)763-5185
    Standard disclaimers... - BNR does not own or share my opinion!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg