From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: RFD: Should rec.music.makers.synth stand as a group name?
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:13:14 GMT

jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes:
>>>Mr Hayes can now argue precedence, however wrong he may be, since
>>>his RFD was posted and followup directed to news.groups.  `
>>This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm campaigning against.
>Rubbish.  You are campaigning to hear yourself talk.

That's a rather obvious assumption. When you know me personally, then
you can say that. 

>*Exactly* what attitude do you claim this to be? 

"Precedence implies law" and "Don't rock the boat of the holy Guidelines".

>And, why did you not quote the next 3 lines of my post that supported
>my statement?  I said;
>  RFDs are preliminaries to votes for newsgroup creation, *not*
>  smokescreens for a revote on a newsgroup that has passed the process.
>  If this proposed vote is allowed, it would be a _revote_.

Because I was pointing out your attitude, not your logic flaws. It is not
a revote. It is a newsgroup creation request worded in a different way.

>Could it be that they would make your response seem more ludicrous
>because it clearly shows that you are trying to violate the guidelines?

And why the hell not, since you folk seem to be so addicted to them? They
caused an unfair result in my perception, so they are unworkable in my
opinion. 

But the fact of the matter is, they do fit the letter of the guidelines. 
If you believe me wrong, then you are free to demonstrate why they do not.

>Maybe I was too subtle, let me rephrase it.  You are wrong.  Your
>so-called RFD is wrong.  There is no justification for your position
>or your behavior at all, none, zero, zip.  You are totally and
>completely wrong.  The real issue IS that you are wrong.  Clear enough?

Yup. That's as clear as the notion that "news.groups and ilk are elitist
and unfit to consider anything that they do not agree with". 

I mean, what a position. "You're wrong and that's it." Surely you aren't
trying to convince me of such...why if I am so wrong, well i'd be wrong 
about being wrong (assuming your attitude) and that'd make me right...

>>It takes two to tango, and two to fight. Two people flame, many
>>start a flameWAR. 
>You created this monster all by yourself.  You cannot blow enough
>smoke to hide that fact so stop trying.

I see you contributing. 

>Are you now saying that if everyone stops following up to your
>posts then you will shut up too?

What else can I do?

>>Oh miiiighty lord and master...thank you for ALLOWING me to sit in 
>>the dark by your good and holy graces. 8) 
>You are in the dark because *you* turned the light off.  The comment
>was directed to everyone but you.  My followers do not proselytize.
>Be thankful that I am not a vengeful god.

I am content to be thankful that you are NOT a god. 

>Obviously the temper tantrum tactic is not working for you here,
>why don't you try holding your breath until you get your way.
>Yea, that's the ticket.

Now now. Sounds like I'm being a pretty good mirror....
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

            Think enough and you won't know anything!