From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:00:34 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec16.003130.8054@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
[about the message posted to r.m.s with an explicit Subject: line]
>It was a reply to the CFV, right?

It said "Re: They want to rename rec.music.synth!" (or words like that).

[about whether or not I think his ideas will be workable]
>You're right. I don't know. 

Then why not post something and find out?

>(That's like the cat promising to eat the tuna.) You will get your chance,
>don't worry. 

When? When Windows NT is released? When the Gulf Freeway in Houston is
finished? (That piece of road, which is in the Guinness Book of World Records
for the road under construction the longest, has been continuously under
construction since at least 1940. It's also on my route to work. :-( ) When
we achieve faster-than-light travel?

>>>How about posting the articles more frequently?
>>How frequently?
>Once every three days.

Hm. How did you arrive at that number? My gut feeling is that it's too often,
but I'm not going to reject it out of hand, especially if the more frequent
postings are pointers to a longer article explaining what's happening. Dave
Lawrence might get heartburn over that, though, since you're multiplying his
work by a factor of seven or so...

>Hey, I'm working on improving things. Getting the topic back to this
>vote, I really think users weren't kissed first. I'm sorry you disagree. 

*poing*
Your response to a rape (your analogy, not mine) is to unzip your pants?

>>>Well...it was your implication.
>>Nope. I was asking if you believed that. I certainly don't.
>Sure seemed like an implication to me.

You inferred it; I did not, and do not, imply it.

>>No. I'm opposed to a straight revote because it's outside the rules...the only
>>rules we have. 
>(This tack again) I'm opposed to blind adherence to any external set of
>standards of conduct. That's why I want a revote. 

...such as laws, then? If you truly believe that, and have the moral courage
to follow that principle to the penitentiary, then I admire you for it.

Nevertheless, that does not mean the rest of the net will go along with you.
You must convince the admins of the net that the vote was unfair and invalid
in order to justify a revote. You have manifestly failed to do so; there are
only two admins I've seen that agree with you, and many others who do not.

>>Nope...if you don't read an article telling you something you don't like is
>>about to happen, EVEN WHEN THE ARTICLE SAYS THAT WILL HAPPEN IN ITS SUBJECT,
>>then you either don't care enough or you're too dumb to recognize it.
>Or you missed it because you're filtering subject lines, or you overlooked
                                                        -- you don't care
>the article, or you're not aware enough of every little usenet acronym to 
             --you're not paying attention
>recognize a CFV...etc....
*poing*

Not even when the article has no acronyms at all in it?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Newsgroups: news.groups