Path: qut.edu.au!news.qut.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu!amz
   Newsgroups: rec.gardens
   Subject: Re: Naturalism---could we have a group?
   Message-ID: <1992Sep7.145233.20296@cis.ohio-state.edu>
   From: 
   Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 14:52:33 GMT
   Sender: news@cis.ohio-state.edu (NETnews        )
   Followup-To: rec.gardens
   References: <VSUMMERS.92Sep7092233@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>
   Organization: out in linguistics, etc.
   Summary: how not to ask a simple question
   Lines: 38

   in article <1992Sep7.145233.20296@cis.ohio-state.edu>
   amz@iguana.cis.ohio-state.edu (Arnold M Zwicky) writes:

   >in article <VSUMMERS.92Sep7092233@polaris.cv.nrao.edu>
   >vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu (vince summers) writes:
   >
   > >     This is probably not the place to ask the subject question, but then
   > >I don't know proper procedure.
   > >     Have you notice[d] that a large portion of GNUS is devoted to stupid
   > >subjects like bestiality, homosexuals, hamsters and duct tape, sex pictures,
   > >etc.?     
   > >     Not one to wildflowers, birds, trees, naturalism (I think).
   > >... Couldn't someone, perhaps from rec.gardens(?)
   > >who is familiar with the computer system, has the interest if not the
   > >knowledge, and who has the time, pursue this for us?  
   >
   >surely it would be possible to ask this simple question - is there any
   >interest in a nature study / natural history newsgroup? - without
   >gratuitous insults (there are a thousand or so newsgroups, each with
   >its own reason for being; no one is forcing this fool to read any of
   >them, nor is anyone interested in his opinion about whether they are
   >worthwhile or not), malicious fabrications (there is no group devoted
   >to hamsters and duct tape, nor has any actual human being ever messed
   >around with hamsters in the fashion this idiot seems to be alluding
   >to), and outright falsehoods (a very tiny number of the newsgroups are
   >devoted to sex-related topics, and a very tiny number - three, by my
   >count - of *them* are concerned in any way with homosexuality).
   >
   >in fact, it seems to me that this way of presenting the question
   >virtually guarantees that no one will pursue the question.  who
   >would want to associate themselves with such a mean-spirited buffoon?
   >                                            
   >as a very amateur but enthusiastic wildflower person, i think this
   >would be a shame.
   >
   >perhaps the proposal could be allowed to die away for the moment, and
   >later be reintroduced by someone with some intelligence and some
   >humanity.
   >
   >arnold 


   Umm, sorry to be highly inflammatory here, but, err... there IS, in fact
   a newsgroup

   alt.sex.bestiality.hamsters.duct-tape

   atleast on our news feed here - mebbe its been censored at your site.
   More importantly however, I think Vince was only having a little joke
   there (you know, the pretty wildflowers juxtaposed against some of the
   more esoteric of the alt.sex groups, etc). I don't think he meant to
   offend anyone, & he's probably not an idiot or a mean-spirited buffoon
   at all - he's probably a very nice chap indeed.

   Chill out dudes!

   Darryl Rees

   PS. I actually think hamsters are kind of cute!

     Thank you!!!  At last someone understands what I was getting at and why.
It is a little amazing it took so many posts to come up with it!

Vince
vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu