From: sterling@netcom.com
Subject: Re: PETITION:  REINSTATE BRUCE ON FURRYMUCK
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 21:01:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <0NLyiB2w164w@wyvern.via.mind.org> thantos@wyvern.via.mind.org (Paul Williams) writes:
>sterling@netcom.com writes:
>> People who know better than to participate in a pointless flame-war.  People
>> who had the sense to realize the posting was not a call for public discussion
>> or for you to voice your opinion, and to respond via email if they supported
>> it.  People who wouldn't touch this newsgroup with a ten-foot ethernet cable.
>  Far be it from me to be the authority on logic, but  if they  wouldn't 
>  read  alt.fan.furry,  why  in  the  name  of Hades  did you  post that 
>  petition here?

I found your questions reasonable and very refreshing, so I decided to reply.

First, let me point out that when I made that comment I was referring to rec.
games.mud.  Sorry for not being clearly on that; I had almost forgotten this
thread was still in alt.fan.furry as well.  Still, it applies to both groups.
Your question misses the point, however.  I was not attempting to describe ALL
of the aforementioned 'people' as a whole in that paragraph.  Rather, I was
breaking them down into subgroups, based on their reasons for not wanting to
participate in a public discussion.  This means that SOME of them don't
read rec.games.mud (or alt.fan.furry), but not ALL of them.  The fact that
some do not is not a reason to preclude to posting for those who do.  The
purpose of the last sentence was to point out that there were many supporters
who learned about this from somewhere other than either newsgroup; i.e. by
talking to me on the muds, etc.

And, also, it really doesn't matter who already supports it... the petition
was also for those people who had NOT supported it because they didn't KNOW
about it... some of these people read alt.fan.furry and/or rec.games.mud.  By
In this way, MORE people can become supporters... now do you see?

>  Another  paradox:  If  you  post  something  publicly,  does  that not 
>  implicitly suggest that discussion is relavant to the newsgroup posted 
>  in?  If you wanted  only certain  people to  see it,  fine, e-mail  is 
>  available,  but  you posted  it publicly.   There are  those (such  as 
>  myself, admittedly)  who know  nothing of  your previous  exploits and 
>  welcomed the information from those in  the know.   The newsgroup  has 
>  fed that hunger and adequately.

Of course I wanted more than 'certain' people to see it; that's why it was
posted publicly.  I never questioned the relevancy of the discussion to the
newsgroup... what I questioned was that the posting garnered a discussion AT
ALL.  You see, the petition did not ask for nor offer a debate on what I did
wrong, nor on what the Furry wizards are doing wrong.  It was a simple request
for a signature.  If you supported, you could email and sign; if you didn't,
you could ignore the post.  If your decision hinged on the exact details of
the case (and I have found that this rarely played a part), you could *email*
and we could discuss it there.  The topic has been hashed out before on both
these newsgroups, and subjecting it to disinterested folk again was not my
intention.  Again, I should have been more specific; I didn't expect to read
into a posting that I wanted to debate this all over again unless I actually
said something to that effect.

As for using the newsgroup as a source of the information you seek, I suspect
the view you get is highly skewed... I suggest exchanging email with myself
and the furry wizards (the people who were actually INVOLVED... not second-hand witnesses who have only heard rumor and speculation) to form a more accurate
opinion.

Bruce

-- 
--- sterling@netcom.com - sirbruce@gnu.ai.mit.edu - bwoodcoc@isis.cs.du.edu ---
Yes.  We fuck.  Often, and with great enjoyment of the act.  We aren't married,
we use birth control, we use interesting little toys on occasion.  We moan like
beasts in heat.  Life is *great*.  -- Bryant, ref. to Erin, on alt.brother-jed.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mud