From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Social Democracy
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:32:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: MVS.19921109153159ECL4JN2

In article <1992Nov2.142726.25263@spdcc.com>, on 2 Nov 92 14:27:26 GMT,
rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
>
>        You know there are times when I really wish that things
>never progressed...  what I mean by this is that the larger you
>make your bucket the more undesirable things fall in.
>
Who the fuck gives a damn about how you make your bucket!

>        (Gack will I ever stop speaking in metaphors?)
>
I doubt it. You seem to flourish better using vague hazy tones with
shades of innuendo rather than making intelligible precise clear
remarks which deal with the issue at hand.
>
>        ANYway, here's the point:  Nelson has been here for
>much longer than JBN, has contributed much, and has run the gamit
>of content, expression, tone, depth, etc. to show that he is
>not "just a stupid faggot".
>
What has the length of time that one has been posting in soc.motss
got to do with intelligence or faggotry? In fact, all indications are
that the longer one has been here, the more fossilized is one's thinking
and the more likely is the content of one's articles to consist merely
of meaningless cybertrash rather than substantive discussion.
>
>        For JBN on the other hand, I can't make that claim.
>
What possible interest would anybody have as to what you are able to
claim? This is about as interesting as describing a daily bout with
hemorrhoids. Yawn!

>        Given the last 6 months, I'm now convinced that we've
>reached some sort of expansion threshold: between S*rv*r,
>M*lm*n, N*mbl*, and a few others,
>
Expansion threshhold? Hardly! You just don't realize it when you're
well off. I have several gay libertarian friends who can be induced
to start posting here in soc.motss. And without a doubt, there is
certainly a lot of need for a more objective balance in outlook here.

>I don't think this group
>has ever had so many supposed gay posters who were more energy draining.
>They post often, contribute little, yet drag our attention away
>from useful and empowering things for nothing more than to take
>more from the group at large.
>
Hmmm. I'm trying to recall something of measurable utility that you've
ever posted here. I guess it must have been so socially responsible
that it went right over my head.

Actually, I don't post nearly as often as I intend. Some of my
meatiest rejoinders were earmarked for a group of articles that got
popped off to that bit bucket in the sky before I could manage to
find the time to attend to them. Too bad.

But I'll make the same challenge to you that I did to Anderson.
Pick out one of my GLAAD: postings and actually do something
constructive by following up on the recommended action. Report back
to the group on exactly what you did. Your reward will be that I
shall refrain from any libertarian rebuttal to the collectivist
horsesnot and picklepoop that comes down here FOR ONE ENTIRE WEEK.
Think about it; a chance to quite a public enemy for seven full days!

>        This has already happened on IRC enough that yesterday I
>called it quits.  (There it's also the enforced stoopidity and
>anti-intellectualism that makes it unviable.)  I'd hate to
>get to that point with soc.motss.
>
Sounds rather interesting with this non-endorsement coming from you.
But, alas, I have no more room in my schedule for more cyberspace.
Maybe IRC is something that Matty Melmon would be interested in.

>        Is there any way to re-charter?  Even informally?
>Some way to say "we're not going to allow this group to degrade
>into virutal nonsense (note - frivolity is *not* nonsense!  frivolity
>is VERY useful to generate positive and useful things!)!".
>
Quite unworkable idea. This group thrives on personal attacks and
ad hominem digressions. A moderated group where folks are actually
required to stick to issues wouldn't go down very well here.

>        My KILL file for a day's-worth of postings takes about
>3-5 minutes to run.  That's 3-5 minutes of my life per day I can't
>get back.  (No, I don't have windowing...  yet  :-)
>
What a shame! And here I thought KILL files were meant to save time.
But I shall not be the least bit offended if you plunk me in your
file of betes noires. In fact, there's absolutely nothing in this
world that YOU could possibly do to offend me. How's that for
empowerment!

>        Jack, show me that you actually have a use on this planet.
>
Why? What's in it for me if I do show you?

>        OH, and have a nice day.
>
I almost always do.

>BBC
>
        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams