From: jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: RFD: Should rec.music.makers.synth stand as a group name?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:43:54 GMT
Organization: This space for rent.

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>jan@bagend.uucp (Jan Isley) writes:
>>dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:

>>>This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm campaigning against.

having completely avoided a rational explanation of that statement,
my original observation still applies;

>>Rubbish.  You are campaigning to hear yourself talk.

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

Right you are, Dave, it is rather obvious that you are campaiging to
hear yourself talk.  Glad we could agree on something.

>>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.

In other words, you were not answering my question, again.

>It is not a revote.
>It is a newsgroup creation request worded in a different way.

Elvis lives Elvis lives Elvis lives Elvis lives Elvis lives
Elvis lives Elvis lives Elvis lives Elvis lives Elvis lives

Hmm, saying it 10 times does not make it so, maybe 100 would work...

>>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. 

So you are saying it is okay to violate them because a lot of people
are "addicted" to them?  I can't wait to see how you don't explain that.

The guidelines caused an unfair result in your perception?  That you
have a perception problem is obvious, but to blame it on the guidelines!
Gee, Dave, you are right, bogus logic and misdirection is fun.

Besides a few who clearly have no concept of how or why any of this works,
where is your consensus that something about this process was not fair?
Where is it?  Says who else?  Show me.  *Prove* me wrong.

>But the fact of the matter is, they do fit the letter of the guidelines. 

does not.

>If you believe me wrong, then you are free to demonstrate why they do not.

I did, you ignored it and talked about my attitude instead.

>>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 would venture to say that not since Alok has there been any point
more unanimously agreed to around this so called elitist group than
the opinion that your attitude is the one in need of adjustment.
Maybe I'll take a straw poll and fill my mailbox up and refuse to
tell anyone who voted and how.  Nah, that's been done.

How many times have the elitist said that if you don't like the
guidelines, if you think they are not fair,

*** suggest something better or shut up.  ***

But alas, you cannot or will not.  Why?

[ stupid circular bullshit deleated ]

>What else can I do?

Lots of things come to mind...  see *** above.
-- 
Do not suffer the company of fools  ||  Jan Isley ...!gatech!bagend!jan
  Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha    ||  jan@bagend.uucp (404)434-1335
Newsgroups: news.groups