Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!olivea!oliven!mjm
From: mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: inappropriate postings
Keywords: flames indoor
Message-ID: <49314@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>
Date: 29 Aug 90 22:09:45 GMT
References: <64347@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com> <1990Aug28.045702.21315@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@olivea.atc.olivetti.com
Distribution: na
Lines: 60

In article <1990Aug28.045702.21315@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes:
> 
> Nice diatribe, Mike.  Most readers are a tad more tolerant
> though.  If you have rn or nn, hit the ^K key and enter the
> following two lines:
> 
> 
> /: *INDOOR/:j
> /: *indoor/:j
> 
> Most all indoor posters were using this  convention.   Your  kill
> file  will  then skip over all indoor postings which use the term
> indoor.  This will be performed automatically and you won't  have
> to  even  hit  your  "n" key.  As for guidelines, most all groups
> have tolerated some changes in  their  original  intent.   So  it
> goes.   Remember,  this is USENET and the dictionary defines that
> as anarchy (:-).

	Nice smokescreen, Mike. Of course, this brings up the obvious
question: wouldn't a convention of this type work equally well in
rec.pets, the appropriate place?

	It's funny, this hypocrisy being exhibited by the "captive
bird" people. They invade a newsgroup where they, by definition,
don't belong. They claim not to have realized this because they failed
or pretended not to have read the charter describing this group, and
then adamantly remain after it has been made abundantly clear. They
tell us that we should tolerate their presence; a tolerance they
refused to exhibit in rec.pets, the appropriate place. They tell us
that it should be no trouble to "N" through articles that we don't
like; a technique they refused to use in rec.pets, the appropriate
place. They try to implement and adopt a header-naming convention;
something they refused to do in rec.pets, the appropriate place.
Now they tell us that we actually condon their presence (does this
sound like Saddam Hussein, or what?), though this discussion keeps
popping up every couple of months.

	They tell us that the invasion of newsgroups by inappropriate
posters has happened before on the net, firmly entrenching the
justification for their actions in the philosophy of: "two wrongs
do, indeed, make a right". They remind us that anarchy is the norm
on netnews. Yet when we try to display a little anarchy of our own,
we are soundly criticized, proving the axiom that "what is good for
the goose, should never be practiced by the gander". I can't recall
ever seeing a larger load of hypocritical bullshit in my life.

	As for my diatribe, Mike, consider this: if the "captive
bird" people went back to rec.pets, the appropriate place, these
diatribes would probably disappear. As if by magic. Besides, the
volume of traffic is so low in this group; what's a diatribe or
two among friends? And, in the words of the "captive bird" people,
"it shouldn't be much of a bother to just hit the "N" key".

	I certainly don't hold out much hope of the "captive bird"
people leaving this group, but it sure is fun blasting away at the
tissue paper they use for a shield.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Mike