Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!prism!sun13!sun16!sandee
From: sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: inappropriate postings
Message-ID: <555@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 30 Aug 90 20:00:25 GMT
References: <64347@oliveb.atc.olivetti.com]    <1990Aug28.045702.21315@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <49314@olivea.atc.olivetti.com> <1990Aug30.025814.22471@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@sun13.scri.fsu.edu
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University
Lines: 54

In article <1990Aug30.025814.22471@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu]    richman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael Richman) writes:
]                                                        .........  I
]   do not think most of the posters have wandered into  this  group.
]   Perhaps  a  few  have.   My  hunch is that they made a calculated
]   move.  Perhaps some are birders (in the conventional sense)  too.
]   Another  point  of  disagreement  (what  you refer to as my smok-
]   escreen) is the idea that a non-moderated group is open  to  ALL,
]   regardless  of  the stated charter.  
An incredible argument. Why have charters at all, in that case? Why
create new groups? Why not give up the concept of newsgroups 
altogether?
We are talking about two groups - rec.birds and rec.pets. 
Both were created for a specific purpose. Both have a charter defining
that purpose. Those charters don't overlap. Pet birds are part of the
rec.pets charter. So what's the problem? Well, the problem is that some
people ignore these facts and then when we complain about it, they start
yelling about freedom, and about Usenet being anarchy. It is surprising
nobody has called upon the First Amendment yet (which doesn't apply to 
Usenet, incidentally ; it merely restricts the action of Government).

]   A  final  thought  would  be  to form a chartered group with some
]   power to enforce the charter (read: MODERATED).  Short  of  that,
]   the  price  you  pay for freedom is putting up with some articles
]   which don't fit your idea of "correct".
]   -- 
]   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
]   =  Mike Richman  Atmospheric Sciences  Water Survey  U. of Illinois =
]   =  email (uiuc mailserver) internet/bitnet/uucp: mrichman@uiuc.edu  =
]   =  bitnet: mrichman%uiuc.edu@uiucvmd  uucp: uunet!uiuc.edu!mrichman =

Your arguments can be summed up easily.
(a) You know you're not welcome.
(b) You have invaded us anyway.
(c) You now dare us to use force to drive you out.
Where have I heard that reasoning recently ?
HELP ! Saddam Hussein is taking over Usenet!
And not much room for a smiley here.
Next time you blunder into the ladies' restroom, are you prepared to state
that (1) you did it on purpose, because the men's room is full, as usual,
and (2) all this segregation of sexes is irrelevant anyway, and (3) if they
want to keep out undesirable elements, they should install a cloakroom lady?
Okay, a smiley goes here.    :-)
But seriously, the comparison is correct. Your behavior is just as uncivilised.
You deliberately ignore agreements that are not laws graven in stone but
still intended to be adhered to by people with some degree of consideration
for their fellow mortals.
I entirely agree with your technical arguments about the use and the 
limitations of kill files. But the arguments of principle that you use to
justify your intrusion retroactively are specious and irrelevant. In short,
you are damaging your position by advancing them.

Daan Sandee                                           sandee@sun16.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052  (904) 644-7045