Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!intercon!ooblick
From: ooblick@intercon.com (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: inappropriate postings
Message-ID: <26DDDE51.3DD7@intercon.com>
Date: 31 Aug 90 03:49:37 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> <555@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Sterling, VA
Lines: 33

In article <555@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> sandee@sun16 (Daan Sandee) writes:
>Your arguments can be summed up easily.
>(a) You know you're not welcome.

Interesting to assume that people *know* they aren't welcome when many
"birders" have said they didn't mind indoor postings in the least.  Probably
many more than the few who insist on wasting bandwidth in rantings on the
subject.  Sort of reminds me of the soc.women arguments in which women
brought up the charter of the group and were told to stop being so uptight
and mellow out.  But, of course, that won't work here.

>(b) You have invaded us anyway.

Ah, an invasion.  An *us* against *them*.  Interesting there were no such
divisions until recently created.

>(c) You now dare us to use force to drive you out.

That sounds even sillier than I thought at first.  Nobody asks that "force"
be used.  I can't even think of any "force" that CAN be used.  What will you
do, call my sysadmin if I post something you don't like?  Ask Uunet to cut
my feed?  Sheesh, this whole thing is so damn stupid that it's hard to
believe that it's still being fought about.

>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.

How can it be worse?  JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH!  What are you going to do, STONE
me?

Mikki Barry