Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: alt.sources.d
Subject: Re: One Last Wish
Message-ID: <19265@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 12 May 91 18:46:33 GMT
References: <1991May10.032307.10210@swsrv1.cirr.com-> <19259@rpp386.cactus.org-> <1991May11.234841.14648@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> <1991May12.150829.27945@convex.com>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cat Emporium and BBQ Grill
Lines: 29
X-Clever-Slogan: Help Prevent Robbery.  Tax the IRS.

In article <1991May12.150829.27945@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>Why?  Because people are careless and either don't notice or don't give a
>damn.   One poster when reminded in email that commentary doesn't belong
>in alt.sources got all high and mighty and claimed that he can damn well
>post whatever he wants wherever he wants, and that if I didn't like it, I
>should try to get alt.sources moderated.  This really seems like going too
>far: why can't people just cooperate to do the right thing here?

Tom, since I'm at least one of the people that sent you the "high and
mighty" note, might I point out that your "save the alt.sources group"
view is a tad egocentric?  Who died and made you alt.sources.police-man?

I don't see moderating alt.sources as a bad thing.  However, I do see
the notes the alt.sources.police send as a bit stupid.  One was dumb
enough to send me a note last year when I posted a patch with "Re:
whatever the subject was" and justified his sending me the stupid
note by saying I shouldn't have followed up to my source posting in
alt.sources.

So, get off the high horse, or expect me to keep sending you equally
obnoxious replies.  Or you could just moderate alt.sources and be
done with it, right?  Surely if everyone agrees with your viewpoint,
getting the group moderated will be an absolute snap and you can get
yourself elected moderator.  Right?
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."