Xref: utzoo alt.flame:33229 comp.sys.next:17540 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:2997 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!cass.ma02.bull.com!mips2!bull.bull.fr!corton!mcsun!hp4nl!fwi.uva.nl!gene!groenewo From: groenewo@fwi.uva.nl (Ferry van het Groenewoud) Newsgroups: alt.flame,comp.sys.next,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: the recent glut of Amiga-related posts Message-ID: <1991May12.230031.15898@fwi.uva.nl> Date: 12 May 91 23:00:31 GMT References: <1991May8.063518.5934@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> <1991May9.044759.27402@daffy.cs.wisc.edu> Sender: news@fwi.uva.nl Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam Lines: 146 Nntp-Posting-Host: gene.fwi.uva.nl sparkie@uhura.cs.wisc.edu (Mark Horn) writes: >No flames intended, but something needs to be cleared up here. And then >perhaps we can get back to the business of talking about NeXTs or touting the >superiority of amigas. >In comp.sys.next article <1991May8.063518.5934@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> you >wrote: >> In article <17079@chopin.udel.edu> radel@chopin.udel.edu (Todd Radel) writes >> >Can all the Amiga freaks who've been posting to our already-crowded >> >newsgroup listen up for just one teensy second? >> > >> >GET OUT OF HERE! >> > >> >Now that I've got your attention ... comp.sys.next is intended for the >> >discussion of NeXT-related issues, not for Amiga owners to post thirty-line >> >messages that say "Amigas are the best." You've got a newsgroup for this >> >sort of thing (comp.sys.amiga.advocacy). Take it there and leave us alone! There is something in your tone that I don't like. Maybe I can find out what that is. >> >> You should learn a bit more about Usenet before you start >> flaming. >Perhaps this is true, but you should also read a little bit of news.newusers. >There is a "Netiquette" article posted periodically. This article clearly >states that an article posted to any particular group ought to have something ...to do with Next computers (?) (unintentionally deleted this line!) claiming >the superiority of amigas do not have anything to do with comp.sys.next - thus >a user of comp.sys.next can "flame" someone who is not achieving those goals. The decision if an article posted to any group has anything to do with that group is ofcourse subjective and ill defined. It doesn't occur too much that someone gets told his post doesn't belong somewhere. If people started to respond publicly on every posting that her or his posting is out of line, there would be twice as much postings on Usenet. I think the above flame is way out of line, and the somewhat arrogant tone of it too. Personally, I think that the - by some persons claimed - superiority of Amiga's over NeXT is of interest of NeXT owners very much. A useful comparision between the computers could come forth from that. >> Someone, i.e. ONE person, cross-posted to both >> newsgroups. Everyone else who replied to that post unknowing >> posted to both newsgroups. Ah well, nothing wrong with that, is there, the one that posted it to both csaa and csn had a good reason for it, at least that's my opinion. So the replies should go to BOTH groups as well so that all parties involved can read about it. But wait, I believe someone else wants to say something about this too! Let's hear it from him: >That is irrelevant. The poster of any news article is fully responsible for >his or her post - which includes making sure that he/she knows where it's >going. And anyone following up to a cross posted article can direct the >article to go to only the appropriate places. Good! Only to the appropriate places! That's just what the ones that replied did! Or did they crosspost it to alt.tv.muppets as well? >The point this person is trying to make is that the people who post to >comp.sys.next (whether cross-posting or not) with posts devoid of anything >valuable to the general goals of c.sys.next (or any other group) are wasting >bandwidth and other people's time - in particular those people who read >comp.sys.next. Oh no let's not begin discussions about this again, like "you know where killfiles are for?" You know that, don't you? Don't you?! DON'T YOU?! And oh yeah such a good point about wasting bandwidth, yeah let's all be careful with stupid articles! What really pisses me off are long articles of certain individuals that want to get the right on their side by using all kinds of off-the-subject matters in their articles. And if you don't want to waste time, my friend, then don't use Usenet and take a magazine, so that you don't have to be afraid that you might run into an article that is not of your interest. >> In fact, I didn't notice until you >> decided to post your flame. A flame was unnecessary. >Not true. If the "flame" causes the amiga folk who are cross posting, >intentionally or otherwise, to leave, then it was more than necessary, it was >effective. You sound like "OH STOP IT PLEASE, IT HURTS TOO MUCH! M O T H E R !!!" I wonder why. >> I have no >> desire to make your group as ridiculously crowded and uninformed >> as comp.sys.amiga.advocacy usually is. 8-) Very funny said, I noticed the smiley. But wait, someone is taking this serious! >Thank you. That is appreciated. However, the point is that if you HAPPEN to >be making my newsgroup "rediculously crowded and uninformed" (intentionally or >not), I have the right to tell you to stop. Your posting seems to suggest >otherwise. You have the right to tell anyone to stop, but everyone has got the right to go on if he or she thinks his or her posting should go to a particular newsgroup. Bad luck to you I guess. >> ANY REPLIES TO THIS POST WILL GO TO BOTH NEWSGROUPS >> >> The next time you post, check the line that says >> Newsgroups: and if there are two newsgroups in it remove the one >> you don't want to post to. It's that simple. >EXACTLY! You advocate the practice that the original posters ignored - >checking the newsgroups line. And a reader of comp.sys.next has every right to >"flame" anyone who is obviously not fulfilling the goals of c.sys.next (this >applies to any other group, too) Oh aren't we ignorant! Yes yes, your statement applies to csaa as well, just the same as this posting applies to csn. And who tells who is ignorant around here? Probably the postings were intended to go to both csaa and csn. I still can't see the real reason of your flame although I made up a reason for myself. But I decided to keep that to myself, but I know that anyone with a little bit of attention will have noticed what this is all about already. >> -- Ethan >Again, I don't intend any flames here. If you wish to state that amigas are >directly created by the hand of God - by all means do so! But please do it in >the group(s) that are more appropriately suited for that. The newsgroup >comp.sys.next is not one of them. Maybe if you close your eyes, the Amigas will dissapear entirely. >- sparkie (Mark Horn) >-- >sparkie@uhura.cs.wisc.edu >NeXT Campus Consultant @ U. of Wisconsin, Madison -- Mac. The noise of a wrong calibration. PS/2. You can't see the new thing. IBM. The toys of a dead generation. Sun. You can't feel the beating. NeXT. The choice cause of bad information. Atari. You'll need some healing. Amiga. For boys with real imagination. __ Amiga. You can reach the ceiling. __/ / Ferry van het Groenewoud \__/ groenewo@fwi.uva.nl