Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site mako.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!mako!seifert
From: seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: telling off Ron Vaughn
Message-ID: <556@mako.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-Jan-85 12:01:19 EST
Article-I.D.: mako.556
Posted: Wed Jan 30 12:01:19 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Feb-85 01:08:35 EST
References: <154@ihdev.UUCP> <1750@pucc-h>
Reply-To: seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy)
Organization: The Daisy Hill Puppy Farm
Lines: 52
Keywords: Jeff   "nice" people
Summary: 

In article <1750@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (The Blackguard of the West) writes:

>The only bit of accuracy in this is that if I felt that I could neither get nor
>deserve "warm fuzzies" (as in the neat story posted a little while back), then
>I would prefer "cold pricklies" to nothing.  (The [apparently, by you] sainted
>Chuq recently posted a statement that, given a choice between pain and nothing, 
>he would choose pain.  I believe the originator of that statement was William
>Faulkner, but I believe Chuq when he makes it about himself.)

Almost everyone prefers pain to nothing.  We all want to *feel* something.
Sometimes it doesn't matter much what it is. It can be love, hate, danger,
pain, joy, excitement, gloom, warm, cold, sick, healthy, exhaustion, or a
million other things.  But we have an intense *need* to feel *something*.

re: the warm fuzzy/cold prickly posting.  I seem to have missed it.
Could someone mail me a copy?

>A lot of people said things; they really tried to help me out of my problems.
>Unfortunately even Chuq's positive postings were insufficient.  It might have
>been good if some nicer person like Chuq or Snoopy or Gregbo had taken the
>initiative in suggesting that I diminish the volume and tone of my postings;
>then a lot of the net traffic from the last week (flaming back at you and
>others) would never have occurred; and perhaps some good might have been done
>without the recriminations on all sides.

I won't try to speak for Chuq or Gregbo, but I didn't realise that the
volume and tone were getting too much for people.  I knew that many
people objected to religious related topics in net.singles, and I
was a little concerned about that, but I couldn't think of a better
group, since they seemed to fit into net.singles better than into
net.religion.christian.  Much of what people are complaining about is
the "yes but" responses, and I just didn't notice that as a problem
until it "hit the fan".  I may be nice, but I'm FAR from perfect.
Don't put me on a pedestal, I'll fall off and hurt both of us!
Besides, I'm not a person, I'm a beagle. :-)

> (the bit with the letter exchange with the young woman in
> St. Louis; that reminds me, I owe her a reply to her reply).

So, things are going well?  huh? huh?  <enter tail-wagging mode>

>Your money or your wife! :-) [or wives, in Utah] :-)

Is there an alternate choice for those of us who are unmarried?
This *is* net.singles! Also some of the readers are female, and are
thus extremely unlikely to *ever* have wives.  Would you take a husband?

        _____
	|___|		the Bavarian Beagle
       _|___|_			Snoopy
       \_____/		tektronix!mako!seifert
        \___/