Xref: utzoo news.misc:2734 rec.humor.d:1770 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!rutgers!ucla-cs!cc1 From: cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) Newsgroups: news.misc,rec.humor.d Subject: Re: Expansion of rec.humor.funny to other networks Message-ID: <21816@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Date: 15 Mar 89 22:51:19 GMT References: <438@corpane.UUCP> <21741@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <6132@bsu-cs.UUCP> Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU Reply-To: cc1@cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) Organization: Softly glowing nimrods Lines: 66 In article <6132@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: ^In article <21741@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> cc1@cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) ^writes: ^^ [stuff I wrote deleted] ^Those who continue to post such articles should instead do what Brad ^did at one time: propose a moderated humor group reflecting his own ^sense of humor, collect votes, create the newsgroup, and make it work. I don't have the time myself, nor an adequate account, to carry out the running of rec.humor.funny. That doesn't mean that Brad should be allowed to continue. The existence or non-existence of other humor groups is not being debated here; the issue is whether or not Brad should continue as moderator of rec.humor.funny. Try to stay on the issue, boy. ^I suspect the real problem is envy. Envy that Brad does things you ^don't. Envy that Brad is successful in the things he does. Oh yes, thank you so much for telling me what my motivation is, with that TOTALLY UNFOUNDED remark. Care to back it up? WHY do you think that I am jealous of Brad's success? In fact, I wouldn't take his job if I could; I've seen all the trouble that people give him (on things that he's not to be blamed for). How can you say that I am jealous of him? Tell me, O great psychoanaylist, why am I jealous of him? ^I'm glad things are more civilized these days. Back then they used to ^lock you up if you knew more about the center of the universe than they ^did, or make you drink hemlock if you had a different idea of logic ^then they did, and stuff like that. Oh, so now Brad ranks up there with Galileo and Socrates. Yeah. Right. What are you, some kind of Templeton toadie? ^Now they just post nasty articles ^behind pseudonyms like "It glows in the dark". Oh, you're one of THOSE kind of people, who somehow think that the presence of a pseudonym in a posting somehow invalidates what the posting is saying. Crap. If you had noticed (you DID read my article, DIDN'T you?), I always sign "--Ken" at the bottom of my postings. My full name is Kenneth Lennis Bartlett; I am NOT trying to hide behind a pseudonym. Now think about it (you CAN do that, can't you?), if I were trying to disguise my identity, why choose something OBVIOUSLY a pseudonym like "It glows in the dark"? I'd probably choose a name like "Alex Gillis" or "Mark Williams" or something like that, huh? So it wouldn't draw attention to the fact that I'm "hiding" (which I am not!). So if you are following all that (I ASSUME that you can, but you know what they say about assuming), and if you think a little (I also assume you can think, although that's not entirely obvious from your posting), you can see that there is no more validity to a "real name" than a pseudonym. Can we REALLY be sure that your name is "Rahul Dhesi"? I'm not sure; maybe your name is "MaryAnn Willbergs" and you're hiding behind this pseudonym of "Rahul Dhesi"? Well, enough ranting from me. This guy just got me ticked off. I do, however, encourage anyone out there to disagree with my comments about Brad, as long as you can do it in a reasonable, intelligent manner (which Mr. "Dhesi" was unable to do his posting). Thank you. --Ken Bartlett