Xref: utzoo news.groups:18237 alt.config:1511 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rit!cci632!ccicpg!dave From: dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.config Subject: Re: Various topics Summary: look out martha Message-ID: <59952@ccicpg.UUCP> Date: 27 Feb 90 20:41:18 GMT References: <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> <59506@ccicpg.UUCP> Followup-To: misc.test Organization: ccicpg Lines: 95 In article , jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: It's always nice to see someone live up to their handle. > He wanted a rec group, but he wanted better distribution than rec.* > gets, so he chose to defraud the admins of the net by advertising a rec > group as a sci group. Horsie-doodoo, you ignorant splut. Richard said two things: He wanted a serious aquaria group AND better distribution. Where's the fraud you keep screaming about? They're talking SCIENCE in sci.aquaria. Where's the fraud? > Sure, he was happy. He got what he wanted, or so he thought: a rec group > with sci distribution. His con job succeeded. Better than that. He got a SCI group for serious discussion AND a REC group for the more hobby minded. > |Then the pithy screamers started: > | "USENET IS SOILED" "OFF WITH HIS HEAD" > > Careful...your "pithy screamers" includes nearly all of the true > net.pioneers - those who have put man-years into making the net fly. > Nearly all of them were opposed to the sci fraud, because it _was_ > fraud. I don't care if they wired the net with their own veins, they are screaming needlessly. I'll ask you one more time as you seem to be incredibly dense: What fraud? Let us in on your little secret. Tell us JUST WHAT you're talking about, rather than running around like Chicken Little screaming "fraud fraud the USENET sky is falling." > |Then Peter goes and whips up (without discussion OR vote ) > |REC.aquaria. > > Chuq von Rospach debunks this one, in <38952@apple.Apple.COM>: > > |Fact: There was discussion. Fact: there was a vote. Fact: this vote and > |discussion were validated by the very same newsgroup administrators who > |validated Richard's group. > > What more can I say? rec.aquaria is legit. I am not the only person on the net that has challanged this. Many others remember precisely what happened. The rec group WAS created WITHOUT DISCUSSION or VOTE. Talk about FRAUD. Talk about disimformation, you guys are bloody gold medalists. > This is not the first time people in news.groups have discussed removal > of an alt.group; in fact, each time an alt group has been duplicated by > a mainstream group, this discussion has cropped up. What makes it so > eeeeeeeeevil now? Who died and made you net.defender.of.alt.that.is.holy? So they were WRONG then and you're WRONG now. Why am I not surprised that you can't see that? > You're being disingenous, or just plain stupid. I've been defining the > kind of fraud I mean: defrauding net.admins by placing a rec.group under > sci. AHA! Finally. Hey ace, have you READ the sci group yet? Oh, you don't carry it, huh? Too bad, they seem to be talking REAL science there. Sure it has to do with breeds of fish, oxygenation of water, solubility of trace elements in water, plant species and their various lighting problems/solutions but HEY THAT'S NOT SCIENCE. Chemistry, physics biology but it sure as HELL ain't science, huh? > I agreed to nothing of the sort. The rec group was created following a > more than full and fair discussion, and after a full and fair vote. That is a complete and utter LIE. There was NO formal discussion for the creation of rec.aquaria, and NO formal vote. I'll say it again: There was a discussion about the lack of discussion. There was a POLL that was supposed to gather OPINION about the group NAME. It was NEVER a FORMAL VOTE. > Stop putting words in my mouth. Why? Peter and Chuq do it all the time. Dave