Goodbye

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:34:59 -0500, "DI" wrote:

Backoff, you're not the hot **** you think you are, nor as informed you
would like to us to think you are.

I don't think I'm hot ****. Who do you think you are?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill Sornson writes:

I hope Mark will reconsider because SHUTTING OUT OPPOSING VOICES is
an obvious tactic of a certain political movement nowadays, and by
his bowing out it's playing right into their pocket-picking hands.

One suggestion I wish he'd try: plonk those abusive, personal
attackers and see what happens. If they don't provoke responses,
maybe (MAYBE) they'll stop the baiting. (And he won't see it,
anyway.)

Worth a shot, Mark?!?

A little self control does as well. Just don't respond to such posts.
I believe it is better to see what they contain and not respond, than
to not see them at all. I often choose to not respond when I believe
no response is appropriate, at least from me.

Jobst Brandt

Bill Sornson wrote:
David L. Johnson wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

I hope you'll reconsider at some point. I don't agree with your
politics, but I think you've been a voice of reason on matters of
bicycle technology, which this list is purportedly about. The reign
of the yippy dogs seems once step closer with your departure.

Please watch your attributions; I did not write the above.

Nor did I indicate such. Notice the layers of quotes.

--

David L. Johnson

Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig...
You soon find out the pig likes it!

"still me" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:03:35 -0500, "Jay" wrote:

Au contraire, IMHO unmoderated Usenet is not dying. It has always appealed
to a select audience. Some people just love the thought of their opinion
being broadcast to Usenet users around the world, WITHOUT a moderator. It
is
text-based, no frills, no fancy graphics. Just a free exchange of ideas,
with no one telling them what they can or cannot say. Classic - J.

I agree with your disagreement! USEnet actually seems to be having a
bit of a comeback lately. There was a lull a couple years ago, but
things seem to have rebounded. As for moderators, there are few that
are good. Many turn into censors, which kills groups. Not to mention,
a lot of posters take the USEnet way too personally and seriously.

Usenet requires a thick skin. It is like walking through an alley; do you
focus on the graffiti painted on the walls? The essence of being out in
public, is that some stuff you see will not appeal to you. Get over it, or
ignore it.

Within moderated Usenet groups, there are endless debates on what should and
should not be allowed. And whatever is objectionable is not seen in that
newsgroup, since it is deleted by the moderator. I don't want someone else
deciding what I should read or write - J.

Bill Sornson wrote:

What is the Left so afraid of? Why does it want to SILENCE opposing
opinions? ...Instead of debating issues,
the left goes personal almost immediately; then it has a conniption
fit if someone calls it.
Because you are generally on the "right", you see this happening from the
"left".
Because I am generally on the "left", I see this happening from the "right".

I think the level of political discussion is generally at a low level.

Maybe you agree ... if not you are a stupid nazi asshole [that's a joke,
Bill]

--
Mike Kruger
An opinion should be the result of a thought, not a substitute for it.
[Jef Mallet]

Bill Sornson wrote:
Antti Salonen wrote:

The Usenet is dying simply because it isn't moderated.

I'm confused about something. Rec.Bicycles.Offroad completely DIED
because it was moderated -- I thought to keep Vandedrivel {tm} out?
Weirdly enough, spam got thru fairly regularly, but on-topic posts
took forever to show up...

How is it he (MV) doesn't post in these two rec groups? Is their some
"master filter" that blocks his stuff?

Maybe I'll go look for an ALT cycling group besides AM-B...

Well, there's alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.r...t/topics?hl=en

At this moment, the link above shows the newest thread as "Dear Diary: I
didn't poo in my pants today."

The fourth thread on the list begins with "I joined this group a couple of
weeks ago because I am interested in
recumbent bicycles. All I have seen so far is tons of drivel from an idiot
named" [E.D. -- not going to name him]

David L. Johnson wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
David L. Johnson wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

I hope you'll reconsider at some point. I don't agree with your
politics, but I think you've been a voice of reason on matters of
bicycle technology, which this list is purportedly about. The
reign of the yippy dogs seems once step closer with your
departure.

Please watch your attributions; I did not write the above.

Nor did I indicate such. Notice the layers of quotes.

You deleted Gary Young's attribution line, leaving your post to read: "Bill
Sornson wrote" followed by text not authored by me. (You can go look at it
if you like.)

Please be more careful. Sorry if this makes you defensive.

BS

wrote:
Bill Sornson writes:

I hope Mark will reconsider because SHUTTING OUT OPPOSING VOICES is
an obvious tactic of a certain political movement nowadays, and by
his bowing out it's playing right into their pocket-picking hands.

One suggestion I wish he'd try: plonk those abusive, personal
attackers and see what happens. If they don't provoke responses,
maybe (MAYBE) they'll stop the baiting. (And he won't see it,
anyway.)

Worth a shot, Mark?!?

A little self control does as well. Just don't respond to such posts.
I believe it is better to see what they contain and not respond, than
to not see them at all. I often choose to not respond when I believe
no response is appropriate, at least from me.

I suppose you're right, but I got so upset at dishonest tactics like
snipping things to remove relevant context (completely changing or hiding
meaning) and blatant hypocrisy that I had to speak up.

Then it dawned on me that it just wasn't worth it. Life's too freaking
short.

In article ,
Antti Salonen wrote:

In rec.bicycles.misc David L. Johnson
wrote:

Hell, we all know that usenet is dead anyway, and we are just
sifting through the ashes. Between the "forums" diverting a lot of
more specialized discussions and energy, and "angry young men"
determined to turn any topic into their particular soapbox, the
signal/noise level is not looking good.

Indeed. The Usenet is dying simply because it isn't moderated. I
guess it worked better 10 to 15 years ago when the standard of
Internet users was higher, but now most newsgroups are playgrounds of
small number of anti-social idiots who successfully drive everybody
else to moderated web forums and mailing lists.

I don't want to wear rose colored glasses- Usenet has always had this.
It's always been unpleasant. It does seem that the s/n ratio has
dropped in many newsgroups- r.b.racing for example having imploded years
ago under the weight of idiocy. But that said, there is much gold among
the dross and it's worth sifting for.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:58:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

I suppose you're right, but I got so upset at dishonest tactics like
snipping things to remove relevant context (completely changing or hiding
meaning) and blatant hypocrisy that I had to speak up.

You're a hypocrite.

This very day you tried to explain that Mark Hickey was just minding
his own business talking about drugs in sport and was attacked for
being politically conservative. You left out that you brought politics
into the discussion, and that Mark Hickey attacked the guy who went
back at him (me) first. So what you said was true, but left out two
key facts.

If that's not "removing relevant context" I don't know what is.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************