Bend Over, USA

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:21:42 GMT, Frank Church
wrote:


I just counted 86 alt.politics on my newsserver..

Gee, Frank, I just counted about 400 comp. groups
on *my* server, and these aren't even alt groups, but
that doesn't stop you from posting "geek" messages
here, does it ? And there have to be hundreds of
lonely hearts groups out in usenet land, but you're
still using this forum for your divorce stories, aren't
you ?

Sorry to step on any toes here, but I see the discussion of personal matters
involving the roffian family (as dysfunctional as it is) to be a very different
than a political post. YMMV.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Tim J." wrote in message
...

"Greg Pavlov" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:21:42 GMT, Frank Church
wrote:


I just counted 86 alt.politics on my newsserver..

Gee, Frank, I just counted about 400 comp. groups
on *my* server, and these aren't even alt groups, but
that doesn't stop you from posting "geek" messages
here, does it ? And there have to be hundreds of
lonely hearts groups out in usenet land, but you're
still using this forum for your divorce stories, aren't
you ?

Sorry to step on any toes here, but I see the discussion of personal
matters
involving the roffian family (as dysfunctional as it is) to be a
very different
than a political post. YMMV.

Perhaps, but as you note, opinions do vary. Meanwhile, ANY
contribution to a political thread can be seen as a political
statement in its own right.....even one decrying political statements.
Moreover, "...this small vocal core of angry lefties" can hardly be
viewed as apolitical by any reasonable standard.

It can hardly escape the notice of any careful reader that diatribes
against the presence of politics in this forum are almost always
prompted not by the inclusion of politics per se, but rather by the
exposition of the WRONG politics. It is also worth noting that the
vast majority of objections to politics in ROFF come from individuals
whose own participation clearly marks them as what are generally (and
for reasons that are patently ludicrous) known as "conservatives", and
that these objections typically surface when their authors have their
backs to the dialectical wall.

Oh, and this exposition will doubtless sorely tempt a few to label ITS
author as a "liberal". Those individuals should, of course, not be
included in anyone's list of careful readers.

Wolfgang
whose political philosophy has been clearly and unequivocally stated
on a number of occasions.

Heavy snippage:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:21:42 GMT, Frank Church wrote:

I just counted 86 alt.politics on my newsserver..


Greg Pavlov wrote:
Gee, Frank, I just counted about 400 comp. groups
on *my* server,


Tim J. wrote:
Sorry to step on any toes here, but I see the discussion of
personal matters involving the roffian family (as dysfunctional
as it is) to be a very different than a political post. YMMV.

Wolfgang wrote:
Perhaps, but as you note, opinions do vary. Meanwhile, ANY
contribution to a political thread can be seen as a political
statement in its own right.....even one decrying political statements.
Moreover, "...this small vocal core of angry lefties" can hardly be
viewed as apolitical by any reasonable standard.


I'l take political posts over ad hominem attacks and ****ing contests any
day.

"Stan Gula" wrote in message
...
Heavy snippage:
Wolfgang wrote:
Perhaps, but as you note, opinions do vary. Meanwhile, ANY
contribution to a political thread can be seen as a political
statement in its own right.....even one decrying political statements.
Moreover, "...this small vocal core of angry lefties" can hardly be
viewed as apolitical by any reasonable standard.


I'l take political posts over ad hominem attacks and ****ing contests any
day.


If, for no other reason, that I can delete them without reading them and not
feel like I missed some really ripe personal insults and character attacks
that will make me spew all over my keyboard. You gotta admit (well, maybe
you don't) that those ad homina and ****ing contestium sure bring out the
best in folks. People take political posts way too seriously....like they
really believe there is a solution to things. ****ing contest, otoh, just
get ludicrous.

--riverman
(Meet the new bosss.....same as da old bosssss)

"Stan Gula" wrote in message
...
Heavy snippage:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:21:42 GMT, Frank Church wrote:

I just counted 86 alt.politics on my newsserver..


Greg Pavlov wrote:
Gee, Frank, I just counted about 400 comp. groups
on *my* server,


Tim J. wrote:
Sorry to step on any toes here, but I see the discussion of
personal matters involving the roffian family (as dysfunctional
as it is) to be a very different than a political post. YMMV.

Wolfgang wrote:
Perhaps, but as you note, opinions do vary. Meanwhile, ANY
contribution to a political thread can be seen as a political
statement in its own right.....even one decrying political
statements.
Moreover, "...this small vocal core of angry lefties" can hardly
be
viewed as apolitical by any reasonable standard.


I'l take political posts over ad hominem attacks and ****ing
contests any
day.

After some five years of participation in this forum, I am STILL
unclear about just who it is that forces people to read **** that they
don't want to.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

After some five years of participation in this forum, I am STILL
unclear about just who it is that forces people to read **** that they
don't want to.

Wolfgang

It's not necessarily the 'reading' as it is the 'posting', and it's obvious.
They read something, then think their own contributing post will somehow
'straighten everyone out', and they can strut off into the digital landscape
with spurs a-jingling, having made everything per-fect-ly clear.

--riverman
(and that's all there is to say about THAT, tyvm.)

"riverman" wrote in
:


"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

After some five years of participation in this forum, I am STILL
unclear about just who it is that forces people to read **** that
they don't want to.

Wolfgang

It's not necessarily the 'reading' as it is the 'posting', and it's
obvious. They read something, then think their own contributing post
will somehow 'straighten everyone out', and they can strut off into
the digital landscape with spurs a-jingling, having made everything
per-fect-ly clear.

--riverman
(and that's all there is to say about THAT, tyvm.)



Aaah--

I call that "third man in", and there's a reason why that'll get you kicked
off the field in most competitive sports.

Scott

Wolfgang wrote:


After some five years of participation in this forum, I am STILL
unclear about just who it is that forces people to read **** that they
don't want to.

Wolfgang


ok...ok..ok, dammit! i confess!! i confess!!... but you can't stop me.
you'll never be able to stop me.

jeff

Stan Gula:
I'l take political posts over ad hominem attacks and ****ing contests any
day.

They can all become boring and predictable. But that's what delete keys are
for. Censorship should remain a personal choice. No matter how much
someone's post may annoy me or offend me, there may remain the chance that
their next may amuse me or even result in a splork.

Having placed myself between the hammer and the anvil here on ROFF, I'd
still not change its lack of controls.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Darkstar

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

"slenon" wrote in message
. ..
Having placed myself between the hammer and the anvil here on ROFF, I'd
still not change its lack of controls.

--
Stev

Nor would I!

Op --****in' liberals, go figure?--