Chris,
It was not the concensus of those that started the NGs. If it was, why
can you not supply any Usenet versions of these do***ents? Actually
exactly
the opposite, Usenet do***ents explain quite extensively how they are free
and open without restriction and only moderated if the NG is a moderated
group.
No matter how hard you pine, the ARPAnet is not coming back. Join this
century sometime soon.
You're perfect proof of your last statement. The boorish part fits
nicely since you fail to acknowledge the right of unmoderated groups to
free and unrestricted dialogue without interference from others like
yourself who have silly simplistic issues with posting style rather than
content or ideas.
--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.
"Chris H" <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:9JlZEcKubJ7IFAES@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In message <wgYGk.4136$jf4.2643@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Brad Velander
> <bveland@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>Chuck,
>> Where is the relevance of your references? Who created and voted on
>>those references?
>
> It was the consensus of those who started the NG's Some 20 years ago.
>
>> Heaven forbid you would ever subscribe to some of the groups I
>> monitor,
>>horrors..., they post using unicode in foreign languages.
>
> If that is what the group agreed than that is fine.
>
> Every now and again we get people who join a particular NG and than want
> to ignore the conventions of that group. It is just plain rudeness.
>
> The trouble is when the4 net started there was an entry qualification*
nor
> they let in anyone and the level of discourse in some groups is akin to
a
> kindergarten.
>
>
> *At one time you had to be at least an under grad in a
> scientific/computing discipline or at a government (or other) research
> site to even know the Internet existed. Now any boorish idiot can get
on
> .
>
>
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>
>
>
|
