( singles group removed )
Uncle Davey wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Carson West" <carson.west@coxspambox.net>
> napisal w wiadomosci news:opyqe.515$fV.214@okepread06...
>> Uncle Davey wrote:
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> >> Why do you feel the need to do that--to force
>> >> another to unwillingly participate in cross-posting?
>> >> Explain why you put it back in.
>> >
>> > I am not taking away your right to take them out if you
>> > want to, in the same way as I can put them back in, if
>> > I want to. Each has his liberty. I am not questioning
>> > your liberty, so please don't question mine.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question. *Why* do you put them in?
>> *Why* do you engage in this sort of behavior? *Why* must
>> *others* be forced to play along in this way and, now that
>> you mention it, *why* must *your* "liberties" transcend
>> those of other participants in newsgroups?
>
> That's what crossposting is for, Carson, and that's why it's
> been designed into Usenet.
Try not to lecture those who know more about the subject than you about the
purpose. Crossposting does not exist for the purpose of Usenet addicts
such as yourself to engage in whimsical and purposeless posting. It exists
so that related groups can receive related information generally considered
of interest and topical to the group discussion subject. Usenet has a
number of "rules," both written and unwritten, that address the subject,
and as difficult to impossible as it can be to enforce those rules, they
still exist.
> Other types of discussion board don't have it.
>
> If you don't like people using enpassant and castling, play
> checkers not chess, and if you don't like people crossposting,
> use phpBB, not usenet.
I never said I didn't like crossposting. There are times when it is
appropriate and times when it is not.
> When someone castles on the queen's side in a game of chess
> with you, do you whinge at them about why they engage in that
> sort of behaviour?
No, but then, that's not quite the same thing.
Now that I've dealt with your responses, let's look again at what I wrote:
>> You didn't answer the question. *Why* do you put them in?
>> *Why* do you engage in this sort of behavior? *Why* must
>> *others* be forced to play along in this way and, now that
>> you mention it, *why* must *your* "liberties" transcend
>> those of other participants in newsgroups?
You didn't answer *any* of those questions. Why is that?
[Snip]
>> Or, at least a little, like Martin Luther King in parts
>> of the American deep south in the 1960s?
>>
>> Do you suppose that there would even be a need for "Gay
>> Pride" marches if they didn't feel put-upon an repressed
>> as a group?
>
> Nobody is stopping them doing whatever they like in private.
> As long as they don't involve minors, relatives, corpses and
> other species.
As a rule, homosexual behavior doesn't involve those things, as was
explained the *last* time you tried to associate it with incest, child
molestation, and necrophilia; and you didn't answer the question.
[Snip]
>> Isn't it a good thing that your church has more important
>> things to do than engage in overt bigotry?
>
> Well here we are. It's next Saturday, We're about to leave
> for the wedding, and ask we speak there is a clash of
> right-wing catholics and homosexual protesters in front of
> the parliament building.
>
> http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,53600,2761884.html
>
> In other news, Lech Kaczynski, who outlawed the march, is running
> for president and in the latest poll with 25% is the strongest
> of the dozen or so candidates.
>
> The more the gays do today to protest their cause, the more
> certain they can be that their nemesis will not just be mayor
> of the capital, but president of the country.
That bigots engage in backlash is not something that would surprise anyone.
Those kinds of things went on in the American south after the Civil War,
too, and continued unabated well into the 20th Century. You simply
continue to try to justify bigotry.
[Snip]
>> By the way, I notice that we're suddenly *not* cross-posting.
>> I wonder why...
>
> Probably because you stripped them out.
But then you put them back. Why?
> You're the one that keeps stripping the crossposts, I don't.
Yes, unrelated groups don't need to be pestered with this kind of thing.
People don't read singles groups to read your self-hating homophobia or my
rebuttals to your religious and non-religious comments. So I'll ask again:
Why do you do that?
> I've put them in AGAIN, and no doubt you'll take them out
> again, and blame me for them not being there again.
I didn't blame you for them not being there AGAIN, so save the petulant
child act for someone who will be impressed. I'm simply trying to
determine if there's a pattern to this adding of groups or if it's some
neurotic, random need for attention.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 |
|