Advice for sci.electronics.design

Most people have the ability to read threads, which is why I ignore you when you whine about how much gets quoted, but if posting things twice makes you happy, then I am happy for you.

I can add an onus if that's your objection. Here goes:

A statement of fact by a person who is in a position to know that fact needs no justification. If I say that you like to have have sex with sheep and you tell me that I am incorrect, you don't have to tell me why my assessment was incorrect - you just have to tell me that you don't like to have sex with sheep.

What you are missing (on purpose?) is that you are making claims about my internal mental state and then demanding that I explain why you are wrong. How would I know why you are wrong? I just know that you are, and that I am the only person who really knows what my own internal mental state is.

You are wrong. I have no interest in being able to control others. Why would I want to do a thing like that?

Why the quotation marks? Are you ignorant about how Usenet works?

In another (moderated) newsgroup. Why do you have your panties in a wad over what happens in another newsgroup? Do you have some sort of bizarre fantasy that this in some way has an affect on you even if you don't read or post there?

That's your opinion, but I disagree. I think my snippage is appropriate and that you are throwing in a red herring. The fact that your snippage is poorly done is evident; you usually don't snip at all and quote the entire post.

Same logical fallacy as before. A statement of fact by a person who is in a position to know told to a person who has no way of knowing needs no justification.

Liar. I have no desire to only allow on-topic posts in s.e.d, and I lack the ability to cause such a change even if your fantasies about my motives were true.

I deny that that's what you've advocated time and time again. Feel free to post a message-ID of me saying that I want only on-topic posts

Nice shift there. You went from "only allow on-topic posts" to "change sed." This is an ongoing pattern for you; you consistently confuse someone asking for something to happen with someone forcing something to happen.

And you can't tell the difference between someone finding your actions offensive and wishing to outlaw them?

Bullshit. Please explain *IN DETAIL* how anyone can possibly in any way limit anything you do if you choose to not post to post to moderated newsgroups.

I can't help what things sound like to you. You are biased.

OOOH!! A SPELLING FLAME! I AM *SOOO* IMPRESSED!!!!

Should I point out your misspelling of "infinitesimal" above?

This is great. You are lecturing Rich the Dreaded Libertarian on free markets. You might as well tell Win how to write or tell Genome how to be an asswipe.

Count me in.

Or is that out?

As Yogi said, Include me out.

John

I think we all share that sentiment.

John

For a group to pass, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO) votes. There must also be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.

There were 129 YES votes and 16 NO votes for a moderated m.b.p-d, for a total of 145 valid votes. Those same 129 YES votes and 16 NO votes were for/against the moderator sucession system that has been in place since the begining of Usenet. There was 1 abstention and 3 invalid ballots. All has been done strictly according to the rules of Big-8 newsgroup creation.

You can compare this with the creation of sci.electronics.design; There were 169 YES votes and 35 NO votes, for a total of 204 valid votes. There were 2 invalid ballots. (Abstentions are not counted in multi-group votes.)

You might also be interested in this:

CHARTER: sci.electronics.design Discussions relevant to the design of electronics circuits.

And these:

....the perceived unfriendliness of the group acts as an inhibition to free discussions....

....The design group is for persons combining components into circuits. Discussion on design solutions and techniques.

That's right, one hundred and sixty-nine people voted for the above sci.electronics.design charter -- the one you are flaming me for requesting that you follow. I count five of you flamers.

You appear to be uninterested in what I say my motivations are, and I am certainly uninterested in what you say my motivations are, so I suppose I should just allow you to write about what interests you without bothering to make comments that you will reject out of hand.

To expand on the above, it wouldn't be isolated from off-topic material to any sci.electronics.design reader, because you and others would be free to reply to sci.electronics.design alone with any sort of off-topic material you choose, as you have already been doing. It would only be isolated from off-topic material to those reading it in misc.business.product-dev, where any off-topic posts would be rejected. It would even allow you the choice (which you may, of course choose to ignore) to have any on-topic posts you might wish to write be seen in both groups. That's because you choose where your posts go.

My "Modest Proposal" would give the reader of a selected thread a choice that he does not have now, without in any way limiting the choices of you or anyone else who is willing to take responsibility for where his posts go. For those who let others control where they post and then whine about it the consequences of thier bad decisions I have little sympathy.

I love you too. **GROUP HUG**

Hmm... That might actually be fun to watch.

Bob

El Camino Community College in SoCal for one. I thought it was a hell of a good idea.

Bob

That's how Boston placed their streets, over the cow paths ;-)

...Jim Thompson

The modern equivalent would be to let drivers go wherever they wanted, over lawns, etc., and then sum it up and build the roads where the drivers preferred to go. Probably there wouldn't be any stop lights, etc. I can see it now...

I believe the first time I heard of this was the (re?)building of Offutt AFB by General LeMay.

Jim