Re: Flaming

[as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)]

In <9210191912.AA05602@fraser.sfu.ca> fmcquarr@sfu.ca writes:

>I'm really disgusted by the reactions to Ben's suggestion regarding the
>"appropriateness" of certain messages. For God's sake, he wasn't saying
>that Kate ranked just below Paula Abdul on the talent scale, or that
>r.m.g. should organize a public lynching of Tori Amos, or that certain
>r.m.g. members had mothers who wore army boots.

*** Still pretty rude, though.  "Appropriate" is a much stronger word than,
say, "inconvenient" or "out of place".

>I find it extremely ironic that many of the messages flaming Ben for
>making an not unreasonable suggestion (that the material on here be
>primarily about rm.g.'s main focus) called him "intolerant". People
>in glass houses, etc., etc.

*** Must a newsgroup necessarily have a "main focus"?  Or can it have foci? 
My impression of r.m.g. has been, until now, that the group was for Kate and
Katelike artists.  I didn't know that there was a Gaffa Constitution that
established One Artist and One Artist Only.
By the way, I'll freely admit that I'm intolerant--of intolerant
people!

>Someone suggesting a particular "direction" for r.m.g. material is not
>a traitor, or a secret Motorhead fan, or an idiot. Lighten up, everyone!

*** But "suggesting a particular 'direction'" is not what he did.  He called
for a consensual ban on info regarding non-Kate artists being posted in
r.m.g.  The majority of followup postings seems to indicate that he is in
the minority.  End of Story.  There shalt be no ban.

>P.S. I actually do like Paula Abdul and Motorhead too.

*** My deepest sympathies.  I believe there's a 12-Step program for that
sort of thing.

--Andrew D. Simchik
I don't speak for the U of R, or in fact anyone other than myself.