Too funny!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack D. Russell, Sr.
  • Start date Start date
There are laws that cover necessary important activities to ensure the
safety of all. Participating in a USENET NG is neither necessary or
important enough to need same. USENET posts flow more smoothly if group
conventions are met, ONLY for the participants that subscribe to said
conventions. There's hardly any consensus that following capricious
arbitrary conventions, setup by a few participants should be or are
binding on the vast majority of users. Following your conventions makes
participating in the group easier for you. It makes it harder for those
that don't subscribe to your conventions. Who is to say who is right and
who is wrong? Hundreds maybe even thousands of people use this group
daily, most invisible to the active participants. Who can say that the
majority wants this done this way or that way? A little tolerance can go
a long way, especially when it's such an easy exercise to accommodate
all of the different types of people that cross this group.

JMO :)





SB> Jack D. Russell, Sr. wrote:
SB>
SB> It's not *always* great to be different - conforming to a set of
SB> rules is sometimes helpful to all - automobile traffic flows more
SB> smoothly if everyone drives on the right or everyone drives on the
SB> left . . .
SB>
SB> In Usenet posts flow more smoothly if the conventions of a
SB> newsgroup are followed . . .
SB>
SB> JMO :)
SB>
SB> Susan
 
Hmmm...pot, kettle, black? Think about it.


T> And a good one. As opposed to "*I* prefer to do it this way" or
T> "This way is easier for *me.*"
T>
 
Thank you for your opinion and thanks for showing your intelligence
while expressing same. Have a good one.


DM>
DM> While you, in your top-posting way blithely display your total
DM> ignorance of or lack of regard for long-established conventions
DM> that have nothing whatever to with "opinion" but which exist, by
DM> common consent, to make it easier for the rest of the world to
DM> co-exist and ot communicate intelligibly. _That's_ why I have no
DM> further interest in continuing to try to read your ass-backwards,
DM> self-absorbed drivel. "Jack Russell", indeed; in name, at least,
DM> you risk insulting a highly intelligent breed.
DM> --
DM> HTH,
DM> Derald
 
Back
Top