Paul H. Merrill paulmerrill at acm.org
Sat Sep 26 14:03:48 PDT 1998



Anonymous wrote:
> 
> Paul H. Merrill wrote:
> 
> > <<Heavily snipped to allow for those who don't like it otherwise.>>
> 
> Yeah, if you quote back over a hundred lines after adding 6, 8, or
> whatever it happened to be.
> 
Comment on this comes later.

> > > About a week ago somebody posted a copy or parts of most AOL
> > > postings which were sent here in the last months. Merrill ignores the part
> > > about how the posts were classified
> >
> > I read his classification criteria closely, and read the results of the
> > classification process.
> > > and sends back some vague flame accusing
> > > the author of classing posts he disagreed with as "clueless" then he quotes
> > > the entire thing back to the list.
> > >
> > Then commented that he had not followed his own criteria.
> 
> And where did he not? A few could be debated. The rest were either written
> so badly that they were incomprehensible, were off-topic, or didn't
> include quoted material in a reply/followup. He also stated that he was
> counting postings which used that '<< >>' scheme as automatically bad,
> which is understandable. Either way, he seemed to be trying to show the
> statistics. Pull one or two postings off of one side and put them on the
> other and the statistics are still pretty bad for AOL.
>
1.  There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. 
2.  So if the quoted material is included it's bad and if it is not
included it's bad. I think I see the general idea.  Use the rules
appropriate for complaining about whoever you want to complain about.
3.  And what I said was along the lines of most were justified, but some
showed his lack of clues.  Merely being incomprehensible to a person
means little if the person is a little clue-shy.  Badly written is a bad
thing.

> > > I don't know which is worse. At least the people flaming the AOL wimps are
> > > funny.
> >
> > If funny is all you want, may I recommend rec.humor.funny and, in case
> > you are up on no current events but Clinton, rec.humor.funny.reruns.
> 
> No, I want a Cypherpunks list which discusses political issues,
> cryptography, and things related to that. Since this is the Cypherpunks
> list, we aren't going to censor on the basis of content or origin point.
>
And the general degradation of our society to the level that taking the
moral ground is something to be ridiculed is not a political issue?
 
> If all you want to do is defend AOL and their ilk, may I recommend
> comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and alt.aol-sucks.
> 
I'll pass, thanks anyway.

> > And to the brilliant person seeking muff diving pics, gee send a real
> > address and we'll see what we can do.  (At least he didn't want it for
> > pre-muff variety.)
> 
> Muff diving pics? Do we want to know? Serious questions.

That comment was in reference to two private (and anonymous)posts
purporting to be AOL weenies seeking such things.






More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list