Text 29615, 117 rader
Skriven 2015-12-25 04:57:05 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 29554 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
Hello David,

This is interesting -

 >>> You are already breaking those rules so you obviously agree with me that
 >>> they really don't mean anything - and can safely be ignored just like
 >>> their poster

So far so good ...

 EC>> Your opinion that I am breaking some rule means nothing to me. If an
 EC>> echo moderator were to tell me that I am breaking a rule of their echo,
 EC>> or if a sysop were to tell me that I am breaking a rule of their
 EC>> system, or if an ISP were to tell me that I am breaking a rule in
 EC>> their terms of service, I would either change my behavior or I EC>would
 DD> change to another echo/BBS/ISP.

 DD> Why do "moderators" post the rules in the echoes? Is it not so that we can
 DD> read them and adjust our behaviour to suit without having to be told?

 DD> Are you really just a little child that must be told everything to do/not
 DD> do?

 DD> Read the rules posted in this echo - do you think we are abiding by all of
 DD> them?

 DD> The moderator has refrained (in most cases) of reminding us of our rule
 DD> infringements because we just continue to do it - and there is fuck all he
 DD> can do about it.

In answer to all these questions, and more, here are the rules
I posted for the CONSPRCY echo, which are the only rules that really
count for anything in fidonet -

From: Lee Lofaso
To: All
Date: 2013-05-03 14:32:00
Subject: Rules


Hello Everybody,

        Rules of the CONSPRCY echo
        --------------------------

Any student of CONSPRCY should already know the
Rules by heart.  There are two Rules of CONSPRCY.
They are:

1. There are no Rules.

2. See Rule number 1.

If anyone ever tells you that there is a certain
formula for CONSPRCY or a definite method of engaging
in CONSPRCY, then that person does *not* know about
CONSPRCY.  In that case, just assume that he/she/it
does not know what he/she/it is talking about.

Lee Lofaso
Moderator
CONSPRCY echo
2013-05-03

                   -=end quote=-

As I mentioned in an earlier post, moderators should
be regarded not as owners but rather like caretakers.

Have you ever known caretakers to be issuing rules
of any kind to anybody?  And if any such creatures
could be found, do you think anybody would bother
to listen?

I rest my case.

 EC>> Any reasonable person would do the same. Any REASONABLE person.

 DD> What do you reason this "reasonable person" to be? Someone who thinks like
 DD> YOU do - someone who has the same values YOU have?

Be careful.  I'm Cajun.  Nobody outside Cajun Louisiana shares
the same values I have.  Nobody.  :)

 DD> I think that you are quite unreasonable if you cannot reason that
moderators
 DD> are toothless paper tigers.

That's the whole point.  But some folks still don't get it.

 DD> Once more from the online dictionary:

 DD> Paper tiger noun
 DD> 1. a person or thing that appears threatening but is ineffectual.

George Plimpton was a Paper Lion.  I met him in person and got
to talk with him for a while.  Thanked him for autographing a book,
and got to see him get beaten up by a goalpost in a film.  That's
how he broke his nose.  Never did bother getting it fixed.

Okay.  How does a journalist get beaten up by a goalpost?

That's easy.  Try out to become quarterback of the Detroit Lions
football team, play in an actual football game, and get chased by
a beefy 450-pound lineman until you run right smack into your own
goalpost, headfirst, knocking yourself out in the process.

This was all caught on film.

I'm just glad that Plimpton never played college ball
for the LSU Fighting Tigers.  Death Valley would never
have been the same ...

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)