Re: Screw VGAplanets AND MoO

From: jwood@teleport.com (Bret and Jill Wood)

Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 00:00:00 +0000

In article <4oancl$17q@samba.rahul.net>, Mythar  <fist@rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <4o9j1o$ah5@julie.teleport.com>,
>Bret and Jill Wood <jwood@teleport.com> wrote:
>>
>>Are you claiming that a VGAP post to rec.sport.college.football would be
>>on-topic because VGAP is a recreational activity?  Please learn to think
>>before you type
>
>wow. this is really good bait. i'm thinking that i never made any such
>claim even resembling the above, and that you just pulled it out of a
>hat, like you did with that rights crap.

This is the original post I was responding to.......

*In article <31A79A3E.3FAB@ix.netcom.com>,
*Chad Siek  <siekster@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
*>
*>       VGA Planets belongs in a recreational group, it is a form of
*>recreation.  If you resort to posting your little complaints on our
*>Newsgroup then who are you to talk?

>do you have ANY CLEAR ARGUMENTS as to why VGAP, a pbm game, can not be
>discussed in the ___pbm___ rec group?

No.  In fact, I have said that some VGAP posts are on topic for r.g.pbm.

I guess the main problem is that I'm disagreeing with some comments which
were made which actually have little bearing to the posts which started
this whole problem....  How about if I just say that I agree that r.g.pbm
is an appropriate place from some VGAP stuff, yet I don't believe that
ANY of the actual VGAP related posts on that group lately have been
appropriate.

Since the vast majority of VGAP posts made to r.g.pbm and c.g.c.s have
been trolls and flames, it shows that a.g.vgap is sufficient for the real
discussion of VGAP.  And, since these cgcs and rgpbm posts have merely
severed as annoyances, rather than as real attempts to discuss the game,
it would probably be prudent for all VGAP posts to stick to a.g.vgap
until such time as someone has a good reason to post to another one of
these groups.

Considering that I'm just a loudmouthed person who has no more authority
on the net than any other loudmouthed person, if anyone still thinks
that my position is unreasonable, it would probably be better to discuss
it in email.

>>Is that PC enough?
>
>heh. you're trying to be anti-PC against a person, against an argmuent,
>that isn't even PC. i'm just trying to make a little sense. are you?

It's called sarcasm....

-Bret Wood
-jwood@teleport.com

References

Re: Screw VGAplanets AND MoO
Mythar <fist@rahul.net>
Sun, 26 May 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Screw VGAplanets AND MoO
jwood@teleport.com (Bret and Jill Wood)
Sun, 26 May 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Screw VGAplanets AND MoO
Mythar <fist@rahul.net>
Sun, 26 May 1996 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Screw VGAplanets AND MoO
Mythar <fist@rahul.net>
Sun, 26 May 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Screw VGAplanets AND MoO
jwood@teleport.com (Bret and Jill Wood)
Sun, 26 May 1996 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Screw VGAplanets AND MoO
Mythar <fist@rahul.net>
Sun, 26 May 1996 00:00:00 +0000