Alternate discussion groups

Matt Clara wrote:

This is pointedly opposed to
Steve's primary adversary, JJS, who does offer useful info on the group,
practically on a daily basis.


Stafford's an idiot...

On 12/9/2004 7:23 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:

In article , "jjs"
wrote:

[...] I try to point
out to Steve why he infuriates LOTS of people here yet he continues to
blame others for the problems he creates.

After all the information he's received in this matter, and knowing he is
not stupid then all I can conclude is that Simmons is an amoral sociopath.

Why don't you give up on fixing the problem then and ask Supernews to
filter him out? One of the admins there is a former and perhaps future
photographer.

If you've asked already and found that you didn't get anywhere there, I
suspect you might save your fingers in the future.

Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you seriously
suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one of
Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to change their
habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to suggest preemptive
censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is applied to.

If you were just being amusing or ironic, then excuse my unhipness.


--
Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/9/2004 7:23 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:

In article , "jjs"
wrote:

[...] I try to point
out to Steve why he infuriates LOTS of people here yet he continues to
blame others for the problems he creates.

After all the information he's received in this matter, and knowing he is
not stupid then all I can conclude is that Simmons is an amoral sociopath.

Why don't you give up on fixing the problem then and ask Supernews to
filter him out? One of the admins there is a former and perhaps future
photographer.

If you've asked already and found that you didn't get anywhere there, I
suspect you might save your fingers in the future.

Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you seriously
suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one of
Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to change their
habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to suggest preemptive
censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is applied to.

If you were just being amusing or ironic, then excuse my unhipness.


If your usenet manners only matched your admirable usenet
viewpoint, David.

Rebecca is pointing out this claim about "usenet culture"
is bogus nonsense. If they don't filter out Stafford, you,
or anyone else, you guys should quit acting like you own
the merry-go-round ;-)

On 12/10/2004 4:47 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/9/2004 7:23 PM Rebecca Ore spake thus:

In article , "jjs"
wrote:

[...] I try to point
out to Steve why he infuriates LOTS of people here yet he continues to
blame others for the problems he creates.

After all the information he's received in this matter, and knowing he is
not stupid then all I can conclude is that Simmons is an amoral sociopath.

Why don't you give up on fixing the problem then and ask Supernews to
filter him out? One of the admins there is a former and perhaps future
photographer.

If you've asked already and found that you didn't get anywhere there, I
suspect you might save your fingers in the future.

Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you seriously
suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).

Still don't understand what you're suggesting; what do you mean by "his
admin"? Do you mean someone at my [yours, anyone else's] ISP? And who or what
is Supernews and what does that have to do with me?

If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one of
Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to change their
habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to suggest preemptive
censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.

Exactly [part of] the point I was trying to make.

Maybe folks just need to take a chill pill from time to time and learn which
posts to ignore. Don't need no killfile. Read what you want, don't read the rest.


--
Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom.

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,


Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).


But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)




If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one of
Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to change
their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to suggest
preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.


I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
here? Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
he is. I can't in good conscious send someone like him my money!

--

Stacey

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,


Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).


But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)




If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one of
Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to change
their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to suggest
preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.


I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
here? Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
he is. I can't in good conscious send someone like him my money!

--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,


Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).


But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...



If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one of
Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to change
their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to suggest
preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.

I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
here?

The only people I see complaining are you, stafford, and David,
and clearly stafford could benefit knowledge-wise from View
Camera, since he doesn't even know the difference between
perspective and view camera movements.

Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
he is.

If so, he's not the only one. His critics easily surpass him
in their petty, insignificant self importance on USENET...

Stacey wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,


Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).


But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...



If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one of
Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to change
their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to suggest
preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.

I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
here?

The only people I see complaining are you, stafford, and David,
and clearly stafford could benefit knowledge-wise from View
Camera, since he doesn't even know the difference between
perspective and view camera movements.

Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
he is.

If so, he's not the only one. His critics easily surpass him
in their petty, insignificant self importance on USENET...

"Stacey" wrote in message
...

But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)

Of course. Actions are what determine outcomes, not general attributions. A
total kook can post, but if he spams, he's in the wrong.

Sometimes I wonder if some people are particularly susceptible to a common
darkroom chemical. There's another famous zone photographer/manufacturer who
was just crazy-angry out of control.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...

But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)

Of course. Actions are what determine outcomes, not general attributions. A
total kook can post, but if he spams, he's in the wrong.

Sometimes I wonder if some people are particularly susceptible to a common
darkroom chemical. There's another famous zone photographer/manufacturer who
was just crazy-angry out of control.