Dieter, at 19:57 on Fri, Sep 23 1994, you wrote to Bill Grimsley ...

BG> I hope you're voting in the negative, Dieter! 

DM> Nah, just to piss everyone off, I couldn't help but agree with 
DM> Trev. I'm voting the affirmative.

Well, 5 people did, but I'm sure none of them was you, Dieter.  ;-)

BG> if somebody doesn't want to read any of Rod's messages, they should 
BG> use their (N)ext key, or their twit filter.

DM> I wonder if it is not so much that, but the sheer volume that has to 
DM> be transported across country, and excessive requoting only clogs 
DM> things up further.

Does it matter?  If it wasn't Rod, it'd be somebody else.  Since when has
the amount of mail one posts become subject to scrutiny by anybody?  AFA
excessive quoting is concerned, there are plenty worse than Rod.

BG> I have a fair idea as to the identities of two of those involved 
BG> in instigating this appalling situation, and I won't be having 
BG> too much to do with arseholes like that in the future.  NFSE.

DM> Well, spill the beans... anyone around these parts....?

Well, it's only an educated guess, but judging by the messages posted in
Z3T regarding the non-topical nature of OS debates, my money's on both
Laurie Batt and Gabriel Lagos for starters.  There were 3 others, but I've
no idea who they might be (nor do I really give a toss).

DM> FWIW, I did vote negative.... I think.

I think I did too.  ;-)

DM> I asked Trev to receipt my message, so I can be sure taht he has 
DM> received it.

He acknowledged mine, and it seemed like a template reply, so presumably
everybody was receipted.  I found it rather interesting that votes in the
negative numbered 22, whilst only 5 people specifically voted for a ban on
Rod, especially as most people tend not to cast a vote if it's only to
retain the status quo (the biggest problem with non-compulsory voting IMO).

Nice to see that sanity prevailed though.

Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 2.3á