Salutatio Rev_Null!
10-Apr-98, Rev_Null wrote to Richard Meic
          Subject: !!!
 R> Hello Dick.
 R>>> As you may have deduced from my (somewhat) quick response to the
 R>>> Southern Star Echolist Expiration Warning Robot, I am indeed
 R>>> paying attention to this echo
 RM>> ... And anyone who would like to check into it could figger out
 RM>> that ALL you need to do is pay attention ONCE every six months
 RM>> for the echolist warning, send your reply (couse you KNOW exactly
 RM>> when that has to be done), BINGO it LOOKS like your paying
 RM>> attention.
 RM>> BTW, the next warning is due october first, after 30 days of no
 RM>> update you loose the echo.  See, were are not so naive or stupid,
 RM>> Scott.  You have proved nothing.
 R> Well, Dick, I wasn't really trying to prove anything.  You seem to
 R> be implying that the purpose of my message was to deceive people
 R> into thinking that I've been paying attention and that I really
 R> haven't been.  Are you indeed making this claim
As I see it there is a 50/50 chance that either you are paying attention to
the echo or that you are not.  I am pointing out the just as equal
possibility that you are not.  I also base this on the messages I sent you
over a month ago on this echo (that seem to be the only ones that "must
have got lost", as you so quaintly put it).
 R> Oh, by the way, if I had known the date of the echolist expiration,
 R> I would have sent in an update before the warning message was
 R> posted.
There is no guarantee of the accuracy of this "hypothesis".  You and I
both know how the echolist works, Scott and it has been exactly 6
month since the last time you came on (let me see,... was the topic about
the "echo expiration", perhaps?).  Every six months you come back,
update the echolist before you lose the echo, and mention publicly
that you did so,... no one here sees you here at any other time.
 R> A proof of this claim is omitted
Meaning?
 R>>> If you don't like the fact that certain asses are spewing their
 R>>> vomitous goo in this echo, then you are encouraged to [1] educate
 R>>> the asses in question, or [2] ignore the asses in question.  You
 R>>> are also free to follow any other path that does not violate Rule
 R>>> Zero
 RM>> Define philosophy.  As it is you can ban anyone anytime as you
 RM>> please and some how interpret it as a violation of rule 0.  Paper
 RM>> tiger, that all. Remindes me of the UN.
 R> The love of wisdom.
Define wisdom.
 R> Yes, indeed I could use my feed cut power in an arbitrary manner. I
 R> don't see what your point is, though. 
   
My point is that your "rule 0" does nothing without any indication of
exactly how you define "philosophy"... except maybe to give you QUITE a
bit of "fudge room" should you decide to remove someone (though, I do
doubt you WOULD do anything like that).
 R>I also don't get the UN analogy.
Paper tiger.
 Dicere...
 email address (vrmeic@nucleus.com)
Richard Meic
--- Terminate 5.00/Pro 
---------------