1  ...  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index

Feb 8, 2001, 10:31pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] What do you think laws govern? Break the law and you are performing
antisocial behavior. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be a law governing
it...Sometimes it's called disturbing the peace, sometimes it's called other
things.

Holistic1


>
> --
> Wing
> This little spot is dedicated to my girl, Jessie.
> She paints her nails, and she dont know, he's got her best friend on the
> phone,
> She'll wash her hair, his dirty clothes, for all he gives to her. And he's
> got posters on the wall
> Of all the girls he wish she was, and he means everything to her. Her
> boyfriend, he dont know,
> Anything, about her... She's just the flavor of the week.
> AW Citizen 305004 "Wing"
> bathgate at prodigy.net
> eyemwing at teleport.com
> ICQ #101207433

Feb 8, 2001, 10:41pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Uh, since when is antisocial behavior illegal? Stop smoking crack, Holistic.

>
> "typica" ? what the hell is that eep. If you can't spell don't post newbe.

"newbe"

>
> Where does it say that you have the "right" to the newsgroups eep. Show us or shut up.

Uh, only AW citizens can post in AW newsgroups, zippy. Think about it.

>
> Don't give yourself so much credit eep... Most of the time you're not worth responding to.

Then don't respond--it's that simple.

>
> Incompetence is relative. Move on.

AWCI are relatively incompetent.

>
> Eep, gads you're slow... AWCI isn't any of those things..

Well, they are relatively. Regardless, YOU are slow if you can't see the irony in what you said. I am not a criminal, a bully, or whatever else Moria has likened me too...absolutely anyway. You getting it yet, zippy?

> They are the owners of a business..How they run that business is their concern not your... Unless, of course you own stock in AWLD... Do you? I thought not.. Next...

Why would I own stock in a company that can barely run itself? Seen AWLD stock price recently?

>
> Yeah, right. No eep, you come here to get your rocks off trying to belittle others. I have been looking at the last months posts from you and guess what. Not a one is aimed at answering a question in a decent manner. Not one is an inquiry as in asking a question. Except ofcourse for the flames shot at other people or AW. twit.
>
>
> You are correct here eep. Not everyone needs to listen to your rants either. But, that is the only gratification you get, so I guess we (the poor pathetic vast majority of "civilized" posters) will have to get along without you.. Now you get over it.

<shrug> You obviously haven't learned how to use your newsreader's filtering capabilities. However, I have. Buh-bye now.

Feb 8, 2001, 10:46pm

I'm sure more then half of aw citizens use aw because they are anti-social.

pure anti-social behavior isn't illegal, it may be an illness, but not
illegal


-Myrth

Feb 8, 2001, 10:57pm

[View Quote] [View Quote] Duh, eep.. what do you think they made laws for...Next.

> shrug>
>
> "newbe"
>
>
> Uh, only AW citizens can post in AW newsgroups, zippy. Think about it.

Yeah "zippy", think about it.. god you're slower then I thought. It's not a 'right'. It's a privilege. But you know that don't you, because if you were correct, you would show me chapter and verse.. pass through twit.

>
> AWCI are relatively incompetent.
>
>
> Well, they are relatively. Regardless, YOU are slow if you can't see the irony in what you said. I am not a criminal, a bully, or whatever else Moria has likened me too...absolutely anyway. You getting it yet, zippy?

>
> Why would I own stock in a company that can barely run itself? Seen AWLD stock price recently?


>
> <shrug> You obviously haven't learned how to use your newsreader's filtering capabilities. However, I have. Buh-bye now.

"Buh-bye"? LOL... pathetic

Just as I thought when your proven wrong, you hide... Oh well.

Feb 8, 2001, 11:02pm

[View Quote] > Greets eep:)
>
> Ive cut out all the bits you didnt reply to, am trying to get these posts
> back to a manageable size:)

OH BOY OH BOY YIPPY SKIPPY!

Now increase your line length so your quoted text doesn't get all screwed up:

> whether I
> who is
> acts,
> not
> withdrawal of
> located and of which I am a citizen.
>
> Racism and biggotism is not a criminal offence in the USA? you do surprise
> me:) Is it a civil offence then??

Racism in extreme cases; biggotry I've never heard of being illegal. Anything can be a civil offense. Boo. Don't be offended.

> continue.
> goes
> giving me the typica AWCI brushoff... <shrug>
>
> Hey I am not saying you were right or Facter was right, what I am saying is
> that whatever you felt, you could have done it without degenerating to
> flames and name calling.. you could have discussed. If you took the
> blinkers off, and stopped assuming that everyone who is connected with AW or
> has been is out to get you, then that paranoid resort to flaming may take a
> little more to ignite:)

Facter (and you) assume I am that paranoid, but I'm not. <shrug> Perhaps you (AWCI) are doing things that WOULD make us (the users) paranoid?

> ago
> wont
> removed,
>
> correction noted, thank you:)
>
> citizen and citizens have the RIGHT to post in these newsgroups--PERIOD) IS
> banning me from posting. Duh.
>
> No citizens have the privilege (see I learned) to post here, the AW pages
> say that to post to these newsgroups you must be a citizen.. it doesnt say
> that every citizen has the right to post to them. For someone as keen on
> semantics as you, I would have thought you would have picked up on that
> one:)

Uh, and where does it say that citizens DON'T have a right to post here, Moria? Gee, I would've thought you'd've picked up on that one...guess not.

> post. If anything, it's about self-esteem. Many people I flame have it
> coming, which is why they eventually shut up and move on.
>
> This is where we primarily disagree:)) You believe (I think) that its up
> to peoples own self esteem as to whether they post or not, please correct me
> if I am wrong, whereas I say I agree with that in principle, but I don't
> believe anyone has the right to belittle that self esteem deliberately by
> using offensive language and deliberate belittling remarks:)

Believe what you want (I don't give 2 shits and a piss). If people don't post because they're "afraid" of my response, too fucking bad. Life's tough; get a fucking helmet. Perhaps evolution has other plans for such people...

> on-topic. A LOT of idiots I flame are because they post off-topic or act
> incompetent. Don't act like a twit and I won't flame you; act like a twit
> and I WILL flame you--it's that simple. Don't like it? Filter me. It's still
> that simple.
>
> Hey don't get me wrong, I agree that staying on topic, and acting
> incompetent is annoying, but why flame, why not ignore?

Because I CAN, Moria, and I have a high enough self-esteem to. Gee, why post off-topic in the first place? Why not stay on-topic? Wee...

> Theres flame and flame, and usually the person who flames first is flaming
> because they have no rational ability to discuss, which I know is not true
> in your case:)

Then what is your point in arguing against my flaming? <blink> Note, that's a rhetorical question.

> me, when I've read numerous discussions about how it was actually AWCI's
> ineptness in dealing with AW's users that caused people to leave. Might want
> to get your facts straight, Moria.
>
> Don't worry eep, all my facts are straight:)

A bent mind has no straight facts.

> It's just in my case they are not always remembered in a way to back up my own argument:))

uh huh

> Theres at least one other poster here from that period whos mentioned it
> too,

Facter doesn't count.

> and along with another reason which was moderation of the newsgroup,
> and we all know why it had to be moderated don't we:)) In fact, this is
> very similar to what happened then:))

Yea, it went to shit and hardly anyone posted.

> say,
> think
> That
> you've heard of before: AWCI is Big Brother. AWCI is a dictator.
>
> Yep good analogies, have no problem with those :))
>
> simply because of how *I* post, then their self-esteems are so low their
> posts probably wouldn't have much useful content anyway.
>
> Thats a huge generalisation and its your opinion.. nothing wrong with that,
> but in that case, if you dont want to hear them because they are beneath you
> in your opinion filter them, dont insult them. Posting a flame doesnt
> increase your self esteem (I hope) all it does is bully the person, hence
> my analogy.

It hopefully bullies the idiot into not doing it in the future, which is the POINT of my flame in the first place. Duh.

> go somewhere else. I didn't come to these newsgroups for lessons in social
> etiquette but to get information and to discuss AW issues.
>
> Discuss and flame are two mutually exclusive options. By all means discuss,
> just dont assume that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Ah but they ARE wrong, relative to me. Wee...

> They may be
> wrong in your opinion, but your opinion is all you can give, you can't
> enforce your opinion on others, certainly not by flaming them, if you do
> its you who appears weak, to me at any rate:)

<shrug> your opinion

> support and/or acceptance. Not everyone has such a low self-esteem. Not
> everyone needs such external gratification. In short, Moria, Facter, and
> anyone else, not everyone is like you. Now get over it.
>
> I have nothing to get over, I am just stating my opinion, and it is a
> personal opinion, no need to bring Facter back into this:)
>
> I believe, and I said it in the post before you could be very good for AW,
> you have some good points and great ideas, but your manner of approach will
> negate all of the good and drive it underground and people onto the
> defensive.

Blah blah blah, yea, yea, heard/read it all before, but it's just not true. <shrug>

> You didnt come here for social ettiquette, I agree, it would be presumptious
> of me to try and teach it to you.. you have to live with what youve got,
> but don't blame others if thats lacking:)) Live with it and get over it:)))

I think I'll just filter YOU instead since you obviously can't stop abusing smileys or know when to shut up. Buh-bye now, twit.

Feb 8, 2001, 11:05pm

More than half. I know I do, even though in some way it's helped improve on
my situation (Met a nice local girl on AW and it's turned into a nice little
relationship). And if anti social behavior were illegal in itself, I'd have
a life sentence.

--
Wing
This little spot is dedicated to my girl, Jessie.
She paints her nails, and she dont know, he's got her best friend on the
phone,
She'll wash her hair, his dirty clothes, for all he gives to her. And he's
got posters on the wall
Of all the girls he wish she was, and he means everything to her. Her
boyfriend, he dont know,
Anything, about her... She's just the flavor of the week.
AW Citizen 305004 "Wing"
bathgate at prodigy.net
eyemwing at teleport.com
ICQ #101207433
[View Quote]

Feb 8, 2001, 11:07pm

Greets eep:)
>
> Shah, you want greets but are in the process of getting me banned from the
newsgroups? Give me a fucking break, Moria.
>

Have I voted?? I think not:) I have actually posted I think you have some
deserving comments to make and should make them properly:) I may vote, I
may not, I see some interesting names on the voting list that have suddenly
reappeared. Quite a coincidence that may tip me one way or the other:))


them
As
say
say
should
them.
any
>
> You need to look up the word "censor" in the dictionary, Moria. I'm not
censoring at all. Just because my skin may be thicker than most people's
hardly constitutes me as censoring others simply because I can take more
abuse. You have a distorted view of censorship if you believe that.

I have looked it up and thats why I say monitoring is censorship, banning
is removal of privs.

I didnt say you were censoring because you could take more abuse, I said you
were, in my opinion, censoring people by intimidation, thats a very
different thing.

Using the excuse its censorship is really a weak one, when its a guaranteed
mustnt use word, trouble is so much gets linked into censorship that isnt,
like this case:)

ignore
as
>
> Then what's the problem? Some people deal with people they don't like by
ignoring them, others filter, I reply with attacks. So the fuck what. Be
glad I'm not hunting you all down and killing you...

who cares if you are? certainly not me:) but why would you want to,
because they disagree with you??


statement
doing:)
you,
>
> Uh, you must not read my posts very carefully or you would see that, at
times between the insults, I am trying to understand the person I'm
insulting.

You disguise it very very well:)

> With Facter, for example, I gave him numerous chances to simply explain
why the newsgroups were truly taken down. He didn't catch on. Only after
continually insulting him and dragging it out into this long thread did the
reason finally come out of his stubborn ass--and it's still kind of vague,
but enough to shut me up about bugging him about it. But, no, he wanted to
play the runaround game instead and now get ME banned from the newsgroups
because of HIS incompetence--that's rich.

Again your view, perhaps not everyone agrees with you, there was certainly
no need to start name calling, unless that was the only option, which it
wasnt. If you put people on the defensive its always harder to get them to
talk. The relative value of incompetance is very subjective at any time.

>
box
up
your
>
> If asking for a SIMPLE explanation about something is asking to be
worshipped, you have another severe distorted understanding, Moria.
>

I lost the relevance for this part, we went from boxes back to Facter again
and introduced the idea of worship, who was worshiping who and why?


here,
wouldnt
>
> GEE YOU'RE QUICK SPORT. This doesn't even deserve any more of a response
from me.

Good so we agree, the community lives on:)

>
the
pathetic.
to
>
> Then AWCI could simply filter me in THEIR newsreaders. But, no, instead
they would rather simply not deal with their users (I'm hardly the only one
who complains about AWCI's ineptness--it's being exampled right now from you
and Facter).

nope you're assuming again and your facts are wrong again:) Maybe they cant
deal with you, maybe they dont want to, but you shouldnt assume its others
as well as you. And just as an aside, I'm not AWCI so you dont get any
bonus points for attacking me, its not relevant to AWCI whether you do or
not:)

it..
be
>
> I attack those who don't add to the community in any meaningful way to me.
<shrug>

then ignore them, perhaps they are more relevant to others than you are, its
not your decision who says what, thats censorship, remember??


playground
>
> And your abuse of smileys? Wee...

Yeah I know, I am registered with the smiley abuse society. :)))


Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 11:09pm

Ah, gotta love Eep. I gotta say, even though eep might flame everyone, who
cares, I get a kick outta reading it. The best is when he argues the topic
and proves everything wrong. It's to great..you can't ban eep, hes like that
person that everyone loves and hates at the same time! He even won a CY
Award for it! Geezuz.

--
-Xero

Feb 8, 2001, 11:12pm

Greets:)

Websters dictionary

3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically
rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or
treatment <racial discrimination>

> Uh, I SERIOUSLY doubt that. Show me proof.
>
> If someone is going to attempt to use a language they don't know very well
to communicate with, the had better learn it better.

There is no requirement for them to learn it better, not even to avoid you
insulting them because of your prejudicial treatment of their use of
language.

>The people I usually insult (and usually after they have insulted me)
because of this is VERY few. You're just trying to find more reasons to ban
me.

Nope not voted yet as I said elsewhere, dont assume:)

Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 11:14pm

Greets:)


> JP nor Rick will even bother to answer a single telegram or email unless
it
> has the words "money" in the subject line, or if it's from someone who
gets
> an AWCI pay check. It's there company and if they want it to go down the
> shit hole like Worlds Inc. did, then be my guest and do so at your own
free
> will. I am just warning you.
>

actually, just for the record, Worlds inc went down the tubes because it
ran out of money, so youve got a bit of a self defeating argument there:)

Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 11:15pm

[View Quote] > censorship - n. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
> censor - v. To examine and expurgate.
> expurgate - v. To remove material that is perceived as erroneous,
> vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable. (from a book, for example)
>
> Now explain to me how this does NOT apply to Eep's situation. (The
> "material" here being Eep and his opinions)
>
[View Quote] It wouldn't since I don't THRIVE on attention. In fact, I don't even usually WANT attention, but it's just that my apparently strong opinions seem to warrant it--whatever. People that KNOW me know that I'm anti-social (but can be social if I have to) and recluse and that I have little patience for incompetent/inept people--just ask Lara and Mauz who probably know me best (in AW anyway).

>
> You seem to be confused about the difference between "personal"
> censorship and "communal" censorship. Personal censorship means deciding
> for yourself what you (and ONLY you) should see/read/hear. Communal
> censorship is when a person/persons who are in charge of the community
> decide for everyone in the community what should be seen/read/heard.
> Personal censorship affects no one else other than yourself and the
> thing being censored. Communal censorship means that whoever is in
> charge of the community forces everyone to believe what he/she/they
> believe by removing anything that doesn't agree with them. And this is
> what Facter is trying to do. He is removing Eep simply because he
> disagreed and insulted him. Did he insult the entire community? No. Then
> why should he be removed from the entire community? Facter needs to take
> responsibility for himself and take Eep out of his own personal
> equation, instead of forcing his feelings upon the rest of us.

Facter is trying to show that my attacks against other people (hardly near the ENTIRE AW or even newsgroup community) ARE against the AW newsgroup community, when they're not. I don't just randomly attack people. Perhaps if I wrote a disseration on my attack mentality I might be understood better, but I don't feel like wasting time on it.

>
> Then you would be just as guilty as Facter. In fact, you would be
> instituting the very "terrorism" you claim that Eep is causing. In that
> situation, people would be afraid to disagree with AWCI or it's actions
> because they might be banned from the NGs if they ever said a
> discouraging word about AWCI. Frankly, I'd rather "fear" Eep.

It's a shame Moria and Facter can't simply look into the mirror I'm holding up for them. Some people just don't get it...

>
> How can Eep say he's won the fight if no one fights him? If no one
> replies to his posts and simply ignores him, how can Eep claim victory?
> Do you really think Eep would continue to post if he knew no one was
> listening to him? I would think not... In fact, banning him would
> probably be Eep's greatest victory ever, because it would prove all of
> his ranting about AWCI and their tactics RIGHT! Now, do you really want
> to prove Eep right? ;)

Even if I am NOT banned by points about AWCI has already been proven NUMEROUS times. This is simply their latest example of their continued, ongoing incompetence. http://tnlc.com/eep/aw/history.html to read MANY more accounts.

>
> Once again, if you don't engage him, you don't have to back off. Think
> of Eep as the raving lunatic you might encounter on a street corner. Do
> you stop and try to counter his nonsensical arguments, or do you simply
> keep on walking. I would hope (for your sanity's sake) you would choose
> the latter. The only way Eep can "win" an arguement is if someone
> actually argues with him. It's the other person that makes a conscious
> decision to "awaken the beast", if you will. If people would take it
> upon themselves to decide for themselves what's best for them, perhaps
> Eep would realize that his actions alienate everyone around him, and
> change his attitude. But as long as people continue to respond to it,
> then, to him, it's still an effective form of communication.

I only alienate those I wish not to have to deal with. It's quite effective. :) Sometimes TOO effective...

>
> And here you contradict everything you have just stated previously. Are
> you giving Eep his fair say by banning him? Certainly not. By banning a
> person, you are giving that person NO say in anything, and that, by your
> own (correct) definition of "community", is wrong. I know I will not
> tolerate such actions in any community I participate in, and it's clear
> that I am not the only one who thinks this way. If Facter goes through
> with banning Eep (or even goes through with this voting process, thereby
> making it a "him or me" scenario) then I will have no choice but to
> submit to Facter's "terrorism" and leave these newsgroups. Because that
> is exactly what this is: Terrorism. Intimidation. Control. By making the
> community have to choose between one person or another, simply because
> one of those people can't assume responsibility for his own beliefs,
> then you have effectively divided the community that you are so
> desperate to hold together in an attempt to make them believe what you
> believe. (In this case, that Eep does not belong here)
>
> The fate of the community rests in Facter's hands... not Eep's. I pray
> that Facter will use that power wisely, or not at all...

Exactly...Facter started all of this; he must finish it. He hasn't learned to control his inability to handle the power he has been granted by his equally inept bosses, Rick and JP.

Feb 8, 2001, 11:28pm

Greets eep:)

> Facter (and you) assume I am that paranoid, but I'm not. <shrug> Perhaps
you (AWCI) are doing things that WOULD make us (the users) paranoid?

sorry I'm not AWCI, its not a them and us, its a discussion between you and
I both users:))


pages
say
on
>
> Uh, and where does it say that citizens DON'T have a right to post here,
Moria? Gee, I would've thought you'd've picked up on that one...guess not.

Where does it say that you do??


> It hopefully bullies the idiot into not doing it in the future, which is
the POINT of my flame in the first place. Duh.

So you are trying to bully everyone that doesnt agree with you?? Thats
beneath you eep, you dont have to do that do you??


>
> Ah but they ARE wrong, relative to me. Wee...

or could it just possibly be you are wrong relative to them??


>
> Blah blah blah, yea, yea, heard/read it all before, but it's just not
true. <shrug>

How do you know, yyou've never tried it:))

> I think I'll just filter YOU instead since you obviously can't stop
abusing smileys or know when to shut up. Buh-bye now, twit.

okay, I was hoping you still had points to discuss


Moria

Feb 8, 2001, 11:38pm

Uh, the Cy award was for my RW site, you twit.

[View Quote] > Ah, gotta love Eep. I gotta say, even though eep might flame everyone, who
> cares, I get a kick outta reading it. The best is when he argues the topic
> and proves everything wrong. It's to great..you can't ban eep, hes like that
> person that everyone loves and hates at the same time! He even won a CY
> Award for it! Geezuz.

Feb 8, 2001, 11:52pm

ahh whatever...you were atleast nominated for that other one..

--
-Xero

Feb 8, 2001, 11:53pm

err..I never go to the CY awards anyway. Too boring..

--
-Xero

Feb 9, 2001, 2:20am

http://www.worlds.com

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 4:29am

I told oyu exactly what was up with the newsgroups Eep - STOP making it out
to be that I was concealing information - they were taken down for
maintenance, how *many* times must that be said ?

I said that straight away, when it happened, I say it now.

F.

[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 4:32am

Now for the 10 million dollar question.. what 'kind' of maintenance?
Casay
[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 4:54am

Wrong again, fucktwat. You never said they were taken down for MAINTENANCE. You simply said you were working on them and took them down...for NO EXPLAINED REASON. "Oh, gee, let's see if I can fuck with things today--oops." My guess is you fucked something up and had to take them down to fix your stupid mistake. Newsgroups shouldn't need to be taken down for "maintenance". You're simply the latest incompetent AWCI employee to fuck things up and tried to weasle yourself out of it. Well too fucking bad--I called your bluff and now you're sore so then you figured it's time to ban me. WRONG AGAIN! Keep digging that grave, idiot.

You only stated the TRUE reason after I had to ask NUMEROUS times in between your ravings about how "mean and nasty" I am towards you. Boo hoo...cry for me, Facter...cry me a fucking river and see if I give 2 shits and a piss about you. You play games with me and you're gonna lose EVERY time. I don't stand for that shit and you should know that by now but obviously you don't so now you're gonna learn the hard way.

[View Quote] > I told oyu exactly what was up with the newsgroups Eep - STOP making it out
> to be that I was concealing information - they were taken down for
> maintenance, how *many* times must that be said ?
>
> I said that straight away, when it happened, I say it now.

Feb 9, 2001, 6:09am

[View Quote] You do not *have* to be in here. But, please, think about that for a bit.
You are in here as Facter. But you are also in here as an AWCI employee. In
my opinion, it is a very bad thing that AWCI doesn't reserve time for people
to respond here. After all, this *is* one of the main communication channels
for AW. You come here to help, to be a link between AWCI and us. We all
appreciate that. But there is more. Having someone in here is not something
optionally for AWCI. It is *required*. Not having someone in here is one of
the main reasons things got out of hand this much. Rumours develop fast, and
spread fast. Not having someone in here is a big public relations mistake of
AWCI. You know it, and therefore stay here in your free time. But shouldn't
this actually happen in AWCI payed time? I think so. You get a lot of shit
over your head now - it's like a lightning conductor, hit by the lightning
strike coming from here, aiming for AWCI, caused by frustrations caused by
AWCI.

> and watch myself, and other people in this newsgroup be
> personally attacked

Something which is not good. Eep can be blamed for not being tactical, and
for being rude. I can agree to that.

> - As I have said, as long as he apologises to the group,

Considering his posting history, how much of a chance do you think there is
he will do this? I don't think he will.

> and refraims from being so derogatory in the future, then there is a
choice
> you can all make, and it can be very democratic.
>
> There are two different ways this can be done.
>
> He is to apologise -
>
> OR
>
>
> If he does not apologise, then the matter will be put to a vote of the
users
> of the newsgroups - in a very democratic way.

This is not democratic. Who deceides we should vote about who? A real
democratic system would be one where a set amount of people have to make a
petition to start a vote, after which this voting would take place. The
target of this voting could be anyone the petitioners have a problem with.
In this case, you did the petitioning part on your own, after you personally
got into trouble with Eep. Next time I get an argument with someone else
here, I can't say "and now we are going to vote to kick person xxx out
(unless he apologizes)". You can only do this because you are an AWCI
employee and have some power at the other end of the line. And therefore,
and I don't like to say it, this would be a case of abusing your power as an
AWCI employee, in particular to censor someone you have problems with. This
has happened before, AWCI has a reputation on censoring trouble makers. I
urge you, *please* *do* *not* make that same mistake.

> You guys can all take a vote,
> on whether he is to remain here, or not - if the vote says he is to stay,
> then I will no longer be posting to this newsgroup, and you guys get to
keep
> him - but, you will also lose any correspondance from me here,

Here again you use your power as an AWCI employee. What choice do we have?
This is not fair, not for Eep, not for you, and especially not for us,
newsgroup citizens.

> and this
> group will go back to the way they were before I started posting in here -
> apathetic and mainly used for everyone to have a good old bitch about the
> company I work for, when they have little or no facts on which to base
their
> bitching.

And that is a problem for AWCI. The people in these newsgroups have quite
some influence, many of them run important parts of the community. How much
good will it do for AWCI to have such a newsgroup? This could be one of the
best places for AWCI to inform people of things, and to have people respect
them as a good company.

> So, there are several outcomes here, and this is how it is going to be -
> democratic, wise

Sorry. I do not consider this to be democratic, nor wise. It all sounds too
impulsive.

> and I am telling you right now, I am being very nice in
> even giving these options, because the amount of people around here at the
> office, and also citizens who have just said "throw him out" has been
vast.

As a person, you have been very nice, and I respect you for that. But now
you take the wrong turn. You are forcing people to choose between you and
eep. Some people will have an easy time deceiding. But not me. And I'm sure
there are other people here who think like me. I don't think it's nice to
force me to make this choice.

> So it can be an apology and a respectful stance from Eep, or a vote. It
cant
> get any fairer than that.

Act like anyone else. Choose to mute, filter, don't listen. Plug your ears,
skip threads with Eep involved. Do anything everybody could do. But don't
use your AWCI employeeship power to settle personal things. Don't take my
choice away to speak with anyone here.

You *can* do this. AWCI is the company, and the newsgroups are theirs. There
is no law I am aware of that will prevent you from doing it. You can kick
him out right now, or make a big fuss first. But doing so would be wrong.
You would take Eep away, and his resources. Maybe scare some people here.
And you would damage AWCI's reputation even more, and your own with it.

> An apology would be the easiest, most rational course I would think,

Again, I think it's quite unlikely.

> but I want to be democratic about this also - I'm not going to decide this
issue
> for everyone, as Lara nicely pointed out.

You already did, more or less :-(

Please consider what I said here. For as far as I know you, I'm sure you act
out of your best knowledge and care. But even with the best intentions, one
can go wrong. And I'm afraid this is one of those cases.

rolu

Feb 9, 2001, 7:17am

My 10 million dollar question:
Since when is it your or Eep's business ?
Do you ask your ISP or Yahoo or AltaVista if they are down what was the problem?
Do you get detailed answers?
Do you ask your cable TV operator what was wrong when they have interruption in their services?

c'mon folks - it's only lame excuse by a lame eep.

Andras


[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 7:56am

Sorry, should have put lol at the end as I was attempting to joke. Yes, I do
ask my ISP what's the problem. Also my phone company since I continually
have problems. Just the other day, the person working on my line *again*
finally told me that the lines around here are over 30 years old, need
replaced but that QWest isn't going to do it until some other company takes
them over. Now at least, the next time my phones go dead I know what to ask
for.
Casay


[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 9:22am

Stop confusing AWCI with a REAL company, Andras. AWCI is no ISP, Yahoo!, or AltaVista. Because AW is a VERY small company relative to any of these, they have an obligation to offer more personal customer/tech support. I asked Facter a simple question yet it took a good beating for him to finally spit out the full response. He needs better training in SUPPORT, which IS one of his jobs. Perhaps he has too MANY jobs at AWCI and he should just focus on one.

[View Quote] > My 10 million dollar question:
> Since when is it your or Eep's business ?
> Do you ask your ISP or Yahoo or AltaVista if they are down what was the problem?
> Do you get detailed answers?
> Do you ask your cable TV operator what was wrong when they have interruption in their services?
>
> c'mon folks - it's only lame excuse by a lame eep.
>
[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 10:00am

Remember how many ppl objected about your website background color? I bet you do. Do you remember your response to their complaint? I bet you don't. You said it is MY website! I like it as it is! Don't even ask me to change it! <of course not so politely than I interpreted here>. You are not even a small company yet you still just brushed off all those ppl. You would have even a higher obligation to answer to those question if I read your comparison correctly. Why do you think ANYONE would give you an explanation about a simple ng maintenance issue? Your reply is even more lame than my confusion :)
Andras


[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 12:07pm

As soon as people start paying me for my website I'll treat such questions about its design more professionally. Until then, I can do whatever the FUCK I want with the site. Think, Andras...

[View Quote] > Remember how many ppl objected about your website background color? I bet you do. Do you remember your response to their complaint? I bet you don't. You said it is MY website! I like it as it is! Don't even ask me to change it! <of course not so politely than I interpreted here>. You are not even a small company yet you still just brushed off all those ppl. You would have even a higher obligation to answer to those question if I read your comparison correctly. Why do you think ANYONE would give you an explanation about a simple ng maintenance issue? Your reply is even more lame than my confusion :)
>
[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 12:54pm

...and you ppl can tell me that eep is non-ofenssive? have you been reading
this thread at all?

--
J B E L L
http://platinum.awjbell.com
G O I N G P L A T I N U M
[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 1:41pm

[View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 1:54pm

[View Quote] I didn't pay. Do you say I shouldn't express my opinion now?

rolu

Feb 9, 2001, 2:05pm

I DO pay for AW, just not monetarily. Think, Andras.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Feb 9, 2001, 8:09pm

Dies ist eine mehrteilige Nachricht im MIME-Format.
--------------7CE03FE9CB8970C829E5D189
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

As far as I'm informed Andras votes for a really open AW newsgroup -
including tourists.

His post was just an analogy, a logical reply

rolu schrieb:
>
[View Quote] begin:vcard
n:Hatzenberger;Volker
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:oct31.de
adr:;;Bornheimer Strasse 15;Bonn;;53111;Germany
version:2.1
email;internet:vha at oct31.de
end:vcard

--------------7CE03FE9CB8970C829E5D189--

1  ...  2  3  4  5  6  |   Order by index