>--is an unmoderated newsgroup.......for an avid bunch of anarchists
> that translates into 'anything goes' even when someone objects to
> the validity of a certain topic-->"for this newsgroup"....someone
> else will jump to defend it....so you will see alot of things you
> or someone else might think is unrelated but that is rainbow and
> this is a gathering...albeit an electronic one it's still a rainbow
> gathering;)
OK, fine. I'm doing web development in Perl under Solaris.
Anybody care to chat?
>>> I am a great fan of "everything to its place." I have little to
>>> no interest in any of the above topics.
>well here's the heart of the matter! who's to decide that a certain
>topic is out of place at a gathering?
It's usually fairly obvious.
- Star Trek: obviously not
- Housing in Palo Alto: obviously not
- American Airlines: obviously not
>.....if folks don't like it they just don't read or respond to it and
>it will eventually fade away...
And, in the meantime, the signal-to-noise ratio is so bad that
it drives some listeners out because they simply don't have time
to wade through the off-topic stuff to find the on-topic stuff.
>there are not always "gatherings" on the land to be commenting on at any given
>time
So be it. So let there be no posts on anything for a week or
two, or four, or however long it is. What's wrong with that?
>family wanting to hang out with family and talking about whatever is near and
>dear to them at any given moment...REGS, cookies, flying saucers, vehicle
>registration, indiscriminate logging......
So people simpy talk to hear themselves talk?
>ignore all rumors of organization because there isn't any
I never stated anything about that in any of my posts so I don't
know what you're responding to.
>...come a little closer a sister or a brother is talking about whatever is in
>their heart or mind at that time.......who's to say that their problem with
>gardening, parenting, living, learning, the gov't, the environment or how to
>live a more loving life isn't appropriate? why aren't jokes, discussions of
>the paranormal, gov't shennigans, corporate rape and welfare, illegal search
>and seizures, water treatment, the treatment of disease or injury, lost kids,
>broken down vehicles, drug and alcohol addiction not related to a gathering?
I'm going based on the original respondents' premise that all
posts somehow have a topic of love running through them [sic].
Discussion of of housing in Palo Alto, American Airlines, the
paranormal, et al, have nothing to do with that.
>if you aren't used to something with that amount of freeform it just takes
>awhile to catch on. if you don't care for a certain thread or feel it's off
>topic(which many of us have at times) then you just stop reading it.)
So you are apparantly willing to sacrifice having people here
(who leave because they simply don't have the time to wade
through all the off-topic posts) all for the sake of some
amorphous "freedom." Your're sacrificing strength in numbers
for a Tower of Babble. Not a wise trade, IMHO.
>>> It should (?) be obvious that the e-mail address is intended
>>> for spammers. Those who REALLY want to contact me by e-mail,
>>> as opposed to posting a follow-up, have merely to use their
>>> favorite web search engine. I'm not difficult to find.
>well actually it isn't all that easy to find and there are lots of folks that
>are unable to do much more than read the mail that comes into their box. when
>i'm using the 'nospam' thing, i like to put my real address after my name
>without <> that would flag it for a robot to pick up.
Really smart robots can "fix" e-mail addresses to remove the
"nospam" from "nospam.my-real-address.com" and, for a company
that sells e-mail addresses, it's financially viable for them to
devote the extra compute time required to do it.
>i do that just so folks can email a private response.......some are
>very shy about posting to a newsgroup
Others' shyness isn't my problem.
>and manyyyyyyy would not be able to locate your address through a search
>engine......my favorite search engine only gave me your nospam address when i
>tried out of curiosity.)
I suggest you pick another favorite. Using Alta-Vista, I simply
entered:
"Paul J. Lucas"
(with the quotes) into the simple-search field. It returned a
link to my home page as the very first result. From my home
page, you can send me private e-mail.
Child's play.
>btw: did i see you say you were in california?
I have no way of knowing what you saw; however, yes, I did say I
am in California.
>are you going to the council?
Since I'm new to all this, I don't feel qualified to go.
- Paul