>I wrote:
>> If rainbow folk are interested in electro accupuncture, then
>> they are free to *choose* to read the *other* newsgroup where
>> it is discussed. If they *choose* not to read the other
>> newsgroup, then that's a clear indication that tey are *not*
>> interested in the subject, so you posting it here is of no good
>> use.
>Au contraire - I am *not* free to read the other newsgroups. My access to
>the net is limited as is my time to read or to participate in other
>newsgroups,
With due respect, then you need to get better 'net access.
There's no reason others should have to suffer because you
don't have better 'net access. I generally dispise "lowest
common denominators."
>Analogy: I have a television set. It has many channels on the dial - all
>bringing into my home different stations and programs. I can sit there and
>watch all of them during my free time or I can pick the one I wish to watch.
It's not as good an analogy since you can watch at most one
channel at a time.
>I wrote:
>> I'm not responsible for you drawing an incorrect conclusion.
>> The correct conclusion is the off-topic *posts* are not welcome
>> in any newsgroup. That says nothing about the *people*.
>To whom is that the *correct* conclusion?
It's obvious. Would you *rather* I say that the *people* are
not welcome here?
>And I say that so-called off-topic posts are welcome to me. My opinion
>counts.
See above re: 'net access.
><snip>
>> I freely admit that I am new to this newsgroup. However, my
>> information is dead accurate for Usenet in general.
>Perhaps your information is dead accurate for Usenet in general but that is
>not to say it is dead accurate for Rainbow chat. And chat we do.
As I stated recetly in another follow-up, I now undstand the
intent of AGR; however, I wanted to address your point about
poor 'net access which, IMHO, is a poor justification for the
present situation.
- Paul