On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 14:27:39 +1000, David Strike
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 12, 2003 7:46 AM, Mike Wallace wrote:
>
>> Their sole purpose here is to incite and inflame. Which I personally
>> would not have a problem with if they had balls enough to post their
>> drivel without hiding behind some bogus identity.
>
>Mate!  I tend to agree with you.  Weenies that hide behind pseudonyms
>deserve to be treated with contempt and - to my way of thinking - have
>their identities made public.

Only the utmost STUPID ones leave the same ID for long.

>In terms of censoring them, or having them removed
>from a list however ....?  It'd be virtually impossible to do - and
<why bother?

To let any such CHICKEN SHIT know that their cowardice sniping
acts are NOT condoned nor tolerated, the same way you express
your disapproval against any street mugger, expecially those with
a hood over their head.

Why bother?   That's how a SELF-REGULATED list member let its
participants know what are, or are not, tolerated by its members.

That's the MAIN difference between rec.scuba and Scuba-SE.

rec.scuba is rampant with fakers, forgers, many of whom change their
fake names constantsly ... and were tolerated.

In ALL the years I've been in Scuba-L and Scuba-SE, I can recall
less number of cases than I can count on one hand or posters
forging or creating some fake name just to make posts like the
one in question.

Why?  Because folks HERE let them know that they can speak their
VIEW and call anybody any name they want, but doing so HIDING
BEHIND s screen or cloak is neither condoned nor welcome.

Once such CHICKEN SHITS learn that by so doing they are bring
more wrath on THEMSELVES than their intended object, then they
learn to go back to the

            OLD FASHIONED WAY

of flaming anybody they want, using their REAL posting names!  :-))

That's the way WE do bitness in the good ole USA, in what MOST of
us consider as ethical, and what we believe are the CONCEPTS of
"freedom of speech" vs "censorship".

I think we've done a pretty good job this time against Chuck ...
I mean his alter-ego Robert Lung.  :-)



>Just feel sorry for them and the fact that they lack courage and
>convictions!  :-)
>
>Strike

I feel sorry for them for MUCH more than that!  :-))

-- Bob.