AlleyGator a écrit :
Quoted message said:Michel Boucher <[email hidden]> wrote:
I was referring to a
sudden flurry of people who have never posted here in their lives (in
fact, unless it's due to a recent nick change, the one I did check had
never posted to ANY group before) that just suddenly show up with
off-topic political discussions.
They have to start somewhere. We were all there once. Just because
someone has not posted before does not mean they haven't been following
conversations for some time. There are lurkers that have been here for
a long time and may suddenly be motivated to post. More power to them.
Quoted message said:I guess there's nothing wrong with
off-topic, but why come out of nowhere, pick this particular group,
and start that nonsense.
There you go again. How is it nonsense? It is a topic, not a troll
(as the OP has demonstrated interest in pursuing the matter), and you
are free to join in or ignore it. Fact is, you're doing neither. Of
course neither am I, but I'm not resorting to insults possibly based on
racial origin either. You may not have realized that that's how it
came across, but that is how it came across.
Quoted message said:If the "regulars" lapse into off-topic
stuff, that's normal and expected.
How do we define a regular? Where does it say that there are a set
number of food posts required before you can be considered a "regular"?
This is an unmoderated newsgroup and as such has no membership
requirements. There are strong suggestions for proper Usenet
participation, but they are not mandatory by any stretch of the
imagination.
Quoted message said:Why rec.food.cooking? It's just a
little weird.
Not at all. It's a popular group and one would want to post on a. a
place where one would receive an answer and b. one that is not already
inhabited by the shades of past recriminations (well, not much,
compared to some of the soc.* groups). Perhaps they come here because
they expect a civilized answer. Thing is they will get both a
civilized and an uncivilized one, but at least it is less likely to be
buried in tons of racist spam. Do you blame them still?
By and large, the on-topic rule that was designed at the start of
Usenet has little bearing upon how people live their lives. Do you
only talk about driving while in a car, about food while in a kitchen
and about sex while in the bedroom? Do you say to your spouse (or
current squeeze or whatever): "Sorry dear, but if you must talk
politics, we have to go into the living-room, because the kitchen is no
place for that"? Of course not. The reality is that our topics of
conversation get all mixed up no matter where we are, all the time.
Why should Usenet remain a sterile environment, where people can read
notes unpolluted by new ideas? This is supposed to be fun, it's not
serious like work or the ritual application of belief systems.
Quoted message said:No, I don't have an agenda, I just think it's strange.
I didn't say YOU had an agenda, I was quoting back "...you all have
singled out this newsgroup for some political agenda". I abbreviated
it.
Quoted message said:Like I said before, I wouldn't say I "hate" Democrats or Republicans
as individuals, but I am equally disgusted with both the parties
themselves.
I didn't address your personal likes and dislikes of what are to me
foreign considerations. What concerns me is that some here feel they
can voice politics of exclusion, particularly in this case because the
original poster used what is probably the most common masculine name
outside of China. I understand where that comes from (yes, I do), but
I think it's time to start getting over it. You, generically speaking,
can only clench the buttcheeks for so long before your system suddenly
takes radical action. And I have been told that when it happens, it is
not a pretty sight.
