87May08 From josh barell
Here's my poem, especialy for Keith and Rich: Love is shiny Love is bright. I
need your love In the deep of the night. Because otherwise, I'll have a fright
So give me your love It will be alright. Give me a strawberry, Let's each take
a bite. *-Josh-* '87
87May09 From Richard S Hamms
Hiya! Keith: Love is many things
all of them nice
Love is many things
That taste very nice
Like spice
Ooh, Nice!
Very nice!
Triple nice!
Whatcha think? Rich :*)
87May09 From Richard S Hamms
Josh, you seem very cute! what do you look like? Rich :*)
87May10 From josh barell
Send me some mail Rich because I don't think any one here cares, Frankly.
Bye!!!!*-Josh-*
87May10 From Richard S Hamms
I'll send you some mail as soon as I figure out how, silly! Rich :*)
87May11 From keith campbell
Josh, Rich: So love is like eating a strawberry? In other words, it's simply
satisfying an appetite?
87May11 From BRIAN RICH
a good solution to the problem of too many sappy msgs is to keep the finger
poised over the N key.
87May11 From Richard S Hamms
so boys, when are we going to eat some cheese together?(green would be
delightful ,since this is the room for martians!) Rich :*)
87May13 From josh barell
Well Keith perhaps you are correct!!!!Love is just like eating a nice plump
juicy strawberry!!!!Bye!!! *-Josh-*
87May13 From josh barell
I love a nice peice of cheese. Especially French. Or on pizza it can actually
be quite nice too,. *-Josh-*
Space Travel $$$> Next room: Love
27 messages
Love> Read Forward
87May08 From josh barell
Would you mind not being so impolite to my poetry and to Rich? Thank you very
much.
87May08 From John Kalstrom
Nah, I think he was just evading the question. He probably really is Swiss.
Though you hear those stories about loose morals up there.
pejorative -- having a tendancy to make or become worse; disparaging.
87May09 From Richard S Hamms
I said before, the word is "swiss", not gay.not fag.not homo.not queer.I hope
this understood so we can all be on nice terms with eachother from now
on.thanx. Rich :*)
87May09 From HOWARD owen
Somehow I'd feel strange asking for a fag army knife at the sporting
goods...
87May09 From Bob Blaylock
How do you thing _I_ felt taking my Queer Army knife in to get it sharpened a
few days ago?
87May10 From The Beaver
Why is it when the gay population decide a word is overused and has a bad
reputation to it, they can just change what they call themselves (and yes
Rich, I said GAY). Gay used to be a very nice word, but like queer and fag,
it will never be the same again. Now you guys are trying to destrooy swiss
(which, really, is already going, as swiss is a word for bi-sexuals)! The
rest of us call ourselves "straight", and you don't see us changing the word.
Just like we don't change "male" or "female" (gee...I think that in this day
and age, men and women are all equal, so let's call ourselves "equals"...ok,
yesterday I saw this equal couple that looked really happy...this destroys
the already dieing language we have!)Pick a word and stay with it. I am
still going to say gay.
87May10 From josh barell
Well pardon me, you seem to be so afraid of change!!! Well, 'gay' is simply
no longer polite, so say 'Swiss' or nothing at all. Thank you. And you so
called straights are the ones who make the terms no longer impolite, so of
course you just want the term gay to keep being used and to keep getting
less and less polite!!!!!*-Josh-*
87May10 From Richard S Hamms
Josh, I second the motion.say swiss, or say nothing at all.swiss. (he he he
sorry!I'm feeling a bit giggly because I just had a glass with Gary!) Rich :*)
87May10 From Zepp Jamieson
My main gripe is the needless confusion. "Swiss" is a distinct nationality.
Why not find a word that won't get you mixed up with another group. Meanwhile,
I'll refer to you as josh or Richard, as the case may be, and I'll continue
to use "gay" as a short, pleasant word to describe the homosexual population.
If some people are using it in a perjorative sense, then it's same to assume
that they would use ANY word perjoratively--they don't like gays. Those who
aren't using it as an insult should be berated for employing it.
87May11 From keith campbell
Sorry, Josh and Rich, but I don't think any one group has the right to muck
around with the English language and tell everyone else how to use it
politely. If so, then I insist, when referring in the future to my own
sexual preferance, that you call me "Indo-European" or nothing at all...
87May11 From Bob Blaylock
As far as I'm concerned, it was a serious abuse to use "gay" in the first
place. Why take a perfectly respectable word, and turn it into a euphemism
for something perverse? That's bad enough, but it's worse when after you've
ruined one word, giving it unpleasant connotations, that you target another
word for teh same fate. As far as I'm concerned, the word is "homosexual",
not "gay" or "swiss" or whatever other words you feel like polluting.
87May11 From Zepp Jamieson
The use of "gay" to describe male homosexuals is pretty well entrenched in
general useage these days, Bob. Nor do I mind the pre-emption particularly.
Perhaps it's different here in the States, but in Britian or Canada, the
word, in it's etiomology of "cheerful", had developed a silly, dated aura--
something your aged maiden aunt might say. Since I'm not against homosexuals,
I have no problems with the new use of the word. (That doesn't mean I have
to read sappy messages and enjoy them, however...)
87May11 From Richard S Hamms
no, boys.ill be offended if you continue calling me gay.gay means happy, not
swiss. Rich :*)
87May12 From Bonzo Dog
Howard, I didn't know you had a homosexual Army Knife.
87May12 From Bob Blaylock
Swiss means from or of Switzerland, not homosexual. You've already ruined
the words "gay" (it used to mean happy and cheerful), "queer" (it used to
mean unusual or odd), "faggot" (it used to refer to a kind of artwork) and
probably several others I can't think of right now.
Face it. Whatever you call it, homosexuality is homosexuality, and trying
to make it seem more acceptable by calling it by a more respected word isn't
going to make it any different; it's only going to give an obscene connotation
to the previously respectable word.
87May12 From Bonzo Dog
Actually, "faggot" used to refer to a stick of wood used for the fire.
87May12 From Katlinel
...or a bundle thereof...
87May12 From Katlinel
Saying that one group can't choose what to call itself sounds particularly
like disguised prejudice. Now, I can see what the objection is to the word
"Swiss," but saying that one group can't muck around with the language the
way it wants is akin to saying "I'm going to call 'em Mormons and cultists
no matter how long they say they want to be called The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints."
However, I will continue to treat Josh and Richard badly because they are
saps.
87May12 From CHARLES HOBBS
Why "Swiss"? What have they done to us? How about "Soviet" or "Iranian" or
"South African"?
87May12 From CHARLES HOBBS
Don't worry, I'm not prejudiced against Russians, Iranians or South Africans.
I did this to make a point....
87May12 From Bob Blaylock
Look at it this way, Pete. Suppose we Mormons decided that we wanted to
use the word "excited" to describe ourselves, to improve our image. Whenever
I meant to identify myself as a Mormon, I would say "I'm excited." If I
pointed to someone and said "He's excited.", that would mean I was
identifying him as a Mormon. Now being a Mormon doesn't carry nearly the
stigma that being a homosexual does, but nevertheless, wouldn't it bother
you that when you really were excited about something, you could no longer
use the word "excited" to describe how you felt without people misinterpreting
it to mean that you are a Mormon?
I refuse to use call homosexuals "gay" or "Swiss" or any other word such as
these, for by so doing, one contributes to the corruption of the language.
To me, "gay" means happy and cheerful, and "Swiss" means from Switzerland,
and queer means unusual or odd, and a faggot is a stick, a bundle of sticks,
or a kind of artwork made from inlaid wood.
87May12 From Richard S Hamms
Mr.Blaylock you are being very unkind to swiss people like myself.id
appreciate your understanding, but it appears that you are just too mean
to understand.you weren't nearly this mean when you were on the phone with
me the other day. Rich :*(
87May13 From Bob Blaylock
Richard, Swiss people are people from Switzerland, and I am not being unkind
to them.
87May13 From keith campbell
Kat: Choosing what to call yourselves is fine, particularly if you are an
organization. If you want to call yourself a member of the "Swiss Rights
Group" then fine, as long as you don't mind confusing people. But what we are
talking about here is a reluctance to use a perfectly good, technical word
that means exactly what we say. Homosexual. The argument is that homosexual
has become pejorative, but, as someone pointed out, as long as the FACT of
homosexuality, rather than the name, is regarded as foul, then any name
associated with it will eventually aquire a pejorative connotation. I'm not
going to refuse, like Bob, to use "swiss" out of principle, when referring to
the sexual preference of Rich, Gary, Josh or whoever else shows up. In a
theater this small I will conceed common sense to manners. But I still think
the idea is dumb.
87May13 From Zepp Jamieson
I've already made my say today on this subject. Do we really need two rooms
for this idiocy?
87May13 From BRIAN RICH
I've heard the term "swish" applied to you-know-whos, but not swiss.
87May13 From josh barell
Frankly I perhaps rather agree with Rich again on this one. Say swisss or
nothing at all!!!!! *-Josh-*
strawberries> Next room: The Hall of Twits
24 messages
The Hall of Twits> Read Forward
87May08 From josh barell In Richard Fan Club>
Hi Rich!!!!I'm still your biggest fan here I'll bet!!!*-Josh-*
87May09 From Richard S Hamms In Richard Fan Club>
Thanx, Josh!Maybe I should make a room for you, too!and maybe for Katlinel,
too!Whatcha think? (leave me mail so we can get to know eachother!) Rich :*)
87May10 From josh barell In Richard Fan Club>
That would be wonderful. Best wishes! *-Josh-*
87May10 From josh barell In Richard Fan Club>
Mr. Blaylock, can you please tell me how I may send mail to some of the nice
people on this BBS Bowhead??? Because people send it to me, but I don't
understand how to send to them...Thank you very much!!!Bye!!!!*-Josh-*
87May10 From Richard S Hamms In Richard Fan Club>
please tell me too, Mr.Blaylock!thanx! Rich :*)
87May10 From Zepp Jamieson In Richard Fan Club>
~Urrrppp.........brack..........glurrrp, hic, rarrrrkkkk. Slimy, juicy chunks
of digested strawberries go bouncing and slimmering over my keyboard, and
I...brrraaaack......ugh, whooff, gurgle, braaaaaakkk! It's dripping off my
monitor, bits and peices of gooey stuff, pork and the greek dinner I had
last....raaaalllpphhh!.........
87May11 From Bob Blaylock In Richard Fan Club>
It's easy; just type ".ee" and the system will guide you from there.
87May11 From Barry Brown In Richard Fan Club>
(Don't forget to leave the offerings to the white porcelin goddess by the door)
87May11 From Bahamut In Richard Fan Club>
People are no longer waiting for the restroom...
watch your step.
87May11 From Richard S Hamms In Richard Fan Club>
well guys, I'm very glad that we are all enjoying my delightful and special
room of my own!i may make a private one called "richard 'n gary's bedroom" if
you all aprove! Rich :*)
87May12 From Katlinel In Richard Fan Club>
Now, I think, we see that the purpose of at least one account is to provoke us
and get attention. It's time to wield the userlog editor.
87May12 From Katlinel In Richard Fan Club>
I don't know how it happened, but the userlog editor just came up and let me
enter keys at will...good ol' Richard is now a [problem user]. Yay!
87May12 From Bahamut In Richard Fan Club>
Magic! I am impressed. Huzzah huzzah.
87May12 From Bob Blaylock In Richard Fan Club>
Well, Richard S Hamms has been twitted. By the end of the week, I will do
one of two things; either I will un-twit Richard, or I will twit Josh. What
should it be? If you have any opinions as to what I should do, speak up.
87May12 From Richard S Hamms In Richard Fan Club>
Mr.Blaylock, i would like to speak to you over the phone or in person about
these simply nasty actions you have been taking against me.is it because i'm
swiss?that is discrimination.that is not right, and you are treating me like a
third class citizen, like the other users do.I will write a letter to the santa
barbara news press telling about the discrimination that you are using against
swiss people.thank you for your time, very much. Rich :*(
87May13 From Bonzo Dog In Richard Fan Club>
Twit 'em both. No loss.
87May13 From Bob Blaylock In Richard Fan Club>
Hmmm . . . this is very odd. I did not personally twit richard, but I
invoked the sysop menu while Pete was online, and with my very own eyes I saw
Pete take advantage of my action by twitting Richard. How is it that Richard
is not now twitted?
87May13 From Bob Blaylock In Richard Fan Club>
Guess what, Pete, you and Stoner collectively goofed. When you entered the
name of the user to twit, you entered "Richard S. Hamms", but the user you
meant to twit is "Richard S Hamms" (without a period after the "S"). Stoner
goofed by letting you enter an unused name, and not warning you or anything.
THAT is why Richard is not yet twitted.
Anyway, speaking of twits, someone who deserved to be ragged on is Larry
Melman. This guy just logged in as a new user, spent about an hour downloading
files, and then logged off, without uploading anything, and without reading or
entering any messages. I don't normally care if people download and not
upload, as disk space is a limited resource, but this person took a great deal
of stuff for himself, and contributed absolutely nothing.
87May13 From Bob Blaylock
Anyway, back to Richard and Josh, it looks like Richard gets a repreive, at
least temporarily. (When the guillotine fails, you go free!) Should I twit
them both? Everyone speak up. If the consensus is that I should, then on
Friday, they're history.
87May13 From keith campbell
Without Richard and Josh around, what would we talk about? Blueberries?
87May13 From Zepp Jamieson
The only gripe I have is that it's difficult to carry on a conversation without
the endless "wink, wink"s, and foreys into the Swiss Strawberries. And josh,
at least, is trying.
Still, Bob, in putting it up for a vote like this, you are embarrasing both
of them beyond any crimes committed (if any: I've never seen either of them do
anything that would cause them grief on 'Prize). You're also abdicating your
own responsibilities as sysop by saying "You guys decide for me".
Since you HAVE solicited my opinion, I would say, "Let them stay. They'll
either mellow out a bit, or get tired of getting insulted by other users."
87May13 From josh barell
Mr. Blaylock I cannot believe my eyes what did Rich ever do to you????He was
the only nice person here. I just have one thing to say. If he goes, I go. Bye.
*-Josh-*
87May15 From Bahamut
I think, Bob, the previous users have presented overwhelming evidence that
"Josh" and "Rich" should be "twitted." They portray foolish stereotypes, and
significantly lessen the quality of the BBS. Zepp means well...but the
messages of these two are offensive at times and I think just about everyone
has had enough.
87May16 From Product 19
I agree with Katlinel; twit richard.
87May17 From STEVE METTER In Lobby>
SYSOP - I've only called this board a few times, and have contributed nothing,
so it may not be my place to speak, but since you solicited user's opinions, I
will offer mine: The clowns who've been leaving nonsense all over this board
should be removed, if possible: they don't seem to have anything interesting
to say, and thus should keep their mouths shut until they CAN think of
something cogent to share. They appeared like cockroaches over on Compucations
a few days ago, and I resent their propensity to waste space and modem time. As
you said, it's folks like this that ruin it for everyone. Just thought I'd
throw in my two cents' worth.
87May17 From Barry Brown
We don't mind that they're homosexual. It's the messages why leave that
bothers us. I really can't stand seeing the same message over and over again.
"You want some strawberries? I just love sweet juicy strawberries (wink,
wink!)." If they want to remain respected users and "1st-class citizens," they
should leave respectable and "1st-class" messages. If they're claiming that we
treat them like 3rd-class citizens, it's only because they're forcing us to.
It's always nice to get a cross-section of the social communites on the BBSs;
it allows us to gain some insight into what other's think. But if Josh and
Richard can't think of anything better to say, they might as well not be here
at all. We (or at least I) would enjoy having them here, if they would leave
good messages, ones that have some thought put into them and ones that everyone
would benefit from.
87May17 From The Beaver
I stand with Barry.
87May17 From Greg
I stand for twitting as well.
87May18 From Bob Blaylock
Hmmm . . . Josh hasn't logged in since the 15th, and Richard hasn't logged in
since the 12th. I guess they got the message that they aren't very well liked
here. Now they're Craig Lindstrom's problem.
87May18 From William Abernethy
Twit them anyway.
87May18 From John Kalstrom
Their messages are a lot like macros, but slightly different each time.
You're right, very little information content.
87May19 From Greg
Craig has basically "dealt" with them, so they're probably history.
87May19 From Bahamut
Yah they are history on Compucations. Didn't last long either. I think they
were walking macros.
87May20 From Glen Heinz
And they always said "I can't seem to remember what a disk drive is, can
someone please tell me" and other such nonsence. Twit 'em, FLAME 'em, if they
were real people that deserved to be users, they would have left real messages.
They may grow up some day, but don't count on it.
87May21 From John Kalstrom
Gee, can you explain what a bulletin board system is? I seem to have
forgotten. Yeah, they were pushing it beyond belief.
87May22 From Bonzo Dog
Josh and Rich are twits. Therefore they should be twitted. Simple.
87May23 From CHARLES HOBBS
It was interesting, though. Bob used to stick up for them all the time:"Ignore
him, josh, he's just being a jerk". Now he wants to get his crossbow....
87May23 From Bob Blaylock
For a while, I found them (Josh and Richard) to be rather amusing, but after
a week or two (or three or four or . . . ) I found them rather tiresome, and
could see that they were causing a severe decline in the quality of
conversation here. My " . . . he's just being a jerk." remark was about Jeff
Peterson, who seldom, if ever, seems to have anything to say that isn't a
direct insult against someone else.
87May23 From CHARLES HOBBS
About the word "twit"-I saw it on a board in Quebec....
87May24 From Greg
Could any of you explain to me what a brain is? I seem to have forgotten
Don't make fun of me, you treat me like a second class citizen ARRRRGHH!
-Glad they're gone
87May24 From Oreo Cat
It is very simple here. And it has nothing to do with them being homosexual
(or swiss, or whateverer....). I have some friends who are homosexual, but I
have nothing against that even though I am heterosexually inclined. The
problem I have with Richard and Josh and Gary is that they are either
complaining about something, or else saying the same thing over and over and
over "Hi I'm Rich and me a Gary just had I delightful FRENCH strawberry
together..."
87May25 From The Beaver
My problem with those guys was that they just were too far out of it, either
intentionally or not. If they were real, they had the mentality of a 5 year
old and the seniality of a 105 year old, knowwhatImeanVern (by the way, Ernest
Goes to Camp is even better than Pee Wee's Big Adventure!).
87May25 From Katlinel
Said the same thing over and over again, huh? Sounds familiar.
87May26 From Zepp Jamieson
Sure does. Not everyone who made that complain against josh and Hamm is guilty
of that same crime, but a few were. The sad part is, they actually ARE bright
enough that they can figure out who they are.
I'm not defending the quality of the messages they left--I got openly fed up
with some of them myself. But when I see various people with a demonstrated
taste for macros complaining about the messages, and adding mealy-mouthed
qualifications like "some of my best friends are gay, but" and the like, then I
feel a deep disgust.
Say what you will about those two--but take a good hard look in the mirror
first. I've left messages just as silly as the "strawberry swiss" jobs
myself--any of you have the guts to admit that perhaps you have, too?
Then lets re-examine our motives here...
87May26 From Katlinel
Some of my best friends are gay. Some of my best friends are gay. Some of my
best friends are gay. Some of my best friends are gay. Some of my best friends
are gay. Some of my best friends are gay. Some of my best friends are gay. Some
of my best friends are gay. Some of my best friends are gay.
Oops. Well, that was exactly my point, Zepp. And
here's my guts, all over the floor: I've done it in the distant past and the
immediately recent past. I don't plan to stop completely, either. The key
concepts with Josh and Richard were frequency and persistence. Even after we
told them to stop, or at least tone down, they disregarded the unanimity of the
users and kept right on. I'm still debating the merits of deleting or twitting
them (free speech and all that), but I definitely was sick and tired of their
$%#@& to the point where I might have been willing to not think about it at
all.
87May26 From Zepp Jamieson
Notice that I'm not yelling at Bob for twitting them. I agree, they had it
coming. I just don't like some of the smarmy rationalisation surrounding the
whole thing.
87May27 From Bob Blaylock
I actually found them amusing for most of the episode, and as far as the
content of their messages, I was at most getting somewhat annoyed. It was
becoming clear, however, that Josh & Richard's messages, along with the
reactions of other users to them, were seriously harming the qualkity of the
conversations on this system.
87May27 From John Kalstrom
One of my best friends was gay, when I was in high school. And the
friendship slowly died, partially because of that, but mostly because he would
borrow things and not pay/give them back.
87May27 From Bonzo Dog
First of all, Zepp, I think we should draw the line between "silly" messages
and messages which are intentionally disruptive. "Josh and Rich" (I will refer
to them in quotes from here on out, because I refuse to believe that they were
not in fact the same person) had nothing to contribute, he merely tried to
provoke, and I'm amazed at the number of people who thought he was seriously
trying to communicate.
With that said, I too am amused by the thought of some who wouldn't have
thought twice about pulling the same sort of stunt 6 months or a year ago, but
who now apparently feel so far above such things.
And before I return to my doghouse for the evening...it also seems clear that
"Josh and Rich" is not in fact "gay", but was trying either to be funny (and
not succeeding), or to provoke an anti-homosexual reaction, or both. He did
provoke a few replies which verged on gay-bashing, but he was probably
surprised by the number of people who thought he was serious and left messages
saying things like "Gosh, I know people who are gay and they're almost just
like real people..."
As for those of you who thought the business about "swiss" was for
real...!!!!!!!!!! 'Nuff said...
87May27 From Bahamut
Well said, Bonzo Dog, well said.
87May28 From Zepp Jamieson
As stated, I'm not trying to defend the quality of their messages. They were
definately silly, and mildly disruptive.
What I am trying to say is that some folks are too quick to point the finger
of censure. Now, was it out of simple sanctimony, or because "they" were
"gay"? After all, we have established and respected users who chronically
leave convo-killing messages. Well--established, anyway. I don't see folks
raging that they should be twitted--the general reaction is to sigh and try to
ignore them as they swap macros with one another.
What was different this time? Was it because they weren't established? Or
because a lot of people thought they were fake accounts? Or because they were
gay?
87May28 From Danny Howell
It seems that what was different this time is that the user(s) in question did
not contribute anything worthwhile to the board. The "well-established" users
are that because they, at least once in a while, do contribute something
intelligent. This is how new users become well-established and respected. If
"Josh" and "Rich" left some intelligent messages after their initial
"strawberry swiss" stuff, they probably would become more respected. Some of
the well-established users here may have started out as "twits", but because
their twit antics gave way to some intelligence, they are now welcome users on
the BBSs, even if they still do some foolishness once in a while. And while
I'm saying "they", I do realize that many of us, including myself, get into
"twit mode" occasionally and start leaving the message devoid of any
informational content, (although possibly humorous). It's those who can't seem
to turn their "twit mode" off that are the ones who do nothing but annoy the
general BBS population and its sysops.
87May28 From Bahamut
We all leave silly or facetious messages sometimes; but not exclusively, like
"Josh and Rich". I also think the fact that their accounts were so blatantly
falsified was irritating.
87May28 From Greg
"Real" users have done that before, Bahamut. I did it last summer when I
imitated a female on Pat's Stonehenge, (something I haven't done since,
though).
87May28 From Katlinel
Zepp, "Josh-and-Rich" were more persistently consistent than even Biffy. That
was what I think bothered people the most.
Also, one of my pet peeves is having people prove things to me when
they've already been proven over and over again. I was celebrating the other
day after having received an A- on a Law & Society paper that outlined repeal
of all state laws concerning sodomy (sorry, Bob). The infamous Dave decided,
after reading it, that the paper was discriminatory against gays because I
failed to treat homosexuals as a political group and I failed to capitalize
lesbianism. Maybe it comes down to the fact that I am just sick and tired of
seeing the effects of discrimination around me - "J&R" obviously were driven to
say what they said by some sad influence, just as Dave was driven to say what
he said. Is the son paying for the sins of the father, here?
87May28 From Katlinel
P.S. The one thing I hate worse is being accused of acts I have not committed.
I lie so often about bad things that I do that it really peeves me when I'm
finally a good kid and someone calls me on something anyway.
87May29 From Zepp Jamieson
One good point you made that needs emphasising--no minority group is going to
gain by being shrill and counter-discriminatory. Nor is being professional
martyrs. The thing about josh and Hamm that bothered me the most was the "3rd
Class Citizen" bit that got pulled out repeatedly, every time anyone said
anything negative. Like you, I try to understand people who are different from
me (including Americans, but that one is hopeless!), and I get irratated and
defensive if I get accused of bigotry right off the bat.
I remember one time, I was on the hiring committee for the city. An
applicant came in and sat down, and stared at us. He was black. Before anyone
had a chance to say anything at all, he said "You're not going to hire me
because I'm a nigger."
I bit back an impulse to reply "We won't hire you because you're a jerk", and
instead took the more politic route of explaining that the City is OEO and
Affirmative Action. (And, in fact, we'd been told to watch for promising
females and blacks). PS: We didn't hire him.
87May29 From The Beaver
(so I'm a little late in replys...I missed a few days) I would like to give MY
reasons (which, for the most part, are the same as everyone else's) for getting
rid of Josh and friends. I am not against, stupid, meaningless messages (read
some of the stuff I sometimes write), as long as this is not taken to an
extreme. Josh always wrote "I want (giggle) strawbreies"-type messages.
Nothing else (other than "What is xxxx, I seem to have forgotten", which is
just as bad. Josh was simply trying to cause trouble. Sure, we all do
sometimes (right Zepp?), but not to that extent. I have nothing against users
not using their real name (which, by the way, I am sorta using my right name
for those who don't know me- Eric Beaver). I have nothing against someone
using two names (I did that for a while, but it takes a lot of BBS time to keep
things up, especially if you call the same BBS under both names...), as long as
the two names were being used for ligitimate purposes (my other names that I
have used were usually showing traits that don't get associated with me). I
think that for a user to be allowed to stay though, he/she needs to get along
with the other users (at least most, not necessarily all), and that he/she
participate in the BBS experience. Inteligent conversations are not even
necessary (often times, I will log on to a board and not involve myself in an
intelligent conversation because I am trying to relax my mind)- I don't know if
I would even call this an intelligent conversation (especially since it is a
Friday evening...). Anyhow, these were just a few thoughts rolling through my
mind and fingers.
This page is © Copyright 1997 by Swagazine. All rights reserved.