Re:

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

Paul H. Merrill wrote:

> <<Heavily snipped to allow for those who don't like it otherwise.>>

Yeah, if you quote back over a hundred lines after adding 6, 8, or
whatever it happened to be.

> > About a week ago somebody posted a copy or parts of most AOL
> > postings which were sent here in the last months. Merrill ignores the part
> > about how the posts were classified
>
> I read his classification criteria closely, and read the results of the
> classification process.
> > and sends back some vague flame accusing
> > the author of classing posts he disagreed with as "clueless" then he quotes
> > the entire thing back to the list.
> >
> Then commented that he had not followed his own criteria.

And where did he not? A few could be debated. The rest were either written
so badly that they were incomprehensible, were off-topic, or didn't
include quoted material in a reply/followup. He also stated that he was
counting postings which used that '<< >>' scheme as automatically bad,
which is understandable. Either way, he seemed to be trying to show the
statistics. Pull one or two postings off of one side and put them on the
other and the statistics are still pretty bad for AOL.

> > I don't know which is worse. At least the people flaming the AOL wimps are
> > funny.
>
> If funny is all you want, may I recommend rec.humor.funny and, in case
> you are up on no current events but Clinton, rec.humor.funny.reruns.

No, I want a Cypherpunks list which discusses political issues,
cryptography, and things related to that. Since this is the Cypherpunks
list, we aren't going to censor on the basis of content or origin point.

If all you want to do is defend AOL and their ilk, may I recommend
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and alt.aol-sucks.

> And to the brilliant person seeking muff diving pics, gee send a real
> address and we'll see what we can do.  (At least he didn't want it for
> pre-muff variety.)

Muff diving pics? Do we want to know? Serious questions.