rec.autos.simulators

> The point here is that Usenet is categorised for a reason. If we all talk
> slightly off topic all the time what is the point of the groupings?

> M

> >In which case a post like:

> >Hey SCGT fans, there is an interesting post going on over in r.a.s.misc
> >about the Merk incident at le mans, why not check it out is in order.

> >This is about on topic issues, not what a large % of people might enjoy
> >to read about.

> >I'm sure most RAS fans are interested in sex, but i'm not about to post
> >my weekend's actvities here. (try alt.sex.stories.moderated? :P)

> >Z.

> >Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

> >You call me an ignorant what?
> >There goes your credibility out of the window if that is all you can
> >offer by way of reasoned debate. I am open to arguments of opinion from
> >all quarters provided people can articulate their message without
> >resorting to personal jibes of this nature

> >That guy was suggesting nothing. He cut into this thread in an abrupt
> >manner and then tried dictating to people  in an extremely aggresive way
> >- the hypocryte that he is, posting off topic stuff himself elsewhere.
> >There is a subtle difference. You and him are one of a kind when it
> >comes to intelligence aren't you. You run out of capacity to applying
> >logic at the first hurdle and hence have to resort to common denominator
> >vulgarity and personal attacks.

> No, actually I haven't run out of "capacity to applying logic at the
> first hurdle" at all, I just wasn't aware that your comment was a hurdle
> nor intelligent. The use of profanity was as a punctuation to my comment
> rather than the core. If you want to go back you'll find that this was
> the first such comment I've made, thus it is hardly anything to make any
> wild assumptions from.

> Had you made an intelligent comment rather than a relatively unfunny one
> liner I'd have created a more detailled response. As it was I felt it was
> uneccesary.

> Whatever your viewpoint, opinion or disagreement with the previous posts
> was, you never made it at all clear. Perhaps if you had done I wouldn't
> have replied in that tone.

> >Care to come and discuss this in rec.bad.marshalling.at.the.ring?

> Care to re-read the post you just took offence to? Perhaps you want to
> read the bit where I said "Regardless of whether we do go off topic or
> not from time to time, we shouldn't."? I go off topic, in fact I think
> pretty much everyone here has at times.

> Whatever... the point is a valid one. Can you tell me that you disagree
> with people preferring on topic posting than off topic?

> M

> >>Hey SCGT fans, there is an interesting post going on over in r.a.s.misc about
> >>the Merk incident at le mans, why not check it out is in order.

> >>This is about on topic issues, not what a large % of people might enjoy to
> >>read about.

> >>I'm sure most RAS fans are interested in sex, but i'm not about to post my
> >>weekend's actvities here. (try alt.sex.stories.moderated? :P)

> >Or alt.lonely.whacking.off?

> sadly, i have to disappoint you. But it appear someone was whacking off in my
> camper. Didn't catch 'em, but i suspect it was you.

> >Seems like every message I see from you is telling other people how to
> >post. If I see your name more than 3 times in a thread, I know it's a
> >flame war.
> I'm not telling anyone how to post. If i was that manical about it'd i'd run a
> cancel bot.
> >Apparently, you're oblivious to the fact that you cause a bigger
> >shit-storm by doing this than by ignoring the message.
> >If you think you're making the newsgroup better, you're wrong. You're
> >just poisoning the casual atmosphere of a great newsgroup.

> er... casual... right...  if you want a look at a casual group, try most of
> alt.* causal to the extent that no one is on topic.

> >I know I'll probably regret sending this, but I can't frigging stand
> >it anymore. Zonkie, I wish you would take a flying ***in' leap.

> Personally i wish all the morbid ***ers who get wood everytime there is some
> kind of car crash and love to chat about it and download video's and *** off
> at it and then slam arcade racers for high silly crash modes and the like are
> self indulgent sicko's.

> (you may notice, i object most to those crash releasted motorsport threads.
> There is a point).

> I wish you'd get laid, try your mum. She could suck a salami through a 12 foot
> hose.
> Z.

> >Tim

> Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.

> So people who wish to know why a Mercedes becomes airborn twice in a week and
> nearly kills two of the worlds upcoming drivers are morbid sickos. Good logic. I
> would love to continue with this brilliant concept but I have some kittens to drown
> and***videos to watch!

> Jesus you're dense. Is it *so* hard to add another newsgroup to your
> subscribed list that people need to have discussions about real racing
> here. I engage in discussions about "real racing" on ras.f1 or ras.indy
> or ras.nascar or whatever and sim racing here. That is the point of
> Usenet. Do you think there are large Quake threads in Half-Life
> newsgroups or perhaps large ASP threads in the Cold Fusion groups? After
> all, they're similar and a lot of people are interested in both so why
> not? The answer is that the structure of the groups is formed to provide
> forums for people to talk about specific subjects NOT whatever they want.

> My argument was that on a level of what is *supposed* to be done on
> newgroups we should try to keep real racing on the appropriate group and
> let the people who want to see them subscribe to them directly rather
> than being forced to wade past them. It doesn't really matter whether
> people are interested or not, off topic is off topic. The argument of
> degrees of off topic-ness is reminding me of a friend who once described
> analogue as "varying degrees of on and off". Something is either on or off,
> no?

> Personally on topic/off topic doesn't really bother me unless I'm using a
> modem, something I don't have to do any more that often fortunately.

> Whatever...

> M

> >People who like sims like real racing. People who like sims like to
> >discuss real racing with the smae people they discuss sims. Apart from
> >you and Z I have never encountered anybody arguing against the 5% of
> >messages (well 50% since this thread started) about real racing. Perhaps
> >you should go back and read some of the off topic threads you are having
> >kittens about. In one way or another they relate to peoples sim
> >experiences and expectations. If we were talking about the mating habits
> >of the Tasmanian Aardvark then you would have something to whine about.

> >So people who wish to know why a Mercedes becomes airborn twice in a week and
> >nearly kills two of the worlds upcoming drivers are morbid sickos. Good logic.
> > I
> >would love to continue with this brilliant concept but I have some kittens to
> > drown
> >and***videos to watch!

> Quite so. but to say "nearly" killed is a reaaaaal stretch. No significant
> injuries to either. But i stand by it. If you weren't watching the race,and no
> interest in doign so till the accident occured.....

> Z.

> Please remove NOSPAM from my email address when replying.