Douglas Payne wrote:
>
>
> Actually its a term I thought I made up on the spot, but thats generally
> what it means. The self regulating nature of the system means that swearing
> a lot and trying to be as offensive as possible stops people doing silly
> things so much.
>
> Lets use a bad car related analogy as these all seem to be car related
> groups. Say, if you were a cyclist <spit> and I was in my car and I saw you
> cycle up beside me at some traffic lights, ride through a red light, turn
> right where there is a sign specifically stating such an action is
> prohibited then mount the pavement at the other side of the road jauntily
> and carry on your merry way I'd swear a lot at you and generally try to be
> as unpleasant as possible, probably in the vain hope that you'd think twice
> before pulling such an unbelieveably stupid manouvre again.
>
> I'm not saying thats the morally right thing to do, but I'd probably still
> do it, even if it happened only yesterday. (c:
>
> Anyway, what did militant usenetter used to mean?
>
> Douglas
>
>
That analogy would be correct if:
The cyclist was entitled to continue.
There was no sign.
A militant usenetter would have been someone who upheld the basic
fundamentals of usenet, not jumped on someone for posting a link to
their own non-commercial site, dealing with the same subject matter of
the newsgroup in question, which by all definitions of spam posted
anywhere on the internet apart from, it seems, uk.rec groups isnt spam.
