This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------B229D0525485AF1D3DFFAFC8
Mr. Fletcher,
Is this an example of a well thought out email or a 'missive'. That
run-on sentence is a lulu...
And my sex life is none of your f****** business!
Paul Foster
BTW, I hate to foward private email to a public forum without the
author's express permission, but I told him privately that I would not
tolerate any more flames from him - either privately or publicly.
--------------B229D0525485AF1D3DFFAFC8
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Delivered: at request of mail on gdi4
Received: from animas.frontier.net (root@frontier.net [199.45.141.1]) by
gdi4.gdi.net (8.8.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA32703 for <pfoster@gdi.net>; Sat, 9
Oct 1999 11:08:29 -0400
Received: from [199.45.211.178] (dro-5-244.frontier.net [199.45.211.244])
by animas.frontier.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id JAA31859;
Sat, 9 Oct 1999 09:18:25 -0600
X-Sender: richf@mail.frontier.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v03007803b425b5309015@[199.45.211.178]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 21:19:42 -0600
To: Paul Foster <pfoster@gdi.net>
From: Group Four Teleproductions <richf@frontier.net>
Subject: SCAC/ Team.net
Cc: pjb@lanl.gov, Robfalkner@aol.com, Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com,
103535.536@compuserve.com, Per.Schroeder@ln.ssw.abbott.com
<fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><bigger><bigger>Mr. Foster,
It's not that your "views" are wierd. If I may be as blunt and
impolitic as you often are on Team.net, your views are not at all well
thought out. I think it's probably an internet thing. People just
don't seem to think about what they're writing while pounding the
keyboard and hitting the send button. For this minimal effort, they
get a rise out of the object of their intentions. Cheap thrills and
addittive to many... and let me be the first to tell you, Paul Foster
is an addict. If you don't think so, just try lurking for a month
without posting something. I'd be willing to bet that you cannot do
it. You get a rise out of letting everyone know how you feel. But
this manner in which you put yourself on public display is kind of like
getting up on stage in front of all of us and inserting a basal
thermometer to let us know how you're feeling. Not a pretty sight. The
point is, when people such as yourself get hooked on the listserves,
they simply fill them with rather impulsive and ill considered ideas,
topped by reams of follow-up posts... posts which would not be
necessary if they'd simply thought out their subject more fully, chewed
on it a while, put it to bed, slept on it, came back and rewrote it,
put it to bed again, reread it, rewrote it a third time, and THEN sent
it. Or, better yet, actually considered the meaninglessness of its
contents, and trashed it instead. But, no. What we get on listserves
like Team.net are 80% missives and 20% useful, meaningful content. The
addicts keep polluting the list with essentially worthless commentary
for no good reason simply because it makes their heartrate increase. In
other words, it's not unlike self sexual gratification. I know this for
fact, because I've done the research for a short documentary on this
rather mindless and maddening phenomenon of internet addiction. So, I'd
appreciate it if you'd think about what persons like yourself actually
contribute to these lists. Is it positive or negative? If it's both,
what do you think the percentages are, and of what true value to others
are your posts? Think about that every time you want to post
something. And just try not to post to Team.net for a while. Just sit
back and read. Think you can do it? I'll bet not. You're addicted.
That, and your opinion of the SEB and SCAC is noted. If some day you'd
consider contributing to this organization in a positive way, please
do. You seem to have the energy, or at the very least you've got
plenty of time, which is presently spent filling Team.net with your
opinions. Somebody really needs to suggest that you to lighten up.
Consider that suggestion made here and now. It may not concern you that
you've made very few friends and fewer converts by incessantly updating
everyone on your opinions. If you really cared, it would.
Rich
---------------------
>Hey Rich,
>Long time no hear. I don't know if you remember but we met in Salina
in
>'89. That's right. I'm no newbie. I just have weird views. I think we
>screwed up by losing the Corvette contingent just as I think we
screwed
>up by driving away most of the Porsche contingent.
There has never been a "Porsche contingent", and the C4 is simply long
in the tooth, like all once fast cars become.
>But I guess you are right about one thing. And that is that the SEB
and SCAC will not >change to make Solo II more grassroots. Too bad...
There you go again. Another misinpterpretation of someone's post- this
time, mine. The SCAC is solely in the business of providing a decent
framework within which grassroots autocrossers can exercise their cars.
If you'd liike an education in alternative methods, talk to Tim
Suddard of Grassroots Motorsports about trying to do this any better.
It's more work than you know.
</bigger></bigger></fontfamily>
--------------B229D0525485AF1D3DFFAFC8--
|