autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: SCAC/ Team.net]

To: "Paul Foster" <pfoster@gdi.net>, "team.net" <autox@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: SCAC/ Team.net]
From: "Scotty *BOB* White" <we2fat4asp@seanet.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:26:02 -0800

>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.

   Paul, dude, BUDDY!
If you think that was a private flame, I submit you are a little lost ;-) A
private flame is a gloves off bareknuckle exocise in bludgeoning somone and
all this was at best is a strong suggestion to take a look around at whats
going on.

   Where on earth do you get the pationts Rich?

sbw impressed at Riches composure





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--
>
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>