Victor Sack wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > My god man get a LIFE. Wah Wah nothing happened. It's a simple call for
> > votes for a new aus newsgroup. You don't like it? reply no! Simple
> > really. I think you've made your points many, many times.
>
> My, such an original post (especially the "LIFE" part, complete with
> capitalising)! You ought to acquire a WebTV... it'll suit you

It was meant as an emphasis. How original, a WebTV insult. Yawn

> perfectly. In case you missed it - and of course you did - I was asking
> whether the aus.* FAQ is still relevant or should be pulled as no longer
> needed. Has a lot to do with all the future aus.* proposals. Flew
> right over your head, obviously.

Wrong thread for that sort of discussion. It's a call for votes, not a
call for whingers to moan and groan about being ignored becuase their
objections aren't being agreed with. Nothing flew over my head other
than your need to go on and on and on about something that is obviuosly
outside your bounds of control. Do you like to be controlling and hate
it when things don't go your way?

> >I couldn't
> > have cared less personally speaking, but seeing your attitude I think I
> > will vote. Yes for me!
>
> It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about.
> What an unprincipled decision!

What's more unethical than hijacking a thread about a new aus food
group to rant and rave about your feelings on the whole aus hierarchy?
You're allowed your opinion and yes, you've made it perfectly clear
many, many times. Have you thought about the negative impact that it
could have on other posters attitude toward the subject? Feh, talk
about principles.