Call me silly Mr. Foster, but I never saw any where in that message that he
never questioned your sex life, unless I missed soemthing, and what is your
point of posting that message did it serve a purpose, probaly even less then
me posting my response to this message to the listserve
As far as the Greg Morre thin all CLif did was say that your post really
burned him to that is disagreeing, what you said was inflamory, just like
this message I am responding to is searching for flames by pointing out
thier in-correct grammer.
Sorry for wasting eveyone elses' time.
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-autox@autox.team.net [mailto:owner-autox@autox.team.net]On
> Behalf Of Paul Foster
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 11:29 AM
> To: team.net
> Subject: [Fwd: SCAC/ Team.net]
>
>
> 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--
>
|