* Michael Smith wrote:
** Richard Kerr wrote:
** It's interesting that some of the resident personalities here are quite recent additions (not wanting to name any names: Patrick Canion, Michael Smith, Rowland Croucher and Michael Kennedy (Can you tell I used to be a teacher? :)).
* I'm flattered to be called a personality, but I'm not all **THAT** recent. I used to read aus.religion in 1985/6, but dropped out for many years. I've been back for over 2 years. Is that considered recent ?
:-)
O.K., O.K.. It's obvious that what need here are some really good rules. Like all good institutions we need to make our membership conditions tighter than a platypus' bum.
My suggestions for nomenclature follow herewith:
Anyone who breaks cover and actually posts anything here has started down the road which leads to long term commitment to the group as a whole. These people should be titled an "At Risk Individual".
Someone who has posted enough times to be referred to by name in a thread to which they are not contributing has obviously achieved Sartori and should be given Andrew Bromage's title "Fogey", or more precisely, "New Fogey". (e.g. This paragraph confirms Andrew's New Fogey status).
I suspect that many people dabble with newsgroups while they are at University. While this is not to be discouraged, individuals who display sufficient commitment to continue posting beyond the three year undergraduate period have obviously moved beyond the usual "I contribute when I have time" mode to "I contribute therefore I am" mode. These people are truly Old Fogeys. (There you have it, everything you have ever expected about Theo is true.)
That leaves people who have displayed such unswerving, single minded, obstinate and irrational devotion to the group that they can actually remember its inception. As recognition of the fact that these people don't have a life they should be titled "Boring Old Fogey". People who have admitted to being Boring Old Fogeys at this point, are Callum Gibson, Chris Ho-Stuart, Danny Yee, Gregory Bond (So you're !.. It's good to have you back, Greg) and, er..., me.
Amendments welcomed.
--
Subject: The Rules (was Re: What's the point?)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997
From: Richard Kerr <
Given the flow of random thoughts through this newsgroup anyone who has not posted here at all is clearly superior to those who have. These people shall be called "The Council of the Wise".
Wear your title with pride!
Regards,
Richard of the Contrived Argument.
Boring Old Fogey.
top of page