[anti-abuse-wg] (no subject)

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 17:34:23 -0700
"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> andre at ox.co.za wrote:
> >We should all be able to agree on the basics...
> You obviously don't have the historical context, and thus, because of

I do, I have been lurking on this list for a very long time. 

I also recall your post a year? or two? ago and I remember the reactions

But, I am an abuse admin, with thick skin & short memory. 
I know that people are more than just one thing and that times are not
the same
I firmly believe in the goodness of humanity and postulate that we must
never lose hope. 

> that, you don't get the joke.  But rather than watching you flail 
> around needlessly and pointlessly for the next couple of weeks, I'll
<snip>
//off topic//
//flail around, like a fish, cool word 'flail' people do not appreciate 
//words as much as they used to, life has become so Mcdonalds
//and controlled by forceful insidious multinationals
> 
> But for whatever it's worth, I second your motion to develop a common
> definition of the word "abuse".
> 
Thank you, so lets do that then.

> All those in favor, please say "aye".
> (and cue the crickets)
> 
crickets count as votes :)

in EU, people still remember that neck choppy thing (from so 200 years
ago), Many an aristocrat donned peasant clothes and raised rabble
with the rabble, so to speak. 

Rise up against the 1% ... as if that will ever happen again, and again,
and again...  - now where did we park that neck choppy thing again? :)

Sooo, okay, I will kick this thing off in a new thread :)

Andre