"The Compleat Poster" joke

The seven stages of Usenet posting:
1. Innocence
HI. I AM NEW HERE. WHY DO THEY CALL THIS TALK.BIZARRE? I THINK THAT
THIS NEWSGROUP (OOPS, NEWSFROUP - HEE, HEE) STUFF IS REAL NEAT. :-)
[dead chicken joke deleted]
This sort of joke DOES NOT BELONG HERE! Can't you read the rules? Gene
Spafford _clearly_ states in the List of Newsgroups:
rec.humor.dead.babes Dead Baby joke swapping
Simple enough for you? It's not enough that the creature be dead, it
*must* be a baby - capeesh?
This person is clearly scum - they're even hiding behind a pseudonym.
I mean, what kind of a name is FOO, anyway? I am writing to the
sysadmin at BAR.BITNET requesting that this person's net access be
revoked immediately. If said sysadmin does not comply, they are
obviously in on it - I will urge that their feeds cut them off
post-haste, so that they cannot spread this kind of $#! T over the net.
4. Disgust
In message (102938363617@Wumpus), James_The_Giant_Killer@Wumpus writes:
> Q: How do you fit 54 dead babies in a Tupperware bowl?
> ^L
> A: La Machine! HAHAHA!
Are you people completely devoid of imagination? We've heard this joke
*at least* 20 times, in the past three months alone!
When we first started this newsgroup, it was dynamic and innovative. We
would trade dead baby jokes that were truly fresh; ones that no one had
heard before. Half the jokes were *completely* original to this group.
Now, all we have are hacks who want to hear themselves speak. You
people are dull as dishwater. I give up; I'm unsubscribing, as of now.
You can have your stupid arguments without Me. Goodbye!
5. Resignation
In message (12345@wildebeest) wildman@wildebeest complains:
>In message (2@newsite) newby@newsite (Jim Newbs) writes:
>>How do you stuff 500 dead babies in a garbage can?
>>With a Cuisinart!
>
> ARRGGHH! We went out and created rec.humor.dead.babes.new specifically
> to keep this sort of ANCIENT jokes out! Go away and stick with
> r.h.d.b until you manage to come up with an imagination, okay?
Hey, wildman, chill out. When you've been around as long as I have,
you'll come to understand that twits are a part of life on the net.
Look at it this way: at least they haven't overwhelmed us yet. Most
of the jokes in rec.humor.dead.babes.new are still fresh and
interesting. We can hope that people like newby above will go lurk
until they understand the subtleties of dead baby joke creation, but we
should bear with them if they don't. Keep your cool, and don't let it
bug you.
6. Ossification
In message (6:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
> In message (2374373@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quatermass Public) writes:
>> In message (5:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>>> In message (2364821@nybble), byte@nybble (J. Quatermass Public) writes:
>>>> In message (4:00@cluck), chickenman@cluck (Cluck Kent) crows:
>>>>> Therefore, I propose the creation of rec.humor.dead.chicken.
>>>> Before they go asking for this newsgroup, I point out that they
>>>> should follow the rules. The guidelines clearly state that you
>>>> should be able to prove sufficient volume for this group. I have
>>>> heard no such volume in rec.humor.dead.babes, so I must conclude
>>>> that this proposal is a sham, and a fraud on the face of it.
>>> The last time we tried to post a dead chicken joke to r.h.d.b, we
>>> were yelled at to keep out! How DARE you accuse us of not having
>>> the volume, you TURD?
>> This sort of ad hominem attack is uncalled for. My point is simply
>> this: if there were interest in telling jokes about dead chickens,
>> then we surely would have heard some jokes about dead *baby* chickens
>> in r.h.d.b. We haven't heard any such jokes, so it is obvious that
>> there is no interest in chicken jokes.
> That doesn't even make sense! Your logic is completely flawed. Think a
It should be clear to people by no