We'll start with http://webnews.sff.net/read?cmd=rea
Allow me to translate it into simpler language for those of you who, you know, wouldn't know a logical idea if it bit you.
1) you must be 'qualified' to have an opinion. Well, at least one that disagrees with Sanders. (Long time readers may remember that he also had similar feelings about reviews--you had to have certain qualifications to make comments on the stories in the helix newsgroup)
2) bad behavior is okay if someone else starts it.
2.5) someone else ALWAYS starts it, if you look for insult hard enough.
(3 is boring, I'll ignore it.)
4) "Newsgroups aren't blogs! They're completely different, and I don't understand how you could possibly confuse this with a blog. The blog view button up there is just for show!" (Seriously, would someone explain to the old boys club that the difference between their newsgroups and our livejournals/blogs/etc is that we get to use fonts other than courier? Or is that what defines a newsgroup these days? Maybe I should go read up on newsgroups. After all, I stopped using them years ago when I found better alternatives.)
5) "Just because this is my space and I pay for it, I'm allowed to say anything I want to, unlike other people in their own paid for space."
The sour grapes method of hitting yourself: "For one thing, now that people can no longer make donations, why should we provide them with free reading matter?"
Other important lessons: The idea that you could dislike someone based on how they comport themselves around people you like or admire? That's just crazy talk! Nick CLEARLY hates sanders because "[Sanders's] magazine was better than his and got a Hugo nomination when his didn't", and not for any real reason. Likewise, all of you who were upset over his public, but now deleted, treatment of me and others when we dared ask questions in their chat room? Well, clearly you hate him because he wouldn't read your stories from the slush pile.
"Expecting logical consistency from the Blogtrotters is like expecting a Dachshund to fuck a Great Dane." Since he clearly meant this to be unlikely, I can only assume he has a poor understanding of the nature of dogs, and has never been to a pound. I, on the other hand, find both parts of this statement to be completely true.