Of Cowards and net.cops (was META: Turning In My Badge)
John Rear Admiral McKeon
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:26:12 GMT, aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com (Aardy R.
DeVarque) wrote:
>Contributing a meow post to a massively crossposted meow thread consitutes
>abuse of the system. Anyone who then checked out the poster's posting
>pattern would find several other posts that quote lengthy articles to add a
>single (off-topic) comment and/or a "meow"--repeat offender, even if not
>always posted to racmx. Chronic problem, thus time to notify the
>postmaster.
>
>Don't try to play the victim.
Well, I wasn't trying to play the victim, I was just citing a time a
complaint was sent to my postmaster after one off-topic post. I get
complaints lodged against me all the time, it's no big deal, and yes,
I do bring it upon myself.
However, I would guess that around 80-90% of the posts made to meow
threads were made with fake email addresses. I still contend that I
was singled out a lot of the time because my address is real.
-
John "Rear Admiral" McKeon
http://www.fls.infi.net/~jmckeon
Secretary of the Navy, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Named "the Rainman of prog-rock and classic rock"
by Tom Deflumere
My cat's breath smells like cat food - Ralph Wiggum
peal nora c
jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) writes:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:26:12 GMT, aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com (Aardy R.
>DeVarque) wrote:
>>Contributing a meow post to a massively crossposted meow thread consitutes
>>abuse of the system. Anyone who then checked out the poster's posting
>>pattern would find several other posts that quote lengthy articles to add a
>>single (off-topic) comment and/or a "meow"--repeat offender, even if not
>>always posted to racmx. Chronic problem, thus time to notify the
>>postmaster.
>>
>>Don't try to play the victim.
>Well, I wasn't trying to play the victim, I was just citing a time a
>complaint was sent to my postmaster after one off-topic post. I get
>complaints lodged against me all the time, it's no big deal, and yes,
>I do bring it upon myself.
>However, I would guess that around 80-90% of the posts made to meow
>threads were made with fake email addresses. I still contend that I
>was singled out a lot of the time because my address is real.
Find the cost of freedom . . .
I, for one, salute your bravery!!
Uff da!
npeal@@@@@@@@@@@*FUCKHEAD*DEATH*SQUAD'S*@@@@@@@@@@@npeal
@@ I flame for blood and I flame for glee. @@
@@ I flame because my spirit's free. @@
@@ I love to meow and I proudly cascade. @@
@@ And if you don't like it, fuck off, you moron. @@
npeal@@@@@@@@@@@*BITCH*FROM*OUTER*SPACE*@@@@@@@@@@@npeal
Brandon
>
>Find the cost of freedom . . .
>
>I, for one, salute your bravery!!
>
>Uff da!
>
>npeal@@@@@@@@@@@*FUCKHEAD*DEATH*SQUAD'S*@@@@@@@@@@@npeal
>@@ I flame for blood and I flame for glee. @@
>@@ I flame because my spirit's free. @@
>@@ I love to meow and I proudly cascade. @@
>@@ And if you don't like it, fuck off, you moron. @@
>npeal@@@@@@@@@@@*BITCH*FROM*OUTER*SPACE*@@@@@@@@@@@npeal
Please tell you people arenąt serious. I left AOL for this petty crap. If
you crosspost, EVEN IF ITąS BY MISTAKE, you can be reported to your
postmaster, whom I assume, since Iąm a newbie and all, is your ISP?! God,
donąt you people have anything better to do?
I found such łcops˛ to generally, but not always, be abusive of their
power on AOL, and I suspect the same holds true here. I also suspect that
this is another case of the oldtimers vs the newbies to some degree. Get
over it. The internet is growing and will only continue to grow and some
of that growth will lead to chaotic situations such as crossposting. Get
over it and stop trying to be power brokers.
Yes, I realize that Iąm replying to a post that contains a particularly
offensive post. Rather than work myself into an uproar over this idiot, I
would do someting else. I would ignore him. Thats the neat thing about
posts. They can be ignored. Entire threads also! Ah, what bliss.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon
br...@mail.idt.net
"It doesn't matter how ridiculous a lie is if the lie is your only chance of escape.
It doesn't matter how obvious the truth is if the truth is that you'll never escape."
-Martin Cruz Smith
Raoul Xemblinosky
peal nora c wrote:
>
> jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) writes:
>
> >On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:26:12 GMT, aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com (Aardy R.
> >DeVarque) wrote:
>
> >>Contributing a meow post to a massively crossposted meow thread consitutes
> >>abuse of the system. Anyone who then checked out the poster's posting
> >>pattern would find several other posts that quote lengthy articles to add a
> >>single (off-topic) comment and/or a "meow"--repeat offender, even if not
> >>always posted to racmx. Chronic problem, thus time to notify the
> >>postmaster.
> >>
> >>Don't try to play the victim.
I can hardly believe that someone with a cool handle like "Aardy R.
DeVarque" would post whining netcop twaddle such as the above. It
is a disgrace to edentates of all nations and especially our own
revered Aardvarkk (where the hell are you, Aard?).
> >Well, I wasn't trying to play the victim, I was just citing a time a
> >complaint was sent to my postmaster after one off-topic post. I get
> >complaints lodged against me all the time, it's no big deal, and yes,
> >I do bring it upon myself.
>
> >However, I would guess that around 80-90% of the posts made to meow
> >threads were made with fake email addresses. I still contend that I
> >was singled out a lot of the time because my address is real.
That, and the fact that Mark Carslyn Staloff (it makes me feel all
oogy just to think about it) had kind of a thing for you. Until he
found out you were not a gerbil.
> Find the cost of freedom . . .
>
> I, for one, salute your bravery!!
I would like to salute Nora's own bravery with an UFF DA!
> Uff da!
I would now like to salute the Admiral's bravery with an UFF DA!
- Raoul Xemblinosky --------------------------------------------------
mjeow! "My name happens to be John Prophet, retard."
mjeow! --prop...@airmail.net in article
mjeow! <01bc3a15$4dcaecc0$e10442ce@default>
- http://super.zippo.com/~shpxurnq -----------------------------------
Aardy R. DeVarque
jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 17:26:12 GMT, aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com (Aardy R.
>DeVarque) wrote:
>>Contributing a meow post to a massively crossposted meow thread consitutes
>>abuse of the system. Anyone who then checked out the poster's posting
>>pattern would find several other posts that quote lengthy articles to add a
>>single (off-topic) comment and/or a "meow"--repeat offender, even if not
>>always posted to racmx. Chronic problem, thus time to notify the
>>postmaster.
>>
>>Don't try to play the victim.
>
>complaint was sent to my postmaster after one off-topic post. I get
>complaints lodged against me all the time, it's no big deal, and yes,
>I do bring it upon myself.
One off-topic post in the middle of a time period when racmx was being
flooded with meow crap, and as a group as a whole had had enough and was
trying to "take back the group" so to speak.
Considering you do bring it upon yourself, would it have made *any*
difference to you (since you apparently don't care what the people who have
to wade through such posts think) if you'd received e-mail requests to quit?
It doesn't for any of the other meowers, how should anyone know if you're
different?
>However, I would guess that around 80-90% of the posts made to meow
>threads were made with fake email addresses. I still contend that I
>was singled out a lot of the time because my address is real.
IOW, contributing to the very real potential downfall of the group--and
obviously knowing *full well* how inappropriate it was and going ahead
*anyway*--is perfectly reasonable grounds for reporting to a postmaster
after a first offense. Tthe poster is obviously unrepentant and is quite
likely to do it again and again, in other unappropriate groups if nothing
else, regardless of e-mail requests to the contrary. If nothing else,
getting reported to the postmaster with a copy CCed to the poster can serve
as a much-needed wake-up call for the poster. At that point, of course,
it's up to the postmaster to decide to ignore, watch, warn, or yank, with
the first two being the most common (unfortunately, in some cases; e.g.
freenet.carleton.edu.).
Those people whose addresses could be traced got reported, those whose
couldn't may very well have gotten reported to the admins of the feeds just
downstream of them, for all the good that may do. At that time, the group
needed to be tough. Now, the group is quite readable again, for the first
time in over a year.
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalism: Serf & Turf
Derek Nichols
>Aardy R. DeVarque <aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com> wrote in article
>> jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) wrote:
> >Well, I wasn't trying to play the victim, I was just citing a time a
> >complaint was sent to my postmaster after one off-topic post. I get
> >complaints lodged against me all the time, it's no big deal, and yes,
> >I do bring it upon myself.
>
> One off-topic post in the middle of a time period when racmx was being
> flooded with meow crap, and as a group as a whole had had enough and was
> trying to "take back the group" so to speak.
>
> Considering you do bring it upon yourself, would it have made *any*
> difference to you (since you apparently don't care what the people who
have
> to wade through such posts think) if you'd received e-mail requests to
quit?
> It doesn't for any of the other meowers, how should anyone know if you're
> different?
Innocent until proven guilty? Nah far too easy that way! 19 people
ignored the email so obviously the 20th will too, let's just shoot him :)
It's far too time consuming to give the 20th person a chance!
<Shoot, now I have gone and jumped into the thread!>
Derek Nichols
bre...@nbnet.nb.ca
Ryan McGinnis
>IOW, contributing to the very real potential downfall of the group--and
>obviously knowing *full well* how inappropriate it was and going ahead
>*anyway*--is perfectly reasonable grounds for reporting to a postmaster
>after a first offense. Tthe poster is obviously unrepentant and is quite
You realize that reporting someone to their poster for being offtopic is
rather silly, no? It doesn't get you anywhere. I've never seen a TOS that
says "Thou shalt not offend people, thou shalt not post offtopic". They
hate SPAM, so if it's crossposted to more than 20 groups (breaking the
sacred BI), then yes, they can get in trouble. Otherwise, save your
breath.
+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+
Ryan McGinnis ()_() TLKiaWoL
mcg...@iastate.edu (_) Jay's Mosh
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mcginnr/lionking/
Remember: When Win95 crashes, it's just god's way
of reminding you what it's like to be a Mac user
+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+
Kate the Short
Ryan McGinnis <mcg...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 17:40:12 GMT, aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com (Aardy R.
>DeVarque) wrote:
>
>>IOW, contributing to the very real potential downfall of the group--and
>>obviously knowing *full well* how inappropriate it was and going ahead
>>*anyway*--is perfectly reasonable grounds for reporting to a postmaster
>>after a first offense. Tthe poster is obviously unrepentant and is quite
>
> You realize that reporting someone to their poster for being offtopic is
>rather silly, no? It doesn't get you anywhere. I've never seen a TOS that
>says "Thou shalt not offend people, thou shalt not post offtopic". They
>hate SPAM, so if it's crossposted to more than 20 groups (breaking the
>sacred BI), then yes, they can get in trouble. Otherwise, save your
>breath.
It was continuous crossposting of "MEOW" and all of its variations by more
than a few people to more than a few newsgroups. I think that's close
enough to report someone. This wasn't just a one-posted, one-crosspost,
one-off-topic-message thing.
OF course, since you weren't reading xbooks at the time, and weren't wading
through 30% meow followups for about a month and a half, you wouldn't
actually *know*, now would you?
I'm the one (or one of the ones) who was writing to postmasters. And I'd
do it again if that situation, where 30% of the messages were crossposted
in from the nose and related groups, including ones where people they were
quoting had specifically asked them to STOP the crossposts, and where 90%
of those crossposts were "meow" or Mj30w! or whatever, EVER happened again.
I'd do it in a heartbeat. IT was not a prety sight. It caused the group
to call for *serious* talk of moderating the group.
To me, that was continued abuse of the system. It wasn't cool.
kate.
Kate the Short -(ka...@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu)- at the U. of Chicago
Read FAQs at: http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/keweizel/faq.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
janis berzins
Kate the Short wrote:
>
> I'm the one (or one of the ones) who was writing to postmasters. And I'd
> do it again if that situation, where 30% of the messages were crossposted
> in from the nose and related groups, including ones where people they were
> quoting had specifically asked them to STOP the crossposts, and where 90%
> of those crossposts were "meow" or Mj30w! or whatever, EVER happened again.
> I'd do it in a heartbeat. IT was not a prety sight. It caused the group
> to call for *serious* talk of moderating the group.
>
> To me, that was continued abuse of the system. It wasn't cool.
Yeah, and in the same circumstances, I'd probably do the same. I'm
certainly not advocating anarchy. (Which, dispite some pretty
hystarical things said here, is not very productive at anything except
causing people to agree to some pretty silly alternate forms of social
organization in a desperate rush to stop the anarchy.) But I wouldn't do
it as a self-appointed netcop, rather as a concerned citizen. I think
it's the difference between calling the cops if you see a mugging and
dressing up like a roach and beating up muggers.
On the other hand, I don't consider this any more immature than people
who think because they can get away with breaking the rules they SHOULD
break the rules.
I really hate to jump back in here after I thought I had said everything
I had to say on the subject. Yet, I continue to be fasinated by the
dialog cosidering the group and the general predilection we seem to have
for (super)heroes and vigilanties. (There! That's two comic references
for anyone who's counting. As former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn
once said "To get along, go along".)
"They say time is the fire in which we burn."
Please visit my NEW electronic portfolio at
janis berzins
umma...@cc.umanitoba.ca
Ryan McGinnis writes:
> You realize that reporting someone to their poster for being offtopic is
>rather silly, no? It doesn't get you anywhere. I've never seen a TOS that
>says "Thou shalt not offend people, thou shalt not post offtopic". They
>hate SPAM, so if it's crossposted to more than 20 groups (breaking the
>sacred BI), then yes, they can get in trouble. Otherwise, save your
>breath.
There is very rare occassions that you can get someone booted....
Crossposting and spamming are the main ones. If the person repeatedly
posts stuff that is not only off-topic, but nonsensical and designed to
offend, then that can be grounds for booting, too. Simply being
off-topic is not good enough.
OTOH, if you feel you should have someone booted, send the evidence to
whoever takes care of that stuff from their server. They can make their
own judgement, depending on their code of standards.
Iain
--
University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
"But what is truth? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?" - Jesus Christ Superstar
Aardy R. DeVarque
"Derek Nichols" <bre...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>Aardy R. DeVarque <aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com> wrote in article
>> difference to you (since you apparently don't care what the people who
>have
>> to wade through such posts think) if you'd received e-mail requests to
>quit?
>> It doesn't for any of the other meowers, how should anyone know if you're
>> different?
>
>Innocent until proven guilty? Nah far too easy that way! 19 people
>ignored the email so obviously the 20th will too, let's just shoot him :)
>
>It's far too time consuming to give the 20th person a chance!
>
><Shoot, now I have gone and jumped into the thread!>
You obviously haven't lived through a group that has been invaded by the
meowers; killfiles don't work. E-mailing the posters doesn't work.
Ignoring it doesn't make it go away any faster. Possibly getting warnings
sent to posters from people who have the power to actually do something
about the problem can work wonders.
We're not talking about innocent misposts here--those almost always don't
get forwarded to postmasters. This is the intentional spamming of a large
number of Usenet groups.
Aardy R. DeVarque
Feudalsim: Serf & VRML
Aardy R. DeVarque
br...@mail.idt.net (Brandon) wrote:
>Please tell you people aren靖 serious. I left AOL for this petty crap. If
>you crosspost, EVEN IF IT酬 BY MISTAKE, you can be reported to your
>postmaster, whom I assume, since I雋 a newbie and all, is your ISP?! God,
>don靖 you people have anything better to do?
<sigh> This is what happens when you come into a discussion in the middle
and assume you know what's going on. You get a knee-jerk reaction based on
inaccurate information. Typical Usenet occurrence. ;)
IF IT'S BY MISTAKE it doesn't get reported to one's ISP.
Even if it does, the postmaster will, in all likelihood, look at the
evidence and either delete and ignore it, or ask for the poster's
explanation, at which point it becomes obvious it was an error that won't be
repeated, and the evidence gets deleted and ignored.
In fact, 99.44% of all net-copped topics discussed on this thread never get
reported to an ISP. That last .56% is the intentional constant unwarrant
flames (e.g. Rob/Raza/Naveed), Make Money Fast (which is a crime as wire
fraud in at least several states in the U.S.), intentional massive
crossposting of trolls/flames/general spew (e.g. ALL [Raciel epithet] RAPE
WHITE BOYS!, meow MeOw m30w /\/\30\/\/, etc.). *THAT* gets reported to
ISPs; in many cases, these sorts of things violate Terms of Service
contracts, and many ISPs *want* to know about it since that sort of thing
reflects *very* poorly on the ISP ("what kind of service are they that they
allow that spammer to keep his account and keep on ruining Usenet for
everyone else?")
Also, unless one steps *way* over the line (e.g. Rob McLean), disagreeing
with "the net-cops" (who aren't a unified group anyway) and/or even taking
part in lengthy flamewars will not result in one getting reported to one's
ISP. It just doesn't happen except in extreme cases.
Aardy R. DeVarque
janis berzins <bber...@dekalb.net> wrote:
>Kate the Short wrote:
>>
>> I'm the one (or one of the ones) who was writing to postmasters. And I'd
>> do it again if that situation, where 30% of the messages were crossposted
>> in from the nose and related groups, including ones where people they were
>> quoting had specifically asked them to STOP the crossposts, and where 90%
>> of those crossposts were "meow" or Mj30w! or whatever, EVER happened again.
>> I'd do it in a heartbeat. IT was not a prety sight. It caused the group
>> to call for *serious* talk of moderating the group.
>>
>> To me, that was continued abuse of the system. It wasn't cool.
>
>Yeah, and in the same circumstances, I'd probably do the same. I'm
>certainly not advocating anarchy. (Which, dispite some pretty
>hystarical things said here, is not very productive at anything except
>causing people to agree to some pretty silly alternate forms of social
>organization in a desperate rush to stop the anarchy.) But I wouldn't do
>it as a self-appointed netcop, rather as a concerned citizen. I think
>it's the difference between calling the cops if you see a mugging and
>dressing up like a roach and beating up muggers.
It's more the difference between a) calling the cops if you see a mugging
and b) informing someone that jaywalking is against the law, then doing
nothing else but wait to see if the jaywalkers make a habit of jaywalking
across busy streets. Of course, when the jaywalkers retaliate with "I can
walk anywhere I damn well please", or a bystander jumps in and says "you
don't have the right to tell him not to jaywalk," or the muggers respond
with "you shouldn't have called the cops when you saw me mugging someone",
what is one to do?
'Sides, all the net.cops around these parts are concerned citizens who try
to *do* something, rather than being all passive, waiting for problems that
are continually getting larger to go away on their own.
>On the other hand, I don't consider this any more immature than people
>who think because they can get away with breaking the rules they SHOULD
>break the rules.
Agreed. In my perfect world, there'd be no net.cops, because everyone would
understand what the heck this Usenet thing is and why it's set up the way it
is.
It's also fun to see anti-net.cop people net.cop the net.cops... ;)
>Yet, I continue to be fasinated by the
>dialog cosidering the group and the general predilection we seem to have
>for (super)heroes and vigilanties.
And you've just proven how easy it is to be on-topic. :)
In any case, it's an interesting line of thought... a group dedicated to
discussing 'characters who are, for the most part, unlicensed vigilantes
taking justice into their own hands' has several regular posters who can't
just sit by when people abuse the system, and also want to help when people
mispost--the equivalent of rescuing a cat stuck in a tree. Of course, even
then you get the bystanders complaining "But his cat *wanted* to be in that
tree!"
Grumio
Aardy R. DeVarque wrote:
>
> Raoul Xemblinosky <rao...@k-nkvd.org> wrote:
> >peal nora c wrote:
> > >Aardy R. DeVarque wrote:
> > >>Contributing a meow post to a massively crossposted meow thread consitutes
> > >>abuse of the system. Anyone who then checked out the poster's posting
> > >>pattern would find several other posts that quote lengthy articles to add a
> > >>single (off-topic) comment and/or a "meow"--repeat offender, even if not
> > >>always posted to racmx. Chronic problem, thus time to notify the
> > >>postmaster.
> > >>
> > >>Don't try to play the victim.
>
> >DeVarque"
>
>
> >would post whining netcop twaddle such as the above. It
> >revered Aardvarkk (where the hell are you, Aard?).
>
> Stepp, one of the big regulars there, has made it abundantly clear that he
> doesn't mind if people post other material in groups he reads. Using his
> reasoning, he won't complain if y'all move in there with your mjeows & uff
> da's. He also claims _none_ of the regulars in the group will net.cop
> *anything*. Be sure to let any friends you might have over on
> alt.college.college-bowl know!
>
> Have fun!
>
> ARD
> F=S+T
> Post intended purely in jest, as *I'd* hate to see that group go down in
> flames, but I'd almost like to see David "the groups I read don't *need*
> net.cops" Stepp's reaction to a dedicated invasion of his favorite group by
> m30wers...
It looks like he'll know who to blame if it happens, Ardy.
Derek Nichols
Aardy R. DeVarque <aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com> wrote in article
<3347ad89....@news.anet-chi.com>...
> "Derek Nichols" <bre...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> >>Aardy R. DeVarque <aa...@anet-chi.NOJUNK.com> wrote in article
> >> Considering you do bring it upon yourself, would it have made *any*
> >> difference to you (since you apparently don't care what the people who
> >have
> >> to wade through such posts think) if you'd received e-mail requests to
> >quit?
> >> It doesn't for any of the other meowers, how should anyone know if
you're
> >> different?
> >
> >Innocent until proven guilty? Nah far too easy that way! 19 people
> >ignored the email so obviously the 20th will too, let's just shoot him
:)
> >
> >It's far too time consuming to give the 20th person a chance!
> >
> ><Shoot, now I have gone and jumped into the thread!>
>
> You obviously haven't lived through a group that has been invaded by the
> meowers; killfiles don't work. E-mailing the posters doesn't work.
> Ignoring it doesn't make it go away any faster. Possibly getting
warnings
> sent to posters from people who have the power to actually do something
> about the problem can work wonders.
I agree with everything above you have said. Except maybe for the not
having lived through these episodes. They are more than annoying. Most go
away. Like I am sure this OF COWARDS thread will <which I can't believe I
have jumped into, and think I regret it already...>
> We're not talking about innocent misposts here--those almost always don't
> get forwarded to postmasters. This is the intentional spamming of a
large
> number of Usenet groups.
But what about those ODD ones that do? Nobody can deny that it's possible
and that it has happened. Somebody jumps in on a real bad crosspost
thread, and adds a comment. No, they shouldn't have, they made a judgement
error. We have all made mistakes in the past and will in the future.. The
chances all very slim they'll get reported, but the time will come <and
has> where they get sent off to be apprehended by their postmaster.
My question was, although asked in a non-obvious joking manner: Is it
worth the price to just skip the step of giving the abuser a chance in such
a case and email the postmaster. I don't think it is. It's a pain but
they deserve a chance before they are set up for the firing squad.
It's only 1 in a million <billion?>, but just to say "oopps ow well, it's
the price to pay to stop the garbage" doesn't sit well with me.
Netcop all you want, I just ignore netcop posts, but treat EVERYONE you
netcop like you would want to be treated. Give them 1 chance, then nail
them if you must. They should have the right to that one chance, even if
it is amidst a thread like the MEOW one.
Derek Nichols
bre...@nbnet.nb.ca
janis berzins
Aardy R. DeVarque wrote:
>
> janis berzins <bber...@dekalb.net> wrote:
>
> It's more the difference between a) calling the cops if you see a mugging
> and b) informing someone that jaywalking is against the law, then doing
> nothing else but wait to see if the jaywalkers make a habit of jaywalking
> across busy streets. Of course, when the jaywalkers retaliate with "I can
> walk anywhere I damn well please", or a bystander jumps in and says "you
> don't have the right to tell him not to jaywalk," or the muggers respond
> with "you shouldn't have called the cops when you saw me mugging someone",
> what is one to do?
I see your point, and think jaywalking is a good analogy. I think
everyone should help to instruct people new to the net on the standards
of the community. But this is ettiquite. I might be the person to say
"Why don't you cross over there?" Such is my nature (no doubt influenced
by years of reading comics while growing up). But I would say it to the
person, not start screaming it at the top of my lungs so that everybody
could hear. I think public netcopping is the equivelent of dressing up
in brightly colored spandex and stopping jaywalkers. I have no problem
with private netcopping. I think it's a good and necessary thing. And I
haven't frequented a newsgroup yet where somebody hasnt done the "I can
do whatever I want" thread. (Usually they just get ignored.) Remember
how it used to be in the fall? Now it's like that all the time. I
admire the netcops stamina if nothing else, I haven't sent a helpful
reminder in a long time.
>
> In any case, it's an interesting line of thought... a group dedicated to
> discussing 'characters who are, for the most part, unlicensed vigilantes
> taking justice into their own hands' has several regular posters who can't
> just sit by when people abuse the system, and also want to help when people
> mispost--the equivalent of rescuing a cat stuck in a tree. Of course, even
> then you get the bystanders complaining "But his cat *wanted* to be in that
> tree!"
Somebody who spends a great deal of their time going around finding cats
in trees has a hobby. I really only have questions about public
netcopping.
Oh, and don't forget:
Hitler, Hitler, Hitler
(love it)
--
David W. Stepp
In article <33493D...@earthlink.net>, janis berzins
<jabe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> I see your point, and think jaywalking is a good analogy. I think
> everyone should help to instruct people new to the net on the standards
> of the community. But this is ettiquite. I might be the person to say
> "Why don't you cross over there?" Such is my nature (no doubt influenced
> by years of reading comics while growing up). But I would say it to the
> person, not start screaming it at the top of my lungs so that everybody
> could hear. I think public netcopping is the equivelent of dressing up
> in brightly colored spandex and stopping jaywalkers. I have no problem
> with private netcopping. I think it's a good and necessary thing. And I
> haven't frequented a newsgroup yet where somebody hasnt done the "I can
> do whatever I want" thread. (Usually they just get ignored.) Remember
> how it used to be in the fall? Now it's like that all the time. I
> admire the netcops stamina if nothing else, I haven't sent a helpful
> reminder in a long time.
Jaywalking is a good analogy. How serious an offense is jaywalking?
Does Jaywalking merit the death penalty? Of course not. Is jaywalking
every justified? Yes, certainly. Is jaywalking a crime that endangers
others? Not really, it's designed mainly to keep you from hurting yourself
if you step out in front of a car.
So some people decide that it's best to keep things moving in a
semi-orderly way. Jaywalkers and non-jaywalker voted for this. Netcops
decide that you absolutely must never jaywalk (esp if you're a newbie,
elders understand better when it's OK to jaywalk and are allowed) or you
will be publicaly flogged. If you continue to jaywalk, we' won't let you
on the street. Netcops say since they have a long history of watching
traffic, they possess a deep understanding of the best ways to cross the
street and you must obey them. If you don't, they will call their other
netcop friends and thrash you in the street.
But some of the elders see the value of jaywalking. The shortest path
betwen point A and point B is a straight line. Indeed, as the street
reorganizes itself with new people moving in and out, rigid sets fo
traffic are not the best idea. They tell the netcops to shut up. The
netcops become incensed and claimn you know nothing of traffic! They were
here directing traffic before you were born! They won't let you on their
street!
Ultimately, unless you do a lot worse than jaywalk, they can't do
anything. They get quite self-righteous and kill-file you, convincing
themselves that you don't exist anymore. You and your freinds can then
jaywalk to your hearts content, walking directly in front of them if you
like. They then live in a world where they can see no one disagreeing with
them, so they must therefore be on the right path. The rest of us can
simply go about our business as usual.
D.
Bryant Durrell
In article <dstepp-0704...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>,
David W. Stepp <dst...@post.its.mcw.edu> wrote:
> Jaywalking is a good analogy. How serious an offense is jaywalking?
>Does Jaywalking merit the death penalty? Of course not. Is jaywalking
>every justified? Yes, certainly. Is jaywalking a crime that endangers
>others? Not really, it's designed mainly to keep you from hurting yourself
>if you step out in front of a car.
Sure, nobody's ever veered to avoid hitting a jaywalker and hit another
car; no jaywalker has ever caused an accident. For that matter, nobody's
ever had to pay for car repairs after hitting some yobbo in the middle
of the street.
If you're going to use random analogies, at least try to make sure they
make sense.
--
dur...@innocence.com http://www.innocence.com/~durrell dur...@bofh.net
"[David] Cronenberg is to Toronto as John Hughes is to Chicago."
-- David Plant, Toronto Film Commissioner
Derek Nichols
janis berzins <jabe...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> Oh, and don't forget:
>
> Hitler, Hitler, Hitler
> (love it)
Ow great, let's just go to Closure, so that we can have to do this all over
again in 6 months :)
I have read the netcopping threads with great interest this time, hoping
<really hoping> that for once something would get done. Guess I was just
kidding myself all along.
We've been told netcops are necessary, and that we can't change the Charter
as there is no mechanism to change it aside from a formal vote to disband.
Any attempt to discuss ways to change the Charter or ways to stop <?ban?>
public netcopping are stomped on and degenerate into endless threads that
get Hitlered. It's nice to live in this place... a place where almost
everyone wants some type of minor change, but can't do it if their life
depended on it.
Perhaps it's time I find a new home to discuss my love of comics instead of
this black hole called usenet :)
Derek Nichols
bre...@nbnet.nb.ca
Raoul Xemblinosky
I was sort of wondering about this thread myself. Nobody here at the
Nose (as we so fondly call it) is really participating in it, and I'm
beginning to wonder why it is being crossposted here. Not that I'm
going to write to anyone's postmaster or anything, because nothing is
off-topic here at the Nose and this thread contains an unusually high
level of the Big Words And Perfect Grammar we adore so much. But if
someone would clue me in as to what (if anything) this thread has to
do with the Nose *per se,* I would be most grateful.
Thanks in advance,
Raoul Xemblinosky
-- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .--
RAOU "It's sorta like Dada, or surrealism, or modern alt.fa
LXEM performance art. It has no meaning at all! and if n.karl
BLIN you try to figure it out all you'll get for your -malde
OSKY efforts is a headache!"-- jlu...@primenet.com n.nose
-- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .--
RAOU "It's sorta like Dada, or surrealism, or modern alt.fa
LXEM performance art. It has no meaning at all! and if n.karl
BLIN you try to figure it out all you'll get for your -malde
OSKY efforts is a headache!"-- jlu...@primenet.com n.nose
Rodney Boles
In article <dstepp-0704...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>, dst...@post.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) writes:
|> Is jaywalking a crime that endangers
|> others? Not really, it's designed mainly to keep you from hurting yourself
|> if you step out in front of a car.
And this is the same guy that in the "Joe Camel" thread was justifying
banning ALL smoking because we all share in the cost of healthcare.
We are also affected by the jaywalkers actions if he and the driver
are hostpitalized. And you don't even bother to mention that the
drivers of the cars are put at danger because of the actions.
David, I implore you, please go back to talking about the JSA.
Rodney
David W. Stepp
In article <5idklr$1d4a$3...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>,
ro...@eyensky.raleigh.ibm.com (Rodney Boles) wrote:
> And this is the same guy that in the "Joe Camel" thread was justifying
> banning ALL smoking because we all share in the cost of healthcare.
> We are also affected by the jaywalkers actions if he and the driver
> are hostpitalized. And you don't even bother to mention that the
> drivers of the cars are put at danger because of the actions.
Do you really think those situations are comparable? You must not have
read those posts. Jaywalking is occasionaly useful, beneficial, and a
decision must be made re: when and when not to do it. People who get
creamed by cars do so because they didn't look before they ran out into
the road. This happens about as often at intersections as not. The fact
that you run into the middle of the road, whether at an red-lighted
intersection or non-intersection, is really important to the crime. If the
person jaywalking makes sure no one is coming, where is the harm in his
action? Posting against charter is even less of a crime because no one but
people without the self-discipline to skip posts is harmed. In an good
evolutionary model, those people are the ones that need weeding out.
Regarding the smoking thread, if you had read it carefully you would
have noticed that I pointed out that smoking is almost uniformly bad. It's
only advantage now is that is an serious economic crutch to the Carolinian
economy. I think tobacco should be phased out to let that one good thing
burn down. You will also note in those post that I made it a point to
allow for continued production of booze, despite it's obvious detriments,
because there is some non-trivial evidence that occasional drinking is
actually good for you. We should allow beer to be produced in case
something good comes out of it. We should be very tolerant of "off-topic"
posts in case something good comes out of it. We should ban smoking
because 10 years of research shows that it does enormous damage and
produces essentially nothing of value.
Regarding the JSA, my primary goal here has been to milk people for
information. My primary concern here is that older fans or people of
different comic background get excluded because they don't fit the current
set of elders interpretation of the charter. I am not standing here
bitching about this on academic grounds. It has happened on more than one
occasion and probably happens more that I don't catch. In as much as I am
able, that will not be allowed.(Go back and read the smoking posts. You
seem to have missed a lot).
D.
Rodney Boles
In article <dstepp-0804...@d558-1.phys.mcw.edu>, dst...@post.its.mcw.edu (David W. Stepp) writes:
|> In article <5idklr$1d4a$3...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>,
|> ro...@eyensky.raleigh.ibm.com (Rodney Boles) wrote:
|>
|> > And this is the same guy that in the "Joe Camel" thread was justifying
|> > banning ALL smoking because we all share in the cost of healthcare.
|> > We are also affected by the jaywalkers actions if he and the driver
|> > are hostpitalized. And you don't even bother to mention that the
|> > drivers of the cars are put at danger because of the actions.
|>
|> Do you really think those situations are comparable?
I think your arguments in eacg case are contridictory.
|> You must not have read those posts.
Obviously I read them or I wouldn't be talking about them.
|> Jaywalking is occasionaly useful, beneficial, and a
|> decision must be made re: when and when not to do it.
And smokers obviously find some sort of use for smoking, ie.
the like a nicotine buzz, find it relaxing, whatever. And they
must make a decision when to do it and when not to.
|> People who get
|> creamed by cars do so because they didn't look before they ran out into
|> the road.
Kind of like people who post without lurking, reading the FAQ, etc.?
|> This happens about as often at intersections as not. The fact
|> that you run into the middle of the road, whether at an red-lighted
|> intersection or non-intersection, is really important to the crime. If the
|> person jaywalking makes sure no one is coming, where is the harm in his
|> action? Posting against charter is even less of a crime because no one but
|> people without the self-discipline to skip posts is harmed. In an good
|> evolutionary model, those people are the ones that need weeding out.
I have seen so many newsgroups become so overrun with off-topic post
as to become unusable. I didn't follow racx, but I've seen it used
as an example. As a further example, look at some of the rec.travel
groups. They have a marketplace group, yet there are so many post
trying to sell people timeshares and crap as to make some of the groups
a waste of time. rec.travel.misc is almost 90 percent ads.
|> Regarding the smoking thread, if you had read it carefully you would
|> have noticed that I pointed out that smoking is almost uniformly bad.
From a health care perspective. Even though I do not smoke, I think if
people enjoy something, they shoudl be allowed to do it. We should
focus on stopping kids from smoking and reducing effects on second
hand smoke. Both of which are already occuring.
|> It's only advantage now is that is an serious economic crutch to the
|> Carolinian economy. I think tobacco should be phased out to let that one
|> good thing burn down.
And I think this is probably blown out of proportion because of the
power of the tobacco lobby. Certainly all the price supports, etc.,
make so much artificial, especially in the wake of NAFTA/GATT.
|> You will also note in those post that I made it a point to
|> allow for continued production of booze, despite it's obvious detriments,
|> because there is some non-trivial evidence that occasional drinking is
|> actually good for you. We should allow beer to be produced in case
|> something good comes out of it. We should be very tolerant of "off-topic"
|> posts in case something good comes out of it. We should ban smoking
|> because 10 years of research shows that it does enormous damage and
|> produces essentially nothing of value.
I think your thoughts re: off-topic posts are why topic drift is
usually not netcopped. But when someone post something like
"Who is cooler: Cyclops or Gambit?" to rac.misc rather than
to racm.x, then I really do not want to see the thread get going
here; same with casting calls.
|> Regarding the JSA, my primary goal here has been to milk people for
|> information. My primary concern here is that older fans or people of
|> different comic background get excluded because they don't fit the current
|> set of elders interpretation of the charter. I am not standing here
|> bitching about this on academic grounds. It has happened on more than one
|> occasion and probably happens more that I don't catch. In as much as I am
|> able, that will not be allowed.(Go back and read the smoking posts. You
|> seem to have missed a lot).
David,
You really condescend when you imply that I missed something. But then,
you condescend quite a bit, certainly more than any net.cop I've ever
seen.
You said that the only one potentially harmed by jaywalking was the
jaywalker. I pointed out that drivers are potentially harmed, as are
taxpayers (same as second hand smokers are affected as are taxpayers
with tobacco).
As much as I truly hate smoking, I feel it goes against out Constitution
to dictate that an adult can't smoke if that is their choice. I find it
funny that you argue about free-speech related stuff in regards to posting,
yet are for censoring tobacco companies.
Rodney
John Rear Admiral McKeon
>
>I was sort of wondering about this thread myself. Nobody here at the
>Nose (as we so fondly call it) is really participating in it, and I'm
>beginning to wonder why it is being crossposted here.
Uh...I did it. It's my fault. I posted a response to RAC.misc, and
crossposted it to "the nose". As regulars to "the nose" will attest,
I've got kind of a problem with crossposting.
>Not that I'm
>going to write to anyone's postmaster or anything, because nothing is
>off-topic here at the Nose and this thread contains an unusually high
>level of the Big Words And Perfect Grammar we adore so much. But if
>someone would clue me in as to what (if anything) this thread has to
>do with the Nose *per se,* I would be most grateful.
Done and done.
>Thanks in advance,
>Raoul Xemblinosky
>
>-- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .--
> RAOU "It's sorta like Dada, or surrealism, or modern alt.fa
> LXEM performance art. It has no meaning at all! and if n.karl
> BLIN you try to figure it out all you'll get for your -malde
> OSKY efforts is a headache!"-- jlu...@primenet.com n.nose
>
>-- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .--
> RAOU "It's sorta like Dada, or surrealism, or modern alt.fa
> LXEM performance art. It has no meaning at all! and if n.karl
> BLIN you try to figure it out all you'll get for your -malde
> OSKY efforts is a headache!"-- jlu...@primenet.com n.nose
-
John Rear Admiral McKeon
>jmc...@fls.infi.net (John "Rear Admiral" McKeon) wrote:
>would it have made *any*
>difference to you (since you apparently don't care what the people who have
>to wade through such posts think) if you'd received e-mail requests to quit?
Well, yes I would have stopped, and have done so in the past. All it
takes is a polite request.
>It doesn't for any of the other meowers, how should anyone know if you're
>different?
How do you know that anyone posting off-topic (not just the meowers)
will be any different?
>IOW, contributing to the very real potential downfall of the group--and
>obviously knowing *full well* how inappropriate it was and going ahead
>*anyway*--is perfectly reasonable grounds for reporting to a postmaster
>after a first offense.
Fine - my whole point to begin with is that there are people who
report to postmasters on the first offense. It's no big deal - as
someone else pointed out, any ISP that would yank an account on the
first complaint isn't worth staying with. I just wanted to establish
that it's been done.
John Rear Admiral McKeon
On 8 Apr 1997 09:23:01 -0400, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
>No, it's the equivalent of posting a sign somewhere on the street saying
>"Please don't jaywalk, it's illegal and could get someone hurt."
I think it's more the equivalent of smacking someone about the head
and shoulders with a Visual C++ manual for putting too many pickles in
the 'fridge. The netcops are the geese.
Paul O'Brien
"Derek Nichols" <bre...@nbnet.nb.ca> writes:
>We've been told netcops are necessary, and that we can't change the Charter
>as there is no mechanism to change it aside from a formal vote to disband.
>Any attempt to discuss ways to change the Charter or ways to stop <?ban?>
>public netcopping are stomped on and degenerate into endless threads that
>get Hitlered. It's nice to live in this place... a place where almost
>everyone wants some type of minor change, but can't do it if their life
>depended on it.
And you've got a point there. It's quite ridiculous that there's
no mechanism for amending charters. Of course, since Usenet is
all ultimately run by Tale, there's sod all we can do about it.
Paul O'Brien
The Onslaught Index - http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~prob/index/
T minus 22.
damon's gate
David W. Stepp wrote:
>
> In article <5idklr$1d4a$3...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>,
> ro...@eyensky.raleigh.ibm.com (Rodney Boles) wrote:
>
> > And this is the same guy that in the "Joe Camel" thread was justifying
> > banning ALL smoking because we all share in the cost of healthcare.
> > We are also affected by the jaywalkers actions if he and the driver
> > are hostpitalized. And you don't even bother to mention that the
> > drivers of the cars are put at danger because of the actions.
> posts in case something good comes out of it. We should ban smoking
> because 10 years of research shows that it does enormous damage and
> produces essentially nothing of value.
bullshit.
if it produced nothing of value, then poeple wouldn't smoke.
you might want to consider what "value" really means.
this ties directly into this thread because
what you consider "value" produced by offtopic isn't
what others consider value.
so, you're assigning parameters to "value" which allow you to
make the artifical distinction you just made.
> Regarding the JSA, my primary goal here has been to milk people for
> information. My primary concern here is that older fans or people of
> different comic background get excluded because they don't fit the current
> set of elders interpretation of the charter. I am not standing here
> bitching about this on academic grounds. It has happened on more than one
> occasion and probably happens more that I don't catch. In as much as I am
> able, that will not be allowed.(Go back and read the smoking posts. You
> seem to have missed a lot).
i read your smoking posts. they're antiamerican.
i'm not going to deny that there's a need for some pliability
concerning offtopicness due to the reasons you state.
the problem i have is that every time this comes up
there are invariably a few people who act with wounded morality that
netcopping should occur at all, and this is silly concerning
the elusive nature of the american attention span, and the
inherent NEED for organization that derives from the net.
--
"I still do not know how successful the kindly ones was... Still,
it's the heaviest of all these volumes, and thus, in hardback at
least, could undoubtedly be used to stun a burglar; which has
always been my definition of real art." Neil Gaiman
Raoul Xemblinosky
Paul O'Brien wrote:
>
> "Derek Nichols" <bre...@nbnet.nb.ca> writes:
>
> >We've been told netcops are necessary, and that we can't change the Charter
> >as there is no mechanism to change it aside from a formal vote to disband.
> >Any attempt to discuss ways to change the Charter or ways to stop <?ban?>
> >public netcopping are stomped on and degenerate into endless threads that
> >get Hitlered. It's nice to live in this place... a place where almost
> >everyone wants some type of minor change, but can't do it if their life
> >depended on it.
>
> And you've got a point there. It's quite ridiculous that there's
> no mechanism for amending charters. Of course, since Usenet is
> all ultimately run by Tale, there's sod all we can do about it.
Clealy, sir, you need to talk to Fluffy, Ruler of all Usenet.
---------------- afkmn First Anniversary (1996-1997) ------------------
RAOU -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- -- . --- .-- alt.fa
LXEM "The Shaggs. Better n.karl
BLIN than the Beatles - even today." -malde
OSKY -- Frank Zappa (1940-1993) n.nose