Rules
Angelo Campanella
Welcome to the Usenet group on acoustics!
I know of no other public medium than Internet and its affiliates
that serves the purpose of global access and query on chosen subjects
successfully at present.
Genuine inquiries in technical acoustics are welcome.
Newcomers may enjoy the Acoustics FAQ, devised and generated solely by
the many participants in this news group several years ago, and now
posted at:
http://www.campanellaacoustics.com/faq.htm#basic
However, detailed repartee` on simple problems such as speaker design,
home studio details and amplified audio problems should be discussed
elsewhere on hobby groups, soundproofing, etc.
This alt.news group is intended for preliminary technical discussion on
all fields
of acoustics, perhaps best defined by the fields indicated by the
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America (see pages A38-A41 of the
1999 (light green) ASA membership directory.
For example (all adjectives preceding 'Acoustics'):
Architectural Machinery silencing
Bioresponse Physical
Engineering Psychological and Physiological
Musical Speech
Noise Structural
Noise Control Underwater & Propagation
*********** INFORMAL RULES, *ESSENTIAL* TO PRODUCTIVE USE OF THIS
NEWSGROUP ****************
0/ Consider this news group to be a "Hailing" channel where your first
'Hello'
is exchanged, and knowledgeable respondents on any given question may
emerge.
1/ Our discussions should be brief, involving relatively short epistles.
A few screen-loads usually suffice to get an informative exchange going.
2/ Avoid public repartee' that switches to lesser and unrelated matters.
Private E-Mail is for that. Rather, stick to main issues from which all
of us will learn and also enjoy the benefits of this highly public
medium.
3/ Resist the temptation to author large treatises here. Save all that
energy for a separate E-mail file targeted to a recipient, the US
mail or FAX.
4/ Avoid unintentional "Cross-Posting" when commenting on or answering
to messages by others, especially messages that are obviously
answers-to-answers. (Cross-posting appears as newsgroups other than
alt.sci.physics.acoustics listed, separated by commas, appearing in your
composer's NeWSGROUPS header line.) The problem with this practice,
sometimes otherwise due and proper, is that some paricipants in such
preipheral groups in turn respond with increasingly marginal and
off-topic comments, diverging excessively, much to the chagrin of
serious participants here.
5/ When inclusively allowing quotes of the subject message to which you
respond,
ALWAYS DELETE ALL EXTRANEOUS, NON-GERMANE LINES. Leave only
the few succinct lines that set the stage for YOUR learned response.
6/ AVOID quarrelsome and profane language. Life's too short to waste on
them.
Such outbursts also seriously detract from the credibility of the
arguments and
validity of the information presented.
(Profanities are often the result of frustration about a weak and
unsupported
position on a controversial subject. Better to go back and check your
facts,
then argue enlightened and refreshed.)
7/ AVOID making slanderous and defamatory comments.
In these many ways, we will all truly welcome and enjoy each other's
thoughts without the overhead burden of a moderated news group
administrating via exhaustive screening.
Brief "Jobs Available" or "Help Needed" postings are welcome in this
continuing period of economic malaise..
...-.- Angelo J. Campanella (Penn State Ph.D. '55), FASA, W8EDR
N.B.: Some have suggested that this news group should spawn a
conventional or moderated acoustics News Group.
To date, no compelling rationale to do so has emerged.
No volunteers to support the ongoing effort that would be required has
evolved.
In reviewing the tenets for moderated news groups formation, a key
caveat seems
to me to be that the decision whether or not to form a news group on a given
machine rests with the administrator of a server or large organization.
Thus, the need for group formation needs to be generated ultimately
somewhere by one or more of us on a local basis.
To date, it has been sufficient to have the existence of
alt.sci.physics.acoustics.
News group search engines now easily identify it via a search on
'acoustics'.
..-.-
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
History:
alt.sci.physics.acoustics instituted through OSU in Columbus, OH,
21 May,1995
1997: Many of us have web pages. Advertising them here
(a one-line message with major topic only) is adequate.
Oct'98: I installed the "ACOUSTICS.FAQ" file on my web page.
March '99 Caveat on excess repartee'.
October '99 Caveat on foul content.
June 2000 trivia comment.
September 2000 update.
June 2001 reissue.
July 2001 addendum.
February 2003. Resent to remind the primary usage intended.
August 2003. Resent, minimize home studios, entertainment loudpseakers,
etc.
November 2003 Resent, edited.
March 2004 Re-sent.
Summer '04 Re-sent.
Sept'04 Re-sent, cross-posting discouraged.
Dec'04 Re-sent, & Jan1'05.
Enjoy!
Angelo Campanella
----- A.Camp...@Att.Net ------
--- http://www.CampanellaAcoustics.Com ----
Learn more about classroom acoustics via "Downloads" at the end of my page:
robert bristow-johnson
Angelo Campanella at a.camp...@att.net wrote on 07/20/2006 11:42:
> N.B.: Some have suggested that this news group should spawn a
> conventional or moderated acoustics News Group.
> To date, no compelling rationale to do so has emerged.
> No volunteers to support the ongoing effort that would be required has
> evolved.
>
> In reviewing the tenets for moderated news groups formation, a key
> caveat seems
> to me to be that the decision whether or not to form a news group on a given
> machine rests with the administrator of a server or large organization.
> Thus, the need for group formation needs to be generated ultimately
> somewhere by one or more of us on a local basis.
>
> To date, it has been sufficient to have the existence of
> alt.sci.physics.acoustics.
> News group search engines now easily identify it via a search on
> 'acoustics'.
Angelo, i think i mentioned this before and i don't know how it is done
(starting a USENET newsgroup and getting the newsservers to carry it), but i
*still* think that you should (if you *can*, don't ask me how to do it)
create the newsgroup:
sci.physics.acoustics
or
sci.acoustics
and migrate this newsgroup to that.
this gets you out of the "alt" hierarchy and puts it into the "sci"
hierarchy which seems to me to be a bit more legit and less attractive to
USENET spammers, trolls, and the like. not all sci.* newsgroups are
moderated.
just a thought.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
The Ghost
news:C0EB0A7A.A9D%r...@audioimagination.com:
snip....snip
> Angelo, i think i mentioned this before and i don't know how it is
> done (starting a USENET newsgroup and getting the newsservers to carry
> it), but i *still* think that you should (if you *can*, don't ask me
> how to do it) create the newsgroup:
>
> sci.physics.acoustics
> or
> sci.acoustics
>
> and migrate this newsgroup to that.
>
> this gets you out of the "alt" hierarchy and puts it into the "sci"
> hierarchy which seems to me to be a bit more legit
Your definition of "more legit" is?
> and less attractive to USENET spammers, trolls, and the like.
Not necessarily. The troll "RADIUM" was active in sci.physics, sci.chem,
sci.energy, sci.physics.research, and sci.electronics.basic long before he
stumbled upon alt.sci.physics.acoustics. In fact, there is a strong and
compelling argument that, as an alt* group, alt.sci.physics.acoustics is
shielded to some extent from the sci trolls.
> not all sci.* newsgroups are moderated.
As is clearly evidenced by the ongoing hostile exchanges between your
comrade, Bob Cain, and his numerous admirers in sci.physics.
> just a thought.
Obviously not one to which you have devoted much time or neural energy.
Ken Plotkin
<r...@audioimagination.com> wrote:
[snip]
>this gets you out of the "alt" hierarchy and puts it into the "sci"
>hierarchy which seems to me to be a bit more legit and less attractive to
>USENET spammers, trolls, and the like. not all sci.* newsgroups are
>moderated.
Big 8 newsgroups are not immune to trolls and spammers.
The process to create one is not onerous. After a suitable period of
lurking to get a feel for it, one posts a RFD (rquest for discussion)
in news.groups. Discussion goes on for a while, then a vote is taken.
A group of volunteer admistrators offer advice (mostly about
protectiing namespace, and also about being sensible) and oversee the
vote.
But in the end you have a group that is no more safe from crap than an
alt group. IMHO, unless you're dealing with an existing Big 8 group
and want to change it or split it while keeping a familiar name,
there's no point to going through the process.
Moderation is not a panacea. I've seen moderated groups formed that
were parallel to unmoderated groups, and they tended to go nowhere.
If there are posters who regularly annoy you, use a kill file.
Surprisingly effective.
Ken Plotkin
The Ghost
news:jn0mc2h0qfqb7og8u...@4ax.com:
Robert Bristow Johnson is a totalitarian elitist, and there is no place in
his world for anyone having libertarian views.
This anal-retentive thing of his about newsgroup legetimacy and moderation
is just another manifestation of his overwhelming compulsion to dominate
and to control.
I for one find it particularly revealing and amusing that Robert Bristow-
Johnson is so vocal about the status of a newsgroup to which he rarely
contributes anything that is technically substantive.
Angelo Campanella
> this gets you out of the "alt" hierarchy and puts it into the "sci"
> hierarchy which seems to me to be a bit more legit and less attractive to
> USENET spammers, trolls, and the like. not all sci.* newsgroups are
> moderated.
That's news to me... I thought that if there is no moderator, there can
be no conventional newsgroups.
Someone more apt at the applicable internet protocol can answer.
It might be that there are several levels of moderation, all the way
from 100% hands-on intercept filtering through various tactics to filter
out the trash, to only exercising the ability to kill something
undesirable that got out. But I think the "the Genie's out of the
bottle" applies to the latter.
In all the transactions we have had throughout the years, there have
been no "secrets", no collisions of intent, and no politically incorrect
positions (do we have any?), so moderation should only be for gross
distractions (intentional and unintentional spamming) and some tirades.
I know for a fact that our keeping the "alt." category has prevented
some serious persons from seeing and participating in our proceedings
since their corporate IT policies preclude all alt. groups..
I'm willing to push it to the next ("Sci") level provided I can muster
two other souls that will accept the responsibility of backup moderator
for situations where I am inundated with other more pressing transient
responsibilities which happens several times per year...
Angelo Campanella
Angelo Campanella
>>this gets you out of the "alt" hierarchy and puts it into the "sci"
>>hierarchy which seems to me to be a bit more legit
>
> Your definition of "more legit" is?
>
alt. newsgroups into their local domain, hence we have fewer
professional participants that we might.
> Not necessarily. The troll "RADIUM" was active in sci.physics, sci.chem,
> sci.energy, sci.physics.research, and sci.electronics.basic long before he
> stumbled upon alt.sci.physics.acoustics. In fact, there is a strong and
> compelling argument that, as an alt* group, alt.sci.physics.acoustics is
> shielded to some extent from the sci trolls.
And so the world turns... That may be the present environment in which
we have to exist. My main determinant (whether to make a moderated
group) has been the (un)willingness of a few others to also be
co-managers. It's sort of a "the cure is worse than the ailment" situation.
>>not all sci.* newsgroups are moderated.
> As is clearly evidenced by the ongoing hostile exchanges between your
> comrade, Bob Cain, and his numerous admirers in sci.physics.
So what you are saying is the the "sci." umbrella is not an effective
flame and spam filter?
Anyway, I think that this group overall has demonstrated a remarkable
stability. As such, it's future is likely OK.
Angelo Campanella
Angelo Campanella
> Ken Plotkin <kplo...@nospam-cox.net> wrote in
> news:jn0mc2h0qfqb7og8u...@4ax.com:
>>If there are posters who regularly annoy you, use a kill file.
>>Surprisingly effective.
That's my position. I look at the headers, and instantly, I know what's
worth reading.
> Robert Bristow Johnson is a totalitarian elitist, and there is no place in
> his world for anyone having libertarian views.
As best as I can tell, political bents have not swayed things here,
except perhaps mine; I'm a staunch republican with an optimism that says
"we can do it!".
> This anal-retentive thing of his about newsgroup legetimacy and moderation
> is just another manifestation of his overwhelming compulsion to dominate
> and to control.
I agree with that. It's amusing to see that the control freaks extant
(here) do not have the "right stuff"; the ability and desire to become
moderators and thus control against free speech. Alt groups are
certainly Free Speech!
> I for one find it particularly revealing and amusing that Robert Bristow-
> Johnson is so vocal about the status of a newsgroup to which he rarely
> contributes anything that is technically substantive.
I look at Robert's position as that of "trying to help out".
I think that Free Speech on the one hand, and the notion that "The truth
will Out" on the other, are facts that will give us the greatest
capability at progress in our respective professions. Hence my support
for this alt. group.
Angelo Campanella
The Ghost
news:M3szg.519135$Fs1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> The Ghost wrote:
>
>> Ken Plotkin <kplo...@nospam-cox.net> wrote in
>> news:jn0mc2h0qfqb7og8u...@4ax.com:
>>>If there are posters who regularly annoy you, use a kill file.
>>>Surprisingly effective.
>
> That's my position. I look at the headers, and instantly, I know
> what's worth reading.
>
>> Robert Bristow Johnson is a totalitarian elitist, and there is no
>> place in his world for anyone having libertarian views.
>
> As best as I can tell, political bents have not swayed things here,
> except perhaps mine;
Totalitarian elitism is a lot more than a political bent. It is a
attitude and philosophy that forms the foundational basis of one's
perspective and views on all aspects of life. Fortunately, most, if not
all of the totalitarian elitists, who were once here, have gone away
because none of them were prepared to step up to the plate and take on the
task/responsibility of policing the newsgroup.
> I'm a staunch republican with an optimism that
> says "we can do it!".
>
>> This anal-retentive thing of his about newsgroup legetimacy and
>> moderation is just another manifestation of his overwhelming
>> compulsion to dominate and to control.
>
> I agree with that. It's amusing to see that the control freaks extant
> (here) do not have the "right stuff"; the ability and desire to become
> moderators and thus control against free speech. Alt groups are
> certainly Free Speech!
>
>> I for one find it particularly revealing and amusing that Robert
>> Bristow- Johnson is so vocal about the status of a newsgroup to which
>> he rarely contributes anything that is technically substantive.
>
> I look at Robert's position as that of "trying to help out".
My experience with him is that he is someone who is compelled to attempt to
silence rather than ignore the voices of those who annoy him.
robert bristow-johnson
Angelo Campanella wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> > this gets you out of the "alt" hierarchy and puts it into the "sci"
> > hierarchy which seems to me to be a bit more legit and less attractive to
> > USENET spammers, trolls, and the like. not all sci.* newsgroups are
> > moderated.
>
> That's news to me... I thought that if there is no moderator, there can
> be no conventional newsgroups.
by "moderated", i mean a newsgroup where your post is forwarded to a
moderator for examination and no posted is propagated without an
"Approved:" header in it. (i've also seen mass-spammed and troller
posts where they put in such a header and it *did* get propagated to
the chagrin of the moderators.) now there are plenty of sci.* (as well
as other "Big 8" newsgroups) that do not require any moderator to
approve it and the post is propagated immediately. Google groups will
also inform you when you post to a moderated group (that it is sending
it on to the moderator(s)). groups like sci.physics and sci.math are
not moderated in any sense AFAIK. true, putting it in the sci.*
hierarchy does not make it immune to spammers and trolls, but i see
more mass posts to alt.* than to the Big 8.
groups that are moderated often end with *.research or *.moderated.
not always, but often.
> >>this gets you out of the "alt" hierarchy and puts it into the "sci"
> >>hierarchy which seems to me to be a bit more legit
> >
> > Your definition of "more legit" is?
> >
> I think he means that some corporate IT managers have nixed allowing
> alt. newsgroups into their local domain, hence we have fewer
> professional participants that we might.
that is largely it. there's a lot of crap in the alt.* hierarchy and
this newsgroup is, IMO, far more legit than the average alt ng.
> My main determinant (whether to make a moderated
> group) has been the (un)willingness of a few others to also be
> co-managers. It's sort of a "the cure is worse than the ailment" situation.
i still don't think anyone will have to moderate it. i just think this
deserves a place alongside sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag,
sci.physics.discrete, etc. and if the sci.physics.* folk don't think
so, then sci.acoustics.
i think that AES and ASA will take more interest, also if this were
sci.*.
> Someone more apt at the applicable internet protocol can answer.
>
> It might be that there are several levels of moderation, all the way
> from 100% hands-on intercept filtering through various tactics to filter
> out the trash, to only exercising the ability to kill something
> undesirable that got out. But I think the "the Genie's out of the
> bottle" applies to the latter.
>
> In all the transactions we have had throughout the years, there have
> been no "secrets", no collisions of intent, and no politically incorrect
> positions (do we have any?), so moderation should only be for gross
> distractions (intentional and unintentional spamming) and some tirades.
>
> I know for a fact that our keeping the "alt." category has prevented
> some serious persons from seeing and participating in our proceedings
> since their corporate IT policies preclude all alt. groups..
>
> I'm willing to push it to the next ("Sci") level provided I can muster
> two other souls that will accept the responsibility of backup moderator
> for situations where I am inundated with other more pressing transient
> responsibilities which happens several times per year...
i am willing to help (now that i read up on this a little and learned a
new term "Big 8") to get an RFD out. Angelo, i still consider this
your puppy and would not start anything that you don't like. but if
you want me to, i'll try to do some of the steps in
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
and see what pops out.
r b-j
The Ghost
Yes, that is what I am saying. If you doubt it, check out sci.physics and
sci.physics.relativity sometime and decide for yourself. If you do, search
for posts by Bob Cain, as he is almost always involved in a flame war with
someone.
robert bristow-johnson
Angelo Campanella wrote:
> The Ghost wrote:
>
> > Ken Plotkin <kplo...@nospam-cox.net> wrote in
> > news:jn0mc2h0qfqb7og8u...@4ax.com:
> >>If there are posters who regularly annoy you, use a kill file.
> >>Surprisingly effective.
i have with my own news client (OE, blech) but when i'm using Google,
it's not available. anyway, Angelo picked up pretty clearly my
motivations.
> > Robert Bristow Johnson is a totalitarian elitist, and there is no place in
> > his world for anyone having libertarian views.
funny, last year i voted for the libertarian candidate for Guv here in
Vermont (we agree pretty clearly about cannabis legislation). the race
was a lock for the incumbant anyway.
anyway, Gary, my interaction with you has only been to (as consistently
as i can) as you not to cross-post your tiffs with Bob Cain to comp.dsp
. i know that they're not appreciated by others there besides me and
it really is unnecessary. recently i suspect you have spoofed Bob Cain
in another unwelcome cross-post and, whether anal or not, i think that
spoofing a real internet user is not particularly straight.
> > This anal-retentive thing of his about newsgroup legetimacy and moderation
> > is just another manifestation of his overwhelming compulsion to dominate
> > and to control.
>
> I agree with that. It's amusing to see that the control freaks extant
> (here) do not have the "right stuff"; the ability and desire to become
> moderators and thus control against free speech. Alt groups are
> certainly Free Speech!
despite being a messy person living in a messy house (with kids) and
having a messy life (perpetually marginally employed and contracting),
i might very well agree that i'm a little anal. i think really good
engineers are a little anal lest those Mars probes crash and/or burn in
the Mars atmosphere (someone wasn't anal enough).
whether anal or not, i think the reason that "sci.physics.acoustics" is
the right name for this nght name for this is because that is what this
ng is. it's far more legit than "alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die" or
"alt.sex.dan-southwick.hamster.duct-tape". it's just in a completely
different league.
> > I for one find it particularly revealing and amusing that Robert Bristow-
> > Johnson is so vocal about the status of a newsgroup to which he rarely
> > contributes anything that is technically substantive.
i lurk here more than contribute. as Gary clearly knows, i'm a signal
processing EE that has my greater experience in audio applications. i
know so little about architectural acoustics and building practices
(you know, how to make a great room/studio/auditorium etc.) that i
don't consider myself any kind of authority about that stuff here. (i
*do* know stuff like the wave equation and other physics and some of
the stuff about connecting the reverb of a good room to a box with DSP
chips in it, but my likely technical strength is in pitch-shifting or
time-scaling of audio. audio, not acoustics.) i'm here to learn more
than to pronosticate. at comp.dsp (an unmoderated Big 8 ng with a
pretty damn high S/N) is where i point to for any evidence of
"contribut[ing] anything that is technically substantive".
BTW, i invite anyone to go to Google Groups and search the whole of
USENET for posts with both Gary's and my name in them (there should be
less than 10 threads) and see if there is anything i've written to
explain Gary's antipathy.
> I look at Robert's position as that of "trying to help out".
>
> I think that Free Speech on the one hand, and the notion that "The truth
> will Out" on the other,
on the political end, i'm not as optimistic as you Angello that the
truth is always eventually vindicated. admitted this is OT.
> are facts that will give us the greatest
> capability at progress in our respective professions. Hence my support
> for this alt. group.
i think the move from alt.* to sci.* is not a function of the
availability of frank and open discussion or a measure of truth, but
more of a credential that this ng deserves. it's like *.com vs. *.biz
for a commercial domain name. who, if given a choice, wants the
latter?
The Ghost
snip.....snip
> i am willing to help (now that i read up on this a little and learned
> a new term "Big 8") to get an RFD out. Angelo, i still consider this
> your puppy and would not start anything that you don't like. but if
> you want me to, i'll try to do some of the steps in
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
>
> and see what pops out.
>
> r b-j
Yes, by all means, let's appoint r b-j as the primary alternate moderator.
Nothing better than having a totalitarian elitist, who has contributed
virtually nothing technically substantive to this newsgorup for the past
six years, in a position to decide which posts should be posted and which
should not. As a primary alternate moderator, r b-j will finally be in a
position to silence the voices of those who annoy him.
robert bristow-johnson
The Ghost wrote:
> "robert bristow-johnson" <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote in
> news:1154396235....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> snip.....snip
>
> > i am willing to help (now that i read up on this a little and learned
> > a new term "Big 8") to get an RFD out. Angelo, i still consider this
> > your puppy and would not start anything that you don't like. but if
> > you want me to, i'll try to do some of the steps in
> >
> > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/
> >
> > and see what pops out.
>
> Nothing better than having a totalitarian elitist, who has contributed
> virtually nothing technically substantive to this newsgorup for the past
> six years, in a position to decide which posts should be posted and which
> should not. As a primary alternate moderator, r b-j will finally be in a
> position to silence the voices of those who annoy him.
Gary, you don't get it. i never offered to moderate anything (except a
few paper session at AES conventions in the olden days). and i do not
offer to do that here. despite your protestations, i was offering to
Angelo, IF IT WAS OKAY WITH HIM, to go to news.announce.newgroupsand
news.groups and post a Request For Discussion on the creation (or
migration) of a new newsgroup in the sci.* hierarchy for where this ng
would move to. i can immediately understand why some might immediately
write this off as unnecessary since the alt.* ng already exists. i
just think the result would be a good thing.
r b-j
The Ghost
What I do or do not "get" is irrelevant. The only thing that concerns me
is your direct and/or indirect influence in determing what articles are/not
posted to this newsgroup. Your elitist, totalitarian mentality is
undisputable, and your lack of respect for me is well documented. Suffice
it to state the obvious, the feelings are mutual. So now go get a tissue
and wipe that brown streak off your nose yet again and get ready to join
forces with the sick and twisted psychopath, Bob Cain, in his next attack
of harassment against me on the usenet.
robert bristow-johnson
so documented it. i get after you when you drag your feud with Bob
Cain to comp.dsp from other newsgroups. you keep doing it. at first i
tried ignoring it, but that didn't work. i have no opinion (regarding
respect) about you but, after all this started i noticed that you
published in JAES at least once some time ago. i'm not sure whether or
not we disagree about anything regarding Dick Heyser or not.
other than that *I* have a problem with you crapping up comp.dsp with
yours and Bob Cain's feud (and i make it clear on the ng when you do),
i don't understand where all this antipathy from you comes from.
> Suffice it to state the obvious, the feelings are mutual. So now go get a tissue
> and wipe that brown streak off your nose yet again and get ready to join
> forces with the sick and twisted psychopath, Bob Cain, in his next attack
> of harassment against me on the usenet.
you're not helping make your case, Gary.
i have practically zero interaction with Bob Cain and the last time i
remember we did was this perenial "DFT does or does not naturally
periodically extend the data passed to it" controversy we have on
comp.dsp, and *every* *time*, Bob and i are on opposite sides of the
controversy (which shouldn't be a controversy because it is just math).
again, regarding this ng, i just think it is more legit and
"scientific" to be relegated to the alt.* hierarchy. there are so many
kooky and crackpot things that go on in the alt.* hierarchy (which is
why it is not Big 8) that i just think that this ng is way above that.
r b-j
r b-j
Ken Plotkin
<a.camp...@att.net> wrote:
>That's news to me... I thought that if there is no moderator, there can
>be no conventional newsgroups.
Moderation is entirely separate from Big 8. There are moderated and
unmoderated Big 8 groups, and there are moderated and unmoderated alt
groups. The majority of both kinds are unmoderated.
>
>Someone more apt at the applicable internet protocol can answer.
>
>It might be that there are several levels of moderation, all the way
>from 100% hands-on intercept filtering through various tactics to filter
>out the trash, to only exercising the ability to kill something
>undesirable that got out. But I think the "the Genie's out of the
>bottle" applies to the latter.
Groups are either moderated or not moderated. There are different
techniques for moderation, but it's entierly up to the moderator(s).
Some groups are strictly monitored. Every post on
rec.autos.sport.info is processed and posted by an editor; there is
actually no discussion at all. Some groups (e.g.,
rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated, if it still exists) use
robo-moderation, where you're approved by the moderators and your
posts will appear until you're rude and get blackballed. But to the
usenet admins, all look the same: it's just details of how the
moderators work their groups.
[snip]
>I know for a fact that our keeping the "alt." category has prevented
>some serious persons from seeing and participating in our proceedings
>since their corporate IT policies preclude all alt. groups..
There are also companies with IT policies that preclude usenet
entirely.
>I'm willing to push it to the next ("Sci") level provided I can muster
>two other souls that will accept the responsibility of backup moderator
>for situations where I am inundated with other more pressing transient
>responsibilities which happens several times per year...
You don't need a moderator to have a Big 8 group. If anyone is
interested in there being a sci version of this group, just lurk at
news.groups for a while to see how it's done. There should be a
periodic posting of the process, or there should be a FAQ describing
it.
IMHO, moderating this group carries a risk of killing it. Creating a
parallel sci group may also cause damage. The alt group will continue
to live, and participation is likely to wind up split between the two.
Ken Plotkin
Bob Cain
> Yes, that is what I am saying. If you doubt it, check out sci.physics and
> sci.physics.relativity sometime and decide for yourself. If you do, search
> for posts by Bob Cain, as he is almost always involved in a flame war with
> someone.
Bald faced lie. A psychopathic view totally at odds with consensus
reality. A total non-sequitor in the current thread and continuing
confirmation of the wingnut's fixation with Bob Cain which has no
place at all in this forum.
Sokolich, pseudonyn "The Ghost", is the reason there needs to be a
moderated sci.acoustics. His toxic presence here inhibits many normal
people from participating and from wanting any part of the group.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Angelo Campanella
> IMHO, moderating this group carries a risk of killing it.
I am inclined to agree.
The "free speech" attribute of alt groups (and now it seems unmoderated
groups as well) has kept this group alive in my opinion. Moderation
might just be another term for censorship, and I don't think that's what
we want. The subsidiary problem of some folks not being able to get it
on their work machines might just another filter. I.e., if those folks
that have serious problems understanding acoustics or a knotty home or
work problem in acoustics do not also spend some free or home time
searching alternative sources for answers... well.. the Darwin Award
syndrome may be the applicable result.
> Creating a
> parallel sci group may also cause damage. The alt group will continue
> to live, and participation is likely to wind up split between the two.
A possile result.
My original thought was that some influential organization would take
the lead and create sci.acoustics. But maybe they are too proud to ask.
The Darwin Award follows. (ATT is a prime example.)
Angelo Campanella
robert bristow-johnson
it's never been my idea/proposal to create a parallel ng that would
compete with this. my proposal amount to a name change. the new
newsgroup sci.* hierarchy is where people would go, and i think they
could make it so that the archiving at Google groups (and other such
archives) would redirect back to the alt.sci.* posts.
r b-j
Ken Plotkin
<r...@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>it's never been my idea/proposal to create a parallel ng that would
>compete with this. my proposal amount to a name change. the new
>newsgroup sci.* hierarchy is where people would go, and i think they
>could make it so that the archiving at Google groups (and other such
>archives) would redirect back to the alt.sci.* posts.
The way a name change is effected is to create a new group with the
new name, then kill the original group. That works in the Big 8
heirarchy, where the group admins maintain control over namespace.
But it's my understanding that alt groups can't be killed.
A few years back I participated in some radio scanner newsgroups.
There was both rec.radio.scanner and alt.radio.scanner. Both were
active, both got a lot of posts, but thee was a mismatch so you'd have
to read both. That was a pain. FWIW, both had about the same rate of
spam and flame wars.
Ken Plotkin
robert bristow-johnson
Ken Plotkin wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2006 11:28:03 -0700, "robert bristow-johnson"
> <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>
> >it's never been my idea/proposal to create a parallel ng that would
> >compete with this. my proposal amount to a name change. the new
> >newsgroup sci.* hierarchy is where people would go, and i think they
> >could make it so that the archiving at Google groups (and other such
> >archives) would redirect back to the alt.sci.* posts.
>
> The way a name change is effected is to create a new group with the
> new name, then kill the original group. That works in the Big 8
> heirarchy, where the group admins maintain control over namespace.
> But it's my understanding that alt groups can't be killed.
the alt.* groups are the "Tar Baby"?
i don't think this is correct. first, there is a "rmgroup" control
message:
http://www.mibsoftware.com/userkt/usefor/03/0105.htm
second, i know of an alt.* group that had been removed and is only good
for archiving, it is the alt.music.ecto ng which is now a mailing
list with a USENET "gateway" called fa.music.ecto .
i see also that there is a "mvgroup" control message:
http://www.mibsoftware.com/userkt/usefor/03/0107.htm
that might be exactly what is used to do this sorta thing (after an RFD
and a successful vote to do so).
i dunno. it seems that it should be able to be done.
r b-j
The Ghost
Why are you so interested in this issue? By your own admission, you don't
read this newsgroup on a regular basis anyway, and you rarely, if ever,
contribute anything to it. In recent months, the only time you post here
is in support of Bob Cain and to slam me.
If someone interested in acoustics and can't access this group at work,
they can certainly access it from home. If they are not willing to do so,
that pretty much speaks to the seriousness and level of their interest in
the topic.
The Ghost
ship....snip
> i get after you when you drag your feud with Bob
> Cain to comp.dsp from other newsgroups. you keep doing it. at first
> i tried ignoring it, but that didn't work.
Then perhaps you need to develop a bit more in the way of tolerance and
acceptance of posts to a public newsgroup which annoy you. If that's not
possible, then perhaps you should start a new moderated dsp group which you
could police with an iron fist.
> i have no opinion
> (regarding respect) about you but, after all this started i noticed
> that you published in JAES at least once some time ago. i'm not sure
> whether or not we disagree about anything regarding Dick Heyser or
> not.
This is about personal, not professional, respect. I know little about you
professionally and you know less about me.
> other than that *I* have a problem with you crapping up comp.dsp with
> yours and Bob Cain's feud (and i make it clear on the ng when you do),
> i don't understand where all this antipathy from you comes from.
You answered your own question It comes from your problem with and your
response to my posts to comp.dsp.
snip.....snip
The Ghost
news:e8idna1MZ81beFPZ...@giganews.com:
> The Ghost wrote:
>
>> Yes, that is what I am saying. If you doubt it, check out
>> sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity sometime and decide for
>> yourself. If you do, search for posts by Bob Cain, as he is almost
>> always involved in a flame war with someone.
>
> Bald faced lie.
Only to those who are delusional. Your posting record, which anyone can
readily access via Google, documents your long-standing and continuing
involvement in flame wars.
> A psychopathic view totally at odds with consensus reality.
Exactly what consensus would that be?
> A total non-sequitor in the current thread and continuing
> confirmation of the wingnut's fixation with Bob Cain which has no
> place at all in this forum.
Of course, not withstanding your fixation with Gary Sokolich, who you
regularly impersonate in numerous newsgroups.
> Sokolich, pseudonyn "The Ghost", is the reason there needs to be a
> moderated sci.acoustics.
If only I had such power.
> His toxic presence here inhibits many normal
> people from participating and from wanting any part of the group.
Have another drink and then go and get your antipsychotic medications
refilled.
The Ghost
>
> Angelo Campanella wrote:
>> The Ghost wrote:
>>
>> > Ken Plotkin <kplo...@nospam-cox.net> wrote in
>> > news:jn0mc2h0qfqb7og8u...@4ax.com:
>> >>If there are posters who regularly annoy you, use a kill file.
>> >>Surprisingly effective.
>
> i have with my own news client (OE, blech) but when i'm using Google,
> it's not available. anyway, Angelo picked up pretty clearly my
> motivations.
>
>> > Robert Bristow Johnson is a totalitarian elitist, and there is no
>> > place in his world for anyone having libertarian views.
>
> funny, last year i voted for the libertarian candidate for Guv here in
> Vermont (we agree pretty clearly about cannabis legislation). the
> race was a lock for the incumbant anyway.
And, your point is as meaningless and irrelevant as your vote.
> anyway, Gary, my interaction with you has only been to (as
> consistently as i can) as you not to cross-post your tiffs with Bob
> Cain to comp.dsp . i know that they're not appreciated by others
> there besides me and it really is unnecessary. recently i suspect you
> have spoofed Bob Cain in another unwelcome cross-post and, whether
> anal or not, i think that spoofing a real internet user is not
> particularly straight.
What you or others think is irrelevant. The last I heard, free speech
rights were still in force in this country, and no one is obligated to make
sure that their posts are "appreciated" buy you and the other tolalitarians
in your little elete club. If you and the members of your elete club don't
like my posts, either start a moderated newsgroup which you and your
friends can police with an iron fist or shut the f__k up.
>> > This anal-retentive thing of his about newsgroup legetimacy and
>> > moderation is just another manifestation of his overwhelming
>> > compulsion to dominate and to control.
>>
>> I agree with that. It's amusing to see that the control freaks extant
>> (here) do not have the "right stuff"; the ability and desire to
>> become moderators and thus control against free speech. Alt groups
>> are certainly Free Speech!
>
> despite being a messy person living in a messy house (with kids) and
> having a messy life (perpetually marginally employed and contracting),
> i might very well agree that i'm a little anal. i think really good
> engineers are a little anal lest those Mars probes crash and/or burn
> in the Mars atmosphere (someone wasn't anal enough).
That's a matter of gross technical incompetence, not a matter of not being
anal enough.
> whether anal or not, i think the reason that "sci.physics.acoustics"
> is the right name for this nght name for this is because that is what
> this ng is. it's far more legit than
> "alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die" or
> "alt.sex.dan-southwick.hamster.duct-tape". it's just in a completely
> different league.
Not being an anal-retentive totalitarian elitist like yourself, I am not
capable of appreciating the distinction between sci.physics.acoustics and
alt.sci.physics.acoustics.
>> > I for one find it particularly revealing and amusing that Robert
>> > Bristow- Johnson is so vocal about the status of a newsgroup to
>> > which he rarely contributes anything that is technically
>> > substantive.
>
> i lurk here more than contribute. as Gary clearly knows, i'm a signal
> processing EE that has my greater experience in audio applications. i
> know so little about architectural acoustics and building practices
> (you know, how to make a great room/studio/auditorium etc.) that i
> don't consider myself any kind of authority about that stuff here. (i
> *do* know stuff like the wave equation and other physics and some of
> the stuff about connecting the reverb of a good room to a box with DSP
> chips in it, but my likely technical strength is in pitch-shifting or
> time-scaling of audio. audio, not acoustics.) i'm here to learn more
> than to pronosticate. at comp.dsp (an unmoderated Big 8 ng with a
> pretty damn high S/N) is where i point to for any evidence of
> "contribut[ing] anything that is technically substantive".
I have not questioned either your your technical capabilities or your
technical contributions to com.dsp, and any suggestion to the contrary is
at best little more than a red herring.
> BTW, i invite anyone to go to Google Groups and search the whole of
> USENET for posts with both Gary's and my name in them (there should be
> less than 10 threads) and see if there is anything i've written to
> explain Gary's antipathy.
It's your position that matters, not whether or not you have ever written
anything to either explain or defeind it. The brown streak that you have on
your nose from running it up and down Bob Cain's butt crack at every
opportunity speaks for itself
>> I look at Robert's position as that of "trying to help out".
>>
>> I think that Free Speech on the one hand, and the notion that "The
>> truth will Out" on the other,
>
> on the political end, i'm not as optimistic as you Angello that the
> truth is always eventually vindicated. admitted this is OT.
>
>> are facts that will give us the greatest
>> capability at progress in our respective professions. Hence my
>> support for this alt. group.
>
> i think the move from alt.* to sci.* is not a function of the
> availability of frank and open discussion or a measure of truth, but
> more of a credential that this ng deserves. it's like *.com vs. *.biz
> for a commercial domain name. who, if given a choice, wants the
> latter?
Please excuse me while I reach for an air sickness bag.