A Compromise Proposal on Repeated Radio Spam
Dusty Rhodes
very clear written rules, allow me to offer a compromise.
At this point there isn't a single austin.internet reader who doesn't know
about Wade's show. The weekly postings are not only specifically prohibited
by charter, at this point they are redundant and ineffective. Anyone who
wants to know who is on the show already knows how to find out with a click.
As the charter clearly allows *monthly* commercial messages, I suggest Wade
post a message every month with whatever info he has on upcoming
subjects/guests, making sure to include his URL so anyone interested can
check who's on any time. Were it me, I'd try to have a theme for the month,
giving my promotion some kind of cohesion.
Also, I suggest Wade actually participate in these forums, other than just
to post ads, and include info on his show in his sig file. This will allow
him to stay within the guidelines and still get his message out as often as
he chooses. Participation is the point here, is it not?
Anyone have a problem with this? Anyone at all? No?
Great. Now wade can be a good Netizen and both of his listeners will still
know what's going on. Just kidding, wade.
BTW, Wade, if you really want to help high tech, and particularly high tech
workers, I have a suggestion. One of the main reasons high tech took the
brunt of the job loss in all sectors of the economy over the last couple of
years, other than the bursting the dot-com bubble, is IT culture itself.
Quite simply, nobody, outside of the IT department, much likes the IT
department.
I hear over and over again from clients how much they hate dealing with
their IT guys. Most executives, managers and workers outside of high tech
find the IT guys to be arrogant, pompous, condescending and generally way to
full of themselves.
As an example, last week, while working on a security issue - a result of a
problem with an IT employee, BTW - for one of the largest engineering firms
in the world, an executive said to me, "I wish we could find engineers to
work IT. I'd love to have an engineering culture there instead of those
asshole IT guys."
This was virtually identical to what another exec at a different engineering
firm had told me earlier. I hear the same thing from many, many clients,
but with their discipline in place of engineering.
Put simply, business resents the notion, held by many IT people, that the
most important link in the chain is always IT. Many times you are dealing
with highly trained professionals who have been doing complex jobs for many
years before the advent of affordable networking. They may not know how to
set up an e-mail account, but neither are they impressed that you can.
They were doing quite nicely, thank you, before you ever showed up. They
view you as a tool, a necessary evil, and little more, the same way they
view their computers. I coined the term "digital ditch diggers" some years
ago to describe this impression, held by many.
Is this fair? Of course not. But it is a direct result of the tech culture
and its condescending attitude towards non-techies. To you they may well be
clueless lusers, but to them you are merely a cog in a larger wheel. It was
only to be expected that when the economy headed south, the first to go were
those liked the least.
Computer professionals are not, despite the inflated self image held by far
too many of them, the masters of the universe. Because of this inflated self
image, many IT pros are surprised and confused to find themselves suddenly
tossed aside, unemployed and unemployable.
While it is an unfair impression in many cases, the answer is not stubbornly
dig in a demand the rest of the world change. Help the IT pros understand
how the very culture they created and glorified has been a major factor in
their sudden downfall and you'll be doing them a great service. Find ways to
help them better integrate into existing business cultures and you'll be
doing a truly great service.
Cheers,
Dusty
Big Daddy Jim
The reason that IT staff are sometimes perceived as "arrogant" is that, in
many cases, management doesn't allocate the necessary budget to allow for IT
to the infrastructure that's required to do business in the Information Age.
As a result of that, IT staffs are required to make a silk purse out of a
sow's ear and patch things together until next fiscal year. That's
especially the case now that the economy has gone south.
We are not "Digital Ditch Diggers" as you proclaim. We provide and maintain
the tools to make a serious business compete.
"Dusty Rhodes" <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote in message
news:40%q9.159019$121.4...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> BTW, Wade, if you really want to help high tech, and particularly high
tech
> workers, I have a suggestion. One of the main reasons high tech took the
> brunt of the job loss in all sectors of the economy over the last couple
of
> years, other than the bursting the dot-com bubble, is IT culture itself.
> Quite simply, nobody, outside of the IT department, much likes the IT
> department.
Nobody much likes the janitor, either. He has his job to do though.
> I hear over and over again from clients how much they hate dealing with
> their IT guys. Most executives, managers and workers outside of high tech
> find the IT guys to be arrogant, pompous, condescending and generally way
to
> full of themselves.
Maybe that's because we are smart and many others don't like to be made to
look like the fools that they are. Why pull the punches when a user is an
idiot and keeps locking out his account over and over and over. Sheesh.
> As an example, last week, while working on a security issue - a result of
a
> problem with an IT employee, BTW - for one of the largest engineering
firms
> in the world, an executive said to me, "I wish we could find engineers to
> work IT. I'd love to have an engineering culture there instead of those
> asshole IT guys."
Boo fucking hoo. There is no IT culture, just people who have to know their
shit or it doesn't work. It's that simple. If the ones and zeroes aren't
in the right order, it is wrong.
Also, when shit breaks on your PC, it's not our fault. The world's an
imperfect place. Screws fall out of airplanes and little babies die. Quit
blaming us for everything that's wrong with your workplace.
> This was virtually identical to what another exec at a different
engineering
> firm had told me earlier. I hear the same thing from many, many clients,
> but with their discipline in place of engineering.
>
> Put simply, business resents the notion, held by many IT people, that the
> most important link in the chain is always IT. Many times you are dealing
> with highly trained professionals who have been doing complex jobs for
many
> years before the advent of affordable networking. They may not know how to
> set up an e-mail account, but neither are they impressed that you can.
Many of these "professionals" can't figure out how to find the fucking START
button, either.
> They were doing quite nicely, thank you, before you ever showed up. They
> view you as a tool, a necessary evil, and little more, the same way they
> view their computers. I coined the term "digital ditch diggers" some years
> ago to describe this impression, held by many.
Necessary evil, huh? Kind of like having air conditioning? If the
facilities staff gave users permission to control the air conditioning in an
office like we give users to their PCs, they'd be pissed when you fucked it
up for the twentieth time, too.
> Is this fair? Of course not. But it is a direct result of the tech culture
> and its condescending attitude towards non-techies. To you they may well
be
> clueless lusers, but to them you are merely a cog in a larger wheel. It
was
> only to be expected that when the economy headed south, the first to go
were
> those liked the least.
> Computer professionals are not, despite the inflated self image held by
far
> too many of them, the masters of the universe. Because of this inflated
self
> image, many IT pros are surprised and confused to find themselves suddenly
> tossed aside, unemployed and unemployable.
The good ones who know their shit are still there, though and we're not
going away. Know why? Because we make it easier for management to fire
people by implementing AUTOMATION. We did not create this "IT culture" you
rant on about. Management created it. We just make it work. Get used to
it.
> While it is an unfair impression in many cases, the answer is not
stubbornly
> dig in a demand the rest of the world change. Help the IT pros understand
> how the very culture they created and glorified has been a major factor in
> their sudden downfall and you'll be doing them a great service. Find ways
to
> help them better integrate into existing business cultures and you'll be
> doing a truly great service.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah. There is no existing business culture
other than PROFIT. If any manager figures out how to get rid of a person
they have to pay by installing a PC, they're going do it. It's not
personal. It's that simple. It's not a "culture", it's just our job. Go
complain to management.
> Cheers,
>
> Dusty
>
Please get a clue, Dusty. People don't have to like us. Every time
another engineer or manager gets the ax, I feel their pain. But, their
notebook has to go to someone else and that's my job.
Jim
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
<sigh> just when I had the impression (from another thread) that sanity
and sensibility had returned to you, you prove me wrong.
Just shut up and go away, Dusty. Drop this topic, you got no standing and
barely sock puppet support in this issue. As you know, if the "interested
parties" should feel forced by your incessant harrassment to stop making
their "commercial" announcements, my non-commercial, purely technical and
USEnet-expert sense will have me post identically -- and what line of bitching
are you going to use then?
Go find your sense and be appreciative that "someone" goes to the trouble
at all to make any kind of announcements which further the purpose of this
group, mainly to inform about Austin-specific Internet-related happenings
and developments.
Shut Up, Dusty !
Good Grief, one would think that a person who does an Internet talk show
and participates in the conversations here would we be appreciated and
applauded here -- Dusty, you are one certifiable basket-case, I tell you!
--
-----< "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available" >-----
"Guns don't Kill People, Americans Kill People!"
---Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine)
R.I.P.: Stephen F. Ambrose, Oct 13, 2002
Dusty Rhodes
news:A42r9.139708$8o3.4...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Hey Dusty,
>
> The reason that IT staff are sometimes perceived as "arrogant" is that, in
> many cases, management doesn't allocate the necessary budget to allow for
IT
> to the infrastructure that's required to do business in the Information
Age.
> As a result of that, IT staffs are required to make a silk purse out of a
> sow's ear and patch things together until next fiscal year. That's
> especially the case now that the economy has gone south.
>
> We are not "Digital Ditch Diggers" as you proclaim. We provide and
maintain
> the tools to make a serious business compete.
As I said, it is often an unfair impression. However, far too often it is
reinforced by a culture the rest of the business world simply does not like.
Considering they hold the purse strings, their impressions, fair or not,
rule.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
news:aojp97$mmp$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
>
> <sigh> just when I had the impression (from another thread) that sanity
> and sensibility had returned to you, you prove me wrong.
>
> Just shut up and go away, Dusty. Drop this topic, you got no standing and
> barely sock puppet support in this issue. As you know, if the "interested
> parties" should feel forced by your incessant harrassment to stop making
> their "commercial" announcements, my non-commercial, purely technical and
> USEnet-expert sense will have me post identically -- and what line of
bitching
> are you going to use then?
Other than you're an obnoxious, hypocritical asshole with absolutely no
regard for our very clear written rules and no stomach for actually
addressing any points anyone brings up any time? You don't have to post spam
to prove that.
> Go find your sense and be appreciative that "someone" goes to the trouble
> at all to make any kind of announcements which further the purpose of this
> group, mainly to inform about Austin-specific Internet-related happenings
> and developments.
So, the purpose of this group is to lick the ass of dot-com dumbshits and
hypocritical spamming ISPs? Gee, where is *that* in the charter?
> Shut Up, Dusty !
Piss off, werner!
> Good Grief, one would think that a person who does an Internet talk show
> and participates in the conversations here would we be appreciated and
> applauded here -- Dusty, you are one certifiable basket-case, I tell you!
Internet talk show, my ass. You are truly full of shit, werner. But whatever
you do, don't actually address any points anyone brings up. Why ruin your
perfect record now? However, should you feel so inclined, perhaps you could
show what, exactly, you thin allows Wade's weekly spam in the following:
"Advertising is NOT allowed in these newsgroups. Not ever. None
whatsoever. Period. Is this clear?
Commercial postings, however, may be acceptable when done right.
Acceptable notices will be brief (a paragraph or two), informative
(lay down the facts, but lay off the hype), significant (we want to
hear when your restaurant opens a new location, not this week's menu),
and occasional (as in rarely, not weekly)."
Well? Not to worry. I don't expect a hypocrite and intellectual coward like
to actually answer. You may return to your idiotic indignation now.
Cheers,
Dusty
Rick
>Other than you're an obnoxious, hypocritical asshole with absolutely no
>regard for our very clear written rules and no stomach for actually
>addressing any points anyone brings up any time? You don't have to post spam
>to prove that.
IMHO it is VERY clear that Dusty is the one TRUE obnoxious, hypocritical asshole
populating this newsgroup and he reminds us all of his shortcoming with each and ever
senseless rant.
I am really, REALLY tired of you being such a self serving obnoxious, hypocritical
asshole.
Get a grip or leave!
God Bless Texas
opine:
> As some of you seem wholly recalcitrant on the radio spam issue,
> despite the very clear written rules, allow me to offer a compromise.
[excision]
> As the charter clearly allows *monthly* commercial messages, I suggest
> Wade post a message every month with whatever info he has on upcoming
> subjects/guests, making sure to include his URL so anyone interested
> can check who's on any time. Were it me, I'd try to have a theme for
> the month, giving my promotion some kind of cohesion.
Dusty, I think this is a good idea.
> Also, I suggest Wade actually participate in these forums, other than
> just to post ads, and include info on his show in his sig file. This
> will allow him to stay within the guidelines and still get his message
> out as often as he chooses. Participation is the point here, is it
> not?
I concur - Wade is quite interested in talking about his stuff (who
isn't?) and helping the rest of us slam Dusty. Wade, take a turn on
mapi and Larry. Or post some original thought of your own. Or even
from your show, just do it without the promotional part.
[excised]
> While it is an unfair impression in many cases, the answer is not
> stubbornly dig in a demand the rest of the world change. Help the IT
> pros understand how the very culture they created and glorified has
> been a major factor in their sudden downfall and you'll be doing them
> a great service. Find ways to help them better integrate into existing
> business cultures and you'll be doing a truly great service.
As all of the major IT trade rags have been telling the IT crowd since a
decade ago or more, it's all about the bottom line. Of course you're
making a dime do a dollars work - welcome to my world.
IT pros - Don't keep trying to impress everyone with how indispensable
you and the service you provide are; start making them appreciate how
you can help them dispense their service. After all, for the most part
the external clients are paying your company for their expertise, not
yours.
Proud Yankee
Please don't feed the troll. If you ignore it, eventually
it will go away.
Dusty Rhodes
news:Erpr9.9005$1P1.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Please don't feed the troll. If you ignore it, eventually
> it will go away.
Please don't address any of the valid issues raised. If you ignore them, you
won't look nearly as stupid. Hypocritical, maybe.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
news:ypfwhzcorg.h4...@news.jump.net...
I'm sorry, but what, exactly, does your venting have to do with the very
clear fact that the charter specifically prohibits Wade's weekly spam? Vent
away, but it's farts in the wind if you're unwilling to honestly address the
issues.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
more than a Dusty sock puppet, right? The Chipocrites can't stand the idea
that others can see their asses hanging out. They are far better at playing
ostrich than actually addressing any salient points. Poor cowards.
Cheers,
Dusty
"God Bless Texas" <nowhom...@nowhich.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u6ucnfIETKn...@News.GigaNews.Com...
jim andrews
te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net says...
Interesting take on "top-posting morons":
jim andrews
jim andrews
So, when did you become a "top-posting moron", Dusty?
4 seconds with Google leads us to this gem, among many:
**********
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=dusty+rhodes+top-
posting&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=I89N8.654%249b.14377%
40typhoon.austin.rr.com&rnum=3
Doug McLaren
jim andrews <jand...@activepower.com> wrote:
| Interesting take on "top-posting morons":
|
| http://tinyurl.com/21k5
I went to this, and was directed to google, where I see one of Dusty's
posts, and an ad for :
Boner The Humping Dog
Congratulations, Boner The Humping
Dog is just a click away.
wonderfullywacky.com
Coincidence? :)
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzy.com
Frisbeetarianism: The belief that when you die, your soul goes up the
on roof and gets stuck.
wade
You have brought up some sound points which I will address when I can spend
more time at the computer. A bit of a back problem here so I can't give
this the time it deserves.
Stay tuned....
Wade
"Dusty Rhodes" <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote in message
news:40%q9.159019$121.4...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Dusty Rhodes
news:87Zr9.383$LM6.2489771029@news.onr.com...
> Dusty,
>
> You have brought up some sound points which I will address when I can
spend
> more time at the computer. A bit of a back problem here so I can't give
> this the time it deserves.
>
> Stay tuned....
Works for me. Hope your back gets better soon.
Cheers,
Dusty
wade
anybody...
anyway...
I'll get up on my soapbox for a minute on this issue... I think both of
y'all have expressed valid points. I was a network admin before I got more
involved in sales so I've been on both sides of the line.
We'll start with Managements perception of IT... "NO, we can't do that" is
an answer that management doesn't want to hear. IT tends to do that with
regularity... and most times with good reason. When you have management
coming in wanting to throw the latest and greatest new gadget or software
onto the network and not taking into account the havoc that can cause, IT
does tend to be arrogant.
"Don't those fools realize what this will do to our network?" Is a standard
IT statement. I think IT tends to be a bit possessive when it comes to
their networks and Management looks at them as just machines that cost to
much money. Kind of an ignorance factor on Managements part and you know
management will never admit to not knowing something...
I disagree on the IT culture... I think there is one mainly because IT folks
understand each other. I get a kick out of watching several IT folks
talking and seeing the glazed look that comes over the eye's of anyone else
who happens to be listening. We tend to speak in acronyms and a language
that non-IT folks don't understand. Management is just like everyone
else... If you don't understand it, be scared of it!
I try to bridge the gap between management and IT every day. Ger management
to understand that IT is not a necessary evil but the base for their revenue
stream.. I try to get IT to understand that just because the guy is a
salesman doesn't mean he's a dick. It's a lot tougher than it sounds! :)
Gotta' go put out a fire... Can you believe a company isn't happy with their
connectivity at Allegiance? HAHAHAHA
"Big Daddy Jim" <bigda...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:A42r9.139708$8o3.4...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Dusty Rhodes
> Hey All... Finally back from a herniated disc. I wouldn't wish that on
> anybody...
Glad you're feeling better. Can't help but notice your bad back didn't stop
you from spamming yet again, despite your promise to the radio station to
abide by the charter, which clearly prohibits your spam.
Oh well. I guess some folks just never learn. Looks like it might be time to
escalate this to Infinity corporate, who have already made their feelings
known. You pitiful pennies ain't enough for 'em to put up with a liar.
Cheers,
Dusty
wade
talking about last weeks post as I haven't and am not putting a post up this
week as our guests are not tech related enough to address this group.
I see your feeling fine ripping people again...
And thanks for continueing this thread... It sure is attracting listeners!
Dusty is one of the best marketers the show has!
Wade Andrews
Host of The Talk of Silicon Hills Sunday mornings at
10:00am
http://siliconhills.onr.com Talk Radio 1370am
"Dusty Rhodes" <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote in message
news:J3hu9.214640$121.5...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Dusty Rhodes
> What are you smoking? I've made no promises to anyone....
Oh, really? Somehow, after talking to you and Chad, the station has a
completely different understanding. No doubt they're the liars, right?
Cheers,
Dusty
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
> Somehow, after talking to you and Chad, the station has a completely
> different understanding. No doubt they're the liars, right?
no, you are !
whom do I need to call at that radio station, name and number... ?
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
> I am not putting a post up this week as our guests are not tech related
> enough to address this group.
which group? Dusty seems to take pride in cross-posting his
idiocy in many...
... I think austin.general is a fine group to call attention
to your program this week (Sunday morning at 10am) supporting
the Bossride <http://www.bossride.org/> a fund-raiser for
Austin's Ronald McDonald House and other charities (as I just
learned following the link (on SiliconHills.ONR.COM to
and as Dusty appears to be harrassing both the radio station by
phone and Wade here in "these" groups, I hope that everyone, who
is as annoyed with that as I am, will know what to do about that...
> And thanks for continueing this thread... It sure is attracting listeners!
> Dusty is one of the best marketers the show has!
?!?
...naa, you aren't that devious, Wade... are you ?!? <grin>
Dusty Rhodes
news:apfohv$3mo$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> quoting Dusty Rhodes" <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> :
> > Somehow, after talking to you and Chad, the station has a completely
> > different understanding. No doubt they're the liars, right?
>
> no, you are !
>
> whom do I need to call at that radio station, name and number... ?
Perhaps you should concentrate on whom you can ask to show you how to use a
phone book. Sounds like the more immediate need.
If you wish, I could post a quote from an e-mail I saw where the regional
manager says Wade and Chad promised to abide by the charter. I'll have to
ask for a copy, but it shouldn't be a big deal.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
news:apfq1r$4uc$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> quoting Wade...
> > I am not putting a post up this week as our guests are not tech related
> > enough to address this group.
>
> which group? Dusty seems to take pride in cross-posting his
> idiocy in many...
So says Werner, x-posting his idiocy to many and even adding to the x-posts.
Look, we already know you're a hypocrite, No need to keep trying so hard to
prove it.
Cheers,
Dusty
Terry Horton
>>If you wish, I could post a quote from an e-mail I saw where the regional
>>manager says Wade and Chad promised to abide by the charter. I'll have to
>>ask for a copy, but it shouldn't be a big deal.
>
>I didn't speak to anyone at the radio station. But the information I
>received was that they identified you as the nut that you are.
>
>By the way, I will abide by what I feel is the majority opinion on
>what meets the charter and what doesn't.
The sole problem, as I see it, is the frequency of Wade's posts.The
letter of the charter forbids weekly posting of commercial "menu" type
messages, and makes no allowance for the popularity of the message or
the poster. Yes, the charter contradicts itself with respect to
frequency. But even the most liberal time frame only allows commercial
posts at some frequency greater than weekly.
Violating an *explicit* prohibition in the charter, in the name of the
"spirit" of the charter, is nothing less than a declaration that the
letter of the charter is invalid whenever a participant wishes it so.
>I feel that Wade's post is doing so for reasons I've stated before.
You questioned, as I recall, whether or not Wade's posts were
commercial. Two weeks ago Wade posted about an upcoming interview
with someone from the Austin Business Journal, a publication Wade's
online resume lists as an employer. That's an "infomercial", the host
on the payroll of both the show's sponsor and its interviewee.
Dusty Rhodes
news:biuqru49sui3a9ohl...@4ax.com...
> >If you wish, I could post a quote from an e-mail I saw where the regional
> >manager says Wade and Chad promised to abide by the charter. I'll have to
> >ask for a copy, but it shouldn't be a big deal.
>
> I didn't speak to anyone at the radio station. But the information I
> received was that they identified you as the nut that you are.
Oh, really? An interesting claim, as I spoke to only one person one time,
they agreed with me, told me they had received other calls agreeing with me
and, BTW, never asked my name.
IOW, the information you claim to have received second hand is obviously
bullshit. But hey, share it here, as I have offered to do, and we'll let
people see for themselves, shall we? Got the balls for it?
> By the way, I will abide by what I feel is the majority opinion on
> what meets the charter and what doesn't. I feel that Wade's post is
> doing so for reasons I've stated before.
Uh huh. So, no doubt you can quote the section of the charter you believe
allows Wade's spam, right? And, as you claim to speak for the majority, no
doubt you can point us all to the RFD, CFV and the results, right? By all
means, do.
I offered to abide by a vote on changes to the charter months ago. You guys
have so far refused to even discuss it, and, for good reason. Obviously you
can't blanket allow ads and just as obviously you can't judge a post based
solely on content. What's a Chipocrite to do?
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
news:3DBEF492...@motherearth.net...
> ZZZZ!! ZZZZZZZZ!!! ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!
Thank you, Strong Odor, for re-posting this and thereby eliminating any
stupid kill-file arguments. Now I can be sure that all have seen both the
original post and my response.
I appreciate you doing me a favor. Of course, that's not at all what you
intended, but, you being an idiot and all, it is exactly what you
accomplished. Keep up the good work, Costanza.
Cheers,
Dusty
> Dusty Rhodes wrote:
>
> > Would someone care to explain why it is Mr. Horton doesn't even deserve
an
> > answer? Chad, it was directed at you. Your NNTP server acting up, is it?
Cat
> > got your tongue?
> >
> > Wade, you have nothing to say? Anyone? Anyone at all willing to explain
why,
> > when a very few falsely claim to be a majority, any reasonable voice of
> > opposition is simply to be ignored?
> >
> > Better question: Why should anyone listen to anything you guys say when
you
> > can't even begin to answer a simple, direct, polite question solidly
> > grounded in the charter? Is your position *so* weak you are afraid to
even
> > defend it?
> >
> > I'd particularly like to see any of you take a shot at this point, made
so
> > clearly by Mr. Horton:
> >
> > "Violating an *explicit* prohibition in the charter, in the name of the
> > "spirit" of the charter, is nothing less than a declaration that the
letter
> > of the charter is invalid whenever a participant wishes it so."
> >
> > Begin. If any of you have the balls, that is.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dusty
> >
> > "Terry Horton" <silp...@digitalme.com> wrote in message
> > news:5h9rruo7ja1bbb1e7...@4ax.com...
Dusty Rhodes
answer? Chad, it was directed at you. Your NNTP server acting up, is it? Cat
got your tongue?
Wade, you have nothing to say? Anyone? Anyone at all willing to explain why,
when a very few falsely claim to be a majority, any reasonable voice of
opposition is simply to be ignored?
Better question: Why should anyone listen to anything you guys say when you
can't even begin to answer a simple, direct, polite question solidly
grounded in the charter? Is your position *so* weak you are afraid to even
defend it?
I'd particularly like to see any of you take a shot at this point, made so
clearly by Mr. Horton:
"Violating an *explicit* prohibition in the charter, in the name of the
"spirit" of the charter, is nothing less than a declaration that the letter
of the charter is invalid whenever a participant wishes it so."
Begin. If any of you have the balls, that is.
Cheers,
Dusty
"Terry Horton" <silp...@digitalme.com> wrote in message
news:5h9rruo7ja1bbb1e7...@4ax.com...
Strong Eagle
Albert Meyer
> of all, Wade isn't saying "Come buy my stuff, we got the cheapest
> stuff around, best connectivity, etc. etc. etc." That's an
Dusty is sure irritating isn't he? He sure does go on a lot about nothing
doesn't he? He's been beating this thread to death for weeks, hasn't he? The
funny thing is, he's right. The post is clearly commercial, and even though
he's the only one that minds, he's still right. Do you really think that
"Come listen to my show" isn't an advertisement? You might want to look up
the definition of advertisement. If you think the charter is irrelevant or
incorrect, it would be better to work on changing it rather than ignoring
it.
--
The above statements are for my own amusement only, I don't represent any
company or organization, IANAL, spammers please send spam to
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
Dusty Rhodes
news:3dbef809$1...@giga.realtime.net...
> "Chad Kissinger" <ch...@onr.com> wrote in message
> > I respectifully disagree. Wade's post isn't an advertisement. First
> > of all, Wade isn't saying "Come buy my stuff, we got the cheapest
> > stuff around, best connectivity, etc. etc. etc." That's an
>
> Dusty is sure irritating isn't he? He sure does go on a lot about nothing
> doesn't he? He's been beating this thread to death for weeks, hasn't he?
The
> funny thing is, he's right. The post is clearly commercial, and even
though
> he's the only one that minds, he's still right. Do you really think that
> "Come listen to my show" isn't an advertisement? You might want to look up
> the definition of advertisement. If you think the charter is irrelevant or
> incorrect, it would be better to work on changing it rather than ignoring
> it.
But Albert, don't you know "they" are the majority? Chad said so, just like
he says the ad isn't an ad, so it must be true, right? Who cares if there's
only a handful of them out of hundreds of users? If Chad says they are the
majority, it must be true, right?
Screw the charter, screw the facts, screw procedure, screw discussion and
screw voting, obviously the new charter for austin.* is if Chad says it's OK
with him, it's OK and by God nobody better question it. How convenient to
have him do all the thinking for the rest of us poor, dumb schmucks, eh?
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:35:23 GMT, "Dusty Rhodes"
> <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Wade, you have nothing to say? Anyone? Anyone at all willing to explain
why,
> >when a very few falsely claim to be a majority, any reasonable voice of
> >opposition is simply to be ignored?
>
>
> >Begin. If any of you have the balls, that is.
>
> you going to call Infinity and REALLY get me in dutch? Grow up. I've
> answered explicitly, at least twice, why I think Wade's post doesn't
> violate the charter. I've also explained why I don't think the
> charter is as black and white as ya'll try to make it out to be.
> Finally, I've repeatedly stated that I think your flaming wars cause
> more damage to this group than ALL of the commercial posts combined.
>
> So give it a rest, we disagree. Is your head going to pop off if you
> see Wade post another 10 line post next week? Get a life.
You call that an answer? Very funny. I'll adress that later.
Is your head going to pop off when you find out you ain't nowhere near a
majority? Get a better brain.
Cheers,
Dusty
Albert Meyer
> My point is this. The Charter isn't written clearly. It
> hasn't defined what is ok and what isn't ok. It vaguely says that you
> can sometimes, but not to frequently, send out advertisements. It's
> ludicrous to enforce it by the letter, since it contridicts itself,
> like in the rule to stay on topic but then describing how resteraunts
> can announce their Grand Openings. You can't enforce something
> literally when it doesn't make literal sense. An example... since
> your fond of the dictionary and the term "advertisement"
>
> . From dictionary.com
>
> "A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print,
> broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention
> or patronage."
>
> By that definition, the one you want me to look up, every post is an
> advertisement since it is a notice designed to attract public
> attention. Nothing can get posted in this group? ...
I have the greatest respect for you Chad, and I agree with almost everything
you say. The definition of "advertisement" that you selected from the three
available at dictionary.com is very broad. The charter isn't written
clearly. If it was written clearly, it would probably permit Wade's ad. Wade
seems like a nice guy and his ad doesn't bother me. If it didn't bother
Dusty, there wouldn't be a problem. But since Dusty is saying that the
charter forbids the ad, and since he's obviously right (the charter
specifically forbids weekly ads), we must choose one of three courses:
1. Change the charter.
2. Follow the charter (because we're all too busy to do the work of changing
it).
3. Disobey the charter.
My opinion is that 3 is not a good option, and that choosing option 3 might
make sense in this particular instance, but would not make sense in a larger
context. If we allow Wade to ignore the charter, how much credibility will
we have when we try to enforce it against someone who IS violating the
spirit as well as the letter? I agree that Dusty is being a nitpicky grouch,
but he's a nitpicky grouch who is technically right, and in this case, it
really does matter who is technically right.
...> 1. What is the purpose of the restrictions on free speech in this
> forum in the Charter? I thought it was to keep the noise down and the
> signal up.
I agree. That doesn't mean that we don't have to adhere to the letter of the
charter, especially if someone insists on it.
> 2. The Charter says it's ok to post, in Austin.Internet, a monthly
> list of menu items in a restaurant in Austin, but not allow the weekly
> posting of the guest on an Austin Technology show? Explain that one
> to me please.
I agree that the charter is deficient. If you were to work to rewrite the
charter, I would support you 100% and maybe even get off my ass and help.
> 3. Who is the most egregious violator of that purpose, keeping the
> Signal to Noise ratio up, Wade or Dusty? Dusty has posted at least
> 100 times more text than the announcements themselves complaining
> about them.
I agree. I think Dusty is overly aggressive and maybe even abusive to other
austin.* participants, and he blabbers on a lot about nothing. It really is
too bad that he's right about this.
> 3. Finally, why should I take Dusty seriously when he clearly doesn't
> care about the purpose of his argument. I.e. maintaining the order of
> the group. He doesn't care about Austin.Internet. He just doesn't
> want to lose the argument. I couldn't care less what Dusty thinks or
> who he calls.
I agree, but I believe that you should take the charter seriously, no matter
how you feel about the messenger who points out that you are violating it.
Dusty, would you like to prove that you're not a completely worthless
nitpicker by volunteering to help rewrite the charter? I'd expect that the
rewritten charter would allow Wade's ad and other ads of that type, without
allowing stuff that we don't want to see. It's clearly obvious that his ad,
minus all the moaning and groaning which results from the conflict with the
letter of the charter, is beneficial to the community, but we wouldn't want
to allow out-of-town ads, or overly frequent ads, or spam.
I just read through the charter again and most of it is pretty good. There
are only a few small problems that would have to be fixed. The restaurant
menu example isn't so ridiculous, because the charter is for austin.*, not
austin.internet specifically.
Terry Horton
>On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:27:17 GMT, silp...@digitalme.com (Terry
>Horton) wrote:
>
>>The sole problem, as I see it, is the frequency of Wade's posts.The
>>letter of the charter forbids weekly posting of commercial "menu" type
>>messages, and makes no allowance for the popularity of the message or
>>the poster. Yes, the charter contradicts itself with respect to
>>frequency. But even the most liberal time frame only allows commercial
>>posts at some frequency greater than weekly.
To correct myself... looking again at the charter
http://austin.frenzy.com/austin/, it doesn't contradict itself with
respect to frequency of "commercial postings" after all. Instead it
applies one standard ("not ever") to the subset it refers to as
"advertisements", and another standard, "rarely, not weekly", to all
other commercial postings.
>I respectifully disagree. Wade's post isn't an advertisement. First
>of all, Wade isn't saying "Come buy my stuff, we got the cheapest
>stuff around, best connectivity, etc. etc. etc." That's an advertisement.
"...a chance to win 2 months web-site free hosting at Onramp Access".
Do you feel it's appropriate for an Onramp employee to post
unsolicited advertisements for Onramp services and promotions?
Bottom line is that, as clearly defined in the charter, all Wade's
posts except the initial announcement of the program are
advertisements.
>He's not even saying, my product has these new
>attributes (like new menu items).
His menu is his slate of guests, not fundamentally different from a
chef promoting his restaurant's "Weekly Special of Braised Duck's
Beaks". That the chef is a hobbyist is irrelevant to the post's
commercial nature.
In fact the how, the if, or the how much, of the host's compensation
has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that a commercially sponsored
radio program is itself a commercial product, a product paid for by
listeners with their time spent listening to the sponsor's message.
>He doesn't even have a product.
Like much of talk radio the host and his guests *are* the product.
>>Violating an *explicit* prohibition in the charter, in the name of the
>>"spirit" of the charter, is nothing less than a declaration that the
>>letter of the charter is invalid whenever a participant wishes it so.
>
>Again, it's not explicit. It says nothing about announcing radio
>shows. It talks about menu items in a restaurant. Those are two
>totally different things.
On the contrary, the two are reasonably analogous, surely just the
type of comparison the spirit of the charter intends. Obviously it
can't list each and every type of commercial enterprise in existence.
>Yes, that forum has commercial sponsorship.
Yes, but because Wade doesn't walk out of his studio with a check in
his pocket, an enterprise that's in every other way commercial isn't
to be treated that way here?
>How can you abide by the letter of the Charter when the letter isn't
>explicit, often contridicts itself and is open to interpretation by nuts
>like Dusty?
Do you recall anyone except newbies and spammers having trouble with
the charter until now?
>Another example, the charter says that all posts
>should be about Austin Internet related issues, but then discusses how
>to appropriately post menu items for a restaurant?
It's an example. The charter's written to apply to austin.* generally,
not just austin.internet.
>The charter was written by a moron.
Possibly you wish to rephrase this.
What standard will Onramp enforce for Usenet participation?
>Finally, once again, Wade's post is about 15 lines long and occurs
>once every week at most.
Length is irrelevant. Frequency is.
> Dusty continues to break the charter by
>flaming evey discussion, going on ad nauseum about this issue and
>generally acting like a 14 year old. Dusty is the hypocrite. He
>doesn't care a bit about the purpose of the charter, which is to keep
>this forum on topic. He just cares about continuing his petty
>arguments.
This isn't about Dusty.
If the charter is to be thrown out then that should be made clear.
Frankly, I don't see how the document can stand with one of the city's
principle ISPs rejecting it.
Albert Meyer
> Again, I disagree. I don't think his announcement is an Ad. I'm
> wondering what attributes it has that you think makes it an ad and I'm
> wondering where in the charter does it list those attributes? I think
> it's reasonable to conclude that an ad is an announcement that is sent
> for the purpose of inducing a commercial transaction, i.e. the
> exchange of funds for a product or service. Wade's post isn't doing
> that. I know that ya'll think it become commercial once I advertise
> on his show, but I disagree.
It doesn't matter whether the post is commercial or not, although your
arguments against "commerciality" are rather silly. An exhortation to listen
to a radio show is an ad. Are you really willing to claim that an
announcement of a radio show isn't an ad?
I'm not going to continue arguing about this. It should be fairly clear by
now that a substantial number of long-time austin.* members feel that Wade's
advertisement violates the charter. The issue isn't whether I'm willing to
"suffer through the one posting a week in order to support a non-profit
effort to bring local technology issues to the airwaves." The issue is
whether the austin.* charter will continue to be useful. If Wade continues
to disobey the charter with your approval, and the community accepts that,
then anyone who attempts to enforce the charter in the future will have no
credibility. I and several other members of the community have asked you to
act in the best interest of the charter. I'm asking you one last time.
Please stop splitting hairs and agree to obey the charter. If you disagree
with the charter, then work on changing it to something you can follow.
Steve Wertz
> It doesn't matter whether the post is commercial or not, although your
> arguments against "commerciality" are rather silly. An exhortation to listen
> to a radio show is an ad.
I consider this post of Dusty's an ad, then:
In case you didn't see the full page ad in the AAS today, the Austin Center
for Peace and Justice is asking all who favor peace over war to sign a
statement of conscience asking President Bush to wage a campaign for peace
rather than beating the drums of war.
Thousands of Austinites from all walks of life have already signed. You can
read the statement - and sign, if you wish, at:
http://voicesforpeace.s00k.com/index.html
The above post is serving to advertise a cause. Such an ad could only
promote the posters position. Is as much an ad as the original ad that
appears in the AAS, and even Dusty admits it'd an advertisement.
He is clearly in violation of the charter, and therefore his opinion
in this matter is worth nothing.
If you really want to nitpick at the definition of an 'advertisement',
then plenty of posts will be against the charter.
-sw
Albert Meyer
news:3DC208B9...@texas.net...
> I consider this post of Dusty's an ad, then:
>
> In case you didn't see the full page ad in the AAS today, the Austin
Center
> for Peace and Justice is asking all who favor peace over war to sign a
> statement of conscience asking President Bush to wage a campaign for
peace
> rather than beating the drums of war.
>
> Thousands of Austinites from all walks of life have already signed. You
can
> read the statement - and sign, if you wish, at:
>
> http://voicesforpeace.s00k.com/index.html
>
> The above post is serving to advertise a cause. Such an ad could only
> promote the posters position. Is as much an ad as the original ad that
> appears in the AAS, and even Dusty admits it'd an advertisement.
>
> He is clearly in violation of the charter, and therefore his opinion
> in this matter is worth nothing.
>
> If you really want to nitpick at the definition of an 'advertisement',
> then plenty of posts will be against the charter.
>
violation of the charter, and no doubt someone would make a big fuss about
it and he would have to stop. Are you saying that it is OK to disobey the
charter as long as anyone who complains about the violation can be shown to
have ever disobeyed the charter?
I'm done participating in this thread. I feel pretty stupid about being on
the losing side of an argument over whether we should or should not ignore
the charter when it's expedient. I say "losing" because it looks like the
charter will continue to be violated. I'm truly amazed to find myself siding
with Dusty against you, Chad and others that I respect, but who appear to
have temporarily lost (or discarded) their reason.
Steve Wertz
> That does seem like an ad. If he posted it weekly he would be technically in
> violation of the charter, and no doubt someone would make a big fuss about
> it and he would have to stop.
The charter, as Dusty keeps stressing says "There is no advertising of
any kind. Period.". "Got it?".
> Are you saying that it is OK to disobey the
> charter as long as anyone who complains about the violation can be shown to
> have ever disobeyed the charter?
No. I'm pointing out it's extremely hypocrtitcal for someone to put up
such a *huge* stink about it when said poster frequently violates the
charter in the same fashion.
-sw
Steve Wertz
> > Are you saying that it is OK to disobey the
> > charter as long as anyone who complains about the violation can be shown to
> > have ever disobeyed the charter?
>
> No.
Actually, I take that back. Yes, I don't think a poster who constantly
voilates the charter has the right to crusade against other people who
violate the charter in the exact same manner. Had he not started this whole
argument, nobody would have given it a second glance. How can anyone even
justify debating with somone who has no respect for the point he is
arguing?
-sw
Dusty Rhodes
>
> > It doesn't matter whether the post is commercial or not, although your
> > arguments against "commerciality" are rather silly. An exhortation to
listen
> > to a radio show is an ad.
>
> I consider this post of Dusty's an ad, then:
Assuming you are correct, a stupid assumption, but we';; go with it for a
minute, you see me posting that once a week, do you, genius?
Cheers,
Dusty
Steve Wertz
Surely you can come up with a better argument for your pet-rant than that.
There is no advertising - period. I never tried to distinguished between
posting anything more more than once; advertising is advertising. Got it?
-sw
Dusty Rhodes
news:q0iw9.253458$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> In article <crew9.613$r06.82...@news.onr.com>, Wade <wa...@onr.com>
wrote:
>
> | I have participated in the group... Or thought I did. I turned out
> | it was a cross post from you-know-who and didn't make it into this
> | group. I responded in regards to the IP issue that Dusty brought
> | up.
>
> I've really only seen two people who seem to have a problem with your
> posts (Dusty and Albert Meyer, though Albert didn't really seem to
> mind that much) ... but technically, it *does* violate the charter
> when you post it every week (assuming that you declare it to be
> commercial, which isn't such a stretch, but it's hardly blatantly
> commercial.)
>
> So, the answer is to either --
>
> -- post less often.
> -- change the charter.
>
> I'm not sure how to best change the charter, but feel free to make
> specific suggestions on the wording. Once the wording is worked out,
> we can take a vote (formal if it's close, otherwise informal should be
> fine) and amend the charter if the vote passes.
>
> | I've answered Dusty before and I don't feel I need to answer him
> | again. I have better things to do with my time.
>
> Well, put some time into amending the charter, and the problem will go
> probably away.
A sensible solution, presuming one is willing to abide by the existing
charter in the meantime. If not, then obviously whatever the charter says
isn't the issue.
Toss it out or change it. Just don't try to feed us lima beans while telling
us it's filet mignon.
Cheers,
Dusty
Doug McLaren
Dusty Rhodes <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote:
...
| > So, the answer is to either --
| >
| > -- post less often.
| > -- change the charter.
| > Well, put some time into amending the charter, and the problem will go
| > probably away.
|
| A sensible solution, presuming one is willing to abide by the existing
| charter in the meantime. If not, then obviously whatever the charter says
| isn't the issue.
The problem appears to be that the charter doesn't match the wishes of
the regulars -- after all, only two people seem to mind Wade's posts,
and only one seems to mind enough to actively complain about them.
And if the charter doesn't match the community's feelings on the
matter, then `whatever it says' IS the issue -- because it's wrong --
and it should be corrected.
It's now up to Wade (or anybody else, for that matter) to come up with
a correction, and then we can see how we feel about it, and maybe
correct the charter.
| Toss it out or change it. Just don't try to feed us lima beans while
| telling us it's filet mignon.
Bon Appetit!
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzy.com
"I never went to bed with an ugly woman .. but I sure woke up with a few"
-- Willy Nelson
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
> I'm done participating in this thread. I feel pretty stupid about being on
> the losing side of an argument over whether we should or should not ignore
> the charter when it's expedient.
you should feel stupid, Albert, but for presenting the argument
with that explanation... that's not what it was all about!
> I say "losing" because it looks like the charter will continue to be violated
not in the majority's mind, so why should you think that the minority
is right in saying that? It boggles...
> I'm truly amazed to find myself siding against people I respect, who appear
> to have temporarily lost (or discarded) their reason.
imagine what it looks like from the other side... ;-)
I respect you for trying to take a principled position but as in any
other situation which depends on "interpretation" rather than simple
measurement you have to, at least, realize and admit the possibility
that "mistakes" happen -- and, yes, being in a majority clinging to a
particular interpretation doesn't necessarily mean that one is right,
but it's definitely not a smart (winning) minority argument to suggest
that the others have lost/discarded their reason...
...it kind of ends the conversation, rather (as you appear to have
recognized and concluded correctly also).
hope you get better soon... :-))
--
-----< "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available" >-----
"Guns don't Kill People, Americans Kill People!"
---Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine)
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
>>> The sole problem, as I see it, is the frequency of Wade's posts.
well, it's not a problem then. it isn't commercial, and it
isn't a "menu type"...
>>> Yes, the charter contradicts itself with respect to frequency.
I wouldn't have phrased it as "written by a moron" but I groaned
when I first saw it... (but it was not totally unexpected, given
the dogmatism and zealotry one noticed among those who felt called
upon to lead USEnet in Austin during the 90s, which made it rather
uninteresting and unrewarding to concern oneself with their doings)
...but it's really a problem typical for USEnet since the beginning
that one didn't/doesn't feel it necessary to mention (hardly ever)
the most basic of all social conventions: those currently assembled
get to set the standard of behavior/posting that's acceptable, not
some USEnettocrats who aren't participating in a newsgroup forum.
in fact the reason that FAQs and charters were invented (USEnet
survived the first 5 years without it just fine) was that newcomers
asked for guidance (or seemed to be badly in need of it) to avoid
posting "offending" stuff (that would get them in trouble with the
'regulars' already there); the established behavior guideline of
'read a couple of weeks of postings to learn what a group is all
about before posting, and/or ask one of the regular posters by
email for guidance' simply didn't work with the "new breed" that
came online when "online" went "public", and, the truth be told,
creating FAQs and charters became a necessity to have an argument
with ISPs to get them to reign in the systematic spammers and worst
breed of offenders, certainly not to give a Dusty a mantle to cloak
his repulsive behavior under.
...thus it is not surprising that FAQs and charters usually fail
to reflect and explain that the majority concensus preference for
how a USEnet newsgoup should be used, what is to be achieved, is
not "completely" explained in FAQs and charters, and rarely if at
all does a charter mention that "the users of a group" get to set
the standard of usage of a group, that FAQ and charter only exists
to capture "the essence" to deny systematic abusers the excuse of
"how could I have known not to do *THAT*" (and, otherwise, lend a
guiding hand to newcomers, to easier fit in) but that, in any case,
over time such matters tend to be dynamic in nature, and that in
minor squabbles (whatever that is) there is always rhyme and reason
to ask the opinion of the current user community about it, and that,
if no overwhelming majority opinion disallows something, one should
practice tolerance, maybe ask for cooperation by those who post what
one would rather not even take notice of, to make it easy to ignore
it using a KILL-file...
> "...a chance to win 2 months web-site free hosting at Onramp Access".
> Do you feel it's appropriate for an Onramp employee to post
> unsolicited advertisements for Onramp services and promotions?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it isn't that, for one (there is no such thing as 'solicited ads'
on USEnet, that's an email concept)
and second (and I feel similar as when I had to explain to the
KUT-FM clowns, why it is in the interest of the KUT-listener that
they mention ticket prices, not 'to be avoided advertising' when,
in any case, they are 'advertising' the musician/group's concert
event... give me a break, you are giving me all the information,
including the number to call for tickets and prices, when what
most of the listeners need to know 'cost' to decide)...
and second, yes, I find it perfectly acceptable, that the OnRamp
employee mentions a free give-away in the (otherwise acceptable)
event announcement.
> Bottom line is that, as clearly defined in the charter, all Wade's posts
> except the initial announcement of the program are advertisements.
I'm torn between thinking Wade foolish (not to simply have taken me
up on my offer and expressed intent to take on the heat of calling
attention to the program) or admire him for standing up himself for
what's the right position, AFAIK, in this matter.
> His menu is his slate of guests, not fundamentally different from a
> chef promoting his restaurant's "Weekly Special of Braised Duck's Beaks".
> That the chef is a hobbyist is irrelevant to the post's commercial nature.
the restaurant is a commercial venture, the "special" doesn't change
the fact that it is an ad. Just because we all want to eat doesn't
mean that we're inviting/tolerating such ads in austin.food.
On the other hand, a mention on austin.internet what topics of
interest are being discussed on radio or TV that week is something
we'd like to hear about, become aware of conveniently, without having
to go out to websites to search for it -- and when I've become aware
of such info, and had time for it, I've always announced it whatever
newsgroup I thought it might fit. And as long as the informative part
isn't overwhelmed by any advertising hype, I'd welcome and invite such
stuff, prefer "they" do it ("they" get to do it during paid hours and
can provide this "service to us" consistently/reliably -- so what if
they use a .signature saying "We're the greatest station!"?!?).
Anyone who doesn't understand the difference is as dense (as Dusty
chooses to be, sadly enough).
> In fact the how, the if, or the how much, of the host's compensation
> has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that a commercially sponsored
> radio program is itself a commercial product, a product paid for by
> listeners with their time spent listening to the sponsor's message.
it doesn't matter. all kind of commercial interests are behind
my ability to post this, and you pay the price of spending the
time reading it -- get real! The decisive parameter is, is it
information that we'd like to see posted here -- and I look at
USEnet (and the net, in general) as a communications tool, where
I participate for many to benefit, and my "pay dirt" is that I
benefit from others returning the favor. I've done it for 20
years now, anything from organizing/maintaining/offering my
personal workstations and disk space as publicly accessable
archives, mailinglist hub, USEnet newshost, have sneaker-mailed
tapes down under, evangelized USEnet in Europe and elsewhere,
believe myself to be on fairly sound grounds when it comes to
judging matters such as this...
>> He doesn't even have a product.
> Like much of talk radio the host and his guests *are* the product.
if they produce something that interests us, they SHOULD be
asked/invited to tell us about it!
they also offer the taped program for us to listen to, at our
convenience, on the web -- and if it's likely to be of (some)
interest to those who assemble in austin.internet, it belongs...
> Yes, but because Wade doesn't walk out of his studio with a check in
> his pocket, an enterprise that's in every other way commercial isn't
> to be treated that way here?
reminds me a little of "FREE Internet Explorer"...
go, Wade, go, make an extra billion or two (for us to split :)
> Do you recall anyone except newbies and spammers having trouble with
> the charter until now?
<cough> so, are you spammer or newbie...??? <grin>
> What standard will Onramp enforce for Usenet participation?
when there is NON-CONTROVERSIAL reason to complain, I trust
they'll do their part. If not, they'll hear from me, too...
>> Finally, once again, Wade's post is about 15 lines long and occurs
>> once every week at most.
> Length is irrelevant. Frequency is.
a different topic every week, I wished we could kill this one
and make it stick!
>> Dusty continues to break the charter by flaming evey discussion, going
>> on ad nauseum about this and generally acting like a 14 year old.
don't insult 14-year olds...
> This isn't about Dusty.
sadly, it is... though he seems to try to make it a matter
about "Wade"...
Dusty is a troll, ask around... learn to ignore him.
> If the charter is to be thrown out then that should be made clear.
just because you can go there doesn't mean we have to follow...
> Frankly, I don't see how the document can stand with one of the city's
> principle ISPs rejecting it.
<groan>
Wade
I'd be willing to take a shot at rewording the charter. This newsgroup is
something we've been talking about on the show and I think it would be a
good thing to continue. If you would please forward me copy of the charter
to wa...@onr.com I'll see what I can do then post it here for everyone to
look at (I'm sure that will start another flame-fest). I have some idea's
that will maintain the integrity of the group and allow informative postings
relating to Austin and the Internet.
Doug, wanna' be on the show Sunday to talk about it?
Wade
***********************************************************************
Host of The Talk of Silicon Hills TalkRadio 1370AM
http://siliconhills.onr.com Sunday at 10:00am
"Doug McLaren" <dou...@frenzy.com> wrote in message
news:PRix9.273827$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Wade
Wanna' be on the show Sunday? I think this topic would make for an
excellent discussion... I'm inviting Doug also... email me at wa...@onr.com
for details.
Wade
************************************************************************
Host of The Talk of Silicon Hills TalkRadio 1370AM
htp://siliconhills.onr.com Sunday at 10:00am
<wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:aq4qaq$if7$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
Doug McLaren
In article <iGyx9.661$2J4.255...@news.onr.com>, Wade <wa...@onr.com> wrote:
| I'd be willing to take a shot at rewording the charter. This newsgroup is
| something we've been talking about on the show and I think it would be a
| good thing to continue. If you would please forward me copy of the charter
| to wa...@onr.com
Not being able to find it on your own isn't a good start. It's been
pointed out to you several times by Dusty, and it was even posted
a few days ago to several newsgroups.
http://austin.frenzy.com/austin is where it is.
| I'll see what I can do then post it here for everyone to look at
| (I'm sure that will start another flame-fest).
`Here' should be austin.usenet.config only. That's what the group is
for. I doubt it'll start that large of a flame fest, since most
people don't even care.
| I have some idea's that will maintain the integrity of the group and
| allow informative postings relating to Austin and the Internet.
Frankly, the charter is a mess. It was written by lots of different
people and basically stuck together.
Make your specific suggestions to the group austin.usenet.config. It
would be better to work on a small section rather than trying rewrite
everything at once. People will discuss it, and if there is a general
agreement, it'll get put into the charter.
| Doug, wanna' be on the show Sunday to talk about it?
Um, no :)
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzy.com
Anyone who uses the phrase 'easy as taking candy from a baby' has
never tried taking candy from a baby. --Unknown
Dusty Rhodes
news:bKyx9.662$VS5.256...@news.onr.com...
> Hey Steve,
>
> Wanna' be on the show Sunday? I think this topic would make for an
> excellent discussion... I'm inviting Doug also... email me at
wa...@onr.com
> for details.
Boy, sure sounds like you're going for a balance of views on the issue.
<giggle> Or is it that you're already out of interesting guests?
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
> Doug,
>
> I'd be willing to take a shot at rewording the charter. This newsgroup is
> something we've been talking about on the show and I think it would be a
> good thing to continue. If you would please forward me copy of the
charter
Forward you a copy!? Are you kidding? Oh man, this guy is a true genius,
ain't he?
Yo, genius, it's *posted*once a month, not to mention I've cited it about a
bazillion times WITH URL, as have many others, it's permanently archived on
Doug's domain, there's THOUSANDS of references to it on Google AND YOU STILL
CAN'T FIND IT!?
Oh yeah, can't wait to see what gems this genius comes up with. Obviously he
really, really cares about the charter, as is clearly demonstrated by the
fact that he doesn't even know where to find it, much less has he ever
actually read it.
The rest of you who support Wade's spam - and it's now down to a *very*
few - have been hornswaggled by idiots and hypocrites. Obviously neither
Wade nor Chad give a tiny rat's ass about the charter. Their only concern is
their spam.
They have as much chance of successfully changing the charter as I do of
winning the 200 meter high hurdles at the next summer Olympics. Time to put
this idiocy to bed and move on. Do it quietly and maybe no one will notice.
Cheers,
Dusty
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
I drafted a followup to Doug's article and when prompting me to post
or not my software (trn) displays the following reminder:
Your article's newsgroups:
austin.usenet.config [no description available]
austin.general Items of general interest in Austin, TX.
austin.internet Discussion of Internet issues and connectivity in Austin.
I've always wondered whose cage does one need to rattle to get these group
descriptions "updated"? It's not a newshost local issue, is it? rather
something that the Keepers of the local hierarchy circulate as a control
message of some kind, I assume... ?!!? Is there a agreed-upon standard
email address for such issues?
(austin.general is for "Discussions that fit in no other group in austin.*"
and "connectivity" is just another Internet issue, does it need mentioning?
... what austin.usenet.config is for, noone knows... ;-)
--
-----< "Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available" >-----
"Guns don't Kill People, Americans Kill People!"
---Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine)
...now playing at Dobie Theatre
Doug McLaren
<wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
| I drafted a followup to Doug's article and when prompting me to post
| or not my software (trn) displays the following reminder:
|
| Your article's newsgroups:
| austin.usenet.config [no description available]
| austin.general Items of general interest in Austin, TX.
| austin.internet Discussion of Internet issues and connectivity
| in Austin.
I should pay more attention to that warning. I tend to just hit `y'
and `s' out of habit and then regret it three seconds later :)
| I've always wondered whose cage does one need to rattle to get these group
| descriptions "updated"? It's not a newshost local issue, is it?
Yes it is.
| rather something that the Keepers of the local hierarchy circulate
| as a control message of some kind, I assume... ?!!? Is there a
| agreed-upon standard email address for such issues?
There is a master file floating around, but it's just something that
somebody made and sent to their friends, and it's probably way out of
date.
Some charters do include a suggested entry for their newsgroups. The
Austin charter does, but doesn't label it as such. It's in the `List
of austin.* Newsgroups' section.
The file is called ~/db/newsgroups for innd. Mine starts out --
alt.binaries.sounds.realaudio ?
alt.current-events.massacre.high-school Discussion of random schoolyard
alt.fan.howard-stern.jew.jew.jew Tripartite celebration of Howie Stern's
alt.fan.howard-stern.shit-pussy-negro Discussion of Howard's hangups.
alt.fan.howard-stern.subtle-racism Let's talk about how Howard hates
Hmm. Hasn't been cleaned out in quite some time ...
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzy.com
`Keep Cool, but Don't Freeze' -Hellman's Mayonnaise
Steve Wertz
>
> Hey Steve,
>
> Wanna' be on the show Sunday?
Steve who? I'll certainly pass. I personally don't think it'd be
a good topic. Not many people use USENET, and those who do probably
don't care to hear about flame wars and charters ;-)
-sw
Wade
I had a copy already( I got it after you flamed me several times), and was
looking to see if Doug had an updated copy in his possession.
Jeez Dude, If your gonna' rip you might get your ducks lined up better...
"Dusty Rhodes" <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote in message
news:i2Ax9.275265$Fw2.8...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Dusty Rhodes
> In article <hGGw9.246011$8o3.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>,
> Dusty Rhodes <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote:
> ...
> | > So, the answer is to either --
> | >
> | > -- post less often.
> | > -- change the charter.
> ...
> | > Well, put some time into amending the charter, and the problem will go
> | > probably away.
> |
> | A sensible solution, presuming one is willing to abide by the existing
> | charter in the meantime. If not, then obviously whatever the charter
says
> | isn't the issue.
>
> The problem appears to be that the charter doesn't match the wishes of
> the regulars -- after all, only two people seem to mind Wade's posts,
> and only one seems to mind enough to actively complain about them.
> And if the charter doesn't match the community's feelings on the
> matter, then `whatever it says' IS the issue -- because it's wrong --
> and it should be corrected.
If he is unwilling to follow the charter as it exists now, what's to say he
won't find some other provision later he doesn't like and therefore feels
justified in ignoring or directly violating? If he actually gave a damn
about the charter, procedure or the other members of the group, he would
follow the charter while suggesting changes.
And it's not about how many people complain. If it were, this would be over,
as there are obviously more people who think it a charter violation than
not. I now know of at least 14 people who agree that Wade's spam violates
the charter, half of whom have already said so here, just to be ignored by
the mythical majority of, by my count, only a half dozen or so.
Heck, Doug, even you told Wade he was, indeed, in violation. Wade snipped
it, but left in your suggestions (post less often or change the charter)
with which, BTW, I agree.
It's really about whether or not we, as individuals, are willing to respect
and abide by the rules we, as a group make. If we, as a group, don't like
the rules, then we, as a group, can change them. Chad or Wade, as
individuals, cannot. They have no right to make arbitrary decisions that fly
in the face of long standing precedent and procedure simply for their
convenience.
> It's now up to Wade (or anybody else, for that matter) to come up with
> a correction, and then we can see how we feel about it, and maybe
> correct the charter.
I'm all for following long established procedure. I heartily encourage Wade,
Chad or anyone else who has a mind to do so to address the things they
believe are in need of change in our charter, issue a RFD on specific
proposals and language and, after an appropriate period of discussion, then
issue a CFV. The we shall see what the community's feelings really are.
Besides, it ought to be fun to watch him/them struggle with crafting a way
to allow some ads while prohibiting others *without* basing the decision on
content, which we all know is the single biggest no-no in all of Usenet
regulation. Methinks perhaps Chad and Wade will get a glimpse into why,
exactly, the charter is as convoluted as it is. It ain't easy to please
everyone, especially when your sole goal is to please yourself.
Cheers,
Dusty
Doug McLaren
Dusty Rhodes <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote:
| If he is unwilling to follow the charter as it exists now, what's to say he
| won't find some other provision later he doesn't like and therefore feels
| justified in ignoring or directly violating? If he actually gave a damn
| about the charter, procedure or the other members of the group, he would
| follow the charter while suggesting changes.
I don't feel that his posts are really commercial. Therefore it's not
entirely clear that the commercial posting section applies to them --
but if it does, he's violating it by posting weekly.
You see it one way, I see it another ...
The charter should be clarified.
| Heck, Doug, even you told Wade he was, indeed, in violation. Wade snipped
| it, but left in your suggestions (post less often or change the charter)
| with which, BTW, I agree.
...
| It's really about whether or not we, as individuals, are willing to respect
| and abide by the rules we, as a group make.
You've ignored the charter in the past when it suited you. Quit
trying to take the high road here.
...
| Besides, it ought to be fun to watch him/them struggle with crafting a way
| to allow some ads while prohibiting others *without* basing the decision on
| content, which we all know is the single biggest no-no in all of Usenet
| regulation.
What are you talking about? The charter makes all kinds of
declarations based on content. Most charters do, actually.
| Methinks perhaps Chad and Wade will get a glimpse into why, exactly,
| the charter is as convoluted as it is.
Probably. But hopefully it (the charter) will come out better for
the experience.
| It ain't easy to please everyone, especially when your sole goal is
| to please yourself.
That's an odd statement, and I'm not sure why it's relevant here. But
I do believe that you speak from a position of authority on this
matter, so I'm inclined to believe you.
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzy.com
A fellow who is always declaring he's no fool usually has his suspicions.
--Wilson Mizner
Dusty Rhodes
> I guess all of my responses aren't getting here Dusty brain... I told
Doug
> I had a copy already( I got it after you flamed me several times), and was
> looking to see if Doug had an updated copy in his possession.
>
> Jeez Dude, If your gonna' rip you might get your ducks lined up better...
Yeah? At least my ducks KNOW the charter is posted monthly (last time just a
few days ago) and where the current document resides. My ducks know how to
use Google, too. You don't even know that much, yet you think you can change
the charter you can't even find? VERY funny.
I think we have another writer for the Anna Nicole show, here, folks.
Cheers,
Dusty
Dusty Rhodes
> In article <BvBx9.278498$121.7...@twister.austin.rr.com>,
> Dusty Rhodes <te...@POTTEDMEATtexas.net> wrote:
>
> | If he is unwilling to follow the charter as it exists now, what's to say
he
> | won't find some other provision later he doesn't like and therefore
feels
> | justified in ignoring or directly violating? If he actually gave a damn
> | about the charter, procedure or the other members of the group, he would
> | follow the charter while suggesting changes.
>
> I don't feel that his posts are really commercial. Therefore it's not
> entirely clear that the commercial posting section applies to them --
> but if it does, he's violating it by posting weekly.
>
> You see it one way, I see it another ...
>
> The charter should be clarified.
Do you think Wade's "come listen to my show" posts are, by definition,
advertising? If so, it's very clear that the ONLY way they are not
*completely* prohibited is by the commercial posting policy.
Nice petard you've got there.
> | Heck, Doug, even you told Wade he was, indeed, in violation. Wade
snipped
> | it, but left in your suggestions (post less often or change the charter)
> | with which, BTW, I agree.
> ...
>
> | It's really about whether or not we, as individuals, are willing to
respect
> | and abide by the rules we, as a group make.
>
> You've ignored the charter in the past when it suited you. Quit
> trying to take the high road here.
If you feel a post of mine violates th charter, feel free to bring it to my
attention and/or report me to my ISP. Otherwise, this is just a red herring.
Wade's spam has not shit to do with me.
> | Besides, it ought to be fun to watch him/them struggle with crafting a
way
> | to allow some ads while prohibiting others *without* basing the decision
on
> | content, which we all know is the single biggest no-no in all of Usenet
> | regulation.
>
> What are you talking about? The charter makes all kinds of
> declarations based on content. Most charters do, actually.
You really want to stick with that, do you? The charter clearly prohibits
certain KINDS of posts, as with ads, but nowhere does it regulate the
precise CONTENT of any given post.
Certain content may well be off topic to the stated purpose of any given
group, but nowhere is off topic posting strictly prohibited as in,
"Advertising is NOT allowed in these newsgroups. Not ever. None
whatsoever. Period. Is this clear?"
See the distinction? Ads are prohibited, not the content of any given ad. On
or off topic distinctions are given FAR more leeway, precisely because no
one wants to regulate content. There's a word for that kind of regulation:
Censorship. Do we really want to go there?
> | Methinks perhaps Chad and Wade will get a glimpse into why, exactly,
> | the charter is as convoluted as it is.
>
> Probably. But hopefully it (the charter) will come out better for
> the experience.
Hopefully. But, having seen the process first hand many times, I seriously
doubt Wade will ever be able to make changes allowing ads that will meet
group muster. The reason the charter is reads awkwardly is precisely because
it is a group document and often it takes a lot of wrangling over language
to please a group.
> | It ain't easy to please everyone, especially when your sole goal is
> | to please yourself.
>
> That's an odd statement, and I'm not sure why it's relevant here. But
> I do believe that you speak from a position of authority on this
> matter, so I'm inclined to believe you.
It's relevant because obviously the only reason Wade has any interest in the
charter whatsoever is he wants to post ads, which the charter prohibits. He
has never before addressed that charter in any other way. IOW, he is
interested in pleasing himself.
His concern is obviously *not* for the well being of the hierarchy. He is
interested in only this one issue. Heck, he didn't even know where to find
the damn thing, much less does he care about any other issues.
By the way, thank you, Doug, and the others who've chimed in, for finally
bringing this discussion out into the open. It's about time. If we're really
a group, we need to discuss these issues openly as a group.
Chers,
Dusty
Rick
>I guess all of my responses aren't getting here Dusty brain... I told Doug
>I had a copy already( I got it after you flamed me several times), and was
>looking to see if Doug had an updated copy in his possession.
>
>Jeez Dude, If your gonna' rip you might get your ducks lined up better...
Just ignore Dusty, lots of us already do....
Rusty Mase
>I'll buy the beer.
When and where?
Rusty Mase
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Shut Up, Dusty, Rusty, Musty !!
(when's Wade and Chad learning to ignore you, I wonder...)
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
|> Your article's newsgroups:
|> austin.usenet.config [no description available]
|> austin.general Items of general interest in Austin, TX.
> I should pay more attention to that warning. I tend to just hit `y'
> and `s' out of habit and then regret it three seconds later :)
I'm still faster than you, takes me under 2 seconds... ;-)
|> whose cage does one need to rattle? not a newshost local issue, is it?
> Yes it is.
<groan> that means it could something different on every host.
that's Not Good (tm) :-(
|> something that the Keepers of the local hierarchy circulates somehow?
> a master file is floating around, just something somebody made up...
<sigh>
> Some charters do include a suggested entry for their newsgroups.
that's what had me thinking that someone had established a
(most useful) addition to the standards I was familiar with,
which happened while I wasn't paying enough attention...
(happens more and more often)
> The file is called ~/db/newsgroups for innd. Mine starts out --
users of CCWF don't have access to such files anymore, AFAIK...
...but, yeah, I remembered coming across it before (and if trn
knows about it, I thought I had reason that keeping it useful and
up-to-date was part of the design decisions. oh well....)
> alt.fan.howard-stern.subtle-racism Let's talk about how Howard hates
>
> Hmm. Hasn't been cleaned out in quite some time ...
well, not much in alt.* is... that wouldn't worry me.
when alt.* was created (in not quite a divorce but rather a form
of separation "for unreconcialable differences") I expected the gap
to grow -- instead of it it has shrunk, as participants there more
and demand certain standards of behavior in group creation and posting
behavior. Sometimes I chuckle and wonder if we'll see a phenomenon
similar to the former Warsaw pact nations joining NATO... <grin>
Doug McLaren
In article <aq9skb$otc$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
<wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
| |> whose cage does one need to rattle? not a newshost local issue, is it?
| > Yes it is.
|
| <groan> that means it could something different on every host.
| that's Not Good (tm) :-(
If I wasn't clear ...
The file is on the news server itself, not a part of your trn
installation.
| > The file is called ~/db/newsgroups for innd. Mine starts out --
|
| users of CCWF don't have access to such files anymore, AFAIK...
I don't think the users of ccwf had access to the news spool file
system at all, ever.
I recall asking for `trn' because I wanted to try a threaded news
reader, but at the time only `rn' supported NNTP and we didn't have
the NFS access to the news spool that `trn' needed.
The users of cs.utexas.edu could use trn, because they had their news
spool mounted on each box ...
Of course, everything is now NNTP.
(I wonder if cs.utexas.edu still runs it's own news server ...)
| ...but, yeah, I remembered coming across it before (and if trn
| knows about it, I thought I had reason that keeping it useful and
| up-to-date was part of the design decisions. oh well....)
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzy.com
Microsoft claims that Unix is outdated... but then they claim that
Windows 2000 is as scalable and stable as Unix?
Steve Wertz
>
> quoting dou...@frenzy.com (Doug McLaren) :
> > Some charters do include a suggested entry for their newsgroups.
>
> that's what had me thinking that someone had established a
> (most useful) addition to the standards I was familiar with,
> which happened while I wasn't paying enough attention...
> (happens more and more often)
Usually there's a "For your newsgroups file:" line distributed in
the body of the controlcmsg newgroup that creates a group. That's
supposed to get slurped into the newsgroups file as the description.
They really don't vary much across servers, as nobody has any reason
to edit these, or bother with creating their own descriptions for
100K groups.
The master newsgroups file and cmsg's are archived at isc.org,
somewhere. This is where you'd get a newsgroups file with the
'chartered' descriptions.
-sw
Rusty Mase
wrote:
> Shut Up, Dusty, Rusty, Musty !!
>(when's Wade and Chad learning to ignore you, I wonder...)
No beer?
Rusty Mase
Rick
>How is your answer consistent with your stated strong
>aversion to censorship?
The postings in question are really no more commercial than the inclusion of vendor
presentation information within the CATUS monthly newsletter posted each month.
Notification of us via the posts by Wade of topics and or guests relative to Austin
Internet serve this newsgroup well and the ever so slight overlap into them being a
pure ad for monetary gain is an pointless position being harped upon by a pure moron.
Ronald Hugh Roberts
Rick <l...@jump.bet> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:28:13 GMT, Chad Kissinger wrote:
>
>>How is your answer consistent with your stated strong
>>aversion to censorship?
>
>The postings in question are really no more commercial than the inclusion of vendor
>presentation information within the CATUS monthly newsletter posted each month.
Who is this CATUS? Capital Area Texas UNIX Society? I've heard they were a bunch
of harmless [mostly] nerds.
>
>Notification of us via the posts by Wade of topics and or guests relative to Austin
>Internet serve this newsgroup well and the ever so slight overlap into them being a
>pure ad for monetary gain is an pointless position being harped upon by a pure moron.
The quality of postings in this group continues to decline.
ron
--
Ron Roberts ro...@bga.com or ro...@cactus.org Phone (512) 219-0043
"Caution: the forecast is fair to partly clowny." b...@bob.org
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
> [ newsgroups trimmed ]
thanks.
>||> whose cage to rattle? not a newshost local issue, is it?
>|> Yes it is.
>| <groan> that means it could say something different on every host.
> (if I wasn't clear) The file is on the news server itself
I wasn't confused, but my question was about what it contains,
where does that COME FROM (updated by an automatic process
that sucks it out of the spool when "The Keeper" sends it
around again? or requiring that the local "newsguy" does
something self-triggered...?)
>|> The file is called ~/db/newsgroups for innd. Mine starts out --
>| users of CCWF don't have access to such files anymore, AFAIK...
> I don't think the users of ccwf had access to the news spool file
> system at all, ever.
well, I once could fish for such stuff -- don't think I was
specially privileged -- but it's been awhile, so I could be
mistaken and confusing it with CS or ASTRO (or whatever site)
news... (though I doubt it)
> I recall asking for `trn' because I wanted to try a threaded news
> reader, but at the time only `rn' supported NNTP and we didn't have
> the NFS access to the news spool that `trn' needed.
I must have switched to using CCWF after that, because I
wouldn't have if I couldn't read threaded...
> The users of cs.utexas.edu could use trn, because they had their
> news spool mounted on each box ...
...and installing whatever software desired could be done
by anyone (and I did so routinely, keep MM and other legacy
stuff installed -- updates rarely were necessary, of course :)
> Of course, everything is now NNTP.
> (I wonder if cs.utexas.edu still runs it's own news server ...)
you haven't checked PATH-header lately -- CS is still the main
news-gateway to UT... Fletcher's always done a tremendous job
there...
>|...but, yeah, I remembered coming across it before (and if trn knows
>| about it, I thought that gave reason to think that keeping it useful
>| and up-to-date was part of the design decisions. oh well....)
I still hope it is (maintained by a hierarchy "Keeper of Law and
Order" and passed around so all machines carrying a group will
describe its intended use equally)
> Microsoft claims that Unix is outdated... but then they claim that
> Windows 2000 is as scalable and stable as Unix?
they do ?!? the gall... <chuckle> I just read in today's news
that Microsoft isn't going to pay dividends (to drive the stock
prices up? one of the ideosynchrocy of stock price manipulation)
anyway, don't miss the "start of the new Tale-free era" discussions
in news.groups -- I did, nearly...
happy "The Day After The Election of 2002" Day... :-(
(at least the rains are over for a couple of days, giving me a
chance to REALLY fix the leak in the car sunroof somewhere... :-(
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
> Usually there's a "For your newsgroups file:" line distributed in
> the body of the controlcmsg newgroup that creates a group.
right. and it really shouldn't require much updating, but...
> They don't vary much across servers, no reasons for changes...
well, not frequently, anyways....
> The master newsgroups file and cmsg's are archived at isc.org
un auto-synch process which retrieved from an archive
would be preferable over news distribution anyways...
...but ISC.ORG was as lively/dormant as Tale was...
> This is where you'd get a newsgroups file with the 'chartered' descriptions
regional/local group hierarchies have local keepers and it
isn't clear, completely, that they are any of ISC.ORG's
business (might be hard to maintain/change for the Keepers
of the hierarchy/ies around the world...)
anyway, I only brought it up in the hope to get it updated,
the rest was esotheric...
wer...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
> Who is this CATUS? Capital Area Texas UNIX Society?
> I've heard they were a bunch of harmless [mostly] nerds.
were, Bob, WERE (when founded nearly 20 years ago).
now, I don't know (any of you anymore ;-)
>> Wade's posts serve this newsgroup well, the harping is done by a moron
Amen!
> The quality of postings in this group continues to decline.
no, Ron, you just assisted improving it... ;-)
Terry Horton
>On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:28:13 GMT, Chad Kissinger wrote:
>
>>How is your answer consistent with your stated strong
>>aversion to censorship?
>
>The postings in question are really no more commercial than the inclusion of vendor
>presentation information within the CATUS monthly newsletter posted each month.
Obvious keyword: "month".
>Notification of us via the posts by Wade of topics and or guests relative to Austin
>Internet serve this newsgroup well and the ever so slight overlap into them being a
>pure ad for monetary gain is an pointless position being harped upon by a pure moron.
A number of people besides Dusty have noted that Wade's posts go
against the current charter. Many who respond choose to flame Dusty's
flames rather than address the core issue (especially, of all people,
Wade).
And anyone who wishes to claim a majority consensus on this should
count carefully (even including Wade and Chad; I leave out those whose
arguments were solely about Dusty).
Look, my problem with this began when I found one of the few
newsgroups I don't have to filter announcing chances for a radio
station's listeners to win prizes . One offer turns out to be a host's
employer (Chad to his credit has forbidden Wade from repeating this).
Free tickets, free concerts.... if you just "stay tuned". Wade then
announces an interview with someone who turns out to be yet another of
his employers?!. Like few other messages in this group in recent
memory, Wade's ads wreaked of spam (spam defined as "advertising" in
the charter).
But, we're asked not to think of it as spam because of assurances that
the radio ad dollars could generate higher revenue elsewhere... and
Wade's claim of no salary, never mind that he's on the payroll of the
sponsor and at least one interviewee.
"FS: My friend's 3Com 3C905C-TX NIC. Usable in austin, for the
internet. I'll make no profit on this sale."
Dusty Rhodes
news:t2jjsuovptggg60jq...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:47:55 GMT, "Rick" <l...@jump.bet> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:28:13 GMT, Chad Kissinger wrote:
> >
> >>How is your answer consistent with your stated strong
> >>aversion to censorship?
> >
> >The postings in question are really no more commercial than the inclusion
of vendor
> >presentation information within the CATUS monthly newsletter posted each
month.
>
> Obvious keyword: "month".
Precisely. You could also say the key is it's "not weekly." Either way, it's
a non-issue. The issue is Wade's spam, which is OBVIOUSLY in direct
violation of the charter. But the only arguments they have left are, "Well,
someone else does it, so it must be OK." Pitiful. Also untrue, as you have
pointed out.
> >Notification of us via the posts by Wade of topics and or guests relative
to Austin
> >Internet serve this newsgroup well and the ever so slight overlap into
them being a
> >pure ad for monetary gain is an pointless position being harped upon by a
pure moron.
>
> A number of people besides Dusty have noted that Wade's posts go
> against the current charter. Many who respond choose to flame Dusty's
> flames rather than address the core issue (especially, of all people,
> Wade).
That's one of the reasons I've left often left others, including you and
Albert, to answer the obvious hypocrisy. Frankly, I almost pissed myself
laughing when someone forwarded me the stupid "secret strategy" from their
silly little e-mail list to respond to this obviously legitimate issue only
by first ignoring, then flaming me.
How stupid can a supposedly intelligent group of people be? A better
question might be how stupid do they think everyone else is? They tried
ignoring you, too, and the others who voiced concerns over the obvious
charter violation. That didn't work, either. Now they claim they're a
majority, so they can do whatever they want.
> And anyone who wishes to claim a majority consensus on this should
> count carefully (even including Wade and Chad; I leave out those whose
> arguments were solely about Dusty).
Indeed. I have never claimed a majority, yet I know of at least 14 people
currently who know Wade's spam for what it is. These days I only see a
meager few stubbornly insisting the big, pink elephant merrily trampling the
charter is actually a cute little pussycat, especially Chad, who, if he had
an ounce of integrity, would have recused himself from the discussion long
ago. Can you say, "Conflict of interest?" I knew you could.
> Look, my problem with this began when I found one of the few
> newsgroups I don't have to filter announcing chances for a radio
> station's listeners to win prizes . One offer turns out to be a host's
> employer (Chad to his credit has forbidden Wade from repeating this).
> Free tickets, free concerts.... if you just "stay tuned". Wade then
> announces an interview with someone who turns out to be yet another of
> his employers?!. Like few other messages in this group in recent
> memory, Wade's ads wreaked of spam (spam defined as "advertising" in
> the charter).
>
> But, we're asked not to think of it as spam because of assurances that
> the radio ad dollars could generate higher revenue elsewhere... and
> Wade's claim of no salary, never mind that he's on the payroll of the
> sponsor and at least one interviewee.
Right. But that would have to be *non-commercial* revenue generated
elsewhere, right? It's just a co-incidence that this allegedly non-profit,
non-commercial show runs on a commercial station, is supported solely by
paid commercials and is paid for in full by the boss of the guy posting the
spam, who also happens to run his ISP, who also thinks the spam for a show
hosted by his paid employee that runs commercials for his biz is just peachy
and not actually commercial at all. The hypocrisy is truly stunning.
> "FS: My friend's 3Com 3C905C-TX NIC. Usable in austin, for the
> internet. I'll make no profit on this sale."
All you're likely to get from Chad or Wade is a polite version of, "I
disagree, most people agree with me, so piss off, I'll do exactly what I
want, anyway." Of course, they have not shit to back up their claims of
support. But they also have nothing else to say, unless it's, "Well, it's OK
because Dusty sucks!"
From the other few hard core hypocrites, you'll see only attacks on me. The
truth of it is they have nothing else. They are obviously, glaringly wrong
on the issue, so they attack me, instead.
They obviously think all of the rest of you are stupid enough to fall for
this. They think they can bury the truth by discrediting the messenger or
tossing out a bushel full of red herrings. Well, guess what, Chipocrites? I
ain't the only one speaking out. How ya gonna blame *that* on me?
Cheers,
Dusty
jaheidt8
Steve
> In reply I can only say "Invest your sons war is good buisness!"
Not sure how thjis is relevent to this thread, but the phrase is
"War is Good FOR Business. Invest Your Sons."
-sw
Dusty Rhodes
> > "FS: My friend's 3Com 3C905C-TX NIC. Usable in austin, for the
> > internet. I'll make no profit on this sale."
>
> All you're likely to get from Chad or Wade is a polite version of, "I
> disagree, most people agree with me, so piss off, I'll do exactly what I
> want, anyway." Of course, they have not shit to back up their claims of
> support. But they also have nothing else to say, unless it's, "Well, it's
OK
> because Dusty sucks!"
I take it back, Terry. Obviously neither they and their apologists consider
you and/or your points to be unworthy of any answer whatsoever. What a
lovely crowd. Ah, well. At least the spam has stopped.
Cheers,
Dusty