Dick
John R. Ruckstuhl Jr.
I read the first article or two, then subscribed to news.admin.policy to
see what the heck this was all about.
By the time I'd found the recursive posting, then went back and finished
alt.fan.dick-depew, I was laughing out loud and finally in tears.
Please consider this a vote for legend status for Mr. Depew, and add
this letter to his score for stimulating useless Usenet traffic.
ruck
My thanks to the person who newgrouped -- it made my day.
I'm *still* cracking up.
--
John R. Ruckstuhl, Jr. ru...@alpha.ee.ufl.edu
Dept. of Electrical Engineering ru...@cis.ufl.edu
University of Florida
Joel Furr
>My newsreader told me there was a new newsgroup, alt.fan.dick-depew.
>I read the first article or two, then subscribed to news.admin.policy to
>see what the heck this was all about.
>
>By the time I'd found the recursive posting, then went back and finished
>alt.fan.dick-depew, I was laughing out loud and finally in tears.
>
>Please consider this a vote for legend status for Mr. Depew, and add
>this letter to his score for stimulating useless Usenet traffic.
>
>ruck
>
>My thanks to the person who newgrouped -- it made my day.
>I'm *still* cracking up.
You're welcome!
Speaking as one of the individuals lucky enough to be awake and logged in
and reading newnews when the ARMM Massacre began, I knew when I saw the
first wave come past that Dick had taken that one mighty step that would
forever place him among the constellations of bozosity. We _owed_ it to
Dick to honor his utter cluelessness with alt.fan.dick-depew.
Richard E. Depew
>I read the first article or two, then subscribed to news.admin.policy to
>see what the heck this was all about.
>
>By the time I'd found the recursive posting, then went back and finished
>alt.fan.dick-depew, I was laughing out loud and finally in tears.
>
>Please consider this a vote for legend status for Mr. Depew, and add
>this letter to his score for stimulating useless Usenet traffic.
>
>ruck
>
>My thanks to the person who newgrouped -- it made my day.
>I'm *still* cracking up.
And *I* have been very pleased that most have taken this
monumental screw-up with such good humor. Thank you all.
However, what if this is all part of the Depew strategy:
when you can't defeat them with ARMMs, disARMM them with laughter!?
:-)
>--
>John R. Ruckstuhl, Jr. ru...@alpha.ee.ufl.edu
>Dept. of Electrical Engineering ru...@cis.ufl.edu
>University of Florida
Mortified, but
chuckling anyhow,
Dick
--
Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH r...@redpoll.neoucom.edu (home)
"...plug the RS-232 connector on the back side of the Mini Modem 2400 into
the RS-232 connector on your computer, then screw up." - modem instructions
Timothy C. May
: My newsreader told me there was a new newsgroup, alt.fan.dick-depew.
: I read the first article or two, then subscribed to news.admin.policy to
: see what the heck this was all about.
:
: By the time I'd found the recursive posting, then went back and finished
: alt.fan.dick-depew, I was laughing out loud and finally in tears.
My God! You mean you were actually logged-in and reading
news.admin.policy as all this was happening? In real time?
That's like happening to be outside and looking up as a giant meteor
goes overhead...others can *read* about it or see it replayed on t.v.,
but you actually *experienced* it! You were *there*. (Of course, watch
for tens of thousands of false claims as the years go by..."Yep, there
I was, logged in, when all of a sudden smoke started comin' out of my
computer. Yes sirree, it was a sight to behold.")
To mix metaphors by using earthquake terms, what DePew did was a
"microMorris," but still an interesting one. (Actually, I hope he
writes up his experiences and publishes a small note about this
somewhere, perhaps in CACM. This is something I still haven't seen
Morris do, which is why we all end up reading Stoll's accounts of his
exploits.)
And like the Morris worm, this event may help innoculate the Net
against similar occurences--like an all-out war between the Aremenian
and Turkish roboposters.
-Tim May
--
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tc...@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Timothy C. May
crediting a Mere Secondhander (like most of us) for having been
logged-in during the ARMMacle.
Joel Furr (jf...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: Speaking as one of the individuals lucky enough to be awake and logged in
: and reading newnews when the ARMM Massacre began, I knew when I saw the
: first wave come past that Dick had taken that one mighty step that would
: forever place him among the constellations of bozosity. We _owed_ it to
: Dick to honor his utter cluelessness with alt.fan.dick-depew.
It was indeed this First Hand Witnessing of the ARMMacle that I was
intending to respond to.
--Tim May
j...@cmkrnl.com
(Joel Furr) writes:
> As Lazlo Nibble and I said elsewhere, watching ARMM in action was like
> watching this machine as it generated hundreds upon thousands of
> Frankenstein's Monsters while in the distance you heard the sound "ARMM"
> repeated over and over! :P
I just hope Dick Depew remembers what happens at the END of the Frankenstein
movie.
Hint: That light on the horizon is not sunrise; it's coming from the
peasants' torches.
Does anybody else need a pitchfork???
--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: j...@cmkrnl.com Uucp: uunet!cmkrnl!jeh CIS: 74140,2055
Fuzzy Fox
> And *I* have been very pleased that most have taken this
>monumental screw-up with such good humor. Thank you all.
As Tom Servo would say:
Ha ha ha. Kill him.
--
------ Fuzzy Fox ----- aka David DeSimone ----- fu...@netcom.com ------
"I have tried my best to provide a minimally disruptive demonstration
that USENET *does* have at least one mechanism for protecting itself
from rogue sites or rogue system administrators." -- Richard E. Depew
Eli Brandt
> And *I* have been very pleased that most have taken this
>monumental screw-up with such good humor. Thank you all.
Just to clarify the situation, we are not laughing /with/ you.
>:-)
Please stop. It is becoming excruciatingly embarrassing to read your
articles expressing hearty backslapping chuckles about "gee, that
sure was a heckuva long header block, eh? (but don't worry, next
time I'll give you a week's notice) smiley smiley." Continuing to
post on the subject is no more than an exercise in H*yesianism.
>Dick
PGP 2 key by finger or e-mail
Eli ebr...@jarthur.claremont.edu
Felix Gallo
>Hey! John Ruckstuhl wasn't Prime Witness. *I* was. After all, *I*
>issued the newgroup message for alt.fan.dick-depew that he saw come past!
And no, Joel, this won't win you Experience Points to be earned towards
a real life either.
Richard M. Hartman
>>My newsreader told me there was a new newsgroup, alt.fan.dick-depew.
>>I read the first article or two, then subscribed to news.admin.policy to
>>see what the heck this was all about.
>>
>>By the time I'd found the recursive posting, then went back and finished
>>alt.fan.dick-depew, I was laughing out loud and finally in tears.
>
> And *I* have been very pleased that most have taken this
>monumental screw-up with such good humor. Thank you all.
>
>
>Mortified, but
>chuckling anyhow,
>Dick
>--
>Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH r...@redpoll.neoucom.edu (home)
>"...plug the RS-232 connector on the back side of the Mini Modem 2400 into
>the RS-232 connector on your computer, then screw up." - modem instructions
Dick, Dick, Dick ...
You have been reading your .sig file again, haven't you?
"plug in the modem, then screw up"...
Apt. Very apt. <bg>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Why do we never get an answer |
when we're knocking at the door? | -Richard Hartman
because the truth is hard to swallow | har...@uLogic.COM
that's what the war of love is for. |
Joel Furr
Felix, your shrink is calling. Don't forget to take along your homework.
Perry E. Metzger
>Speaking as one of the individuals lucky enough to be awake and logged in
>and reading newnews when the ARMM Massacre began, I knew when I saw the
>first wave come past that Dick had taken that one mighty step that would
>forever place him among the constellations of bozosity. We _owed_ it to
>Dick to honor his utter cluelessness with alt.fan.dick-depew.
I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew. After all, he's
an individual unilaterally deciding to post messages to the network
without getting the permission of the net at large, which was his
complaint about the anonymous posting server.
--
Perry Metzger pmet...@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
James Hightower
>I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
>automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew. After all, he's
>an individual unilaterally deciding to post messages to the network
>without getting the permission of the net at large, which was his
>complaint about the anonymous posting server.
Why not? I'm sure that many arguments in favor can be found simply by
looking through our archive of old R.E.D. posts. Besides which, I don't recall
any newsgroup explicitly voting to accept Dick's posts.
JJH
earthbound misfit, I
> And *I* have been very pleased that most have taken this
> monumental screw-up with such good humor. Thank you all.
>
> However, what if this is all part of the Depew strategy:
> when you can't defeat them with ARMMs, disARMM them with laughter!?
Dick, we're not laughing with you, we're laughing *at* you.
- k
--
Craig Harding kil...@acme.gen.nz ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"
earthbound misfit, I
> To mix metaphors by using earthquake terms, what DePew did was a
> "microMorris," but still an interesting one.
So do we have a new unit of Net bozosity? A "Depew", of which 1000 make up
a "Morris"?
Joel Furr
>jf...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
>>Speaking as one of the individuals lucky enough to be awake and logged in
>>and reading newnews when the ARMM Massacre began, I knew when I saw the
>>first wave come past that Dick had taken that one mighty step that would
>>forever place him among the constellations of bozosity. We _owed_ it to
>>Dick to honor his utter cluelessness with alt.fan.dick-depew.
>
>I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
>automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew. After all, he's
>an individual unilaterally deciding to post messages to the network
>without getting the permission of the net at large, which was his
>complaint about the anonymous posting server.
Do it. Depew has shown himself to be unrepentant (though embarrassed) and
still possessed of the same fucked-up hubris-laden self-righteousness that
caused him to bomb the net in the first place. Now he's saying that he
plans more tests of ARMM. Set up the Depew autocanceller _now_ before he
can do any more damage.
James R Ebright
>>I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2
>Do it.
[...] Set up the Depew autocanceller _now_ before he
>can do any more damage.
Phew... and I always wondered how a sane rational animal became involved
in an arms race that threatened his extinction... I guess we are getting
an on-line replay on a minor scale right here in news.admin.policy
The names even sound like nuclear weapon delivery systems :(
--Jim
--
Information farming at... For addr&phone: finger A/~~\A
THE Ohio State University jebr...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ((0 0))____
Jim Ebright e-mail: jr...@osu.edu \ / \
(--)\
Andrew Bulhak
: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
: 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
: W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments.
^^^^^^^^^ What, does W.A.S.T.E. really exist? Has someone really set up
a rogue PaperMail network?
: Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
:
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Bulhak | Defend your freedom of expression. |
| a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | Defenestrate Dick DePew. |
| Monash Uni, Clayton, | |
| Victoria, Australia | ARMM = Big Brother |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Joel Furr
>Timothy C. May (tc...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
>: tc...@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
>: 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
>: W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^ What, does W.A.S.T.E. really exist? Has someone really set up
> a rogue PaperMail network?
Of course. It was The Tristero that blew up the World Trade Center, too.
Andrew Bulhak
: In article <1993Apr2.2...@shearson.com> pmet...@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
: >I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
: >automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew. After all, he's
: >an individual unilaterally deciding to post messages to the network
: >without getting the permission of the net at large, which was his
: >complaint about the anonymous posting server.
:
: Do it. Depew has shown himself to be unrepentant (though embarrassed) and
: still possessed of the same fucked-up hubris-laden self-righteousness that
: caused him to bomb the net in the first place. Now he's saying that he
: plans more tests of ARMM. Set up the Depew autocanceller _now_ before he
: can do any more damage.
I second that. We cannot allow the first hung-up aneristic creep with an
attitude problem to take it upon himself and impose centralised arbitration
upon the happy anarchy of Usenet. ARMM is really the thin edge of the wedge,
and if it is allowed to continue, it will open the way for more intrusive,
totalitarian forms of central control.
I say impose the Net Death Sentence on Dick Depew. Show the loser that we
don't want any of his automoderation. All those in favour, follow up and
say so. Your freedom of expression is at stake!
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Bulhak | IMPOSITION OF ORDER = |
| a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | ESCALATION OF DISORDER |
| Monash Uni, Clayton, | |
| Victoria, Australia | "I've seen the !" |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Ed McGuire
>I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
>automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew.
I pay for Depew's messages and your cancels too?
In a word, /no./
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc. <e...@intellection.com>
It's Only News.
Raise Usenet quality. Read news.announce.newgroups and vote.
Richard E. Depew
>>Speaking as one of the individuals lucky enough to be awake and logged in
>>and reading newnews when the ARMM Massacre began, I knew when I saw the
>>first wave come past that Dick had taken that one mighty step that would
>>forever place him among the constellations of bozosity. We _owed_ it to
>>Dick to honor his utter cluelessness with alt.fan.dick-depew.
>
>I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
>automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew. After all, he's
>an individual unilaterally deciding to post messages to the network
>without getting the permission of the net at large, which was his
>complaint about the anonymous posting server.
You two had better talk this over with John Stanley. He says:
"This is USENET."
"You don't need an invitation to be able to post."
One or two of you must be wrong.
Dick
--
Richard E. Depew | r...@redpoll.mrfs.oh.us (home)
the bumbling genie, | ^^^^^^^^^^
sorcerer'$ apprentice, | New Address Now In Effect
and aspiring usenet legend! | Think "smurfs" in crossfire.
Richard E. Depew
Huh?
When did I say I plan more tests of ARMM?
Give me a reference.
I'd like to see what you've misunderstood now.
I catagorically deny having any such plans.
Richard E. Depew
>Joel Furr (jf...@polaris.async.vt.edu) wrote:
>: In article <1993Apr2.2...@shearson.com> pmet...@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>: >I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
>: >automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew. After all, he's
>: >an individual unilaterally deciding to post messages to the network
>: >without getting the permission of the net at large, which was his
>: >complaint about the anonymous posting server.
>:
>: Do it. Depew has shown himself to be unrepentant (though embarrassed) and
>: still possessed of the same fucked-up hubris-laden self-righteousness that
>: caused him to bomb the net in the first place. Now he's saying that he
>: plans more tests of ARMM. Set up the Depew autocanceller _now_ before he
>: can do any more damage.
>
>I second that. We cannot allow the first hung-up aneristic creep with an
>attitude problem to take it upon himself and impose centralised arbitration
>upon the happy anarchy of Usenet. ARMM is really the thin edge of the wedge,
>and if it is allowed to continue, it will open the way for more intrusive,
>totalitarian forms of central control.
>
>I say impose the Net Death Sentence on Dick Depew. Show the loser that we
>don't want any of his automoderation. All those in favour, follow up and
>say so. Your freedom of expression is at stake!
On my way down, I have a thought to share. Better keep it short!
How many newsgroups are currently open to posts from
charcoal.com, two or three dozen? I would like to make a suggestion
to both Julf and Karl that will increase the number of newsgroups
open to anonymous posts by approximately one order of magnitude.
I suggest that anonymous servers serve traditionally moderated
newsgroups by default. There are at least 350 moderated newsgroups.
The moderators can screen the wheat from the chaff as usual, or ask
the server admins to turn off the service if there already is a policy
of no anonymous posts to that newsgroup.
Anyone have a problem with this suggestion?
Phill Hallam-Baker
Thats mighty big of you, a bit like a thug saying to a guy that he should
be gratefull he only beat them up a little.
I have no problem with not allowing anonymous posting, if the net decides
that it wants to make that rule. I just do not think that Dick Depew should
be the person to unilateraly impose his restrictions on the net. If a
newsfeed manager wants to disable anonmous posting they can do so themselves
with little difficulty - just configure expire properly, many sites haxe
expire set to remove Mutlu for example. Provided they don't hide what they
are up to and provided they don't affect other sites this is O.K.
Depew on the other hand has a real attitude problem and thinks that the
world should revolve arround him. If I was his feed site I would have
already yanked the plug on him unless he gave a categorical assurance that
he would not attempt another act of sabotage. If I was a feed site to his feed
then I would have been onto his feed manager to ask the same thing.
Phill Hallam-Baker
Grendel Grettisson
>
> How many newsgroups are currently open to posts from
>charcoal.com, two or three dozen? I would like to make a suggestion
>to both Julf and Karl that will increase the number of newsgroups
>open to anonymous posts by approximately one order of magnitude.
>
> I suggest that anonymous servers serve traditionally moderated
>newsgroups by default. There are at least 350 moderated newsgroups.
>The moderators can screen the wheat from the chaff as usual, or ask
>the server admins to turn off the service if there already is a policy
>of no anonymous posts to that newsgroup.
>
> Anyone have a problem with this suggestion?
Yes, as usual from you, it is stupid. Unmoderated groups are just that,
unmoderated. If you don't want anon postings, go to a moderated group that
doesn't accept them. Anyone can post to an unmoderated group.
Jonathan Eifrig
Let me get this straight: DICK Depew, bonehead extraordinaire,
is complaining that Metzger is threatening to cancel his posts, while at
the same time attempting (very lamely, I might add!) to do the same thing
to people he doesn't even know and postings that he hasn't even read.
At least Metzger _knows_ that you are a bonehead, Dick. And as
far as your "anonymous servers abuse the net" theory goes, don't you think
you've done enough net.abuse to deserve the fate you wish to inflict on
others?
*YOU* are the one that is claiming net vigilante-ism is perfectly
justified. It seems only apropos that you perish by the same philosophy
you espouse.
Or has this whole tawdry episode finally penetrated your skull?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Better than the whole world be destroyed and crumble to dust than
a free man deny one of his desires."
-Benito Mussolini, Italian anarchist and poet.
Jack Eifrig (eif...@cs.jhu.edu) The Johns Hopkins University, C.S. Dept.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Wes Groleau X7574
> Yes, as usual from you, it is stupid. Unmoderated groups are just that,
>unmoderated. If you don't want anon postings, go to a moderated group that
>doesn't accept them. Anyone can post to an unmoderated group.
I'm starting to feel that there must be something wrong with me for agreeing
with this viewpoint--since so many of othersi on this side don't seem to
see any difference between repetition and proof.
Jim Gillogly
|||I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
|In article <C4xCu...@polaris.async.vt.edu| jf...@polaris.async.vt.edu (Joel Furr) writes:
||Do it. Depew has shown himself to be unrepentant (though embarrassed) and
||... Now he's saying that he plans more tests of ARMM ...
In article <1993Apr06....@uhura.neoucom.edu| r...@uhura.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) writes:
| Huh?
| When did I say I plan more tests of ARMM?
| Give me a reference.
| I'd like to see what you've misunderstood now.
| I catagorically deny having any such plans.
Here's your message, which I evidently misunderstood in the same direction
as several other people.
> From: r...@uhura.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew)
>
> I'll voluntarily sentence myself to a term of "net-probation" (one
> month - April), and pledge that during this period I will give one
> week's notice of any intent to rearm ARMM, or anything similar, even if
> it is only targeted against myself.
I read this as suggesting that you may feel like testing ARMM or something
similar in the near future (i.e. April), and believe that the only thing
standing between you and this testing is a week's notice to the Net. In
addition, if you feel like running experiments on ARMM or something like
it after April, you evidently will not feel obliged either to provide
advance notice or to get the "sense of Usenet" before making unilateral
experiments.
What about this do I not understand?
I'm not allying myself with the net-death-for-redpoll faction, but it
certainly <does> seem from this annoying non-penance that you are indeed
unrepentant -- at least of the basic sin of mucking about unilaterally
with the structure of the net.
--
Jim Gillogly
Sterday, 15 Astron S.R. 1993, 22:36
John Stanley
>>automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew. After all, he's
> You two had better talk this over with John Stanley. He says:
>"This is USENET."
>"You don't need an invitation to be able to post."
> One or two of you must be wrong.
No, Dick, you are. I didn't say that your postings had to survive
anywhere on the net. If you think that you are free to cancel other
people's postings, I won't complain one bit when others feel free to
cancel yours.
Fuzzy Fox
>I say impose the Net Death Sentence on Dick Depew. Show the loser that we
>don't want any of his automoderation. All those in favour, follow up and
>say so. Your freedom of expression is at stake!
A lesson from the Super Friends:
"We can't kill him; then we would be just as evil as he is."
BTW, I hated that show.
--
David DeSimone | Rules of Creative Research:
f...@convex.com | 1) Never draw what you can copy.
If I said it, it | 2) Never copy what you can trace.
must be my opinion | 3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.
lrud...@vax.clarku.edu
be improved by not letting DD use Windows anymore?
Lee Rudolph
James Michael Chacon
>>still possessed of the same fucked-up hubris-laden self-righteousness that
>>caused him to bomb the net in the first place. Now he's saying that he
>>plans more tests of ARMM. Set up the Depew autocanceller _now_ before he
>>can do any more damage.
> Huh?
>
> When did I say I plan more tests of ARMM?
> Give me a reference.
> I'd like to see what you've misunderstood now.
> I catagorically deny having any such plans.
>Dick
Well, lets see..Looking through all back articles posted by you in the
past 2 weeks ( gads that is a bunch....) I find this:
> I'll voluntarily sentence myself to a term of "net-probation" (one
> month - April), and pledge that during this period I will give one
> week's notice of any intent to rearm ARMM, or anything similar, even if
> it is only targeted against myself.
Your exact words seem to imply you intend to rearm this thing sometime
in the near future, just that you will give warning first.
While I disagree completely with ANYONE cancelling articles that didn't
belong to them, I still see the need for you to have some sort of control
placed upon what leaks out of your system.
James
John Stanley
What "proof" do you need?
Unmoderated MEANS there is no moderator. That is by definition.
If there is no moderator, then there is nobody to approve articles
posted to a newsgroup. That is almost too simple an idea to require
proof.
Since there is nobody to approve individual articles, there can be no
requirement that they BE approved individually.
If there is no individual approval requirement, there must be a blanket
approval. (If there were no blanket approval, then NOBODY could post,
because there is nobody who can grant individual approval.)
Since there is a blanket approval, anyone can post.
Francisco X DeJesus
>pmet...@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>I'm wondering whether I should deploy ARMM-2, the program that
>>automatically cancels any posting made by Dick Depew. After all, he's
>>an individual unilaterally deciding to post messages to the network
>>without getting the permission of the net at large, which was his
>>complaint about the anonymous posting server.
>
> You two had better talk this over with John Stanley. He says:
>
>"This is USENET."
>
>"You don't need an invitation to be able to post."
I'd say John Stanley is quite correct. However, I doubt Perry was serious
when he wrote that... I doubt anyone would be inconsiderate enough to try
to force onto the net their own brand of censorship by using something that
will cancel postings coming from one person or one site. Right, Dick?
Now back to the regularly scheduled flame war...
--
Francisco X DeJesus ----- S A I C ----- dej...@c3ot.saic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are mine. Typos and errors are yours *
"Duck Season!" "Rabbit Season!" "...rabbit season." "It's Duck Season! SHOOT!"
Richard E. Depew
Do you see anything in there that looks like what Joel Furr was
claiming: "Now he's saying that he plans more tests of ARMM ..."?
That is a far cry from what you said "you may feel like testing...".
You both must have missed my earlier and later posts which
explicitly state that I have no intent to rearm ARMM. As the founder of
the alt.fan.dick-depew newsgroup, this is clearly an irresponsible
oversight on Joel's part... a dereliction of his sacred duty to my
fans! You, of course, have no such sacred duty, so I suppose I can
forgive you. Just let me point out that the material you quoted does
not say one way or the other whether I *have* any intent, only that
I would warn you if I did. I haven't warned you, ergo no such plans!
I'll include one followup to my "net-probation" proposal which
you both must have missed:
=-=-=-=-=-=-= begin repost =-=-=-=-=-=-=
|Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,news.software.b
|Subject: Re: Apology for recursive ARMM flood
|Summary: a fuller explication of the "net-probation" idea
|References: <1993Apr2.0...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <1993Apr2.0...@wixer.cactus.org>
|Organization: a gun-shy organization
|Keywords: last try
|
|[ I am sorry now that I ever answered this anonymous poster in the
|first place... remember what I said about "tar-babies"? ]
|
|c...@wixer.cactus.org (Dr. Cat) writes:
|> I posted a long reply to your proposed "probation", Depew, but it doesn't
|>seem to have made it onto the newsgroup yet. In case there's been some
|>problem with my site & it got lost, I'll summarize the key points...
|
| I suspect there is a problem with your site... all my email to you
|bounced back to redpoll. Your name, "cat", is apparently unknown to
|the mailer. You'd better fix this if you want to receive responses.
|Until then, I consider you anonymous, and this will be my final
|response to you.
|
|> 1) You shouldn't restrict your promise to "ARMM and similar things", it
|>should cover ANYTHING that affects the whole net.
|
| I was trying to be responsive to what I perceived as the *main*
|concern that you were addressing, namely ARMM.
|
| "ANYTHING" is just too broad. I suppose I'd have to ask permission
|to post any opinion a week in advance? Are you a free speech advocate?
|:-)
|
| No. I'll stick with my original offer, but I promise to stick by
|the spirit of the offer. I keep my word. I wouldn't try to weasel
|out if it. It is a genuine promise.
|
|
|> 2) You shouldn't just promise to tell people what you want to do
|>beforehand, you should promise to actually RESPOND to what they say. Your
|>promise as worded would allow you to propose something, listen to thousands
|>of people telling you not to do it, and then do it anyway. This is not very
|>helpful.
|
| Sorry if it sounded that way... but that wasn't my intent.
|
| I was trying to take you up on your suggestion that I give warning
|of any proposed act that may cause opposition, flames, or other trouble,
|and let anyone with any concerns about it share those concerns before
|I make a final decision. I promise to take into serious consideration
|any remarks that are framed in polite language. I furthermore promise
|to try to ignore any flames. This policy should help restore order to
|this newsgroup. (But it won't. :-) )
|
|
|> 3) Acting responsibly is not a "probation" or a "punishment", so you should
|>promise to do it from now on. Not for just a month.
|
| So whip me with a wet noodle. The term was a *joke*, son.
|
| I have *always* tried to act in a responsible manner, and I will
|continue to do so. That's a _solemn_ promise!
|
|
|> You went off twice and did some very ill-advised things. If you had
|>discussed them at length with the net community before deciding to go off an
|>do them, a lot of trouble could have been avoided. If you adopt the second
|>proposed promise I listed in my prior post, exactly as it was worded, and
|>stick to it, you will not do such things again. If you adopt your "month of
|>net-probation" proposal, all it will do is guarantee us a weeks advance
|>warning before the next anti-social act. That's hardly helpful enough.
|
|
| Let me repeat myself for those who haven't noticed:
|
| ARMM is *off*.
|
| I have no desire to reactivate it.
|
| My "net-probation" offer clearly says that if I feel the need to change
|my mind on this, I won't do it suddenly. Instead, I'll announce my intent
|to news.admin.policy a week in advance, so I can take the comments and
|suggestions of other thoughtful news admins into account before making a
|final decision.
|
| Let me say it *again* in different words. I will *shelve* ARMM for the
|forseeable future. I will let you know if the irresistable urge to commit
|net-suicide should strike me in the future.
|
| How could you have a problem with this?
|
| Heck, if this works out well (as measured by personal survival
|criteria), I may make this a permanent commitment, but I want to see
|whether it works first, by conducting a more limited experiment.
|
| I think it is best if we first try my novel suggestions on a *small*
|scale, don't you? :-)
|
|> I also mentioned in my previous post that "Dr. Cat" is not an anonymous
|>handle to hide behind. All of my professional work for the last ten years
|>has been published under that name, all of my friends and associates call me
|>that (or just "Cat"), and I have a DBA filed in that name as well.
|
| Perhaps not, but email doesn't get to you. Please fix your mailer.
|You are *effectively* anonymous.
|
|Sincerely,
|Dick
|=-=-=-=-=-=-= end repost =-=-=-=-=-=-=
(We now return to Jim's comments.)
>I'm not allying myself with the net-death-for-redpoll faction, but it
>certainly <does> seem from this annoying non-penance that you are indeed
>unrepentant -- at least of the basic sin of mucking about unilaterally
>with the structure of the net.
Careful, Jim. The free-speech advocates might think you are on
*my* side and threaten to cancel your posts too!
You are at least partially correct; I have apologized sincerely for
my mistakes, which include "mucking about unilaterally with the
structure of the net" if that is how you refer to my demonstration of
the early versions of ARMM, but I am unrepentant about my "quest" to
"rescue the oppressed and to fight evil in a chivalrous, if unrealistic,
manner".
I am trying to post only non-inflammatory notes from my account
here at neoucom, so please hold your replies to this message until
you read a "proposed policy" statement that I plan to post from
redpoll.mrfs.oh.us soon, perhaps tonight. It may be somewhat
controversial.
I know that it is unusual to discuss policy statements in this
newsgroup, but it seems necessary to develop one in this case. What I
will post will be a *first draft* of a proposed policy. I will listen
to your comments for a week and then incorporate the best ideas into a
*proposed* policy which I will post for comment. At some later date, and
after further reflection and refinement, this may become a *real* policy.
I am not stupid. I do not repeat my mistakes. I make new ones. :-)
> Jim Gillogly
Thanks, Jim, for your thoughtful reply, and for not demanding that
I be silenced, or that my computer be destroyed and my notes burned.
I'm glad there are still a *few* non-extremists posting.
Richard M. Hartman
Good. Consider this:
A moderated group has a control point, the moderator.
Anyone can send an article to the moderator, it's just e-mail.
The moderator makes a decision whether to post the submission.
Dick's suggestion actually makes sense, no matter what you may
think of the source.
The only potential for problems comes from the currently unmoderated
groups. With some of these groups there is ample established reason
for not only allowing, but welcoming and encouraging anonymous postings.
With other groups, there is no particular need to hide one's
identity. As has been pointed out, many "unanonymous" accounts
can be almost as effective in doing this.
Ok, if that is the case: why do you need those groups to be
served by an anon posting server?
The purpose of an anon posting server is to hide one's identity
and evade potential repercussions of controversial statements.
Noone in rec.pets.cats feels a need to hide their affection for
their pets. The abuse of anon posting servers is to take potshots
at everything and everyone from a sheltered "blind". Which is what
happened in rec.pets.cats.
Let's use anon posting servers for what they are good for. Both
the current anon servers (anon.penet.fi and charcoal.org) are
limiting their list of served groups. Both will add groups to
that list by request (presumably preceeded, or at least followed
up by, a vote on whether to allow them for the group on a
permanent basis).
Anon services are where they are known to be required, and are
available even in places where we may currently not see a reason
for them, should someone encounter a situation where it may be
necessary (as in misc.kids). I think this represents a very
reasonable compromise.
I am fully behind Julf and Karl now that they have voluntarily
limited the scope of their servers, and for as long as they
continue to be responsive to complaints about abusive and
illegal uses of their services.
I would be interested to see an RFC formalizing these conditions
as "acceptable practice" for creating anon servers in the future.
So, Wes, which side do you agree with?
-Richard Hartman
har...@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"If we do not succeed, we risk failure." -D. Quayle
Lasse Hiller|e Petersen
mi...@stein.u.washington.edu (Grendel Grettisson) wrote:
>
> In article <1993Apr06.1...@uhura.neoucom.edu> r...@uhura.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) writes:
> > Anyone have a problem with this suggestion?
>
> Yes, as usual from you, it is stupid. Unmoderated groups are just that,
Bzzt, buddy, *please* learn to read.
Dick was talking about existing _moderated_ groups. These groups have a
person filtering articles by content, so permitting anonymous posting to
these could just as well be the default.
> unmoderated. If you don't want anon postings, go to a moderated group that
> doesn't accept them. Anyone can post to an unmoderated group.
If you tried to *read* what Dick writes, instead of just flaming
thoughtlessly, you'd find out that you *agree* with his suggestion.
I agree with you that anonymous posting is _also_ permitted by default on
unmoderated groups. Currently there's no server providing this service,
alas.
I also still believe that unmoderated groups should vote for moderation to
avoid anonymous posting.
Please be sure you have a *good* reason to flame next time.
--
Lasse Hillerøe Petersen ! "Was der Pöbel ohne Gründe einst
las...@imv.aau.dk/Inf.&Media Sci.! glauben lernte, wer könnte ihm durch
Aarhus University, DENMARK ! Gründe Das -- umwerfen?" -Nietzsche
John Stanley
>With other groups, there is no particular need to hide one's
>identity.
No, let's word that correctly -- you don't feel that there is any
particular need to hide one's identity. You don't need to, so you
won't accept that someone else might want to.
David Reeve Sward
Depew.. by Lasse H. Pete...@imv.aa
> unmoderated groups. Currently there's no server providing this service,
> alas.
You know, that's pretty much what I said a while ago - and got burnt to
a crisp. :)
--
David Sward swa...@cmu.edu
Andrew Bulhak
: I don't understand the suggestion in the subject line. How will the situation
I mean push him out of a window, in the proverbial sense. Cancelling other
peoples' articles should be a defenestrable offence.
:
: Lee Rudolph
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Andrew Bulhak | Defend your freedom of expression. |
| a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | Defenestrate Dick DePew. |
| Monash Uni, Clayton, | |
Jeff Aitken
: I know that it is unusual to discuss policy statements in this
: newsgroup, but it seems necessary to develop one in this case. What I
: will post will be a *first draft* of a proposed policy. I will listen
: to your comments for a week and then incorporate the best ideas into a
: *proposed* policy which I will post for comment. At some later date, and
: after further reflection and refinement, this may become a *real* policy.
Excuse me if this is inappropriate. I am, after all, a newcomer
to the net, and I of course do not deserve the respect of one such as
you, Mr. Depew. However bloated your ego may be, what makes you think
anyone out here in the net.world gives a damn what your proposed
"policy statement" contains?! So long as you do not continue to abuse
the net and inflict unwanted software upon the rest of us, feel free
to do as you please.
: I am not stupid. I do not repeat my mistakes. I make new ones. :-)
Well, that's an intelligent position...NOT. Perhaps it ought to
read (for all of our benefit):
I am not stupid (most of the time). I have learned from my (many)
mistakes. I will not do anything stupid again.
Just a thought...
: Dick
Jeff
--
Jeff Aitken |
jai...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu | Everyone is allowed to be stupid.
DEC User's Group Vice President | It's just that some people abuse
Va. Tech Computer Science Dept. | the privilege.
earthbound misfit, I
> With other groups, there is no particular need to hide one's
> identity. As has been pointed out, many "unanonymous" accounts
> can be almost as effective in doing this.
> [...]
> The purpose of an anon posting server is to hide one's identity
> and evade potential repercussions of controversial statements.
> Noone in rec.pets.cats feels a need to hide their affection for
> their pets. The abuse of anon posting servers is to take potshots
> at everything and everyone from a sheltered "blind". Which is what
> happened in rec.pets.cats.
Whoa, help me here, I must have missed something. Is it currently "Sweeping
Generalisation Week" in the US or something?
- k
--
Craig Harding kil...@acme.gen.nz ACME BBS +64 6 3551342
"Jub'er lbh pnyyvat n obmb?"
Karl Krueger
>Richard E. Depew (r...@uhura.neoucom.edu) wrote:
>: I know that it is unusual to discuss policy statements in this
>: newsgroup, but it seems necessary to develop one in this case. What I
>: will post will be a *first draft* of a proposed policy. I will listen
>: to your comments for a week and then incorporate the best ideas into a
>: *proposed* policy which I will post for comment. At some later date, and
>: after further reflection and refinement, this may become a *real* policy.
> Excuse me if this is inappropriate. I am, after all, a newcomer
^^^^^^^^
Welcome to USENET. Have a nice stay. :-)
>to the net, and I of course do not deserve the respect of one such as
>you, Mr. Depew. However bloated your ego may be, what makes you think
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>anyone out here in the net.world gives a damn what your proposed
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, plenty of people care. And if they don't there is a feature in most
newsreader software called a "kill file". Read your manual.
>"policy statement" contains?! So long as you do not continue to abuse
>the net and inflict unwanted software upon the rest of us, feel free
>to do as you please.
>: I am not stupid. I do not repeat my mistakes. I make new ones. :-)
> Well, that's an intelligent position...NOT. Perhaps it ought to
>read (for all of our benefit):
>
> I am not stupid (most of the time). I have learned from my (many)
>mistakes. I will not do anything stupid again.
Hmm. Doubtful. Stupidity is an ongoing, incurable condition. Perhaps
"ignorance" or "misinformedness" is the actual condition that caused the
ARMM problem, combined with "a bug".
>Jeff Aitken |
>jai...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu | Everyone is allowed to be stupid.
>DEC User's Group Vice President | It's just that some people abuse
>Va. Tech Computer Science Dept. | the privilege.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm. I disagree. Stupidity is usually harmful or fatal. However, people
should be allowed margin for ignorance.
-Karl
Richard M. Hartman
>Unmoderated MEANS there is no moderator. That is by definition.
Which is why we want to add a new "status choice" to the newsgroup
charter....
>If there is no moderator, then there is nobody to approve articles
>posted to a newsgroup. That is almost too simple an idea to require
>proof.
>
>Since there is nobody to approve individual articles, there can be no
>requirement that they BE approved individually.
And if there *IS* somebody approving articles, there is no reason
not to let anon users submit articles for approval, is there?
>If there is no individual approval requirement, there must be a blanket
>approval.
Wrong. Here's the sticking point. Global anon servers were not
around when the moderated/unmoderated status was slapped on the
charter process.
Moderation slows down the "conversation" speed.
Some topics (primarily technical) have nothing so controversial
that the protection of anonymity is necessary.
In such topics, anonymous posts can and have contributed
significantly to decreasing the signal to noise ratio.
An additional newsgroup "status choice" to allow/disallow
anonymous postings doesn't hurt anybody -- the choice can
still be voted on.
What's your problem with this concept?
Address the points, don't just repeat "unmoderated means
everybody". I'm talking about *changing* things here, so
what's wrong with the idea of this change?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Blasting, bursting, billowing forth with |
the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes, | -Richard Hartman
Man, with his flaming fire, | har...@uLogic.COM
has conquered the wayword breezes. |
Steve Davis
>I don't understand the suggestion in the subject line. How will the
>situation be improved by not letting DD use Windows anymore?
*thwap*
Stratocaster
--
Steve Davis (I'm a student, not a spokesperson!)
st...@cis.ksu.edu - Kansas State University - Manhattan KS
If voting could change anything, they would have made it illegal by now.
John Stanley
>In article <1ptb6p$s...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>Since there is nobody to approve individual articles, there can be no
>>requirement that they BE approved individually.
>And if there *IS* somebody approving articles, there is no reason
>not to let anon users submit articles for approval, is there?
THERE IS NOBODY APPROVING ARTICLES FOR UNMODERATED GROUPS. Can you
please grasp that simple concept concerning unmoderated groups? I said
NOTHING about moderated groups. I started the chain with "unmoderated
groups".
Moderated groups are not an issue, simply because the group has made its
decision to be moderated and that decision isn't being questioned.
>>If there is no individual approval requirement, there must be a blanket
>>approval.
>
>Wrong. Here's the sticking point. Global anon servers were not
>around when the moderated/unmoderated status was slapped on the
>charter process.
Anonymous posting was around when the status was chosen by the group.
(It wasn't "slapped" on the group, it was a decision made by the group
itself.) Thus, anonymous posting IS covered by the unmoderated status.
Whether that posting comes from anonymous servers or via other means is
irrelevant.
>Moderation slows down the "conversation" speed.
So? If you want to prevent anonymous posting, you make some trade-offs.
>Some topics (primarily technical) have nothing so controversial
>that the protection of anonymity is necessary.
In your opinion. Others have posted reasonable scenarios where
anonymity would be good.
>In such topics, anonymous posts can and have contributed
>significantly to decreasing the signal to noise ratio.
In such topics, non-anonymous posts can and have contributed
singnificantly to decreasing the signal to noise ration.
>An additional newsgroup "status choice" to allow/disallow
>anonymous postings doesn't hurt anybody -- the choice can
>still be voted on.
>What's your problem with this concept?
It is completely unenforcable without the group also being moderated.
It can be completely undetectable, unless someone (a moderator) is
chosen to spend their time detecting it. If the group must be
moderated to prevent anonymous postings, then why not just use the
current moderation system?
What is your problem with that concept?
J Lee Jaap
lrud...@vax.clarku.edu wrote:
: I don't understand the suggestion in the subject line. How will the situation
: be improved by not letting DD use Windows anymore?
I mean push him out of a window, in the proverbial sense. Cancelling other
peoples' articles should be a defenestrable offence.
Perhaps, then, exfenestrate? .5 * :-)
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L....@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not speaking for, AS&M Inc, at
NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
Dik T. Winter
> >Unmoderated MEANS there is no moderator. That is by definition.
>
> Which is why we want to add a new "status choice" to the newsgroup
> charter....
>
> >If there is no moderator, then there is nobody to approve articles
> >posted to a newsgroup. That is almost too simple an idea to require
> >proof.
> >
> >Since there is nobody to approve individual articles, there can be no
> >requirement that they BE approved individually.
>
Anyone volunteering?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; e-mail: d...@cwi.nl
Chip Salzenberg
>I'm starting to feel that there must be something wrong with me for agreeing
>with this viewpoint--since so many of othersi on this side don't seem to
>see any difference between repetition and proof.
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
--
Chip Salzenberg, at home <ch...@fin.uucp> or <tscs!fin!chip>
* Tailfin smarts from orca bite
* Waters ahead hide dangers unknown
* Still I chase fish and laugh *
Chip Salzenberg
>In article <1ptb6p$s...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>Unmoderated MEANS there is no moderator. That is by definition.
>
>Which is why we want to add a new "status choice" to the newsgroup
>charter....
What do you mean "we", paleface?
Since there are at least three anon servers, each of which may make
its _own_ decision as to whether posting is allowed to a given group,
it makes no sense to consider "anon-allowed" to be a property of a
group. It's a property of each server/group combination.
>Global anon servers were not around when the moderated/unmoderated
>status was slapped on the charter process.
Neither was the nation of Russia. So what's your point?
Phill Hallam-Baker
A case in point being talk.politics.misc and soc.culture.british. Some
of the things that I have posted re the IRA and the Red Army Faction
involve an element of risk. The IRA have attempted to murder a member of
my familly. I post in my own name because it is fairly obvious to these
people who I am in any case. I wouldn't consider it unreasonable to
post anonymously though.
Similarly many of the people who have been persuing the holocaust revisionists
have had attacks made on them, this has not yet spread to USEnet but many
UK people in the anti racism movement have been targetted for attack.
Some members of the anti-abortion movement now consider it OK to murder
people who they disagree with, they are not the only loonies out there.
Some of the gun nuts for example have very clear psychological problems
and I would certainly post anonymously if I was in the USA because some
of those people are quite clearly dangerous.
Phill Hallsm-Bsker
Ed McGuire
>Right. By this reasoning the newsgroup control should be moderated.
>Anyone volunteering?
"control" is not a newsgroup in any real sense. Nobody posts to it, or
forwards it to neighbors, except in error.
--
Ed McGuire 1603 LBJ Freeway, Suite 780
Systems Administrator/ Dallas, Texas 75234
Member of Technical Staff 214/620-2100, FAX 214/484-8110
Intellection, Inc. <e...@intellection.com>
<1993Apr3.07...@tygra.Michigan.COM>: "I run an anonymous server and
it is STAYING FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, which should be about 55 years."
Richard M. Hartman
>In article <13...@ulogic.UUCP> har...@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>>In article <1ptb6p$s...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>>Since there is nobody to approve individual articles, there can be no
>>>requirement that they BE approved individually.
>
>>And if there *IS* somebody approving articles, there is no reason
>>not to let anon users submit articles for approval, is there?
>
>THERE IS NOBODY APPROVING ARTICLES FOR UNMODERATED GROUPS. Can you
>please grasp that simple concept concerning unmoderated groups? I said
>NOTHING about moderated groups. I started the chain with "unmoderated
>groups".
And I contrasted that with a moderated group. Was it really
that difficult to follow?
>Moderated groups are not an issue, simply because the group has made its
>decision to be moderated and that decision isn't being questioned.
Oh, you apparently did follow, you just thought you'd take another
personal shot...
>>Some topics (primarily technical) have nothing so controversial
>>that the protection of anonymity is necessary.
>
>In your opinion. Others have posted reasonable scenarios where
>anonymity would be good.
I have posted a few of those myself. Many groups practically
need anonymous posting services to operate. However none
of these scenarios apply equally to every group in the net,
they are all rather topic-specific. Which leads me to repeat
my statement: Some topics (primarily technical) have nothing
so controversial that the protection of anonymity is necessary.
>>An additional newsgroup "status choice" to allow/disallow
>>anonymous postings doesn't hurt anybody -- the choice can
>>still be voted on.
>
>>What's your problem with this concept?
>
>It is completely unenforcable without the group also being moderated.
>It can be completely undetectable, unless someone (a moderator) is
>chosen to spend their time detecting it. If the group must be
>moderated to prevent anonymous postings, then why not just use the
>current moderation system?
If I rephrase to "an additional news group 'status choice'
to indicate to the admins at the anonymous posting servers
that the group wishes/does not wish to be served" does this
change your mind? Whenever I have said "anonymous postings"
I have been talking specifically about posting through the
anonymous servers -- it is just more convenient to use
the shorter phrase. Take it as a given and let's get
on with it.
-Richard Hartman
har...@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Fosters! It's Australian for beer, mate!"
Richard M. Hartman
>According to har...@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman):
>>In article <1ptb6p$s...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu> sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>>>Unmoderated MEANS there is no moderator. That is by definition.
>>
>>Which is why we want to add a new "status choice" to the newsgroup
>>charter....
>
>What do you mean "we", paleface?
Ugh.
>Since there are at least three anon servers, each of which may make
>its _own_ decision as to whether posting is allowed to a given group,
>it makes no sense to consider "anon-allowed" to be a property of a
>group. It's a property of each server/group combination.
Yes, there are a number of anon servers, which will probably
be constantly changeing. Yes, they each make their own
decision. It might be nice if the group had a way to
indicate to these admins their preferences in the matter
in order to help those admins make those decisions.
>>Global anon servers were not around when the moderated/unmoderated
>>status was slapped on the charter process.
>
>Neither was the nation of Russia. So what's your point?
That moderated/unmoderated is not sufficient to indicate
whether a group wants to put up with postings through
the anonymous servers. Or to indicate that they would
welcome them for that matter.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Did you think it's a joke? |
Well that's all right, do what | -Richard Hartman
you want to do. | har...@uLogic.COM
I've said my piece, now I |
leave it all up to you. |
Richard M. Hartman
>
>In article <1pvcsg$c...@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>
>|>In article <13...@ulogic.UUCP> har...@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>|>>With other groups, there is no particular need to hide one's
>|>>identity.
>|>
>|>No, let's word that correctly -- you don't feel that there is any
>|>particular need to hide one's identity. You don't need to, so you
>|>won't accept that someone else might want to.
>
>A case in point being talk.politics.misc and soc.culture.british. Some
>
>Similarly many of the people who have been persuing the holocaust revisionists
>
>Some members of the anti-abortion movement now consider it OK to murder
Yes. I would agree with all of these. Almost any politically
oriented group should be open to the anonymous servers. But
is there any particular reason to be able to post anonymously
to comp.lang.c?
That is really all I have said, some groups have a need for
it and others don't.
-Richard Hartman
har...@uLogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I think. I think I am. Therefore ... I *am*! (I think....)
John Stanley
>Yes. I would agree with all of these. Almost any politically
>oriented group should be open to the anonymous servers. But
>is there any particular reason to be able to post anonymously
>to comp.lang.c?
Yes.
>That is really all I have said, some groups have a need for
>it and others don't.
You see a need for it in some groups but refuse to accept that someone
might feel they have a need in other groups.
The Wolfe of the Den
>>har...@ulogic.UUCP (Richard M. Hartman) writes:
>>>Some topics (primarily technical) have nothing so controversial
>>>that the protection of anonymity is necessary.
>>
>>In your opinion. Others have posted reasonable scenarios where
>>anonymity would be good.
>
>I have posted a few of those myself. Many groups practically
>need anonymous posting services to operate. However none
>of these scenarios apply equally to every group in the net,
>they are all rather topic-specific. Which leads me to repeat
>my statement: Some topics (primarily technical) have nothing
>so controversial that the protection of anonymity is necessary.
This "tempest in a teapot" is starting to get ridiculous. NewNews does
not have, has never had, and (probably) never will have a real
authentication process.
We *all* depend on the good sense of various computer service providers
(be they commercial, academic or otherwise) to operate their systems in
a "reasonable" manner, which, in general, provides a reasonable
assurance that the person posting is reachable on a reverse channel to
the address provided.
This is a far cry from an assurance that the poster is named according
to the information available in the headers or signatures.
It is *easy* to imagine scenarios where, for various political or social
reasons, that a poster may want to make comments about *any* topic that
they don't want easily traceable to themselves. [Internal office
politics in many locations might make it extremely uncomfortable for
some folks to post commentary critical of some particular implementation
of a language compiler - for example.]
It is, IMO, highly overbearing for any news admin to *assume* that they
know, in advance, all the reasons and situations that might apply to any
person posting to any given group.
--
Usenet Net News Administrator @ The Wolves Den (G. Wolfe Woodbury)
ne...@wolves.durham.nc.us news%wol...@cs.duke.edu ...duke!wolves!news
"The flame war is a specific Usenet art form." --me
[This site is not affiliated with Duke University. (Idiots!) ]