In article <MPG.10aa5332b8481f2989...@news.smart.net>, f...@oceanstar.com
(Fiona Webster) wrote: >Bill Cole writes: >> One function, in my cynical opinion, of the news.groups process is to >> provide opposition to everything, so that the really weak but totally >> uninteresting proposals get appropriately stopped by the Big 8 branch of >> the Knights of NO! There are people here who will pick at anything, and >> doing so assures that there is at least token resistance to every >> proposal, and every proposal is probed for weak spots.
>And this is a problem because...?
It's definitely NOT a problem, which is why my failure at first to expand the footnote was an egregious error.
>Seriously--I never paid any attention to the news.groups process until >this past summer, when Dan Clore and I initiated a proposal for creating >a rec.arts.horror hierarchy. After 3 RFDs, that proposal is now in its >voting stage. I found the process a bit tedious at times, but never >arbitrarily oppositional. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that >every proposal should be resisted at first, and probed for its weak >spots. Whether our newsgroups get created, or not, I feel that we >have been given a fair hearing by this process.
Right, and that sort of example is why news.groups' function of throwing up an objection to just about any proposal is positive. Any "Fast Track" process revision is very likely to attempt to tos easily improvable proposals over hurdles that should be climbed over, if only to make sure the proponents get the sense of due process and due diligence and AID from the process, even if at times it seems like nothing but arbitrary opposition. The alt hierarchy is full of examples of groups which got suggested, not looked at very closely, and created in a week, only to die a horrible death in a matter of a few weeks afterwards. Quick, easy, failure.
<ne...@wallaby.stanford.edu> wrote: >b...@scconsult.com (Bill Cole) writes: >> [1] The reference is to an entity that serves as a core plot device for >> some of Frank Herbert's best work[2]. The founding axiom of the Bureau of >> Sabotage was that the processes of an efficient government and society can >> work too swiftly and efficiently, and tend to do a lot of bad things in >> the process. A bit of well-placed sabotage to force everyone to think >> twice is a good thing.
>> [2] Including the novel "Whipping Star" as well as at least one other >> whose name eludes me at the moment and a number of short stories. Herbert >> is better known for the Dune series.
>"The Dosadi Experiment", a short story in "Eye", and a tangential >reference to the McKie and BuSab in another story in "Eye". Are there >others of which I'm not aware?
I *think* there were a couple of other short stories, collected somewhere. I can't say for sure anymore because 5 years ago I lost most of my tattered paperback SF collection to a massive decluttering. I can vaguely recall 5 distinct plot lines, but that may have in fact been in only 3 works, given Herbert's style.
In article <MPG.10aa5332b8481f2989...@news.smart.net>,
Fiona Webster <f...@oceanstar.com> wrote: >I found the process a bit tedious at times, but never arbitrarily >oppositional. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that every proposal >should be resisted at first, and probed for its weak spots. Whether >our newsgroups get created, or not, I feel that we have been given a >fair hearing by this process.
Of course you do. The only people who have problems are those who are dead set on no changes to a bad proposal. The superman newsgroup is a prime example, the problems all stem from the pig headdedness of the original proponant. Once he was kicked out, the new proponants seemed to be nervous that we'd bite their heads off as well. This would have been the case as they were willing to work out a decent compromise.
Your proposal, on the other hand, didn't have 'The Tick' 'arguing' for it. You were interested in making a good set of newsgroups, and wanted to work towards making them as good as possible rather than cramming your original set up down our throats.
Jay
-- * Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated * * newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org * * moderator contact address: b5mod-requ...@deepthot.ml.org * * personal contact address: deneb...@deepthot.ml.org *
| What Is Usenet: | | Usenet is warped space. | | Any objections to that?
Yes. Here's what Kibo wrote a few years ago and according to this Usenet isn't `warped space'.
# Usenet is a little bird sitting in a tree. # # Usenet is a bunch of pretty flowers that smell BAD. # # Usenet is a green golfball that someone's cut open to see if # they're really filled with horrible acid. It wasn't. # # Usenet is William Shatner and Ross Perot trading places after # being hit by lightning. # # Usenet is like a tar pit except it's filled with Hershey's syrup. # # Usenet has red hair at the sides and none on top. Usenet wears # big shoes. Usenet honks at people. # # Usenet is sans-serif but oblique. # # Usenet's secret ingredient is the fact that it doesn't have a # secret ingredient. Usenet contains no Spam. Usenet is an ingredient # *of* Spam. # # Usenet comes in economy packs... at fifty bucks each. # # Usenet is void where prohibited. # # Usenet is an orgy in jail. # # Usenet is a handful of Goldfish crackers with eyes. # # Usenet is Frosty the Snowman comitting suicide with a # flamethrower. # # Usenet is a fish living in a glass house. # # Usenet is the exploding window in the "Twilight Zone" title # sequence. Usenet is a dimension of sight, of sound, of smell. # # Usenet asks no questions, but gets many answers; Usenet is the # biggest pencil in the world. Usenet is a sword whose blade is in # Schenectady and whose handle is everywhere. # # Usenet is named Fred, or Dylan, or Janice, or Spot. Usenet is # sterile. Usenet takes pills. # # Usenet moves at the speed of dark. # # USENET IS NEVER CRYPTIC. # # Usenet is a warm puppy. # # Usenet is a microwave hair dryer. # # Usenet is the puff of air that escapes as you seal Tupperware. # # Usenet is the hub of an immobile universe. # # Uesnet is misspelled. # # Usenet is the difference between pea soup and peanut butter. # # Usenet is a billion dollars in pennies. # # Usenet is Eeyore's birthday present. # # Usenet is carbonated tar. # # Usenet is a computer having sex with a statue. # # Usenet is a mile long, a meter wide, and an hour thick. # # If Usenet were a color, it would be orange, or tangerine. # # Usenet has feet without toes. # # Usenet is a man buying another man's bug collection to give to # his wife and then she sees the bugs and has a heart attack and dies and # the funeral director turns out to be the second man. # # Usenet is the reason tapioca pudding is always vanilla, # never chocolate. Usenet is the reason you can't make toast in a # microwave. Usenet is what makes meatballs bounce. # # Usenet is a Mobius strand of spaghetti. # # Usenet is newer than the Old Testament but older than the # New Testament. # # Usenet may have already won ten million dollars. # # Usenet is Optima Semibold with slab serifs. # # Usenet is always contradictory. Usenet is never contradictory. # # Usenet is Danny Thomas's last spit-take. # # Usenet sells its body. # # Usenet is not a doughnut. Usenet is not a bagel. Usenet is an # inner tube. # # Usenet turns urine into wine and vice versa. # # Usenet is the PBS of computer networks. All streets on Usenet # are named "Sesame". Usenet is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. # # Usenet can punctuate all by itself. # # Usenet wants your money to buy a heart. # # Usenet is half a pair of pants. # # Usenet is made of latex. Usenet is inflatable. # # Usenet has fallen... and can't get up! # # Usenet is the official bait bucket of Crappiethon '91. Usenet is # the official beer mug of Cheers. # # Usenet is the seventh color of M&M. # # Usenet has a soft, creamy center. # # Usenet has a shelf-life of six hours. Usenet has a half-life of a # billion years. # # Usenet is a powerful force... IN BED. # # Usenet cures jock itch in laboratory rats. # # Usenet is written on old jars of mustard to keep them fresh. # # Usenet is "Usenet is". # # Usenet is an anagram of Sneetu. # # Usenet changes its underwear every fifteen minutes. Usenet wears # it on the outside so we can check. # # Usenet is a hairy light bulb. # # It takes twenty Usenets to change a light bulb. # # Usenet is a rubber fork. Usenet is a wax toaster. Usenet is a # paper safe. # # Usenet can punch its way out of paper bags. # # Usenet is the sequel to "Return of the Jedi". # # Usenet is a puppy trained to ignore slippers. # # Usenet has fresh, minty breath... but never exhales. # # Usenet is the embodiment of Zen. Usenet is the embodiment of # motorcycle maintenence. # # Usenet drives your car while you're sleeping. # # Usenet is the white digit on your car's odometer. # # Usenet is Prince William's favorite toy. # # Usenet is two-ply. # # Why did the chicken cross the road? Usenet. # # INSIST ON GENUINE USENET--BEWARE OF IMITATIONS. # LOOK FOR THE USENET LABEL. # # Usenet is a fish swimming through sand. Usenet is # pronounced "ghoti". # # Usenet is a vowel. # # Usenet was colorized by Ted Turner. # # Usenet sits on the back burner of your stove. # # Usenet is not a typewriter. # # Usnet is the feeling you get when you lose the TV Guide. # # Usenet is where socks go when they vanish in the dryer. # # Usenet cancelled "Twin Peaks". # # Usenet was predicted by Nostradamus. # # Usenet has a total I.Q. of one million--if you count the guy # wearing green socks. # # If you pat Usenet, it will burp. If you tease Usenet, it will bite. # # Usenet is an emperor wearing clothes, in a nudist colony. # # Usenet is Fahrvergnuegen. # # Usenet does not exist, because there is no "U" in "E=mc^2". # # Usenet is a sunrise above a cave. Usenet is a siesta in a grave. # Usenet will not eat them on a train, Usenet will not eat them on a plane-- # "I do not like green eggs and ham," said Usenet I Am. # # Usenet has already warped your children. Usenet is genetic. # # Usenet is a new color of paper towels: solid black. # # Usenet put the "bop" in the "bop bop ba bop shee wop doo wah". # # Usenet smokes a pipe and smiles. # # Usenet is like "The Simpsons" only it's two-dimensional. # # Usenet cannot be Xeroxed. Usenet cannot be photographed. # # Usenet is a sane man in Pee-wee's Playhouse. # # Usenet is a black-light poster of Spiro Agnew. # # Usenet is a potted power plant. Usenet actually always # alliterates accidentally. Usenet eats every ecookie ever ebaked. # # Usenet is a sign that says "!PU DNE SIHT". Usenet is full of siht. # # Usenet is a shaved dalmation. # # Usenet is equal to the sum of apples and oranges. # # Usenet is where the beef is. # # USENET: IT'S NOT ONLY A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM, IT'S ALSO A CLIENT. # # Usenet is mindful drivel. # # Usenet is a product registration card that you mail to God. # # Usenet ignores threats of physical violence. # # Usenet is where the white dot goes when you turn off the TV. # # Usenet is at the West Pole--with the Easter Bunny. # # Usenet is no ordinary bozo! # # Usenet is a philosophy that only dogs can hear. # # Usenet is the reason everything should be made of plastic. # # Usenet is a birthday cake running over a steamroller. # # Usenet is why rolls come eight to a pack but condoms come in dozens. # # Usenet is sunglasses for your brain. # # Usenet is what you call goose bumps when a goose gets them. # # Usenet is a table with two legs. # # Usenet is scratch'n'sniff. # # Usenet is a blind potato. # # Usenet is the reason prices end in "9". Usenet makes that # $9999.99 car look a thousand dollars cheaper. # # Usenet fits in your pants pocket. Usenet cannot be removed from # your pants pocket. Usenet is a tattoo. # # Usenet is eyeballs for chewing gum. # # Usenet is to television as sweat is to urine. # # Usenet is a skeleton's skeleton. # # Usenet is the antidote for information. # # Usenet is bigger than the universe but full of holes. # # Usenet is better for you than sugar. # # Usenet is what Lincoln is staring at on the penny. # # Usenet is where you keep the acid that can dissolve through anything. # # Usenet is a rectangular ameba. # # Usenet goes "bump" late at night. # # Usenet makes hours seem like miles. Usenet makes time turn corners. # # Usenet is Mr. Potato Head's plastic surgeon. # # Usenet is a wacky neighbor on the ultimate sitcom. # # Usenet is why Madonna has a phony mole on her cheek. # # Usenet is better than sex. # # Usenet lies. # # -- K. # (I thunk up all those in a five-minute # period about twenny years ago when you # guys were still using radio.)
kalel...@aol.com (KalElFan) on 03 Nov 1998 12:44:56 GMT in message
<19981103074456.01452.00002...@ngol01.aol.com> wrote: >I was so happy to see this unconditional logic surrender. Let's >role the tape for Jay and the Logic 101 crowd:
>A. When people post off-topic articles to newsgroups, they waste >the valuable resources of all the readers of those groups (1)
>B. Misuse of net resources makes something spam. (2)
>C. Off-topic articles to newsgroups are spam (3)
>Read it and weep, howl, curse, throw a tantrum, whatever.
QED, right?
Kalelfan, here's your so-called "remedial":
In a real Logic 101, you wouldn't have even receive partial credit.
Your second premise (BTW, it's the major premise. A syllogism has a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion) is neither totally inclusive nor exclusive and therefore your conclusion is invalid.
Citing a Usenet post as the" proof" of your major premise is laughable.
Furthermore, by not stating in your major premise that, "ONLY off-topic articles to newsgroups are spam," you don't really _have_ a major premise. It's like saying:
A. Katrina cuts up dead bodies for a living. B. Butchers cut up dead bodies for a living. C, Therefore, Katrina is a butcher.
Katrina could be a butcher, forensic pathologist, taxidermist, fur farmer, trapper, meat packer, etc. Asserting that she must be a butcher is _only_ correct if B is correct _and_ totally inclusive. B is not true because obviously others cut up dead bodies for income.
If your major premise isn't demonstably true, no one should accept your conclusion.
Your unadultered major premise, "B. Misuse of net resources makes something spam". (2=Steven Davis, a few posts back)" is invalid. It's as if I said that the cutting up of a dead body makes one a butcher without any exception. It's just not true! All of the above people also cut up dead bodies in the course of their duties and they are not necessarially butchers.
The FAQ is pretty useful, and portions could be a nice addition to the newusers groups with some of the changes that people have suggested.
Your continued refusal to accept the technical definition of spam does not bode very well for its acceptance, though. You've already included sections dealing with flames and trolls and off-topic posts. Just concede already! Accepting constructive criticism is a sign of strength, not weakness. People here will generally respect your sincere mea culpa!
BTW, don't call someone on spelling (Jay) if you also mispell -- "Let's role the tape for Jay and the Logic 101 crowd." This just makes you BOREING in the "role" (sic) you've chosen for yourself.
--------------- Scott Forsell sfors...@aol.comNIXIT or sfors...@mailexcite.comNIXIT - Drop the CAPS
kalel...@aol.com (KalElFan) writes: >But you fail the reading comprehension test. If you want to try again, >your remedial is to re-read the quoted material in the post you were >responsing to above, plus this post, plus the "USENET: Way, Way >Too Far Gone (was FAQS...)" post.
> Yes. Here's what Kibo wrote a few years ago and according to this > Usenet isn't `warped space'.
> # Usenet is a little bird sitting in a tree. > # > # Usenet is a bunch of pretty flowers that smell BAD. > # > # Usenet is a green golfball that someone's cut open to see if > # they're really filled with horrible acid. It wasn't. > # > # Usenet is William Shatner and Ross Perot trading places after > # being hit by lightning. > # > # Usenet is like a tar pit except it's filled with Hershey's syrup. > # > # Usenet has red hair at the sides and none on top. Usenet wears > # big shoes. Usenet honks at people. > # > # Usenet is sans-serif but oblique. > # > # Usenet's secret ingredient is the fact that it doesn't have a > # secret ingredient. Usenet contains no Spam. Usenet is an ingredient > # *of* Spam. > # > # Usenet comes in economy packs... at fifty bucks each. > # > # Usenet is void where prohibited. > # > # Usenet is an orgy in jail. > # > # Usenet is a handful of Goldfish crackers with eyes. > # > # Usenet is Frosty the Snowman comitting suicide with a > # flamethrower. > # > # Usenet is a fish living in a glass house. > # > # Usenet is the exploding window in the "Twilight Zone" title > # sequence. Usenet is a dimension of sight, of sound, of smell. > # > # Usenet asks no questions, but gets many answers; Usenet is the > # biggest pencil in the world. Usenet is a sword whose blade is in > # Schenectady and whose handle is everywhere. > # > # Usenet is named Fred, or Dylan, or Janice, or Spot. Usenet is > # sterile. Usenet takes pills. > # > # Usenet moves at the speed of dark. > # > # USENET IS NEVER CRYPTIC. > # > # Usenet is a warm puppy. > # > # Usenet is a microwave hair dryer. > # > # Usenet is the puff of air that escapes as you seal Tupperware. > # > # Usenet is the hub of an immobile universe. > # > # Uesnet is misspelled. > # > # Usenet is the difference between pea soup and peanut butter. > # > # Usenet is a billion dollars in pennies. > # > # Usenet is Eeyore's birthday present. > # > # Usenet is carbonated tar. > # > # Usenet is a computer having sex with a statue. > # > # Usenet is a mile long, a meter wide, and an hour thick. > # > # If Usenet were a color, it would be orange, or tangerine. > # > # Usenet has feet without toes. > # > # Usenet is a man buying another man's bug collection to give to > # his wife and then she sees the bugs and has a heart attack and dies and > # the funeral director turns out to be the second man. > # > # Usenet is the reason tapioca pudding is always vanilla, > # never chocolate. Usenet is the reason you can't make toast in a > # microwave. Usenet is what makes meatballs bounce. > # > # Usenet is a Mobius strand of spaghetti. > # > # Usenet is newer than the Old Testament but older than the > # New Testament. > # > # Usenet may have already won ten million dollars. > # > # Usenet is Optima Semibold with slab serifs. > # > # Usenet is always contradictory. Usenet is never contradictory. > # > # Usenet is Danny Thomas's last spit-take. > # > # Usenet sells its body. > # > # Usenet is not a doughnut. Usenet is not a bagel. Usenet is an > # inner tube. > # > # Usenet turns urine into wine and vice versa. > # > # Usenet is the PBS of computer networks. All streets on Usenet > # are named "Sesame". Usenet is Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. > # > # Usenet can punctuate all by itself. > # > # Usenet wants your money to buy a heart. > # > # Usenet is half a pair of pants. > # > # Usenet is made of latex. Usenet is inflatable. > # > # Usenet has fallen... and can't get up! > # > # Usenet is the official bait bucket of Crappiethon '91. Usenet is > # the official beer mug of Cheers. > # > # Usenet is the seventh color of M&M. > # > # Usenet has a soft, creamy center. > # > # Usenet has a shelf-life of six hours. Usenet has a half-life of a > # billion years. > # > # Usenet is a powerful force... IN BED. > # > # Usenet cures jock itch in laboratory rats. > # > # Usenet is written on old jars of mustard to keep them fresh. > # > # Usenet is "Usenet is". > # > # Usenet is an anagram of Sneetu. > # > # Usenet changes its underwear every fifteen minutes. Usenet wears > # it on the outside so we can check. > # > # Usenet is a hairy light bulb. > # > # It takes twenty Usenets to change a light bulb. > # > # Usenet is a rubber fork. Usenet is a wax toaster. Usenet is a > # paper safe. > # > # Usenet can punch its way out of paper bags. > # > # Usenet is the sequel to "Return of the Jedi". > # > # Usenet is a puppy trained to ignore slippers. > # > # Usenet has fresh, minty breath... but never exhales. > # > # Usenet is the embodiment of Zen. Usenet is the embodiment of > # motorcycle maintenence. > # > # Usenet drives your car while you're sleeping. > # > # Usenet is the white digit on your car's odometer. > # > # Usenet is Prince William's favorite toy. > # > # Usenet is two-ply. > # > # Why did the chicken cross the road? Usenet. > # > # INSIST ON GENUINE USENET--BEWARE OF IMITATIONS. > # LOOK FOR THE USENET LABEL. > # > # Usenet is a fish swimming through sand. Usenet is > # pronounced "ghoti". > # > # Usenet is a vowel. > # > # Usenet was colorized by Ted Turner. > # > # Usenet sits on the back burner of your stove. > # > # Usenet is not a typewriter. > # > # Usnet is the feeling you get when you lose the TV Guide. > # > # Usenet is where socks go when they vanish in the dryer. > # > # Usenet cancelled "Twin Peaks". > # > # Usenet was predicted by Nostradamus. > # > # Usenet has a total I.Q. of one million--if you count the guy > # wearing green socks. > # > # If you pat Usenet, it will burp. If you tease Usenet, it will bite. > # > # Usenet is an emperor wearing clothes, in a nudist colony. > # > # Usenet is Fahrvergnuegen. > # > # Usenet does not exist, because there is no "U" in "E=mc^2". > # > # Usenet is a sunrise above a cave. Usenet is a siesta in a grave. > # Usenet will not eat them on a train, Usenet will not eat them on a plane-- > # "I do not like green eggs and ham," said Usenet I Am. > # > # Usenet has already warped your children. Usenet is genetic. > # > # Usenet is a new color of paper towels: solid black. > # > # Usenet put the "bop" in the "bop bop ba bop shee wop doo wah". > # > # Usenet smokes a pipe and smiles. > # > # Usenet is like "The Simpsons" only it's two-dimensional. > # > # Usenet cannot be Xeroxed. Usenet cannot be photographed. > # > # Usenet is a sane man in Pee-wee's Playhouse. > # > # Usenet is a black-light poster of Spiro Agnew. > # > # Usenet is a potted power plant. Usenet actually always > # alliterates accidentally. Usenet eats every ecookie ever ebaked. > # > # Usenet is a sign that says "!PU DNE SIHT". Usenet is full of siht. > # > # Usenet is a shaved dalmation. > # > # Usenet is equal to the sum of apples and oranges. > # > # Usenet is where the beef is. > # > # USENET: IT'S NOT ONLY A COMMUNICATIONS MEDIUM, IT'S ALSO A CLIENT. > # > # Usenet is mindful drivel. > # > # Usenet is a product registration card that you mail to God. > # > # Usenet ignores threats of physical violence. > # > # Usenet is where the white dot goes when you turn off the TV. > # > # Usenet is at the West Pole--with the Easter Bunny. > # > # Usenet is no ordinary bozo! > # > # Usenet is a philosophy that only dogs can hear. > # > # Usenet is the reason everything should be made of plastic. > # > # Usenet is a birthday cake running over a steamroller. > # > # Usenet is why rolls come eight to a pack but condoms come in dozens. > # > # Usenet is sunglasses for your brain. > # > # Usenet is what you call goose bumps when a goose gets them. > # > # Usenet is a table with two legs. > # > # Usenet is scratch'n'sniff. > # > # Usenet is a blind potato. > # > # Usenet is the reason prices end in "9". Usenet makes that > # $9999.99 car look a thousand dollars cheaper. > # > # Usenet fits in your pants pocket. Usenet cannot be removed from > # your pants pocket. Usenet is a tattoo. > # > # Usenet is eyeballs for chewing gum. > # > # Usenet is to television as sweat is to urine. > # > # Usenet is a skeleton's skeleton. > # > # Usenet is the antidote for information. > # > # Usenet is bigger than the universe but full of holes. > # > # Usenet is better for you than sugar. > # > # Usenet is what Lincoln is staring at on the penny. > # > # Usenet is where you keep the acid that can dissolve through anything. > # > # Usenet is a rectangular ameba. > # > # Usenet goes "bump" late at night. > # > # Usenet makes hours seem like miles. Usenet makes time turn corners. > # > # Usenet is Mr. Potato Head's plastic surgeon. > # > # Usenet is a wacky neighbor on the ultimate sitcom. > # > # Usenet is why Madonna has a phony mole on her cheek. > # > # Usenet is better than sex. > # > # Usenet lies. > # > # -- K. > # (I thunk up all those in a five-minute > # period about twenny years ago when you > # guys were still using radio.)
> -- > Boris Schaefer -- s...@psy.med.uni-muenchen.de
> You climb to reach the summit, but once there, discover that all roads > lead down. > -- Stanislaw Lem, "The Cyberiad"
In article <sykes-ya02408000R0411981030100...@news.campus.mci.net>, sy...@ms.uky.edu (Jeffery D. Sykes) writes:
>Suppose, for a moment, that you were actually <gasp> wrong >about something. Would you bother conceding...
Sure. I once had a brain cramp and said it was Cathy Rigby who played Wonder Woman in the short-lived TV version. :-)
But when it gets to discussions like we're having now, I hardly ever make absolute statements (like "that's false and I can prove it") that I can't support. So I don't get into the kind of situation you describe.
In article <sykes-ya02408000R0411981030100...@news.campus.mci.net>, sy...@ms.uky.edu (Jeffery D. Sykes) writes:
>If the latter, there's no point in continuing to show you why >you are dead wrong about spam.
A few things. There is no right or wrong here. There is "better", and there is "recognize the hopelessness of a numerical-only definition being dictated by the tail algorithm brigade to users, who are thousands of times their number and identify spam at least in part (if not primarily) by content."
Even so, A-B-C was *not* intended to prove *my* definition. All A-B-C did was prove that Davis's internal arguments, if accepted as givens, led to my position that content (off-topicality) was *a* part of the definition.
You at least understood the concept of *a* proof. Everyone else started trying to change or run from the *givens*. Of course I knew they could run from those, but that was the whole point. First make them run, and show more disarray and disagreement in the tail brigade camp just like I did with Kathy's Breidbart Index and the other different definitions people were giving.
Remember, *they* are the ones insisting that their definition is "right" and *can't* include any reference to content. It's an extreme, silly position and I was just letting them discredit it themselves. Now they've pretty much backed themselves into a corner, especially in that Usenet thread. They've cut them- selves off from users and are saying the most incredibly stupid things. It's exactly the end game I was hoping for.
Anyway, you were the only one who at least initially focussed on the proof, no doubt because of your math background. You pointed out the supposed "missing" link between A and B, which I've since shown is not just linked but welded together (and we'll finish wrapping that up in another post here now).
In article <sykes-ya02408000R0411981030100...@news.campus.mci.net>, sy...@ms.uky.edu (Jeffery D. Sykes) writes:
>>3. Net resources cannot be abused, except with reference to the >> effect such abuse has on users.
>This you have yet to exhibit. Or at the very least, you have yet to >explain how you are defining the terms...
Jeff, I think you understand #3, and it was explained earlier in that post. But this is a difficult concept for many people to see so let's continue with a few examples. Some people talk about "taxing the corporations" as if corporations were entities that existed without shareholders, sole owners, beneficiaries, or someone behind them. They think that by taxing corporations, they somehow aren't taxing the shareholders or others. They're mistaken. Only people, ultimately, pay taxes. We do not have artificial life forms, or artificial constructs, that "pay" anything. People do.
Another example is the often-used phrase "guns don't kill, people do". It's true. One can still argue for gun control by saying "people with guns kill much more often than people without guns," but note how that phrase puts people in both sides of the comparison. Only people, ultimately, commit murder with guns, or use guns in self defense, and so on.
Here we have "net resources", and it's somewhat akin to guns and corporations in the above examples. "Net resources" don't mean anything except in the context of users. The Net doesn't use resources, the users of the Net do. You can imagine a sole owner of a news server, and say he doesn't have any users, but he himself is a user in whatever sense his motivation for owning it defines that. And his upstream/downstream probably have users, so he potentially affects other users of the network.
Ultimately, there are *only* users. Usenet exists for users, period. "Net abuse" cannot exist unless you can replace "Net" with "User" in that phrase.
Moreover, if it doesn't ultimately abuse users, then it isn't net abuse. Take your earlier example:
>Joe posts 1000 copies of his spamming manifesto to 1000 groups. >*Nobody* reads it, because everyone knows better. No *reader* >resources have been wasted here. However, the 1000 posts are >a waste of *net* resources
Users (Usenet readers) are abused despite the fact that no one reads these posts. The posts slow down the system. There may be increased telecommunication costs for some elements of the net, and all costs ultimately get passed on in some form, if not in higher fees, then in reduced service, disruption in service, or your ISP goes bankrupt and you have to get a new e-mail address, etc. "Net abuse" is a bad thing *because* and *only* because it abuses users.
But *IF* you could show there are *no* costs of any kind to users, then there would be no waste of net resources. If you could send a billion spam messages a day and you knew that it would never have any adverse effect on users, that none of them would read or have to filter it, that it wouldn't slow down the system or increase costs, then you could go ahead and let the billion spam go through.
Or if the cost was strictly monetary, and it would otherwise get passed on to users, but instead assume that non-users -- say news admins or server owners who never used their own systems -- absorbed all those costs personally. Assume they reduced their personal vacation budget to pay for it, or their retirement savings, or in some other way took a hit to their disposable income. Say they bought separate servers with private communication links that didn't slow down Usenet, and used that to divert all spam because... well, because they're just darn nice guys. There is no abuse to users here but there is also no net abuse! There would be news admin abuse :-), or owner abuse if someone was forcing them to be nice guys, but there's no net abuse.
So again, the link has been made and the proof stands. They have to start qualifying or running like hell from A or B (mostly B it seems), but then that starts the process of cutting them off from users and backs them into a corner like that Usenet thread illustrates. Effectively, they have to acknowledge that their definition *only* makes sense in this "imaginary world they've deluded themselves into thinking exists in isolation."
In article <sykes-ya02408000R0411981044040...@news.campus.mci.net>, sy...@ms.uky.edu (Jeffery D. Sykes) writes:
>That still does not change the fact that spam was *originally* defined >*only* to be excessive multiposting...
Even if it were relevant, it isn't known exactly how or when the term spam came to be used. The Monty Python skit where it was spam and this, spam and that, is believed to be at the root of it -- lots of spam, over and over again. And people here immediately try to hoodwink you into thinking that this "proves" their case that spam is defined numerically and on no other basis. Hogwash. We have no way of knowing exactly what the first, then second, on through to let's say the fiftieth person who used the term spam had in mind.
Forty of the first fifty could have seen e-mail selling something they weren't interested in, from sex services to widgets, each e-mail different and with no way of knowing how many were sent out. Maybe that's where the unsolicited part comes in in the e-mail spam definition. Note that definition does *not* have a numerical- only aspect. If it did, then your KC newsletter would make you a spammer, and the term spam would become useless. It's only the insular tail algorithm folks fighting this losing battle on the Usenet side, insisting that their numerical-only algorithms mean that a numerical-only definition has to be imposed on the word spam.
The "unsolicited" and "unwanted" aspect from e-mail probably carried over to the first use of the term among Usenet users. If you subscribed to a science group, and someone posted one message about a sex site, you might have had people saying "I don't want this stuff, it's off-topic, how do we get rid of this?" And someone might have said it's the Usenet equivalent of what the e-mail side is calling spam. We don't know, and you don't know, how it started. So your statement above is just speculation. Not that it matters anyway in terms of how users came to view it.
>I'll be happy to side with you on this, once you have produced >some evidence that the word has been redefined by the masses.
False "redefined" premise, again because you've been easily led. It isn't being redefined. If you look at the posts of even these tail-fans, part of the reason they're so ticked off is that they *know* users define spam at least in part based on content. Gillam pointed this out too. You've succumbed to the unrepresentative group psychology. What you have are the tail fans desperately trying to impose a definition based on the way the algorithms work. It's a definition that *never* had a chance, because users outnumber these tail fans tens of thousands to one, and the algorithm-driven definition is *inappropriate* from the user point of view. If they were trying this on the e-mail side -- where algorithms can also exist -- then you're a spammer on the Kryptonian Cybernet. See how silly the numerical-only definition is?
In article <tskirvin.910256...@wyvern.urh.uiuc.edu>, tskir...@uiuc.edu
(Tim Skirvin) writes: >You realize you sound like Bill Palmer, right?
Maybe when I'm sparring with a math guy. :-)
I only had a very vague idea who Bill Palmer was a few weeks ago. After that big forged post attack that included his group, and the post of his here a few days ago, I've gathered a bit more but not much.
There are probably many differences, but maybe the biggest is that he actually seems to like that group of his for its own sake. I relish challenging wrong conventional wisdom as I am here with the tail algorithm folks and their spam definition. If someone calls attention to me and even helps my case as the Trolling Trio did, then I relish that too, or at least turn it to my advantage. If the Trolling Trio started a genius group for me, it would be like nirvana to turn that to my advantage. But I would never want or take seriously a genius group named after me, which seems to be what pushes Palmer's buttons.
KalElFan <kalel...@aol.com> wrote: >sy...@ms.uky.edu (Jeffery D. Sykes) writes:
>>If the latter, there's no point in continuing to show you why >>you are dead wrong about spam.
>A few things. There is no right or wrong here. There is "better", >and there is "recognize the hopelessness of a numerical-only >definition being dictated by the tail algorithm brigade to users, >who are thousands of times their number and identify spam >at least in part (if not primarily) by content."
You seem to be under the persistently misguided impression that Usenet is a democracy.
It's not.
"Spam" as a Usenet term is of interest only to sysadmins as a practical matter for defining which posts can be cancelled as thus removed as a drain on their resources. They are the lords and masters of their sites.They can do basically whatever they want. Think of them as captains of a ship. You are trying to argue in the face of maritime law.
To users, like me at the moment since I haven't run a site in five or six years, "spam" is just a word that is used to describe a certain kind of post. We can complain about spam, but ultimately, someone else has to deal with it.
Good luck :)
>You at least understood the concept of *a* proof. Everyone else >started trying to change or run from the *givens*. Of course I
They aren't givens, though. You are trying to take them.
>knew they could run from those, but that was the whole point. >First make them run, and show more disarray and disagreement >in the tail brigade camp just like I did with Kathy's Breidbart Index >and the other different definitions people were giving.
Btw, I know logic. I've taught college courses in logic. I've written papers on logic.
You have demonstrated about as much grasp of logic as a squirrel has of quantum field theory. -- Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary GO JESSE "THE BODY" VENTURA!!!! YOUR NEXT GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA!!!!!!! "Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
In article <71v2lb$ii...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
fch...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (Mike Chary) writes: >You seem to be under the persistently misguided impression >that Usenet is a democracy.
You seem to mistakenly assume that a definition of spam that includes *content* as_well_as numerical criteria -- dare I say, that requires judgment -- somehow requires Usenet or anything else to be a democracy. That has nothing to do with it, except to the extent that *any* word comes to mean what most people understand it means.
>"Spam" as a Usenet term is of interest only to sysadmins...
and then in the very next paragraph:
>To users... "spam" is just a word that is used to describe a >certain kind of post.
Then it's of interest to users, Mike. And everyone knows this. Millions of people (users) have come to know the term spam. There is no rule that the definition of any word has to be technical, or based on algorithms. Especially not for users, who don't deal in that. They should continue to use the term spam as it's been understood by them and millions of others, and leave the Breidbart Index to the techies. The techies can call it "cancelable spam" if they want, or spam but don't expect users to ever accept their numerical-only definition.
>They aren't givens, though. You are trying to take them.
They were givens from a post by one of the more reasonable posters to the thread. I actually agree with much of what he said and cited. I used his material as given, to show that it belied what all the tail algorithm folks were in denial about: content matters, users matter. You can define spam in a near-vacuum, but don't expect people outside your near-vacuum to all get in there with you.
>Btw, I know logic. I've taught college courses in logic. I've written >papers on logic.
So? Until you show your stuff, it means nothing. You know what they say about those who can, do, those who can't, teach. I'm reminded of sitting up in the back of my packed-to-the-rafters quantitative methods class twenty three years ago, raising my hand and correcting and explaining a fundamental error in the professor's carefully-prepared graph. His first reaction was there can't be any- thing to this, a few students at the front snicker and shake their heads in denial at the thought the professor could be wrong. Light starts to dawn on the professor, as he does a double take at the graph. Brief discussion. A few more snickers and denials from the proverbial apple-toting ass-kissers way down in the front row. But then "No... no, he's right" says the prof. Ass kissers fall silent. Hurried erasing ensues, new graph up, looks quite different. "Thanks," says the prof. "No problem" says KalElFan :-) 90% of class doesn't understand what the hell it was all about and goes back to sleep anyway. Non ass-kissers in KalElFan's sphere marvel.
So profs are people too, eh, prof?
Moral of the story: think independently folks. Don't assume any crap you hear is right just because of the source. Don't assume that a handful of like-minded sycophants, people with burrs stuck in their butts, or any other unrepresentative group has a monopoly on truth. Truth is even less of a democracy than Usenet is.
>You have demonstrated about as much grasp of logic as a >squirrel has of quantum field theory.
Nothing like an unfounded assertion from a logic prof.
>GO JESSE "THE BODY" VENTURA!!!! YOUR NEXT GOVERNOR >OF MINNESOTA!!!!!!!
This was good to see. Maybe we've found something to agree on.
>>Spam is defined by users, not by a delusional dog's tail. Get over >>it, and go do your remedial. >Sure, spam *could* be defined by users. But only in the following sense. >Some users use "spam" to include both excessive multiposts and off-topic >postings. Fine. If the vast majority of users continue to do so, then >the word becomes to mean what it is used to mean. >That still does not change the fact that spam was *originally* defined >*only* to be excessive multiposting. So if "spam" is to come to mean >what you contend that it means, then that use is *changing* the existing >definition of the word.
Oh, well, guess I'll have to defend KalElFan here. Spam was originally used to refer to lots of annoying data long before it was applied to the Internet at all. There's even a reference to it in TNHD. (Look it up.)
Defining it to be excessive multiposting is just as much a change of definition as definining it to be off-topic posts. Only, since it was a change of definition around 1994 or so, and the net has grown a lot since then, lots of folks think that anything that existed in 1994 has always been around. -- Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space arrom...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It karro...@nyx.nyx.net |sank into the swamp. So I built a second http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too. --------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp. So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5
>: >*This* is the definition of usenet spam: excessive multiposting >: It's your definition, not the definition. >It's the original definition, the useful definition (i.e. the >one which has an actual meaning beyond, "stuff I don't like in my >newsgroup"), the definition used by informed people, and the correct >definition.
The *original* definition does not refer to posts of any sort. -- Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space arrom...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It karro...@nyx.nyx.net |sank into the swamp. So I built a second http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too. --------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp. So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5
>You seem to be under the impression that spam was defined for the >purpose of defining what can be cancelled. From what everyone has >been telling you (and you've been ignoring), that's not the case. >Spam was simply defined as excessive multi-posting. The numerical >algorithm came along later as a way to determine *which* spam could >be cancelled. (At least that's what I've understood of the arguments)
That is what everyone has been telling him. It's not actually true, though. "Spam" has existed, as a jargon word, before it was applied to Usenet spam. Being useless (the non-Usenet equivalent of "off-topic") and being in excessive quantities were *both* characteristics of spam, and the Usenet definition is as new a definition as any other. -- Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space arrom...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It karro...@nyx.nyx.net |sank into the swamp. So I built a second http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too. --------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp. So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5
On 06 Nov 1998 14:03:37 GMT, kalel...@aol.com (KalElFan) wrote:
[elided]
> Some people talk about "taxing the corporations" as if > corporations were entities that existed without > shareholders, sole owners, beneficiaries, or someone > behind them. They think that by taxing corporations, > they somehow aren't taxing the shareholders or others. > They're mistaken. Only people, ultimately, pay taxes. > We do not have artificial life forms, or artificial > constructs, that "pay" anything. People do.
[even more elided]
Actually, you're wrong. A corporation *IS* a legal person -- an artificial life form. It exists in and of itself -- if it's owners/board members/etc. die, the corporation lives on.
Corporations are tools with people insulate themselves from liability (that's the whole raison d'etre for them -- "Limited Liability") and with which they generate cash, but the corporation is distinct and separate from its 'beneficiaries", as you describe them.
Taxing a corporation is manifestly *not* taxing its shareholders. It may make the corporation a less efficient tool for the generation of income, but that choice belongs to the government. Corporations exist solely by the grace and goodwill of the government: that government sets the rules by which they exist.
: >: >*This* is the definition of usenet spam: excessive multiposting
Did not write this:
: >: It's your definition, not the definition.
And did write this:
: >It's the original definition, the useful definition (i.e. the : >one which has an actual meaning beyond, "stuff I don't like in my : >newsgroup"), the definition used by informed people, and the correct : >definition.
To which Ken replied.
: The *original* definition does not refer to posts of any sort.
Why would anyone have had a definition for usenet spam which did not refer to posts of any sort ?
Yes, I know what you meant, but the above definition did specify "usenet spam". We were not, after all, discussing pork shoulder and ham (or whatever it is that Hormel sells as "spam").
*************************************************************************** Steven S. Davis * s...@magenta.com * sdupl...@delphi.com * ssda...@ot.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A news.groups survival guide" is to be found at the URL: http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html Documents on the newsgroup creation process can be found at: http://cs1.presby.edu/~jtbell/usenet/newgroup/
kalel...@aol.com (KalElFan) writes: >So? Until you show your stuff, it means nothing. You know what >they say about those who can, do, those who can't, teach. I'm >reminded of sitting up in the back of my packed-to-the-rafters >quantitative methods class twenty three years ago,
[...]
...and let it be clear that you haven't done anything of the sort here.
Spam is the same thing many times - that's its main definition, as agreed upon by history, those attempting to apply it, and, hopefully, those that attempt to use the term in everyday life. There are those that try to change the definition to mean "messages I don't like", yes - but, though there's no governing body to say that you're wrong, you are still wrong.
And I'll thank you to not try to change the meaning; we don't need any more confusion on such matters.
>>You seem to be under the persistently misguided impression >>that Usenet is a democracy.
>You seem to mistakenly assume that a definition of spam that >includes *content* as_well_as numerical criteria -- dare I say, >that requires judgment -- somehow requires Usenet or anything >else to be a democracy. That has nothing to do with it, except >to the extent that *any* word comes to mean what most people >understand it means.
Appeal to number.
That is etymologically true of words in a naturally growing language. This is not such a language. This is technical jargon used by the people who run the machines which house Usenet. If you wish to change it, you are more than welcome to buy a few Sparc stations and start your own network. Until such time, you're stuck.
>>"Spam" as a Usenet term is of interest only to sysadmins...
Why is it that the people who always arguing from other people's lack of reading comprehension always cherry pick the sentences they quote? Can you not parse a sentence well enough to know what a subordinate clause is?
Here's my sentence with the part you elided stuck back in:
>>"Spam" as a Usenet term is of interest only to sysadmins as a practical >>matter for defining which posts can be cancelled as thus removed as a >>drain on their resources.
Note the words "practical matter?" That means that what spam is actually *used* for by sysadmins is the only definition that really matters in terms of getting the stuff canceled on most servers.
>and then in the very next paragraph:
>>To users... "spam" is just a word that is used to describe a >>certain kind of post.
Wihtout any real interest in what sysadmins do with it.
>Then it's of interest to users, Mike. And everyone knows this. >Millions of people (users) have come to know the term spam. >There is no rule that the definition of any word has to be >technical, or based on algorithms. Especially not for users,
No, there is not a metaphjysical rule. There's also no rule saying it cannot be technical jargon, and since the technicians still run the machines, that's just how it worked out.
>who don't deal in that. They should continue to use the term >spam as it's been understood by them and millions of others, >and leave the Breidbart Index to the techies. The techies can >call it "cancelable spam" if they want, or spam but don't expect >users to ever accept their numerical-only definition.
And precisely what use is the other definition in regards to your faq?
>>They aren't givens, though. You are trying to take them.
>They were givens from a post by one of the more reasonable >posters to the thread. I actually agree with much of what he >said and cited. I used his material as given, to show that >it belied what all the tail algorithm folks were in denial about: >content matters, users matter. You can define spam in a >near-vacuum, but don't expect people outside your near-vacuum >to all get in there with you.
And you can expect the users to demand the technical people obey their conventions, and I can expect the technical people to tell those users to get stuffed and do what they want.
>>Btw, I know logic. I've taught college courses in logic. I've written >>papers on logic.
>So? Until you show your stuff, it means nothing. You know what
I've shown my stuff. Just now, actually, by pointing out that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
>they say about those who can, do, those who can't, teach. I'm
Ouch. Stop it. You'll make me cry.
>reminded of sitting up in the back of my packed-to-the-rafters >quantitative methods class twenty three years ago, raising my hand >and correcting and explaining a fundamental error in the professor's >carefully-prepared graph. His first reaction was there can't be any- >thing to this, a few students at the front snicker and shake their >heads in denial at the thought the professor could be wrong. Light >starts to dawn on the professor, as he does a double take at the >graph. Brief discussion. A few more snickers and denials from the >proverbial apple-toting ass-kissers way down in the front row. But >then "No... no, he's right" says the prof. Ass kissers fall silent. >Hurried erasing ensues, new graph up, looks quite different. "Thanks," >says the prof. "No problem" says KalElFan :-) 90% of class >doesn't understand what the hell it was all about and goes back >to sleep anyway. Non ass-kissers in KalElFan's sphere marvel.
So what? If that story is true, how about you apply some of your rhetorical abilities to the current situation?
>So profs are people too, eh, prof?
I'm not a prof.
>Moral of the story: think independently folks. Don't assume any >crap you hear is right just because of the source. Don't assume >that a handful of like-minded sycophants, people with burrs stuck >in their butts, or any other unrepresentative group has a monopoly >on truth. Truth is even less of a democracy than Usenet is.
Yep, and one big truth you are ignoring is that the people who run Usenet get to decide what to cancel, and users can just go hang if they want to call something else spam.
>>You have demonstrated about as much grasp of logic as a >>squirrel has of quantum field theory.
>Nothing like an unfounded assertion from a logic prof.
Unfounded? I've been watching you post for over a year now.
You've yet to make it through an argument without committing at least two fallacies. Usually argumentum ad hominem related to your opponent's reading comprehension or logical skills or character or appeal to anecdotal evidence. -- Court Philosopher and Barbarian, DNRC http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~fchary GO JESSE "THE BODY" VENTURA!!!! YOUR NEXT GOVERNOR OF MINNESOTA!!!!!!! "Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
In article <19981106121627.13684.00000...@ngol01.aol.com>,
KalElFan <kalel...@aol.com> wrote: >I'm reminded of sitting up in the back of my packed-to-the-rafters >quantitative methods class twenty three years ago
*boggle* Kalelfan is an adult?
/me faints Jay -- * Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated * * newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org * * moderator contact address: b5mod-requ...@deepthot.ml.org * * personal contact address: deneb...@deepthot.ml.org *
In article <720dca$su...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
Mike Chary <m...@po.cwru.edu> wrote: >You think someone could become that willfully stupid and ignorant >without practice?
I'm more suprised he was allowed to live. I mean how could someone like that hold a job? If he was a pan handler, he'd starve. I suppose he could be a ditch digger or garbage collecter or something like that.
Jay -- * Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated * * newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org * * moderator contact address: b5mod-requ...@deepthot.ml.org * * personal contact address: deneb...@deepthot.ml.org *
|
