Pre-MVI: rec.ponds.moderated

[Paul W. Schleck]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Advice from other members of the Big-8 Board is that a formal MVI at
this point would be premature until we receive more definite and
unambiguous feedback from the rec.ponds.moderated team about their
intentions, or mail to their submission address starts bouncing. This
pre-MVI is intended as a start of an informal discussion to confirm that
the newsgroup will be abandoned shortly, and to see if there is any
serious interest in passing the moderation of the newsgroup to a new
team, or if the agenda should proceed directly to a formal Moderator
Vacancy Investigation and possible removal Request for Discussion,
either of which would be directly crossposted to rec.ponds.moderated, a
serious step for a moderated newsgroup that the Board would only take if
the newsgroup was clearly abandoned by its moderators.

Looks like the moderation account on Panix for rec.ponds.moderated has
recently been turned off from non-renewal. The most direct public
evidence of this is their finger message:


[panix.com]
Trying 166.84.1.3...
Login Name: rpmadmin Full Name: rec.ponds.moderated Admin
Directory: /net/u/4/r/rpmadmin Shell: /usr/local/bin/bash.lock
Last login Tue Apr 23 07:34:05 2013 on panix1.panix.com pts/42 from 216.40.24.1.
No mail information available.
Plan:
rec.ponds.moderated Newsgroup

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (NetBSD)

mI0ER8mupwEEALRHNDdDKSCv9xebZRyHcHRH7eHCoK+2fxTY4LQ2qClUC+CR3Es/
zpqV2be26AuGiCM18kbPaWFBGoxwY+IvD2O9uLflBmtrxbehfWC8kV5FfrbhP6nW
ANz115WYCp1nAlWMWoYRUwta/lBQSSIQW0Cscu3R+zM9wew9mVNytutLABEBAAG0
LVJQTSBBcHByb3ZhbCBLZXkgPHJwbS1hcHByb3ZhbC1rZXlAcGFuaXguY29tPoi2
BBMBAgAgBQJHya6nAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQyxxfv+Vh
gu23+QP/T7qSh1E+fzxlIAAAKO9th5XiZ15BjzfiQwvkU1HbOLmyu2jKL18NVYA7
DLq8RXKSi4HhW96lHW5TcoOeoq6uSErOZPTaa+4ULcYqFcsecNXdRYmGttr5PSaN
gop4SACUhreU4R6xwXS9tXe/X4vycp8nUxPwnJyEoiB5ddyCm50=
=Cvgf
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


(Note the shell entry as being set to bash.lock.)

Also, trying to access their public home page on Panix:

http://www.panix.com/~rpmadmin/

results in a "403 Forbidden" error code.

The account is in a suspended state, awaiting final deletion, so it
still accepts mail at rec-ponds...@panix.com and
rec-ponds-mod...@panix.com for now, though there is no way
for the moderators to currently approve any pending articles, and the
E-mail addresses will eventually bounce unless the account is renewed
shortly. The last approved article on the newsgroup was Message-ID:
<p906n8l129c11ftfn...@4ax.com> posted on April 20, 2013.

- The moderation team had recently made announcements and solicited
feedback about continuing the newsgroup (Thread on
rec.ponds.moderated starting with Message-ID:
<34a5e7a3-a086-4b9e...@googlegroups.com>). Some
feedback was in favor of retaining the newsgroup, some was against.

- The moderation team has publicly stated that they do not want to
fund the Panix account based on the light amount of traffic that the
newsgroup has had recently, but no serious volunteers or hosting
alternatives emerged.

- One offer to moderate the newsgroup was withdrawn after followup
E-mail discussion with the volunteer about the duties and
responsibilities.

- A couple of people, including me, offered to help fund the account,
but not enough to completely fund it. The account has now expired.

- HuHu is a free alternative, inherited from the late Alexander
Bartolich by some of his friends interested in continuing worthwhile
services he had established, including the albasani.net news server.
The HuHu service is used by other moderation teams, including
rec.arts.anime.info. However, an active moderation team would have
to take the initiative to get that set up.

- I do not want to take over the newsgroup, but could assist a new
team.

I have attempted to contact the moderators via their personal E-mail
addresses and am awaiting any reply.

- --
Paul W. Schleck
psch...@novia.net
http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger psch...@novia.net for PGP Public Key

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlF6h8EACgkQ6Pj0az779o4bfwCeMmnb0yxP0+gThvAvYXJ342B7
T+4AoKfEtazWoIKSiWjDroi/D00cVyPX
=24Q+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Adam H. Kerman]

Paul W. Schleck <psch...@novia.net> wrote:

>Advice from other members of the Big-8 Board is that a formal MVI at
>this point would be premature until we receive more definite and
>unambiguous feedback from the rec.ponds.moderated team about their
>intentions, or mail to their submission address starts bouncing. This
>pre-MVI is intended as a start of an informal discussion to confirm that
>the newsgroup will be abandoned shortly, and to see if there is any
>serious interest in passing the moderation of the newsgroup to a new
>team, or if the agenda should proceed directly to a formal Moderator
>Vacancy Investigation and possible removal Request for Discussion,
>either of which would be directly crossposted to rec.ponds.moderated, a
>serious step for a moderated newsgroup that the Board would only take if
>the newsgroup was clearly abandoned by its moderators.

>Looks like the moderation account on Panix for rec.ponds.moderated has

>recently been turned off from non-renewal. . . .

Hahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

For those who don't recall their recent Usenet configging history, which
would be every Bambie, the pondscum moderation proposal was one of them
thar non-stop flame fests, because not a single one of these people was
capable of just shutting the fuck up. It lasted for six weeks, if not longer,
and followed the much longer socmen herding proposal flame fest in news.groups.

These two discussions were the Bambies' excuse for starting the Treehouse,
even though they were told repeatedly that both proposals were effectively
trolls, and the flame fests were specifically the fault of the Bambies.
All the Bambies did was drag two long-standing flame fests into news.groups.

Wow. Who could have predicted that the pondscum moderators weren't in it
for the long run?

Sekrit kloo for the seriously uninitiated in configging protocol: You make
'em work out the details themselves in the affected groups BEFORE the
proposal is drafted. You don't tell them to flame each other in an
unrelated group.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Paul W. Schleck <psch...@novia.net> wrote:

> Moderator VACANCY INVESTIGATION (MVI)
> moderated group rec.ponds.moderated

>This is a formal Moderator Vacancy Investigation (MVI), begun because
>moderated newsgroup rec.ponds.moderated is not functioning, and may
>have been abandoned by its moderator(s).

Dear Paul:

Do your own dirty work. You be the moderator.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Big 8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

> 2nd REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group rec.ponds.moderated (remove) - LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS

>This is a formal Request for Discussion (RFD) to remove the moderated
>newsgroup rec.ponds.moderated.

My comment would be

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

For those of you "sincerely" inviting me to participate in the Big 8
Management Board, it was newgrouping on the idiocy of proposals like
these that makes me not want to hang around with any of you.

If any of you had an ounce of decency, you'd post right now to
Usenet: "I was trolled." But there's not an ounce of decency among
the lot of you and you will never own up to your error.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Big 8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

> RESULT
> rec.ponds.moderated will be removed

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Another Bambie success story!

[dvus]

Well, I've never liked that brand of cold cream, so I for one am glad to
see that group gone!

--
dvus

[Howard S Shubs]

It's REALLY hard to argue with you, Adam. Just what percentage of
servers do they think is going to honor the rmgroup? I mean, really??

[Adam H. Kerman]

You'd have far less difficulty if you hadn't posted a followup to dvus.

[dvus]

I'm just a proxy I guess...

--
dvus

[Howard S Shubs]

Yup. It's always Adam who jumps on these things.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>On 2015-06-10, dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>On 6/10/2015 12:28 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>On 2015-06-08, dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 6/8/2015 12:11 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>>Big 8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:

>>>>>>> RESULT
>>>>>>> rec.ponds.moderated will be removed

>>>>>>Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>>>>>Another Bambie success story!

>>>>>Well, I've never liked that brand of cold cream, so I for one am glad to
>>>>>see that group gone!

>>>>It's REALLY hard to argue with you, Adam. Just what percentage of
>>>>servers do they think is going to honor the rmgroup? I mean, really??

>>>You'd have far less difficulty if you hadn't posted a followup to dvus.

>>I'm just a proxy I guess...

>Yup. It's always Adam who jumps on these things.

As I recall, a whole lot of people told Bambie that the pondscum moderation
proposal was a troll, hardly just me. It wasn't one of Bambie's finest hours.

But then, what was?

[Steve Bonine]

On 6/11/15 9:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> As I recall, a whole lot of people told Bambie that the pondscum moderation
> proposal was a troll, hardly just me. It wasn't one of Bambie's finest hours.

I do not understand why you feel the persistent need to rewrite history
and find something to complain about even when things are just fine.

The rec.ponds.moderated newsgroup was successful by any reasonable
measure of "success". It had lots of participants who had useful
discussions about the topic of the newsgroup. A group of people
requested a newsgroup, sufficient interest was shown during the
discussion, the group was created, and people used it for its chartered
purpose. What's wrong with that picture? It's the way that things are
supposed to work.

And then, just as with virtually every other newsgroup, it died. The
people who were using it, for various reasons, quit using it. So the
folks who were paying money for a moderation platform and giving of
their time decided that it no longer needed to exist. The big-8 board,
for reasons I don't understand but don't particularly care about,
decided that it was worth their time to go through the procedure to
remove it from the newsgroup list.

Maybe you're getting confused with your OPINION that moderated
newsgroups shouldn't be created when trolls overrun the unmoderated
version. OK, that can be your opinion. You can argue that. But the
FACT remains that the newsgroup was a success.

[Wayne Brown]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:48:00 in article <mldh90$r38$1...@news.albasani.net> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>>On 2015-06-10, dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>On 6/10/2015 12:28 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>>>On 2015-06-08, dvus <dv...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>>>On 6/8/2015 12:11 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>>>>Big 8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> RESULT
>>>>>>>> rec.ponds.moderated will be removed
>
>>>>>>>Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
>>>>>>>Another Bambie success story!
>
>>>>>>Well, I've never liked that brand of cold cream, so I for one am glad to
>>>>>>see that group gone!
>
>>>>>It's REALLY hard to argue with you, Adam. Just what percentage of
>>>>>servers do they think is going to honor the rmgroup? I mean, really??
>
>>>>You'd have far less difficulty if you hadn't posted a followup to dvus.
>
>>>I'm just a proxy I guess...
>
>>Yup. It's always Adam who jumps on these things.
>
> As I recall, a whole lot of people told Bambie that the pondscum moderation
> proposal was a troll, hardly just me. It wasn't one of Bambie's finest hours.

Oh, yes, there were lots of people in news.groups who saw through that
one, and I believe the b8mbies lost some supporters over that. Most of
those people have since gotten so disgusted with the b8mbies that they
come here only very rarely these days, or not at all.

>
> But then, what was?

That's easy. Their finest hours were when some of them got fed up with
the antics of their fellow b8mbies and quit.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 6/11/15 9:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>As I recall, a whole lot of people told Bambie that the pondscum moderation
>>proposal was a troll, hardly just me. It wasn't one of Bambie's finest hours.

>I do not understand why you feel the persistent need to rewrite history
>and find something to complain about even when things are just fine.

You'd have a lot less difficulty understanding things if you didn't feel
the need to argue by declaring victory.

>The rec.ponds.moderated newsgroup was successful by any reasonable
>measure of "success".

There you go, Squirrel Steve. As predicted, you declared victory. You
labeled your argument "any reasonable measure".

There can be objective standards for reasonableness; you simply chose
not to employ any.

The pondscum moderation group was proposed because the pondscum group
was trolled by one person, and most of the regulars chose to feed the
troll instead of posting on topic. During RFD, they received the Standard
Advice from numerous people: Stop troll feeding. Do not address the troll
on Usenet. Do no refer to the troll. Post on topic articles.

They kept explaining that they couldn't help troll feeding because shutting
the fuck up wasn't in their nature.

They justified the moderated pondscum group because they insisted that
the troll was driving away potential users of the group. Of course, on
Usenet, potential traffic is unmeasurable; it's just handwaiving.

Tell us, O Squirrel Steve, if the objective of discussion from new
people, or even old people resuming discussion who had left the old
group due to the troll feeding, was achieved. That would be a reasonable
measure of success.

>It had lots of participants who had useful discussions about the topic
>of the newsgroup. A group of people requested a newsgroup, sufficient
>interest was shown during the discussion, the group was created, and
>people used it for its chartered purpose. What's wrong with that picture?
>It's the way that things are supposed to work.

Well, no, that's not how things are supposed to work. Can we convince
posters to move discussion to a redundant group, resulting in less total
on-topic discussion after newgrouping?

But Bambi declares "result". Yeah, it's a result. Squirrel Steve claims
"success", but he offers no evidence.

A third measure of whether the moderated pondscum group was successful
was whether they planned for the future, a future that includes replacing
moderators. Bambi never bothers to insist on having moderator successor
plans in place despite long experience with moderated groups going dormant
should a moderator die or leave Usenet.

Will Squirrel Steve still claim success, despite clear evidence of no
moderator sucession plan?

>And then, just as with virtually every other newsgroup, it died.

That happens when moderators stop approving articles, Squirrel Steve.

>The people who were using it, for various reasons, quit using it.

Well, no, moderators stopped approving articles, Squirrel Steve. It's
a lovely lie of omission. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

>So the folks who were paying money for a moderation platform and giving
>of their time decided that it no longer needed to exist.

Oh, is that what happened? Funny how there was no discussion to that effect
and no plan to turn the group over to new moderators.

>The big-8 board, for reasons I don't understand but don't particularly
>care about, decided that it was worth their time to go through the
>procedure to remove it from the newsgroup list.

Failing as lapdog, Squirrel Steve? You're supposed to defend Bambi inaction.
Bad bad doggie

>Maybe you're getting confused with your OPINION that moderated
>newsgroups shouldn't be created when trolls overrun the unmoderated
>version.

That wouldn't be my opinion, Squirrel Steve. I'll repeat it for you, if
you like: A troll doesn't have the power to wreck an unmoderated newsgroup.
Only a regular poster can choose to wreck an unmoderated newsgroup by
troll feeding in lieu of posting on topic.

>OK, that can be your opinion.

Well, no, it can't be my opinion. What it can be is a straw man.
That's your favorite tactic.

>You can argue that.

Well, no, I can make my argument using my very own words. You can't
argue, so you set up straw men, huge failure on your part, Squirrel Steve.

>But the FACT remains that the newsgroup was a success.

Feel free to back up your handwaiving with evidence. I don't expect you
to do anything but declare victory.

My congratulations, Squirrel Steve: You win again. What's that, 2000-0?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net> wrote:

>FWIW Adam, I think the criteria for removing ngs should be modified to
>be much easier to accomplish in a timely manner.

>It should not take hours of research and digging through ngs histories
>to see which aren't being used any longer or dissolved into a small
>coffee clatch which is a borderline private ng in its own right.

This is a terrible idea, Bob. You're making the argument that Bambi should
issue rmgroup messages for newsgroups that are being regularly used, even
though traffic is light. And if you don't understand newsgroup "histories"
as you call it, golly, you could issue a rmgroup message for some better
used newsgroups unintentionally.

I never really understand your thinking, Bob.

[Steve Bonine]

On 6/12/15 5:28 PM, Bob Rudd wrote:

> FWIW Adam, I think the criteria for removing ngs should be modified to
> be much easier to accomplish in a timely manner.

Why?

Making it easier to perform a task that's pointless is not a noble goal.

This reminds me of a rather old joke.

This guy is sitting on his porch watching a crew from the city work in
the boulevard. One person digs a hole, and the second one comes along
and fills it in. Finally he walks out and asks the crew what they're
doing. "Oh, we usually have three people on our crew. The one who
plants the tree is ill today."

What's the point of removing newsgroups from the canonical list? Is it
going to attract additional users to Usenet? Make the remaining
newsgroups work better? There was a time when it made sense, but that
time is long past.

[§ñühwö£f]

IAWTP. Also, those "dead" groups are part of usenet history. I have two
fan news groups one in my current nym and one an old nym I used for a
few years. Its the digital equivalent of my hand print on a neolithic
cave wall. Paw print? Same thing :)


--
http://www.wolfwatcher.org
www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.savewolves.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\

[Adam H. Kerman]

Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>I know that the people who put in time and effort in order to
>establish the proper basis for removing dead ngs now, Adam, results in
>way too much of their time for the task to be accomplished.

Then why raise the non-issue?

>I don't advocate, and would likely never support, removing a ng with
>"light" usage as you said. "Light" usage is an active ng.

>Otoh, I think a dead ng shouldn't be required to be researched for
>messages going back years, specific message ID numbers of the last
>message(s), etc.

Why not? If you lack adequate information, then you're highly likely
to do more harm than good. That's a major Bambi problem.

>Common sense is called for here, I think. If there hasn't been an
>on-topic message in a ng in 6 months, then check it for 12 months to
>rule out seasonality such as with certain topics.

It requires time and effort to review articles posted in the newsgroup
to determine if they're on topic, Bob. No newsgroup is ever empty,
unless moderation has failed.

>Ngs that exist as "private clubs" where nothing is longer on-topic and
>only a few people "meet" for social purposes really does nothing to
>further the purpose of the ng.

Sometimes people have taken over dead newsgroups in the past for this
purpose. I have no idea why you see that as harmful.

>I understand why a small, very small, group would enjoy a "private" ng
>in these cases but I disagree that they should be continued when
>nothing is posted on-topic and/or no one new has posted, or been
>welcomed in a significant time. Newbies ignored serve, to me, as a
>indication that these dead/private ngs should either seek a new
>charter/approval under a new ng name or be removed for lack of proper
>use under their old ones.

It's doubtful that newbies would be prevented from posting on topic.

>Again, common sense. It should take multiple hours to document why an
>obviously unused ng should be removed. I favor approving all that is
>necessary to change the current methodology in order to simplify the
>process.

Sigh. What gets accomplished aside from busywork, Bob?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>Ngs that exist as "private clubs" where nothing is longer on-topic and
>>>only a few people "meet" for social purposes really does nothing to
>>>further the purpose of the ng.

>>Sometimes people have taken over dead newsgroups in the past for this
>>purpose. I have no idea why you see that as harmful.

>I am not in favor of elitism or those who would hijack a dormant ng in
>order to pragmatically have their own private ng club.

It's not a hijacking, a term we might reserve for configging, when one
proponent is discussing a proposal and someone else sends a premature
newgroup message.

If the newsgroup is dead, no one is adversely affect; no hijacking.

>This adds no value to the Usenet experience and can detract from it as
>potential new ng members are discouraged from participation.

I don't really expect anyone new to join a dead newsgroup.

>Adam, I have a pretty good idea of what you think of the B8MB and of
>its members in general. I accept those views apply to me as well.

I think discussing removing newsgroups is busywork.

>There's nothing I can do to assure, or prove it, to you but I am
>genuinely concerned with the "Usenet experience" for everyone.

I certainly don't think if a dead newsgroup remains created locally
that it affects anyone's experience. I just think it would get ignored.

>I'm not a techie, just a multi-decade ordinary user who never was involved
>in the "politics" of Usenet. . . .

I don't see this as a political issue. It's just that a handful of people
pushed hard for mass rmgrouping a number of years ago. Bambi, having nothing
useful to do, fell for it.

If a user has subscribed to a dead newsgroup, it hasn't wasted his time
because new articles simply won't appear. Rmgrouping is meaningless
to users. Quite frankly, if a News administrator cared about cleaning
up the newsgroups he offered to his users and didn't care to offer any
dead newsgroups, he doesn't have to wait for action on the part of the
hierarchy administrator to remove them. The hierarchy administrator
doesn't run his News site.

[Wayne Brown]

On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:30:02 in article <v0prnah8gg18qr9ct...@4ax.com> Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:34:38 -0500, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>>What's the point of removing newsgroups from the canonical list? Is it
>>going to attract additional users to Usenet? Make the remaining
>>newsgroups work better? There was a time when it made sense, but that
>>time is long past.
>

> I think it still makes sense Steve. YMMV and that's ok.

It makes no sense because it is impossible. Just taking it off the list
will have little effect on removing it from news servers. At most you'll
fragment the distribution so that anyone who tries to revive it in the
future will face an uphill battle.

[dvus]

On 6/15/2015 12:45 AM, Wayne Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:30:02 in article <v0prnah8gg18qr9ct...@4ax.com> Bob Rudd <bob...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:34:38 -0500, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What's the point of removing newsgroups from the canonical list? Is it
>>> going to attract additional users to Usenet? Make the remaining
>>> newsgroups work better? There was a time when it made sense, but that
>>> time is long past.
>>
>> I think it still makes sense Steve. YMMV and that's ok.
>
> It makes no sense because it is impossible. Just taking it off the list
> will have little effect on removing it from news servers. At most you'll
> fragment the distribution so that anyone who tries to revive it in the
> future will face an uphill battle.

I agree. Short of getting everyone to dump them all and starting all
over there seems no way to accomplish the monumental task of "cleaning
up" the hierarchy. Besides, it's Usenet, it's supposed to be unruly,
that's what makes it interesting.

--
dvus

[§ñühwö£f]

Blasphemy! Down the memory hole it goes, citizen! For the good of the state.

[dvus]

Screw the State! (and the politicians it rode in on).

--
dvus

[§ñühwö£f]

The committee has not authorized that slogan.

[dvus]

Screw the committee (and the authorizations it rides around on).

--
dvus

[§ñühwö£f]

Report for re-education training in room 102 at your earliest convenience.

[dvus]

Screw the re-education school (and the rewritten history it rides around
on).

--
dvus

[§ñühwö£f]

Big Brother is Watching!

[Wayne Brown]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:47:20 in article <slrnmoj6t8.2l...@pjr.no-ip.org> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:
> In news.groups on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Wayne Brown

> I'm one of the very rare visitors. I used to be disgusted, but
> latterly I was just bored.

>
>>> But then, what was?
>>
>> That's easy. Their finest hours were when some of them got fed up with
>> the antics of their fellow b8mbies and quit.
>

> Are you referring to the resignations from the "Interim Committee", or
> did something good happen in later years that I missed?

I was talking about Mark Kramer, who resigned a long while back,
and Thomas Lee, who resigned after the recent b8mbie elections
because of blatant election-rigging by the "Chair." Thomas has
been challenging any other b8mbies with any ethics or integrity to
resign too. (Naturally, he hasn't found any takers.) Bob Rudd also
has expressed displeasure over the election results and has called
for the newly-elected member to step down until the election can be
redone correctly. He thinks Thomas should remain a b8mbie and join
him in trying to fix the system from within, but Thomas isn't buying
it. Steve Bonine has been saying the b8mbies have outlived their
"usefulness" (ha!) and should shut down the whole b8mb operation
and go home. Howard Shubs has been busy running around rearranging
the Titanic's deck chairs and saying everything will be fine and
trying to convince us the b8mbies will save USENET and encouraging
Adam to join them. Rudd has joined him in pestering Adam.

Me, I've been eating popcorn and enjoying the show as the b8mbies
self-destruct. I was wondering where you were and hoping you
weren't missing the fun.

[Steve Bonine]

On 6/23/15 1:27 PM, Peter J Ross wrote:

> In news.groups on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:31:22 -0500, Steve Bonine wrote:
>> On 6/11/15 9:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> As I recall, a whole lot of people told Bambie that the pondscum moderation
>>> proposal was a troll, hardly just me. It wasn't one of Bambie's finest hours.
>>
>> I do not understand why you feel the persistent need to rewrite history
>

> They say that history is written by the winners. The people who
> thought that rec.ponds.lets-run-away-from-the-nasty-t0rlls was a good
> idea are not the winners.

The issue of whether it was a good idea is completely different and
separate from whether the proposal was a troll.

I do not care to debate whether the idea of creating a moderated
newsgroup so that people can get away from a troll is good or bad.
There only remains a stain in the road where that horse once stood.

But I am amused by Adam's zeal to invent stones to throw at the board.
God knows that there are plenty without inventing them. The proposal
for the pond group was sincere; the people who proposed it showed no
troll-like behavior before or after the group was created.

If you want to berate the board for troll proposals, have at it with the
soc.men fiasco. No need to re-write history.

[Howard S Shubs]

On 2015-06-23, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I was talking about Mark Kramer, who resigned a long while back,
> and Thomas Lee, who resigned after the recent b8mbie elections
> because of blatant election-rigging by the "Chair." Thomas has
> been challenging any other b8mbies with any ethics or integrity to
> resign too. (Naturally, he hasn't found any takers.) Bob Rudd also
> has expressed displeasure over the election results and has called
> for the newly-elected member to step down until the election can be
> redone correctly. He thinks Thomas should remain a b8mbie and join
> him in trying to fix the system from within, but Thomas isn't buying
> it. Steve Bonine has been saying the b8mbies have outlived their
> "usefulness" (ha!) and should shut down the whole b8mb operation
> and go home. Howard Shubs has been busy running around rearranging
> the Titanic's deck chairs and saying everything will be fine and
> trying to convince us the b8mbies will save USENET and encouraging
> Adam to join them. Rudd has joined him in pestering Adam.

It's a nice reversal of the normal situation. We pester Adam instead
of him pestering us. You didn't notice?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 6/23/15 1:27 PM, Peter J Ross wrote:
>>on Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:31:22 -0500, Steve Bonine wrote:
>>>On 6/11/15 9:48 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>As I recall, a whole lot of people told Bambie that the pondscum
>>>>moderation proposal was a troll, hardly just me. It wasn't one of
>>>>Bambie's finest hours.

>>>I do not understand why you feel the persistent need to rewrite history

>>They say that history is written by the winners. The people who
>>thought that rec.ponds.lets-run-away-from-the-nasty-t0rlls was a good
>>idea are not the winners.

>The issue of whether it was a good idea is completely different and
>separate from whether the proposal was a troll.

It is? I love how you constantly stop by to make pronouncements.

>I do not care to debate whether the idea of creating a moderated
>newsgroup so that people can get away from a troll is good or bad.
>There only remains a stain in the road where that horse once stood.

Bonine is re-writing history. The rest of us recall that the proponents
and supporters behaved like morons during RFD, proving they were
self-trolling.

>But I am amused by Adam's zeal to invent stones to throw at the board.
>God knows that there are plenty without inventing them. The proposal
>for the pond group was sincere; the people who proposed it showed no
>troll-like behavior before or after the group was created.

Bonine is flat out lying here.

>If you want to berate the board for troll proposals, have at it with the
>soc.men fiasco. No need to re-write history.

This was a fairly similar fiasco.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

RFD is such a nuisance, huh.

[Steve Bonine]

No, Howard, I did not notice.

[Steve Bonine]

On 6/23/15 7:18 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> I do not care to debate whether the idea of creating a moderated
>> newsgroup so that people can get away from a troll is good or bad.
>> There only remains a stain in the road where that horse once stood.
>
> Bonine is re-writing history. The rest of us recall that the proponents
> and supporters behaved like morons during RFD, proving they were
> self-trolling.

Oh, really.

"Moron" is the same as "troll" when you need it to be.

Adam, the term "troll" has a well understood meaning in Usenet. You are
not allowed to redefine it. Morons are not trolls. You know that.
Here's a definition from urbandictionary that is accurate in terms of
what Usenet understands a "troll" to be: "One who posts a deliberately
provocative message to a newsgroup with the intention of causing maximum
disruption and argument."

So I challenge you. You call me a liar. That's an easy thing to do,
especially for you, for whom facts have no meaning or relevance. So
show some proof. Show *any* proof that the proponents of the proposal
were trolling, using the accepted Usenet definition of "troll".

You can't do it.

You can redefine the definition of "troll". You can re-write history.
You can call names and spout insults. You can debate whether the
proposal was "good" or "bad". But the proponents were sincere (perhaps
misdirected, misinformed, or even morons) but they were *not* trolls.

[Wayne Brown]

So you admit you're not serious about wanting Adam to be a b8mbie
and have just been trolling. Well, if you really want to insult
someone and offend him, inviting him to be a b8mbie is an effective
way to do it.

[Wayne Brown]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2015 16:19:48 in article <slrnmojjbk.3k...@pjr.no-ip.org> Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> This is all new to me. Election rigging started with the fraudulent
> selection of the Interim Committee, so I'm surprised that they're
> bothered by it now. As for Bonine, if he's bitten the hand that fed
> him, where will he get his Alpo now?

The other thread you replied in, "Big-8 Management Board
- Election Results" has all the gory details. So if you
can go back to the beginning of that one (starting with
message-id <201504230447...@telecom.csail.mit.edu>
from April 22nd) you can see the whole story. Thomas
described the reasons for his resignation in message-id
<296f6756-12bb-4b99...@googlegroups.com> on the
next day.

[Adam H. Kerman]

You weren't a Bambi; you were a Squirrel. Still are, as far as I know.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>On 6/23/15 7:18 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:

>>>I do not care to debate whether the idea of creating a moderated
>>>newsgroup so that people can get away from a troll is good or bad.
>>>There only remains a stain in the road where that horse once stood.

>>Bonine is re-writing history. The rest of us recall that the proponents
>>and supporters behaved like morons during RFD, proving they were
>>self-trolling.

>Oh, really.

>"Moron" is the same as "troll" when you need it to be.

No, that's not what I mean.

The rest of your bullshit snipped, unread, 'cuz you're pretending
to debate with me by re-writing my position. You don't need my help for that.

[Howard S Shubs]

Thank you! I appreciate it.

Honestly, I'm all for making a whiner actually work to improve what he's
whining about. If he won't, he's just a jerk, who has nothing and likes
to yell about how much nothing he's got, just to seem superior to those
who ACTUALLY TRY TO FIX THINGS. If he REALLY had answers, he'd TRY TO
IMPLEMENT THEM, rather than just whining for years and years about how
those lousy DO-ERS actually try to accomplish things. They may be empty
of real answers, but they're PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS, which is
something Adam has never done.

And I've said that before, about Adam and about others of his ilk. It's
been a while since the last time, so it was time for a refresh.

People who call people who ACTUALLY TRY TO IMPROVE THINGS "bambies" as a
perjorative just lose all credibility in my world.

[Howard S Shubs]

No, it's unread because you read it, didn't like it because he's right,
and you use this method "tl;dr" any time anyone actually scores points
on you. You can't have that, so when you can't actually argue with
something, you claim you don't read it. I've got news for you, Adam.
We all know that. You're only fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:

>on Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:47:06 -0500, Steve Bonine wrote:

>>But I am amused by Adam's zeal to invent stones to throw at the board.
>>God knows that there are plenty without inventing them. The proposal
>>for the pond group was sincere; the people who proposed it showed no
>>troll-like behavior before or after the group was created.

>I'd be very surprised if Adam had claimed that the pond proponents
>were trolls. Message-ID?

I may have written something sloppily, or Squirrel Steve may be
re-interpreting what I wrote because Squirrel Steve cannot come up
with arguments he actually thought of himself.

The pondscum proposal was a troll. That's how I've always characterized
the proposal and resulting discussion during RFD, without characterizing
many of the proponents and supporters as trolls. The Bambis were trolled
good, having failed to learn from the socmen herding proposal, RFD for
which had just ended weeks earlier. That is my position.

I'm not saying that some among the proponents and supporters didn't
genuinely believe the unmoderated pondscum group didn't have a problem.
The problem they had wasn't solveable with moderation. They just refused
to heed The Standard Advice.

Bonine has always understood my position. That's why he pulls straw man shit.

[Howard S Shubs]

On 2015-06-24, Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:

> Look! SHOUTING!
>
> Trolls who GET ANGRY tend to be LAUGHED AT and may need to find A
> DIFFERENT HOBBY.

Unfortunately, it hasn't worked for Adam. He's still here.

[Wayne Brown]

If you've finished with your little temper tantrum perhaps you
can stop shouting and actually listen for a change. The "process"
in which you're so eager to have people "participate" is an evil,
destructive process. When a gang of thugs are vandalizing a classic
old building, the solution is not to recruit more people to join
the thugs. The solution is to kick the thugs out (preferably with
steel-toed boots) and set about restoring the building to its
former glory. You don't do that by demolishing it and building
something else in its place.

I picture you as one of those execrable people who would tear down
a beautiful old Gothic cathedral on the grounds that only a handful
of people are using a portion of the building any more, and replace
it with a modern concrete, steel and glass monstrosity where a few
thousand drones in business suits can sit in soulless offices and
push paperwork around all day.

Your idea of trying to "improve things" is just to make things worse.

[§ñühwö£f]

Like I previously said: all those "empty" news groups are a record of
some history of usenet.

[Howard S Shubs]

On 2015-06-25, Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:
> But I wasn't discussing Adam. I was merely mocking your childish
> little rant.

If that pleases you, feel free. I know I wasn't being childish, and
I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion. I was discussing Adam.
Try again, if you like.

[Howard S Shubs]

On 2015-06-25, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If you've finished with your little temper tantrum perhaps you
> can stop shouting and actually listen for a change. The "process"
> in which you're so eager to have people "participate" is an evil,
> destructive process.

Looks like we have a basic difference of opinion here. We're not going
to agree. Maintaining USENET is not evil. Keeping the "cathedral" as you
call it, maintained is important. What you seem to feel is that the bits
being maintained are being done poorly.

I'll agree that the bureaucratic procedures used are largely pointless.
I was a partisan who wanted to see the committee reduced in size to
something no larger than 5, and preferably 3. The size of a committee
is inversely proportional to its intelligence, after all. Maybe one
person would be enough to be a simple ruler of USENET. As long as it's
not me! I'd have to listen to Adam all the time! Won't do that.

[dvus]

On 6/23/2015 3:23 PM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> On 6/22/2015 3:28 PM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>> dvus wrote:
>>>> On 6/17/2015 3:49 PM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>>>> dvus wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/15/2015 11:04 AM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
>>>>>>> dvus wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2015 12:45 AM, Wayne Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 15:30:02 in article
>>>>>>>>> <v0prnah8gg18qr9ct...@4ax.com> Bob Rudd
>>>>>>>>> <bob...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 20:34:38 -0500, Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What's the point of removing newsgroups from the canonical list?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it
>>>>>>>>>>> going to attract additional users to Usenet? Make the remaining
>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroups work better? There was a time when it made sense,
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> time is long past.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think it still makes sense Steve. YMMV and that's ok.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It makes no sense because it is impossible. Just taking it off
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>> will have little effect on removing it from news servers. At most
>>>>>>>>> you'll
>>>>>>>>> fragment the distribution so that anyone who tries to revive it
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> future will face an uphill battle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree. Short of getting everyone to dump them all and starting
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> over there seems no way to accomplish the monumental task of
>>>>>>>> "cleaning
>>>>>>>> up" the hierarchy. Besides, it's Usenet, it's supposed to be
>>>>>>>> unruly,
>>>>>>>> that's what makes it interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blasphemy! Down the memory hole it goes, citizen! For the good of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Screw the State! (and the politicians it rode in on).
>>>>>>
>>>>> The committee has not authorized that slogan.
>>>>
>>>> Screw the committee (and the authorizations it rides around on).
>>>>
>>> Report for re-education training in room 102 at your earliest
>>> convenience.
>>
>> Screw the re-education school (and the rewritten history it rides
>> around on).
>>
> Big Brother is Watching!

...and so, finally, SCREW Big Brother and the full circle we have ridden
around on! Thank you for your support.

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

You lied, Howard. You care very much about Peter's opinion. If you didn't,
you would have shut the fuck up.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

>On 2015-06-25, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>If you've finished with your little temper tantrum perhaps you
>>can stop shouting and actually listen for a change. The "process"
>>in which you're so eager to have people "participate" is an evil,
>>destructive process.

>Looks like we have a basic difference of opinion here. We're not going
>to agree. Maintaining USENET is not evil. Keeping the "cathedral" as you
>call it, maintained is important. What you seem to feel is that the bits
>being maintained are being done poorly.

You and Wayne disagree, but your arguing skilz are pathetic, if not
non-existent. That's why you re-define what Bambi does as "maintaining
Usenet". Hierarchy administration IS NOT and never had been "maintaining
Usenet". It's hierarchy administration, nothing more.

Those who "maintain Usenet" are called News administrators. They run
News sites. Compared to what they do, hierarchy administration is a
petty and perfunctory task.

>I'll agree that the bureaucratic procedures used are largely pointless.
>I was a partisan who wanted to see the committee reduced in size to
>something no larger than 5, and preferably 3. The size of a committee
>is inversely proportional to its intelligence, after all. Maybe one
>person would be enough to be a simple ruler of USENET. As long as it's
>not me! I'd have to listen to Adam all the time! Won't do that.

There's no evidence that you've ever listened to me, Howard. You're
awfully full of yourself.

[§ñühwö£f]

I sense anger.

[§ñühwö£f]

Big Brother holds all the cards. Even the hyper cards.

[Wayne Brown]

We had one person (at a time) running the hierarchy administration
process for years, and that was the last time it worked properly.
Then the last person in that position turned it over to a trio
of idiots who started screwing it up; they abandoned their posts
and left it to an "interim committee" of even bigger idiots who
then appointed themselves the Supreme Overlords (aka b8mbies) who
screwed it up even worse and passed it on to their successors who
have continued screwing it up right down to the present. We need
to go back to the "one person" model and also bring back the whole
RFD/CFV/public voting system, undo everything that has been done
since tale stepped down and proceed as if none of it ever happened.

[Howard S Shubs]

On 2015-06-29, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> You lied, Howard. You care very much about Peter's opinion. If you didn't,
> you would have shut the fuck up.

I never knew you were clairvoient, Adam! Nice. Oh wait, you're not.
Nice try, though.

[Howard S Shubs]

On 2015-06-29, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>>On 2015-06-25, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>>If you've finished with your little temper tantrum perhaps you
>>>can stop shouting and actually listen for a change. The "process"
>>>in which you're so eager to have people "participate" is an evil,
>>>destructive process.
>
>>Looks like we have a basic difference of opinion here. We're not going
>>to agree. Maintaining USENET is not evil. Keeping the "cathedral" as you
>>call it, maintained is important. What you seem to feel is that the bits
>>being maintained are being done poorly.
>
> You and Wayne disagree, but your arguing skilz are pathetic, if not
> non-existent. That's why you re-define what Bambi does as "maintaining
> Usenet". Hierarchy administration IS NOT and never had been "maintaining
> Usenet". It's hierarchy administration, nothing more.

It's heirarchy maintenance. What news admins do is handle their own
USENET servers. What the b8mb is supposed to do is more like coordination
and assisting the news admins in trying to only list active groups, so they
don't waste time on the rest. Too bad they can't do that, y'know?

>>I'll agree that the bureaucratic procedures used are largely pointless.
>>I was a partisan who wanted to see the committee reduced in size to
>>something no larger than 5, and preferably 3. The size of a committee
>>is inversely proportional to its intelligence, after all. Maybe one
>>person would be enough to be a simple ruler of USENET. As long as it's
>>not me! I'd have to listen to Adam all the time! Won't do that.
>
> There's no evidence that you've ever listened to me, Howard. You're
> awfully full of yourself.

Where did I say I *did* listen to you? I've *heard* you for... I dunno,
maybe 15 years? Sure has felt at least that long, anyway.

[Howard S Shubs]

Okay, that makes sense to me.

Hey Bill! Close up shop. Let Bob take over. Or maybe Wayne.

[dvus]

Well, Big Brother has managed to substitute a rigged deck that allows
them to perform sleight of hand trickery that benefits only themselves.

The answer lies in introducing a new deck and applying a thorough
shuffling to the cards followed by dealings that are closely monitored.

--
dvus

[dvus]

Wow, you'd rather go back to the days of yesteryear when news.groups was
a nearly unreadable cesspool of ranting flame-throwing trolls who did
everything in their power to stuff the ballot box and otherwise cause as
much rancor as they possibly could? Or do I interpret your wishes
incorrectly?

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:

I never knew you cared so much about my opinion as well.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>On 2015-06-29, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Howard S Shubs <how...@shubs.net> wrote:
>>>On 2015-06-25, Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>>>>If you've finished with your little temper tantrum perhaps you
>>>>can stop shouting and actually listen for a change. The "process"
>>>>in which you're so eager to have people "participate" is an evil,
>>>>destructive process.

>>>Looks like we have a basic difference of opinion here. We're not going
>>>to agree. Maintaining USENET is not evil. Keeping the "cathedral" as you
>>>call it, maintained is important. What you seem to feel is that the bits
>>>being maintained are being done poorly.

>>You and Wayne disagree, but your arguing skilz are pathetic, if not
>>non-existent. That's why you re-define what Bambi does as "maintaining
>>Usenet". Hierarchy administration IS NOT and never had been "maintaining
>>Usenet". It's hierarchy administration, nothing more.

>It's heirarchy maintenance.

No, it's not. It's hierarchy administration. The only thing being maintained
is a list called checkgroups; hierarchies themselves are nothing more than
a set of newsgroups, which Bambi and other hierachy administrations
DO NOT maintain.

You're still confusing what hierarchy administration (an important but
small role) is with what's involved in running a News site.

>What news admins do is handle their own USENET servers.

They do much more than that. On behalf of their users, they present Usenet.
They decide what Usenet is. Hierarchy administrators don't even do that
much with respect to the hierarchies they administer, just off a list.

>What the b8mb is supposed to do is more like coordination and assisting
>the news admins in trying to only list active groups, so they don't
>waste time on the rest. Too bad they can't do that, y'know?

You are hugely confused. Users themselves, through their own activity
(it's called posting, doncha know), decide which newsgroups are active.

Bambi has little concern for ACTIVE newsgroups, having proved that with
the It's Obvious! fiasco and other redundancies. Hell, even tale pulled
that stunt any number of times, trying to grab traffic in alt groups
for Big 8 groups, often unsuccessfully as Barb Pattist demonstrated.

The rest is lame insults I've read before and have snipped, so you
get the last lame, Howard. You're boring, howard.

[§ñûhwØ£f]

And the "donor class".

> The answer lies in introducing a new deck and applying a thorough
> shuffling to the cards followed by dealings that are closely monitored.
>

So its time to make V for Vendetta a reality show?


--
http://signon.org/sign/protect-americas-wolves

[Howard S Shubs]

On 2015-07-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
[intentionally missing-the-point blather elided]

> The rest is lame insults I've read before and have snipped, so you
> get the last lame, Howard. You're boring, howard.

Yet you still respond to me.

[dvus]

Sure, although that's a by-product of the pols self-preservation. They
need the "donor class" money to get re-elected and give in to the quid
pro quo.

>> The answer lies in introducing a new deck and applying a thorough
>> shuffling to the cards followed by dealings that are closely monitored.
>>
> So its time to make V for Vendetta a reality show?

I'm not a big fan of anonymous hordes rampaging through the streets
demanding more of my tax dollars because they think the world owes them
a living. Peaceful demonstration is one thing, vandalism is another.

--
dvus

[Wayne Brown]

Not me! I've never wanted to be King of USENET. I just want to go
back to being one of the loyal subjects (the news.groups regulars)
explaining and guiding proponents through the process of submitting
and refining RFDs, issuing CFVs and gathering enough support to
meet the "two-thirds majority of YES votes as well as at least 100
more YES than NO votes" requirements, etc. I have no interest in
being the person who makes the final decision on whether or not to
accept the results of the vote and who issues the control messages.

[Wayne Brown]

What you describe as "the days of yesteryear when news.groups was

a nearly unreadable cesspool of ranting flame-throwing trolls"

I describe as "the days when the faithful news.groups regulars
worked together to beat the barbarians back from the gates and
help proponents with the proper attitudes learn how to get their
proposals approved." Yes, that's what I want to revive. I also
want to go back to before the UVV began and let proponents run
their own votes again. After all, the votes are only advisory,
so the person making the final decision always has the option to
ignore the vote results if he thinks they are tainted, which is
the most effective way to keep proponents honest. spaf ran things
beautifully for years under those rules.

[§ñûhwØ£f]

Chicken or egg conundrum methinks.

>
>>> The answer lies in introducing a new deck and applying a thorough
>>> shuffling to the cards followed by dealings that are closely monitored.
>>>
>> So its time to make V for Vendetta a reality show?
>
> I'm not a big fan of anonymous hordes rampaging through the streets
> demanding more of my tax dollars because they think the world owes them
> a living. Peaceful demonstration is one thing, vandalism is another.
>

Got to push the big reset button eventually, ya know?

[§ñûhwØ£f]

Peter J Ross wrote:

> "I made you reply to me!" - every feeble-minded troll in the history
> of Usenet
>
> What next for Howard? Snuh cascading?
>
>
What next for Howard? Buh cascading?

[dvus]

I don't think that's inevitable, although I have to admit few groups
have made it for very long. I'm not a fan of change for the sake of
change but I do heartily approve of progress.

--
dvus

[dvus]

Unfortunately I don't think there's enough people who give a damn about
Usenet anymore to make any difference. It's functions have been replaced
by Facebook, Google and web-based forums. People these days want instant
answers and video with their consumption, things Usenet can't provide.

I liked it for the camaraderie and tongue-in-cheek flippancy of the
conversational exchanges but those things seem to be pretty much gone.

--
dvus

[Adam H. Kerman]

Peter J Ross <peadar...@gmx.com> wrote:

>on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:09:53 -0500, §ñûhwØ£f wrote:

>>Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>on 3 Jul 2015 07:30:35 GMT, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>>On 2015-07-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>>[intentionally missing-the-point blather elided]

>>>>>The rest is lame insults I've read before and have snipped, so you
>>>>>get the last lame, Howard. You're boring, howard.

>>>>Yet you still respond to me.

>>>"I made you reply to me!" - every feeble-minded troll in the history
>>>of Usenet

>>>What next for Howard? Snuh cascading?

>>What next for Howard? Buh cascading?

>What next for Howard? Gu - NO! I... must... resist...

Gary! Net.cop their asses; give them a good TOSsing.

[Steve Bonine]

On 7/4/15 6:26 AM, Peter J Ross wrote:

> In news.groups on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:00:08 -0400, dvus wrote:

>> Unfortunately I don't think there's enough people who give a damn about
>> Usenet anymore to make any difference. It's functions have been replaced
>> by Facebook, Google and web-based forums. People these days want instant
>> answers and video with their consumption, things Usenet can't provide.
>

> The people who want such things always wanted them,

When people see different technology, they find a use for it. I did not
yearn for a better interface when I was using a BBS at 300 baud, but
when faster modems came along I enjoyed the benefits. Like the rest of
the known world, when the web came along, I began to reap the benefits.

> and they only
> came to Usenet because there was nowhere else for them to go.

They came to Usenet because it offered them benefits.

> Usenet got on pretty well before they arrived, and will get on pretty well
> after the last of them have left. A bigger Usenet wasn't a better
> Usenet, and a smaller Usenet won't be worse.

There is an unfortunate flaw in your logic. You assume that the core
group that fueled Usenet during its golden days will stay around when
"they" leave. Problem is, "they" includes everyone, including the folks
who have been here since the early days.

People who are seeking answers go to where the people are who can answer
their questions. People seeking social interaction go to where there
are people to interact with. Usenet as a community requires exactly
that -- a community -- to exist. Take away the people and the only
thing left is the technology, and it has nothing to do.

>> I liked it for the camaraderie and tongue-in-cheek flippancy of the
>> conversational exchanges but those things seem to be pretty much gone.
>

> It seems to me that it's all still there, but on a smaller scale.
> There's not as much fun to be had, but what there is is still fun.

Exactly. News.groups is an example. A few of us are still here. We're
no longer talking about newsgroups; we're reminiscing about the good
'ole days and watching certain people demonstrate how clueless and
clue-impervious they are. And yeah, it's still fun enough to motivate me
to crank up my news reader occasionally. But not only is it on a much
smaller scale, it's simply different.

All of the newsgroups I used to follow have died. I understand there
there are a few viable ones left, but the community is made up of folks
who have been there for a long time, and there are no new members.
Fine, obviously the participants enjoy what they're doing or they
wouldn't be there.

So sure, Usenet will continue to exist as a tiny obscure corner of the
Internet and its inhabitants will continue to enjoy "not as much fun"
but "still fun" on "a smaller scale".

Returning briefly to the topic of the need for hierarchy administration.
I can't imagine there there will ever be new newsgroups. There's a
declining population now, and new newsgroups are fueled by
new/additional discussion. That's not going to happen. Not that that's
a bad thing, in the current life cycle of Usenet; it's simply reality.

[§ñühwö£f]

Peter J Ross wrote:

> In news.groups on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:09:53 -0500, §ñûhwØ£f wrote:
>
>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>> In news.groups on 3 Jul 2015 07:30:35 GMT, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-07-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> [intentionally missing-the-point blather elided]
>>>>> The rest is lame insults I've read before and have snipped, so you
>>>>> get the last lame, Howard. You're boring, howard.
>>>> Yet you still respond to me.
>>> "I made you reply to me!" - every feeble-minded troll in the history
>>> of Usenet
>>>
>>> What next for Howard? Snuh cascading?
>> What next for Howard? Buh cascading?

> What next for Howard? Gu - NO! I... must... resist...
>

Sure. Wouldn't want to get tainted with the SNUH disease :)


--
http://www.wolfwatcher.org

[§ñühwö£f]

I saw a very good lecture by Chris Hedges where he discussed that all
revolutions are unpredictable in that its some small thing that sets off
a long-simmering undercurrent of malaise.

--
http://www.wolfwatcher.org

[Wayne Brown]

I think there are plenty of people who might like it if they ever
tried it, but most people have never heard of it. Since all the
b8mbie nonsense started I've certainly done nothing to promote it;
quite the opposite in fact. I never say things like, "Hey, I found
the solution to our SSH problem in comp.security.ssh" or "I saw
something really interesting in alt.usage.english the other day."
Instead I say, "I found this on the Internet" or "I saw this in
an online discussion group." In the past I would have taken the
opportunity to explain about USENET and to show them how it works,
but it's been years since the last time I did that. Getting new
people involved inevitably leads to questions about adding new
groups, and that involves the b8mbies, and there's no way I'll drum
up any business for them! Their are at least three new groups
I have wanted myself for several years now and I'm pretty sure I
could find others who would want to use them. I would have submitted
proposals for them long ago but I refuse to do anything to encourage
the creation of any groups as long as the b8mbies continue to exist.

>
> I liked it for the camaraderie and tongue-in-cheek flippancy of the
> conversational exchanges but those things seem to be pretty much gone.

That still exists in some places, and I enjoy participating in
several groups like that.

[Wayne Brown]

On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 08:41:04 in article <cvq63h...@mid.individual.net> Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 7/4/15 6:26 AM, Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In news.groups on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:00:08 -0400, dvus wrote:
>
>>> Unfortunately I don't think there's enough people who give a damn about
>>> Usenet anymore to make any difference. It's functions have been replaced
>>> by Facebook, Google and web-based forums. People these days want instant
>>> answers and video with their consumption, things Usenet can't provide.
>>
>> The people who want such things always wanted them,
>
> When people see different technology, they find a use for it. I did not
> yearn for a better interface when I was using a BBS at 300 baud, but
> when faster modems came along I enjoyed the benefits. Like the rest of
> the known world, when the web came along, I began to reap the benefits.

I use the web, but I still use USENET too.

>
>> and they only
>> came to Usenet because there was nowhere else for them to go.
>
> They came to Usenet because it offered them benefits.
>
>> Usenet got on pretty well before they arrived, and will get on pretty well
>> after the last of them have left. A bigger Usenet wasn't a better
>> Usenet, and a smaller Usenet won't be worse.
>
> There is an unfortunate flaw in your logic. You assume that the core
> group that fueled Usenet during its golden days will stay around when
> "they" leave. Problem is, "they" includes everyone, including the folks
> who have been here since the early days.
>
> People who are seeking answers go to where the people are who can answer
> their questions. People seeking social interaction go to where there
> are people to interact with. Usenet as a community requires exactly
> that -- a community -- to exist. Take away the people and the only
> thing left is the technology, and it has nothing to do.

I still participate in groups where such a community exists.

>
>>> I liked it for the camaraderie and tongue-in-cheek flippancy of the
>>> conversational exchanges but those things seem to be pretty much gone.
>>
>> It seems to me that it's all still there, but on a smaller scale.
>> There's not as much fun to be had, but what there is is still fun.
>
> Exactly. News.groups is an example. A few of us are still here. We're
> no longer talking about newsgroups; we're reminiscing about the good
> 'ole days and watching certain people demonstrate how clueless and
> clue-impervious they are. And yeah, it's still fun enough to motivate me
> to crank up my news reader occasionally. But not only is it on a much
> smaller scale, it's simply different.
>
> All of the newsgroups I used to follow have died. I understand there
> there are a few viable ones left, but the community is made up of folks
> who have been there for a long time, and there are no new members.
> Fine, obviously the participants enjoy what they're doing or they
> wouldn't be there.

While many of the people in my favorite group are long-time readers,
some are more recent. I've only been there two or three years
myself. There's still enough discussion there that I can't keep up
with all the new threads, and if I stay away for a few days I may
have to wade through hundreds of articles just in the few threads
I do follow.

>
> So sure, Usenet will continue to exist as a tiny obscure corner of the
> Internet and its inhabitants will continue to enjoy "not as much fun"
> but "still fun" on "a smaller scale".
>
> Returning briefly to the topic of the need for hierarchy administration.
> I can't imagine there there will ever be new newsgroups. There's a
> declining population now, and new newsgroups are fueled by
> new/additional discussion. That's not going to happen. Not that that's
> a bad thing, in the current life cycle of Usenet; it's simply reality.

Again, if we brought in new people there would be more need for
new groups, and I think new people could be brought in if there
was a serious effort to do so by enough of us. The web isn't "new
and shiny" any more and people have had time to get tired of the
irritations of the way web fora work. I think at least some of them
would find USENET to be "something new and interesting" especially
of they were introduced to newsreaders that work much better than
the horrible Google Groups interface. In fact, some who are already
somewhat familiar with GG and don't like it might have their interest
increased if they were shown that there's a much better way to get
to a lot of those groups than going through the GG interface.

But it's not going to be me who invites or encourages anyone to
come to USENET, not while the b8mbies are around. This is still
too embarrassing a place to invite friends over for a visit.

[dvus]

On 7/4/2015 7:26 AM, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In news.groups on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 19:00:08 -0400, dvus wrote:

> The people who want such things always wanted them, and they only
> came to Usenet because there was nowhere else for them to go. Usenet

> got on pretty well before they arrived, and will get on pretty well
> after the last of them have left. A bigger Usenet wasn't a better
> Usenet, and a smaller Usenet won't be worse.

I think that depends on how small that "smaller Usenet" becomes.
Granted, Eternal September did little to improve the quality of the
medium while certainly increasing quantity but if it decreases to just a
handful of people few will be induced to join in. When I bring it up to
younger people they look at me like I'm an old fogy talking about the
beauty of the telegraph. They want instant and colorful gratification.

>> I liked it for the camaraderie and tongue-in-cheek flippancy of the
>> conversational exchanges but those things seem to be pretty much gone.
>

> It seems to me that it's all still there, but on a smaller scale.
> There's not as much fun to be had, but what there is is still fun.

Yes, but I fear that "smaller scale" is getting smaller all the time and
heading for a vanishing point.

--
dvus

[dvus]

Like a higher tax on tea?

--
dvus

[§ñûhwØ£f]

It was in relation to what started the watts riots. So there was a
discussion about class structure in USA leading to instability.

--
http://signon.org/sign/protect-americas-wolves

[dvus]

That was over interference with a DWI arrest I think. Of course when the
looters started in taking advantage of the incident that the real
problems started.

--
dvus

[dvus]

On 7/4/2015 4:12 PM, §ñühwö£f wrote:
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>> In news.groups on Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:09:53 -0500, §ñûhwØ£f wrote:
>>
>>> Peter J Ross wrote:
>>>> In news.groups on 3 Jul 2015 07:30:35 GMT, Howard S Shubs wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-07-02, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> [intentionally missing-the-point blather elided]
>>>>>> The rest is lame insults I've read before and have snipped, so you
>>>>>> get the last lame, Howard. You're boring, howard.
>>>>> Yet you still respond to me.
>>>> "I made you reply to me!" - every feeble-minded troll in the history
>>>> of Usenet
>>>>
>>>> What next for Howard? Snuh cascading?
>>> What next for Howard? Buh cascading?
>> What next for Howard? Gu - NO! I... must... resist...
>>
> Sure. Wouldn't want to get tainted with the SNUH disease :)

I thought that scourge was eradicated.

--
dvus

[§ñühwö£f]

You can't stop the SNUH.

[§ñühwö£f]

He went on to compare it to what happened after the cops beat up Rodney
King. IOW; theres bad feelings waiting to erupt and you never know what
"spark" will ignite things. I'd say theres enough negative energy in
detroit to blow up.

--
http://www.wolfwatcher.org