Board election results--October 1, 2009
Big-8 Management Board
- Kathy Morgan
- Jeremy Nixon
- Tim Skirvin
The following were newly elected to the Board:
- Alexander Bartolich
- David E. Ross
- Paul Schleck
The entire membership, therefore, is:
- Kathy Morgan, co-chair
- Martin Moleski, co-chair
- Dave Sill, vice-chair
- Alexander Bartolich
- David E. Ross
- Thomas Lee
- Helge Nareid
- Jeremy Nixon
- Paul Schleck
- Tim Skirvin
Peter J Ross
don't see how discussion of this announcement could possibly be
on-topic in the treehouse.
In news.groups on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:50:05 EDT, Big-8 Management
Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
> The following members were re-elected to the Board:
>
> - Kathy Morgan
> - Jeremy Nixon
> - Tim Skirvin
There's only one huge mistake here. Why hasn't the thieving, lying,
net-vandalising, neo-Nazi-endorsing, childish freak Skirvin been
expelled yet?
> The following were newly elected to the Board:
>
> - Alexander Bartolich
Good, probably.
> - David E. Ross
Is this the David E. Ross who posts in mozilla.* groups misusing the
"nowhere.not" domain in his From: lines? If so, it's ironic that he's
joined the Bambies at the same time as a server admin who would ban
him for such misuse.
> - Paul Schleck
Who?
/me googles
Oh, it's apparently some pro-moderation fanatic who doesn't post to
Usenet himself. He'll fit in very well.
*sigh*
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
"The Great One"
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> There's only one huge mistake here. Why hasn't the thieving, lying,
> net-vandalising, neo-Nazi-endorsing, childish freak Skirvin been
> expelled yet?
> Peter "Eater" Ross > :-o<==8
Because you are still here, Jizz Gobblin' Ross !!
--
John C.
Kathy Morgan
> The follow-up trick in this case was exceptionally inane, since I
> don't see how discussion of this announcement could possibly be
> on-topic in the treehouse.
Sorry about that. My bad. We purposely didn't set followups so people
could choose their followup group themselves, but I forgot about the
moderation software automatically sets f'ups to ngp if they aren't
otherwise set.
> In news.groups on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:50:05 EDT, Big-8 Management
> Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>
> > The following members were re-elected to the Board: [...]
> >
> > - Paul Schleck
>
> Who?
>
> /me googles
>
> Oh, it's apparently some pro-moderation fanatic who doesn't post to
> Usenet himself. He'll fit in very well.
He used to post in n.g. and still occasionally posts in n.g.p., and he
has assisted a number of groups in setting up Stump on Panix.
--
Kathy
Adam H. Kerman
>>>- Paul Schleck
>>Who?
>>/me googles
Under what name did he used to post in news.groups? What configging
discussions has he participated in?
Steve Bonine
> Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> He used to post in n.g. and still occasionally posts in n.g.p., and he
>> has assisted a number of groups in setting up Stump on Panix.
>
> Under what name did he used to post in news.groups?
Paul Schleck.
<4a95446f$0$376$540e...@novia.net> from 26 August was a rebuttal of a
comment I made in the sci.math.moderated discussiont.
Google provides others.
But Paul's contribution to Usenet consists of more than his occasional
post to newsgroups. As Kathy mentioned, he has invested real manhours
in assisting others by building a STUMP configuration and teaching them
how to use it. He has a proven track record of actually doing
something, rather than just kibitzing in newsgroups.
Adam H. Kerman
>But Paul's contribution to Usenet consists of more than his occasional
>post to newsgroups. As Kathy mentioned, he has invested real manhours
>in assisting others by building a STUMP configuration and teaching them
>how to use it. He has a proven track record of actually doing
>something, rather than just kibitzing in newsgroups.
Thanks, Steve, for parroting what Kathy just said, rather than allowing
her to state her own position in her own words and then adding your
usual vitriol to it. You've got a proven track record of actually doing
something, but no one would call it useful.
Somebody please put the muzzle back on the yappy fluffy white dog who
dreams of being a terrifying junk yard dog.
Aratzio
Bonine <s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:
By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
discussion.
Anyone surprised the board embraced this one?
dvus
news:sdnhc5hr41t0a6vpa...@4ax.com...
I read a few of his posts and noted in one an argument against moderation and
in another an excoriation of Google Groups. What more could you ask?
> Anyone surprised the board embraced this one?
In the present atmosphere, I'm surprised he volunteered.
--
dvus
Steve Bonine
> "Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>> discussion.
Creation of an additional newsgroup gives potential participants an
additional option. I first ran into Paul during his efforts to create
rec.radio.amateur.moderated. The newsgroups in the rec.radio.amateur
hierarchy had degenerated to the point that discussion had ceased. If
anyone did submit a reasonable on-topic post, it was immediately buried
by noise.
The moderated newsgroup gave people who wanted to participate in Usenet
a choice. The overall discussion has not been "suppressed". The
original cesspools still exist in rec.radio.amateur.* and it's still
possible to engage in the type of "discussion" that has occurred there
for the past several years.
You don't approve of moderation? Fine. Then don't participate in the
newsgroups. But at least Paul has actually done something more than
whine in news.groups.
> I read a few of his posts and noted in one an argument against
> moderation and in another an excoriation of Google Groups. What more
> could you ask?
>
>> Anyone surprised the board embraced this one?
>
> In the present atmosphere, I'm surprised he volunteered.
I suppose his volunteering is consistent with his desire to actually
give back something to Usenet. I remember when that was a common trait
of Usenet participants. I wish him the best in fulfilling this goal.
Adam H. Kerman
Steve's got a new party to slurp and on whose behalf to make his
cowardly back-handed attacks. I'll give Paul the benefit of a doubt that
he didn't request this defense, but he does need to smack it with a
rolled up newspaper every so often else the yapping will never cease.
pandora
What else are newsgroups for?
pandora
I'm certainly not suprised. Is that any way to keep Usenet alive? I don't
think so......
Kathy Morgan
> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
> discussion.
The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
participants. You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
--
Kathy, speaking only for myself
Aatu Koskensilta
Indeed far more affective! But of course those whose contributions are
so horribly suppressed by moderation haven't, in most cases, agreed to
any rules. If it was possible to get everyone to agree to be sane,
reasonable, on-topic, and so on, there would be little need for
moderated groups in the first place.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
"The Great One"
"Kathy Morgan" <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:1j74xpr.17411wf1u9hgdeN%kmo...@spamcop.net...
IAWTP !!
--
John C.
Son of Serpent Esq
IAWTP2
dvus
news:871vlgs...@alatheia.truth.invalid...
> kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) writes:
>> Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>>> discussion.
>>
>> The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>> according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>> participants. You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
>> and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
>
> Indeed far more affective! But of course those whose contributions are
> so horribly suppressed by moderation haven't, in most cases, agreed to
> any rules. If it was possible to get everyone to agree to be sane,
> reasonable, on-topic, and so on, there would be little need for
> moderated groups in the first place.
Heh, you said "agree" on Usenet!
--
dvus
Nomen Nescio
me two
Adam H. Kerman
Hahahahaha
It's so shameful to suck up to the Board that it's necessary to hide.
Brian Mailman
> The moderated newsgroup gave people who wanted to participate in Usenet
> a choice. The overall discussion has not been "suppressed". The
> original cesspools still exist...
I note that you're parroting the position that unmoderated groups are
"cesspools." Thanks for validating!
B/
Brian Mailman
Can you still see Russia from your house?
B/
"The Great One"
"Brian Mailman" <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote in message news:b7adnXpsSJjkZ1HX...@supernews.com...
Can you still see Aratzio's dick as it enters your anus?
--
HJ
Kathy Morgan
> Can you still see Russia from your house?
I think you're confusing me with Sarah.
--
Kathy
K. A. Cannon
<1j74xpr.17411wf1u9hgdeN%kmo...@spamcop.net> in news.groups on Mon, 5
Oct 2009 22:45:44 -0800:
"suppresses conversation" ------ You just condoned that...you just
approved limiting freedom of expression by active means and lamely
justified that IDIOTIC rational by stating that somehow (Bog only
knows how, but WTF?) trolling, flaming and whining (another WTF?) are
equally as effective in limiting freedom of expression.
I would have figured you to be a savvy Usenet participant.
One would hope that someone who is a member of the Big 8 Board would
be intelligent enough not to get trolled and also not get taken in by
whining and not succumb to insults.
But...that is not the case...
You are condoning the whining of people who are getting trolled and
giving in to the gratuitous insults and then are coming to the Big
Eight Board and pleading for help because *they* are not intelligent
enough to control their impulses and can't use a killfile nor can be
bothered to learn the very basics of the very UseNet system they
participate in.
So continue to give in to the whims of whining and pathetic lusers who
are not intelligent enough to fix their own problems which are so
easily remedied on THE FUCKING CLIENT SIDE.
I am surprised PJR has such faith in you....You are obviously a
tool/fool. You seem to go into frothy ecstasy when you contemplate
limiting freedom of expression.
I wince at what the likes of you and your ilk portend for UseNet.
--
K. A. Cannon
kevin.a.cannon at gmail dot com
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia.
-Charles Schultz
COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
http://www.themonastery.org/dev/cert/ulc_certificate_view.swf?id=10010810040414
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> You are condoning the whining of people who are getting trolled and
> giving in to the gratuitous insults and then are coming to the Big
> Eight Board and pleading for help because *they* are not intelligent
> enough to control their impulses and can't use a killfile nor can be
> bothered to learn the very basics of the very UseNet system they
> participate in.
Usenet is the only major forum that is principally unmoderated.
Usenet is also rapidly losing users.
Just a coincidence?
> So continue to give in to the whims of whining and pathetic lusers who
> are not intelligent enough to fix their own problems which are so
> easily remedied on THE FUCKING CLIENT SIDE.
Well, if you don't give the customer what the customer wants then
you won't have any customers.
Now you might say that you don't need no whining customers.
And that Usenet is better off without those pathetic lusers.
But please, think about how the majority of users nowadays gets Usenet
access: through servers maintained by ISPs, universities, employers.
Oh, and last but not least, Google Groups.
These Usenet providers will stop their services if usage falls below
a minimum threshold. What then?
> I am surprised PJR has such faith in you....You are obviously a
> tool/fool. You seem to go into frothy ecstasy when you contemplate
> limiting freedom of expression.
>
> I wince at what the likes of you and your ilk portend for UseNet.
Perhaps the global meltdown of commercial Usenet will be the birth
of an independent network, like in the days of the BBS. However, I'm
quite sure that sociopaths will have no place in such a net built by
altruists.
So be careful with your wishes. A Usenet without whining, pathetic
lusers might turn out to be the Usenet without you.
--
K. A. Cannon
<hal7dj$g1c$1...@news.albasani.net> in news.groups on Thu, 8 Oct 2009
17:27:15 +0000 (UTC):
>K A Cannon wrote:
>> [...]
>> You are condoning the whining of people who are getting trolled and
>> giving in to the gratuitous insults and then are coming to the Big
>> Eight Board and pleading for help because *they* are not intelligent
>> enough to control their impulses and can't use a killfile nor can be
>> bothered to learn the very basics of the very UseNet system they
>> participate in.
>
>Usenet is the only major forum that is principally unmoderated.
>Usenet is also rapidly losing users.
>Just a coincidence?
Most lusers do not know about UseNet...and the largest group of UseNet
users are the leechers who get binaries from various bin.* froups.
>> So continue to give in to the whims of whining and pathetic lusers who
>> are not intelligent enough to fix their own problems which are so
>> easily remedied on THE FUCKING CLIENT SIDE.
>
>Well, if you don't give the customer what the customer wants then
>you won't have any customers.
I don't think that "the customers" are interested in content nannies
for UseNet.
>Now you might say that you don't need no whining customers.
>And that Usenet is better off without those pathetic lusers.
UseNet isn't like a web forum. You have to have a certain amount of
technical savvy to actually access UseNet so that sets the bar a bit
higher.
>But please, think about how the majority of users nowadays gets Usenet
>access: through servers maintained by ISPs, universities, employers.
>Oh, and last but not least, Google Groups.
The server's maintained by ISP's are fewer and fewer. Universities are
shutting down news servers as well. Employers...heh...right.
Google Gropes....the new AOL'ers.
>These Usenet providers will stop their services if usage falls below
>a minimum threshold. What then?
I think your tangent has gone far enough.
>> I am surprised PJR has such faith in you....You are obviously a
>> tool/fool. You seem to go into frothy ecstasy when you contemplate
>> limiting freedom of expression.
>>
>> I wince at what the likes of you and your ilk portend for UseNet.
>
>Perhaps the global meltdown of commercial Usenet will be the birth
>of an independent network, like in the days of the BBS. However, I'm
>quite sure that sociopaths will have no place in such a net built by
>altruists.
I run a news server....follow the rules and you can be as crazy as you
want....sociopath's included.
>So be careful with your wishes. A Usenet without whining, pathetic
>lusers might turn out to be the Usenet without you.
If I leave UseNet it will because people of your ilk who think you
know what's good for everybody else.
But...There is an easy way to deal with wankiods like you.
cybax.
Mark Kramer
Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>participants.
I don't beleive I agreed to allow Stevie to edit quotes to stuff words in my
mouth, or tell me I was doing something illegal by simply discussing a radio
regulation, and then have all challenges to his claims rejected by his
moderator pals so he never had to support anything he said. No, I don't
recall to agreeing to that at all. And I don't recall seeing that in the
"rules set down in advance".
>You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
>and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
And yet you are here, posting freely.
Mark Kramer
I think he's trying to insult Sarah. It might have been more appropriate if
he asked you if you were wearing lipstick.
Alexander Bartolich
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> posted
>>[...]
>>Well, if you don't give the customer what the customer wants then
>>you won't have any customers.
>
> I don't think that "the customers" are interested in content nannies
> for UseNet.
That might very well be true. But then I doubt that you have that
much experience with customers.
http://www.databasix.com/
=> Click to sign up!
=> https://secure0.netbasix.net/signup
=> Firefox can't establish a connection to the server [...]
> [...]
>>Perhaps the global meltdown of commercial Usenet will be the birth
>>of an independent network, like in the days of the BBS. However, I'm
>>quite sure that sociopaths will have no place in such a net built by
>>altruists.
>
> I run a news server....
blackhelicopter.databasix.com is currently ranked 1206th place in the
TOP1000. Your users don't seem to produce much content.
> follow the rules and you can be as crazy as you
> want....sociopath's included.
Who knows? Perhaps the post apocalyptic Usenet will provide peering
only to sound sites.
>>So be careful with your wishes. A Usenet without whining, pathetic
>>lusers might turn out to be the Usenet without you.
>
> If I leave UseNet it will because people of your ilk who think you
> know what's good for everybody else.
>
> But...There is an easy way to deal with wankiods like you.
You are welcome.
--
Brian Mailman
Text that was Morganized restored for proper context:
>> The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses
>> conversation according to rules set down in advance and agreed to
>> by the participants. You suppress conversation by constant
>> trolling, whining and insults, which are far more affective in
>> stopping conversation.
> Can you still see Russia from your house?
You are simultaneously condoning suppresion of conversation when it
meets your agenda, and claiming an abhorrence when it doesn't. No, no
confusion at all.
B/
Peter J Ross
<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
Please explain how Ratz's alleged "constant trolling, whining and
insults" suppress conversation.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
Peter J Ross
<kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The follow-up trick in this case was exceptionally inane, since I
>> don't see how discussion of this announcement could possibly be
>> on-topic in the treehouse.
>
> Sorry about that. My bad. We purposely didn't set followups so people
> could choose their followup group themselves, but I forgot about the
> moderation software automatically sets f'ups to ngp if they aren't
> otherwise set.
I think follow-ups should be set for all articles posted to an
"announce" group, since replies crossposted to the "announce" group
will rightly be rejected. In this case, the appropriate follow-up
group was news.groups.
Is there any prospect of the bug in the moderation software being
fixed? Or was the moderation software designed by Skirvin and/or
Kamens with malice aforethought?
>> In news.groups on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:50:05 EDT, Big-8 Management
>> Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>>
>> > The following members were re-elected to the Board: [...]
>> >
>> > - Paul Schleck
>>
>> Who?
>>
>> /me googles
>>
>> Oh, it's apparently some pro-moderation fanatic who doesn't post to
>> Usenet himself. He'll fit in very well.
>
> He used to post in n.g. and still occasionally posts in n.g.p., and he
> has assisted a number of groups in setting up Stump on Panix.
Thanks for the confirmation that "pro-moderation fanatic" was a
well-chosen term. I didn;t intend it to be particularly insulting: if
somebody called me an "anti-moderation fanatic" I'd be quite pleased
that my opinions had been noticed and not much misrepresented.
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>> He used to post in n.g. and still occasionally posts in n.g.p., and he
>>> has assisted a number of groups in setting up Stump on Panix.
>>
>> Under what name did he used to post in news.groups?
>
> Paul Schleck.
>
> <4a95446f$0$376$540e...@novia.net> from 26 August was a rebuttal of a
> comment I made in the sci.math.moderated discussiont.
>
> Google provides others.
>
> But Paul's contribution to Usenet consists of more than his occasional
> post to newsgroups. As Kathy mentioned, he has invested real manhours
> in assisting others by building a STUMP configuration and teaching them
> how to use it. He has a proven track record of actually doing
> something, rather than just kibitzing in newsgroups.
Something needed to be done.
He did something.
Ergo, what he did needed to be done.
(Thanks to Ratz, who first posted what I think of as "The Bamby
Syllogism":
Something must be done.
This is something.
Ergo, this must be done.)
Btw, Steve: Adam, Kathy and I have all done quite a lot for Usenet
other than "kibitzing", while your own contribution seems to be
confined to rejecting on-topic posts in the NGP treehouse for
trumped-up reasons if you happen to dislike the poster or think that
your bosses may dislike him.
Peter J Ross
<s...@pobox.com> wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> "Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>>> discussion.
>
> Creation of an additional newsgroup gives potential participants an
> additional option.
No, it harms discussion by dividing it between two incompatible
groups. If people want moderated discussion groups, the Web is their
friend. Usenet's distinctive characteristic is that it's *not* moderated.
> I first ran into Paul during his efforts to create
> rec.radio.amateur.moderated. The newsgroups in the rec.radio.amateur
> hierarchy had degenerated to the point that discussion had ceased. If
> anyone did submit a reasonable on-topic post, it was immediately buried
> by noise.
Did you or Paul advise the readers how to use their killfiles?
> The moderated newsgroup gave people who wanted to participate in Usenet
> a choice. The overall discussion has not been "suppressed". The
> original cesspools still exist in rec.radio.amateur.* and it's still
> possible to engage in the type of "discussion" that has occurred there
> for the past several years.
Of course unmoderated groups are likely to become, or continue to be,
"cesspools" when a moderated "alternative" (i.e. replacement) is
created.
> You don't approve of moderation? Fine. Then don't participate in the
> newsgroups. But at least Paul has actually done something more than
> whine in news.groups.
>
>> I read a few of his posts and noted in one an argument against
>> moderation and in another an excoriation of Google Groups. What more
>> could you ask?
>>
>>> Anyone surprised the board embraced this one?
>>
>> In the present atmosphere, I'm surprised he volunteered.
>
> I suppose his volunteering is consistent with his desire to actually
> give back something to Usenet. I remember when that was a common trait
> of Usenet participants. I wish him the best in fulfilling this goal.
I'd rather wish *Usenet* the best. Unfortunately, Usenet will be
harmed if further moderated discussion groups are created for no good
reason ("We're all scared of the nasty t0rlls" is *not* a good
reason), and a moderator of a moderated discussion group that ought to
be rmgrouped as superflous at best, harmful at worst, isn't a suitable
candidate for Bambydom.
Peter J Ross
Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
> K A Cannon wrote:
>> [...]
>> You are condoning the whining of people who are getting trolled and
>> giving in to the gratuitous insults and then are coming to the Big
>> Eight Board and pleading for help because *they* are not intelligent
>> enough to control their impulses and can't use a killfile nor can be
>> bothered to learn the very basics of the very UseNet system they
>> participate in.
>
> Usenet is the only major forum that is principally unmoderated.
> Usenet is also rapidly losing users.
> Just a coincidence?
Whether it's a coincidence or not, I don't think Usenet will be helped
by losing the characteristic that distinguishes it from other methods
of discussion.
>> So continue to give in to the whims of whining and pathetic lusers who
>> are not intelligent enough to fix their own problems which are so
>> easily remedied on THE FUCKING CLIENT SIDE.
>
> Well, if you don't give the customer what the customer wants then
> you won't have any customers.
> Now you might say that you don't need no whining customers.
> And that Usenet is better off without those pathetic lusers.
>
> But please, think about how the majority of users nowadays gets Usenet
> access: through servers maintained by ISPs, universities, employers.
> Oh, and last but not least, Google Groups.
But you're one of the people who are putting that right. The existence
of Albasani, Eternal-September, AIOE, DataBasix etc causes me to be
optimistic about the future of Usenet.
> These Usenet providers will stop their services if usage falls below
> a minimum threshold. What then?
Then Usenet will be smaller, but better.
>> I am surprised PJR has such faith in you....You are obviously a
>> tool/fool. You seem to go into frothy ecstasy when you contemplate
>> limiting freedom of expression.
>>
>> I wince at what the likes of you and your ilk portend for UseNet.
>
> Perhaps the global meltdown of commercial Usenet will be the birth
> of an independent network, like in the days of the BBS. However, I'm
> quite sure that sociopaths will have no place in such a net built by
> altruists.
>
> So be careful with your wishes. A Usenet without whining, pathetic
> lusers might turn out to be the Usenet without you.
Are you aware that you're addressing a fellow newsadmin?
Peter J Ross
<c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
> In article <1j74xpr.17411wf1u9hgdeN%kmo...@spamcop.net>,
> Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>>according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>>participants.
>
> I don't beleive
<snip>
I don't believe that anybody asked for your opinion.
The grown-ups are having a conversation here. Fuck off.
"The Great One"
"Peter J Ross" <p...@example.invalid> wrote in message news:slrnhct9t...@pjr.gotdns.org...
> In news.groups on Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Mark Kramer
> <c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1j74xpr.17411wf1u9hgdeN%kmo...@spamcop.net>,
> > Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
> >>according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
> >>participants.
> >
> > I don't beleive
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't believe that anybody asked for your opinion.
>
> how Gay Peter "Eater" Ross really is.
> --
> PJR >:-0<==8
Faggot Ross !!
--
Your pal,
John C.
Aatu Koskensilta
> In news.groups on Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Mark Kramer
> <c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't beleive
>
> <snip>
>
> I don't believe that anybody asked for your opinion.
>
> The grown-ups are having a conversation here. Fuck off.
Really, Peter, you can do better than that.
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@uta.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen"
Steve Bonine
> Then Usenet will be smaller, but better.
Like FidoNet.
K. A. Cannon
<821vlc8...@A166.veli3.tontut.fi> in news.groups on 09 Oct 2009
19:01:18 +0300:
>Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> In news.groups on Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Mark Kramer
>> <c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't beleive
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't believe that anybody asked for your opinion.
>>
>> The grown-ups are having a conversation here. Fuck off.
>
>Really, Peter, you can do better than that.
I agree...he really is off his game.
Jeremy Nixon
> Is there any prospect of the bug in the moderation software being
> fixed?
Yes.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
Aratzio
<do...@dvenator.com.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:
>"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
>news:sdnhc5hr41t0a6vpa...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:04:54 -0500, in the land of news.groups, Steve
>> Bonine <s...@pobox.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>>
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Kathy Morgan <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> He used to post in n.g. and still occasionally posts in n.g.p., and he
>>>>> has assisted a number of groups in setting up Stump on Panix.
>>>>
>>>> Under what name did he used to post in news.groups?
>>>
>>>Paul Schleck.
>>>
>>><4a95446f$0$376$540e...@novia.net> from 26 August was a rebuttal of a
>>>comment I made in the sci.math.moderated discussiont.
>>>
>>>Google provides others.
>>>
>>>But Paul's contribution to Usenet consists of more than his occasional
>>>post to newsgroups. As Kathy mentioned, he has invested real manhours
>>>in assisting others by building a STUMP configuration and teaching them
>>>how to use it. He has a proven track record of actually doing
>>>something, rather than just kibitzing in newsgroups.
>>
>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>> discussion.
>
>I read a few of his posts and noted in one an argument against moderation and
>in another an excoriation of Google Groups. What more could you ask?
>
>> Anyone surprised the board embraced this one?
>
>In the present atmosphere, I'm surprised he volunteered.
It was not me that shit upon his doorstep and killed his dog.
Aratzio
kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>> discussion.
>
>The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>participants. You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
>and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
Really? What a bizarre belief system you have. By advocating that no
person be excluded from discussion and that all people join in
discussion that is in fact suppression of discussion. However,
creation of suppressive moderated newsgroups such as the failed and
unwanted soc.men.moderated is in fact the height of encouraging
discussion.
Now, as a defense and couterpoint, would you care to point out
anything of that supposedly suppressive nature in my post to which you
replied with your "trolling, whining and insults"?
(Do any of the board morons even understand the definition of "irony"
or "hypocrisy"?)
I am sure that my opinion of you has nothing to do with what you
wrote. That I feel you are a moron incapable of actually contributing
intelligent or original thought is completely beside the point to what
you wrote. I do not tell you whether you can post, to the contrary I
find great entertainment in your hypocrisy and roundly applaud your
efforts to "contribute" to the discussion.
Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
feel I must continue in my efforts.
Aratzio
Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> got double secret probation for
writing:
>kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) writes:
>
>> Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>>> discussion.
>>
>> The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>> according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>> participants. You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
>> and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
>
>Indeed far more affective!
That gives people SAD?
> But of course those whose contributions are
>so horribly suppressed by moderation haven't, in most cases, agreed to
>any rules. If it was possible to get everyone to agree to be sane,
>reasonable, on-topic, and so on, there would be little need for
>moderated groups in the first place.
I refuse to agree with anything as a general rule. My sockpuppets hate
me for my freedom.
Aratzio
<do...@dvenator.com.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:
>"Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> wrote in message
>news:871vlgs...@alatheia.truth.invalid...
>> kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) writes:
>>> Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>>>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>>> according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>>> participants. You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
>>> and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
>>
>> Indeed far more affective! But of course those whose contributions are
>> so horribly suppressed by moderation haven't, in most cases, agreed to
>> any rules. If it was possible to get everyone to agree to be sane,
>> reasonable, on-topic, and so on, there would be little need for
>> moderated groups in the first place.
>
>
>Heh, you said "agree" on Usenet!
Kill him!
Aratzio
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>>Son of Serpent Esq wrote:
>>> "The Great One" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Kathy Morgan" <kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:1j74xpr.17411wf1u9hgdeN%kmo...@spamcop.net...
>>>>> Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>>>>> > contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>>>>> > discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>>>>> according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>>>>> participants. You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
>>>>> and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Kathy, speaking only for myself
>>>>
>>>> IAWTP !!
>>>
>>> IAWTP2
>>
>>me two
>
>Hahahahaha
>
>It's so shameful to suck up to the Board that it's necessary to hide.
Eye skeers dem.
Aratzio
Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Kathy Morgan wrote:
>> Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>>> discussion.
>>
>> The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>> according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>> participants. You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
>> and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
>
>Can you still see Russia from your house?
>
>B/
She has SAD.
Aratzio
Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
writing:
>kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) posted
I think you give her far too much credit. At best, she regurgitates
the opinions of others and does not actively process information.
Aratzio
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
probation for writing:
>Usenet is the only major forum that is principally unmoderated.
>Usenet is also rapidly losing users.
>Just a coincidence?
No so, look at 4chan. Growing daily.
People who came of age on the interwebs with HTML expect more than the
text of non-binary USENET. That is the majority of people on the
interwebs.
Apropos of littel, Binary USENET is still a massive amount of data.
Aratzio
>blackhelicopter.databasix.com is currently ranked 1206th place in the
>TOP1000. Your users don't seem to produce much content.
Umm, how does one place 1206 in the Top 1000?
Aratzio
Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Kathy Morgan wrote:
Do as I say, not as I do.
It is okay because the board condones it.
Lurkers support me in email.
...
Common thread of the defense of suppression is that they abhor
something so whatever they do in removing that to which they object is
justified and anything done counter to their wishes is therefore
illegitimate because they have supporters.
Note to Brian: You assumed intelligence that was not evident.
Aratzio
J Ross <p...@example.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:
>In news.groups on Mon, 5 Oct 2009 22:45:44 -0800, Kathy Morgan
><kmo...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> By supporting moderation, just as Peter stated. In otherwise his one
>>> contribution to usenet is an ability to assist people in suppressing
>>> discussion.
>>
>> The difference between you and Paul is that he suppresses conversation
>> according to rules set down in advance and agreed to by the
>> participants. You suppress conversation by constant trolling, whining
>> and insults, which are far more affective in stopping conversation.
>
>Please explain how Ratz's alleged "constant trolling, whining and
>insults" suppress conversation.
I am a bit aghast that she supports suppression of conversation and is
also a board member/moderator. That opinion should preclude someone
from either post.
Aratzio
J Ross <p...@example.invalid> got double secret probation for writing:
>In news.groups on Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:04:54 -0500, Steve Bonine
I feel I have contributed, who else can you blame for all of the ills
of the interwebs?
http://vexxarrcommunit.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=357
"
I blame all of you...but then I always do.
Wait.
Ratz. I blame Ratz.
"
Aratzio
Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@uta.fi> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> In news.groups on Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:27:35 +0000 (UTC), Mark Kramer
>> <c28...@TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't beleive
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I don't believe that anybody asked for your opinion.
>>
>> The grown-ups are having a conversation here. Fuck off.
>
>Really, Peter, you can do better than that.
I blame Ratz.
Alexander Bartolich
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:27:15 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
> probation for writing:
>
>>Usenet is the only major forum that is principally unmoderated.
>>Usenet is also rapidly losing users.
>>Just a coincidence?
>
> No so, look at 4chan. Growing daily.
4chan *is* moderated, newfag.
Go read http://www.4chan.org/faq#whomod and enyou your fail.
--
"The Great One"
> ...
> Roz
Tell us something that "WE" didn't know, Roz !!
--
John C.
"The Great One"
IAWTP !!
--
John C.
Aratzio
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:27:15 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
>> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
>> probation for writing:
>>
>>>Usenet is the only major forum that is principally unmoderated.
>>>Usenet is also rapidly losing users.
>>>Just a coincidence?
>>
>> No so, look at 4chan. Growing daily.
>
>4chan *is* moderated, newfag.
>Go read http://www.4chan.org/faq#whomod and enyou your fail.
BWAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
"I iz kewl"
When was the last time you saw anything besides kp banned on /b?
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> BWAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA
> "I iz kewl"
Do I know coolness? Why, it's my primary function, sir.
I am well-versed in all the customs.
> When was the last time you saw anything besides kp banned on /b?
4chan consists of 44 boards. /b/ is just one of them, albeit the most
popular.
Did you ever happen to explore the promises of, let's say, /k/
(weapons), /sp/ (sports) or /ck/ (food & cooking)? If not, please do.
Well, isn't it marvelous how *focused* these places are? Now you could
argue that the inhabitants of 4chan are grown ups that don't post gore
and porn to the wrong places just because of self-restraint.
Bonus points if you manage to keep a straight face while doing so.
But really, from one usenetfag to the other: isn't the ratio of
on-topic to off-topic on 4chan absolutely miraculous?
The difference between wilderness and a camping place is that the
latter has planning and policy. Now you can indeed argue that a free
man has the god given right to defecate at any place, any time. And
that making replies to nature's call off-topic everwhere but at the
latrine is a leap into totalitarian fascist censorship. Don't expect
to find many followers, though.
--
K. A. Cannon
wrote:
<snip>
>Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
>feel I must continue in my efforts.
You Bastard.
--
K. A. Cannon
kevin.a.cannon at gmail.com.
COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
http://signup.databasix.com
http://www.themonastery.org/dev/cert/ulc_certificate_view.swf?id=10010810040414
Aratzio
>Aratzio wrote:
You actually believe that the moderation post facto on a single server
is the same as usenet group moderation? Differ that from a usenet
admin killing a post or banning a user with the pre post moderation in
newsgroups.
Here is your hint: The post on 4chan is always public BEFORE the
moderation and therefore is in fact not moderation as performed on
USENET. Calling it moderation is false when in fact it is simply post
facto clean-up.
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> You actually believe that the moderation post facto on a single server
> is the same as usenet group moderation?
The 4chan network consists of only a single server. So any post removal
on that one server instantaneously affects the whole network.
The concept of "moderation post facto" is known as retromoderation on
Usenet. See appendix B of the Cancel Messages FAQ:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/news/cancel-faq/appendix/
The design of Usenet puts availability over consistency.
This has advantages:
- break down of one news server does not take down the whole Usenet
- loss of a post (or the complete news spool) on one server leaves
a whole network of backups
- because data is replicated world wide users can chose the server
that best fits their location
But this also disadvantages:
- latency is indeterminate (think of uucp or newsx)
- policy is not enforced (retention, acception of cancels, cleanfeed,
etc. differ greatly from site to site)
- there is no central account database, this makes it hard to verify
the author of a post
Usenet II tried to establish means for reliable retromoderation (among
other things), but failed. NoCeM tries to establish means for reliable
retromoderation (and nothing else) but meets overarching apathy.
Meanwhile the classic mechanism for retromoderation--third party cancel
controls--has fallen out of fashion as its misuse ("rogue cancel")
causes sites to deactivate third party cancels completely.
> Differ that from a usenet admin killing a post or banning a user
> with the pre post moderation in newsgroups.
Parse error.
> Here is your hint: The post on 4chan is always public BEFORE the
> moderation and therefore is in fact not moderation as performed on
> USENET. Calling it moderation is false when in fact it is simply post
> facto clean-up.
So you concede that 4chan is actually moderated. Fine.
Also you prefer retromoderation to standard moderation. Fine.
But then you are playing silly word games to avoid looking wrong.
Stop being an emo and take it like a man.
--
Alexander Bartolich
> [...]
> You actually believe that the moderation post facto on a single server
> is the same as usenet group moderation?
The 4chan network consists of only a single server. So any post removal
on that one server instantaneously affects the whole network.
The concept of "moderation post facto" is known as retromoderation on
Usenet. See appendix B of the Cancel Messages FAQ:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/news/cancel-faq/appendix/
The design of Usenet puts availability over consistency.
This has advantages:
- break down of one news server does not take down the whole Usenet
- loss of a post (or the complete news spool) on one server leaves
a whole network of backups
- because data is replicated world wide users can chose the server
that best fits their location
But this also has disadvantages:
- latency is indeterminate (think of uucp or newsx)
- policy is not enforced (retention, acception of cancels, cleanfeed,
etc. differ greatly from site to site)
- there is no central account database, this makes it hard to verify
the author of a post
Usenet II tried to establish means for reliable retromoderation (among
other things), but failed. NoCeM tries to establish means for reliable
retromoderation (and nothing else), but meets overarching apathy.
Meanwhile the classic mechanism for retromoderation--third party cancel
controls--has fallen out of fashion as its misuse ("rogue cancel")
causes sites to deactivate third party cancels completely.
> Differ that from a usenet admin killing a post or banning a user
> with the pre post moderation in newsgroups.
Parse error.
> Here is your hint: The post on 4chan is always public BEFORE the
> moderation and therefore is in fact not moderation as performed on
> USENET. Calling it moderation is false when in fact it is simply post
> facto clean-up.
So you concede that 4chan is actually moderated. Fine.
Aratzio
Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:18 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
>>feel I must continue in my efforts.
>
>You Bastard.
Excuse me, my parents were married, to each other.
Aratzio
>Aratzio wrote:
>> [...]
>> You actually believe that the moderation post facto on a single server
>> is the same as usenet group moderation?
>
>The 4chan network consists of only a single server. So any post removal
>on that one server instantaneously affects the whole network.
Yes, so it is essence the exact same effect as a new admin removing a
post or user from their server, post facto. A normal usenet occurance
that is not called moderation but TOS/AUP enforcement.
The networked nature of usenet makes that moot on usenet, therefore
the moderation scheme on 4chan is not the moderation scheme of usenet
and therefore your claims of comparison of a fail.
<snip>
Alexander Bartolich
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:17:02 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
> probation for writing:
>
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> You actually believe that the moderation post facto on a single server
>>> is the same as usenet group moderation?
>>
>>The 4chan network consists of only a single server. So any post removal
>>on that one server instantaneously affects the whole network.
>
> Yes, so it is essence the exact same effect as a new admin removing a
> post or user from their server, post facto.
Or a cancel removing a post throughout the net ...
> A normal usenet occurance that is not called moderation but TOS/AUP
> enforcement.
Never heard about that. An admin either makes use of his right to send
second party cancels or does not bother.
> The networked nature of usenet makes that moot on usenet, therefore
> the moderation scheme on 4chan is not the moderation scheme of usenet
It is possible to implement retromoderation on Usenet. However, because
current mechanisms are rather unreliable this is typically used only
when 100 % precision is not required, i.e. with spam cancels. And I
would even suggest that the number of posts affected by retromoderation
exceeds standard moderation.[1]
> and therefore your claims of comparison of a fail.
Why?
Seriously, from a freedom-of-speech point of view, what's the difference
whether your post never appears in $GROUP/$BOARD or whether it's removed
a few minutes after arrival?
--
[1] On my server I receive about 3000 messages following the $alz
convention per day. Not counting hierarchies that are actually
mailing lists (fido7.*, linux.* and perl.*) there are about 700
moderated groups. It would require 4.3 posts per day across all
moderated groups to reach 3000 messages.
--
Adam H. Kerman
>Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>>K A Cannon wrote:
>>>You are condoning the whining of people who are getting trolled and
>>>giving in to the gratuitous insults and then are coming to the Big
>>>Eight Board and pleading for help because *they* are not intelligent
>>>enough to control their impulses and can't use a killfile nor can be
>>>bothered to learn the very basics of the very UseNet system they
>>>participate in.
>>Usenet is the only major forum that is principally unmoderated.
>>Usenet is also rapidly losing users.
>>Just a coincidence?
>Whether it's a coincidence or not, I don't think Usenet will be helped
>by losing the characteristic that distinguishes it from other methods
>of discussion.
>>>So continue to give in to the whims of whining and pathetic lusers who
>>>are not intelligent enough to fix their own problems which are so
>>>easily remedied on THE FUCKING CLIENT SIDE.
>>Well, if you don't give the customer what the customer wants then
>>you won't have any customers.
>>Now you might say that you don't need no whining customers.
>>And that Usenet is better off without those pathetic lusers.
>>But please, think about how the majority of users nowadays gets Usenet
>>access: through servers maintained by ISPs, universities, employers.
>>Oh, and last but not least, Google Groups.
>But you're one of the people who are putting that right. The existence
>of Albasani, Eternal-September, AIOE, DataBasix etc causes me to be
>optimistic about the future of Usenet.
>>These Usenet providers will stop their services if usage falls below
>>a minimum threshold. What then?
>Then Usenet will be smaller, but better.
>>>I am surprised PJR has such faith in you....You are obviously a
>>>tool/fool. You seem to go into frothy ecstasy when you contemplate
>>>limiting freedom of expression.
>>>I wince at what the likes of you and your ilk portend for UseNet.
>>Perhaps the global meltdown of commercial Usenet will be the birth
>>of an independent network, like in the days of the BBS. However, I'm
>>quite sure that sociopaths will have no place in such a net built by
>>altruists.
>>So be careful with your wishes. A Usenet without whining, pathetic
>>lusers might turn out to be the Usenet without you.
>Are you aware that you're addressing a fellow newsadmin?
He talks like that to me, too, and I'm a user. Kevin shouldn't feel
singled out.
K. A. Cannon
wrote:
That could not be more false you trolling falsifier.
I have it from a good source that you are devil spawn hellbent on
destroying newsgroups.
Kathy Morgan
> Aratzio wrote:
>
> > Differ that from a usenet admin killing a post or banning a user
> > with the pre post moderation in newsgroups.
>
> Parse error.
FWIW, when I first joined NewsGuy, I of course subscribed to
newsguy.general (which btw was moderated). Under discussion at that
time was the fact that NewsGuy had permanently banned all posts from
some particular individual. I don't remember the guy's name, but it was
the policy on NewsGuy because of something he had done to irritate them
to silently drop all posts from that person. This was confirmed on the
group by the NewsGuy personnel. Their server, their rules.
The point is, there have been news servers (probably numerous, although
I only know of that one) who in fact did/do kill posts and ban
particular users.
--
Kathy
Aratzio
Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:40:45 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:20:07 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, K. A.
>>Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
>>writing:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:18 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
>>>>feel I must continue in my efforts.
>>>
>>>You Bastard.
>>
>>Excuse me, my parents were married, to each other.
>
>That could not be more false you trolling falsifier.
>I have it from a good source that you are devil spawn hellbent on
>destroying newsgroups.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Aratzio
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 01:17:02 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
>> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
>> probation for writing:
>>
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> You actually believe that the moderation post facto on a single server
>>>> is the same as usenet group moderation?
>>>
>>>The 4chan network consists of only a single server. So any post removal
>>>on that one server instantaneously affects the whole network.
>>
>> Yes, so it is essence the exact same effect as a new admin removing a
>> post or user from their server, post facto.
>
>Or a cancel removing a post throughout the net ...
No longer an effective tool. Ergo a pathetic diversion.
>
>> A normal usenet occurance that is not called moderation but TOS/AUP
>> enforcement.
>
>Never heard about that. An admin either makes use of his right to send
>second party cancels or does not bother.
Woot, strawman!!!! Who said anything about cancels?
>
>> The networked nature of usenet makes that moot on usenet, therefore
>> the moderation scheme on 4chan is not the moderation scheme of usenet
>
>It is possible to implement retromoderation on Usenet. However, because
>current mechanisms are rather unreliable this is typically used only
>when 100 % precision is not required, i.e. with spam cancels. And I
>would even suggest that the number of posts affected by retromoderation
>exceeds standard moderation.[1]
So your evidence is something that is not used and does not work.
>
>> and therefore your claims of comparison of a fail.
>
>Why?
>
Because you didn't make an apples to apples comparison. You claimed
web post facto moderation to be the same as pre-publication moderation
of usenet.
<snip>
Aratzio
kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) got double secret probation for
writing:
>Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
single server is not usenet.
Kathy Morgan
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:59:26 -0800, in the land of news.groups,
> kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) got double secret probation for
> writing:
>
> >> Aratzio wrote:
> >>
> >> > Differ that from a usenet admin killing a post or banning a user
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> > with the pre post moderation in newsgroups.
> >
> >The point is, there have been news servers (probably numerous, although
> >I only know of that one) who in fact did/do kill posts and ban
> >particular users.
>
> single server is not usenet.
No, you're right, but YOU are the one who brought up "*a* usenet admin."
(emphasis added)
--
Kathy
Alexander Bartolich
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:26:58 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
> probation for writing:
>>Aratzio wrote:
>>> Yes, so it is essence the exact same effect as a new admin removing a
>>> post or user from their server, post facto.
>>
>>Or a cancel removing a post throughout the net ...
>
> No longer an effective tool. Ergo a pathetic diversion.
Deducing from the fact that something is not 100 % effective that it
is 0 % effective greatly exceeds my powers of reasoning. I must
concede defeat to your divine logic.
>>> A normal usenet occurance that is not called moderation but TOS/AUP
>>> enforcement.
>>
>>Never heard about that. An admin either makes use of his right to send
>>second party cancels or does not bother.
>
> Woot, strawman!!!! Who said anything about cancels?
You claim that local removal of posts on single Usenet servers is
widespread "TOS/AUP enforcement". I doubt this claim. You then do
not even try to back it up with numbers or experience. Once again
I must concede defeat to your divine logic.
>>> The networked nature of usenet makes that moot on usenet, therefore
>>> the moderation scheme on 4chan is not the moderation scheme of usenet
>>
>>It is possible to implement retromoderation on Usenet. However, because
>>current mechanisms are rather unreliable this is typically used only
>>when 100 % precision is not required, i.e. with spam cancels. And I
>>would even suggest that the number of posts affected by retromoderation
>>exceeds standard moderation.[1]
>
> So your evidence is something that is not used and does not work.
3000 spam cancels per day is something that is not used and does not
work? Your reasoning makes you God amongst gods.
>>> and therefore your claims of comparison of a fail.
>>
>>Why?
>>
> Because you didn't make an apples to apples comparison. You claimed
> web post facto moderation to be the same as pre-publication moderation
> of usenet.
I will repeat my question:
Seriously, from a freedom-of-speech point of view, what's the difference
whether your post never appears in $GROUP/$BOARD or whether it's removed
a few minutes after arrival?
Please answer, oh, Lord.
--
Aratzio
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:26:58 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
>> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
>> probation for writing:
>>>Aratzio wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Yes, so it is essence the exact same effect as a new admin removing a
>>>> post or user from their server, post facto.
>>>
>>>Or a cancel removing a post throughout the net ...
>>
>> No longer an effective tool. Ergo a pathetic diversion.
>
>Deducing from the fact that something is not 100 % effective that it
>is 0 % effective greatly exceeds my powers of reasoning. I must
>concede defeat to your divine logic.
Demonstrate that it has ANY effectiveness. You used cancels as a data
point it is your requirement to support that the datapoint is in fact
a valid referent and not simply a strawman to deflect, as charged.
Feel free, since you supposedly have access to server side data, to
demonstrate "a cancel removing a post throughout the net" since the
creation of 4chan.
Your evidence to support that you did not use a strawman goes here:
>
>>>> A normal usenet occurance that is not called moderation but TOS/AUP
>>>> enforcement.
>>>
>>>Never heard about that. An admin either makes use of his right to send
>>>second party cancels or does not bother.
>>
>> Woot, strawman!!!! Who said anything about cancels?
>
>You claim that local removal of posts on single Usenet servers is
>widespread "TOS/AUP enforcement". I doubt this claim. You then do
>not even try to back it up with numbers or experience. Once again
>I must concede defeat to your divine logic.
Widespread? Really, I said that? I stated:
:Yes, so it is essence the exact same effect as a new admin removing a
:post or user from their server, post facto.
Please feel free to equate your confabulation of my comparison of
methods with the actual wording:
>
>>>> The networked nature of usenet makes that moot on usenet, therefore
>>>> the moderation scheme on 4chan is not the moderation scheme of usenet
>>>
>>>It is possible to implement retromoderation on Usenet. However, because
>>>current mechanisms are rather unreliable this is typically used only
>>>when 100 % precision is not required, i.e. with spam cancels. And I
>>>would even suggest that the number of posts affected by retromoderation
>>>exceeds standard moderation.[1]
>>
>> So your evidence is something that is not used and does not work.
>
>3000 spam cancels per day is something that is not used and does not
>work? Your reasoning makes you God amongst gods.
Keep working that strawman.
The post facto moderation process is not newsgroup moderation process.
Which was your essential claim when trying to prove that 4chan has
"moderation".
Post facto single server removal of posts or users is 100% effective
for subset, but does not prevent the publishing of the original
article. Ergo is not the same as single newsgroup moderation as was
the discussion.
Pre-publish moderation of the article is not performed on 4chan and
therefore the method of "moderation" on 4chan cannot be considered
moderation with regard to individual usenet newsgroup moderation.
Moderation of the global of USENET is only affected on an ad hoc basis
in agreement between servers and is far from 100% effective.
>
>>>> and therefore your claims of comparison of a fail.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>> Because you didn't make an apples to apples comparison. You claimed
>> web post facto moderation to be the same as pre-publication moderation
>> of usenet.
>
>I will repeat my question:
No,that is just another strawman:
>
>Seriously, from a freedom-of-speech point of view, what's the difference
>whether your post never appears in $GROUP/$BOARD or whether it's removed
>a few minutes after arrival?
Who said anything about freedom of speech issues? Quit redefining the
referents in hopes of winning the argument. The statement was that
4chan does not moderate and is growing. Since the discussion was about
newsgroup moderation the methods employed by 4chan are not the same as
newsgroup moderation and therefore as such do not qualify as newsgroup
moderation. Unless you can claim your link to the "moderation" of
4chan is the same as the pre-publish newsgroup moderation then the
statement stands.
At least try to argue the merits of your position rather than run
around waving your hands bringing up new and unrelated concerns with
each and everyone of your failures.
>
>Please answer, oh, Lord.
Well, that is simple:
Case 1: Only the moderator has read the post not the public.
Case 2: Anyone with access to the server can read the post up to the
point of remobval and if quoted the posted material is retained.
Now, do you want to try that again and compare individual newsgroup
moderation process (the actual subject) with post facto moderation of
posts and users?
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:59:26 -0800, in the land of news.groups,
>> kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>> >> Aratzio wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Differ that from a usenet admin killing a post or banning a user
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> > with the pre post moderation in newsgroups.
>> >
>> >The point is, there have been news servers (probably numerous, although
>> >I only know of that one) who in fact did/do kill posts and ban
>> >particular users.
>>
>> single server is not usenet.
>
>No, you're right, but YOU are the one who brought up "*a* usenet admin."
>(emphasis added)
Yes, I did.
Now, the question (regardless of my punctuation) was for a difference
FROM that. The statement is a given and that did not actually require
supportive discussion. Enlivening the discussion with your personal
experience with regard to Newsguy is exactly what I expect from you,
gormless nonsense.
The response was a hope that you would be able to follow and regress
to the discussion and actually contribute something of value to the
discussion rather than your usual maunderings.
ah
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:40:45 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:20:07 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, K. A.
>>Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
>>writing:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:18 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
>>>>feel I must continue in my efforts.
>>>
>>>You Bastard.
>>
>>Excuse me, my parents were married, to each other.
>
> That could not be more false you trolling falsifier.
> I have it from a good source that you are devil spawn hellbent on
> destroying newsgroups.
Usernet's dead.
--
ah
Brian Mailman
> Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> Then Usenet will be smaller, but better.
>
But better than Boninistan.
B/
Brian Mailman
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:25:26 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
> probation for writing:
>>The difference between wilderness and a camping place is that the
>>latter has planning and policy. Now you can indeed argue that a free
>>man has the god given right to defecate at any place, any time. And
>>that making replies to nature's call off-topic everwhere but at the
>>latrine is a leap into totalitarian fascist censorship. Don't expect
>>to find many followers, though.
>
>
> You actually believe that the moderation post facto on a single server
> is the same as usenet group moderation? Differ that from a usenet
> admin killing a post or banning a user with the pre post moderation in
> newsgroups.
>
> Here is your hint: The post on 4chan is always public BEFORE the
> moderation and therefore is in fact not moderation as performed on
> USENET. Calling it moderation is false when in fact it is simply post
> facto clean-up.
Kinda reads like D. Stussy.
B/
Brian Mailman
I didn't think close relatives was legal in California?
B/
Brian Mailman
> Deducing from the fact that something is not 100 % effective that it
> is 0 % effective greatly exceeds my powers of reasoning....
The bambies have always gone back and forth on that, depending. Always
"interesting" to see the flip-flopping depending on the agenda presented.
B/
Brian Mailman
> Enlivening the discussion with your personal experience with regard
> to Newsguy is exactly what I expect from you, gormless nonsense.
Please give an example of gormful nonsense, or even nonsense, fully gormed.
B/
Aratzio
<splif...@gmail.com> got double secret probation for writing:
>K. A. Cannon wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:40:45 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:20:07 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, K. A.
>>>Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
>>>writing:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:18 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
>>>>>feel I must continue in my efforts.
>>>>
>>>>You Bastard.
>>>
>>>Excuse me, my parents were married, to each other.
>>
>> That could not be more false you trolling falsifier.
>> I have it from a good source that you are devil spawn hellbent on
>> destroying newsgroups.
>
>Usernet's dead.
It is all my fault.
Aratzio
Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:20:07 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, K. A.
>> Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:18 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
>>>>feel I must continue in my efforts.
>>>
>>>You Bastard.
>>
>> Excuse me, my parents were married, to each other.
>
>I didn't think close relatives was legal in California?
>
>B/
I don't know about you but I am pretty sure all my close relatives are
legal.
Aratzio
Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:25:26 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
>> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
>> probation for writing:
>
>>>The difference between wilderness and a camping place is that the
>>>latter has planning and policy. Now you can indeed argue that a free
>>>man has the god given right to defecate at any place, any time. And
>>>that making replies to nature's call off-topic everwhere but at the
>>>latrine is a leap into totalitarian fascist censorship. Don't expect
>>>to find many followers, though.
>>
>>
>> You actually believe that the moderation post facto on a single server
>> is the same as usenet group moderation? Differ that from a usenet
>> admin killing a post or banning a user with the pre post moderation in
>> newsgroups.
>>
>> Here is your hint: The post on 4chan is always public BEFORE the
>> moderation and therefore is in fact not moderation as performed on
>> USENET. Calling it moderation is false when in fact it is simply post
>> facto clean-up.
>
>Kinda reads like D. Stussy.
>
>B/
Germanic nihilist author?
Aratzio
Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Aratzio wrote:
Intelligent nonsense: Trolling
Anything else?
"The Great One"
"-= Hawk =-" <Ha...@SPAMcfl.SUCKSrr.com> wrote in message news:u9g4d5pcbnor4gipj...@isp5.newshosting.com...
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:04:01 -0400, ah <splif...@gmail.com>
> scribbled:
>
> >K. A. Cannon wrote:
> >> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:40:45 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:20:07 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, K. A.
> >>>Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
> >>>writing:
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:18 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>><snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
> >>>>>feel I must continue in my efforts.
> >>>>
> >>>>You Bastard.
> >>>
> >>>Excuse me, my parents were married, to each other.
> >>
> >> That could not be more false you trolling falsifier.
> >> I have it from a good source that you are devil spawn hellbent on
> >> destroying newsgroups.
> >
> >Usernet's dead.
>
We're doing that now !!
--
John C.
Alexander Bartolich
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 10:03:08 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,
> Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> got double secret
> probation for writing:
>>Seriously, from a freedom-of-speech point of view, what's the difference
>>whether your post never appears in $GROUP/$BOARD or whether it's removed
>>a few minutes after arrival?
> Case 1: Only the moderator has read the post not the public.
>
> Case 2: Anyone with access to the server can read the post up to the
> point of remobval and if quoted the posted material is retained.
And what *difference* does that make?
The administrators of 4chan have the right and the means to remove
any post on their site, for any reason, at any time. Additionally
they forbid any discussion about it:
http://www.4chan.org/rules
# 8. Complaining about 4chan (its policies, moderation, etc.) on the
# imageboards can result in post deletion and banishment. The
# administrator will address your questions, comments, complaints,
# and concerns via e-mail.
On Usenet similar rights to filter postings are available only in
moderated groups,[1] while a similar rule to outlaw criticism of
policy throughout the whole friggin' hierarchy is unthinkable.[2]
Or to put it in another way: on 4chan discussions like this would be
suppressed from the start. Perhaps we (TM) should learn from them.
--
[1] On the BIG8 292 / 2286 = 13 % percent of groups are moderated.
In de.* only 19 / 460 = 4 %
In uk.* only 12 / 411 = 3 %
[2] In the BIG8 every topic is on-topic in at least one group, with
misc.misc being the last resort.
--
Steve Bonine
> [1] On the BIG8 292 / 2286 = 13 % percent of groups are moderated.
It would be instructive to see these numbers adjusted for reality, with
dead groups removed.
Alexander Bartolich
Hmm. Counting moderated groups where at least one post exists in the
spool might look like this:
awk '/^(comp|humanities|misc|news|rec|sci|soc|talk)\..* m$/ && $2 - $3 > 0 {n++}END{print n}' /var/lib/news/active
The BIG8 currently have a retention of 370 days on my server.
Running above script with different values gives the following table:
| Minimum number of posts | Number of groups |
+-------------------------+------------------+
| <= 0 (empty) + 121 |
| > 0 + 171 |
| > 10 + 141 |
| > 100 + 87 |
| > 1000 + 40 |
| > 10000 + 9 |
+-------------------------+------------------+
171 / 2286 = 7 %
Anyway, the top performers are:
comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica 0000046308 0000034827 m
humanities.philosophy.objectivism 0000091515 0000078905 m
misc.activism.progressive 0000110128 0000098335 m
misc.writing.screenplays.moderated 0000103000 0000082519 m
news.answers 0000031441 0000021144 m
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated 0000061214 0000049919 m
rec.guns 0000092232 0000082050 m
soc.culture.jewish.moderated 0000148875 0000112831 m
talk.origins 0000759706 0000473981 m
--
Aratzio
Hawk =- <Ha...@SPAMcfl.SUCKSrr.com> got double secret probation for
writing:
>On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:04:01 -0400, ah <splif...@gmail.com>
>scribbled:
>
>>K. A. Cannon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:40:45 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:20:07 -0400, in the land of alt.aratzio, K. A.
>>>>Cannon <kca...@insurgent.orgy> got double secret probation for
>>>>writing:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:10:18 -0700, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Additionally, if writing the truth causes you such discomfiture, I
>>>>>>feel I must continue in my efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>>You Bastard.
>>>>
>>>>Excuse me, my parents were married, to each other.
>>>
>>> That could not be more false you trolling falsifier.
>>> I have it from a good source that you are devil spawn hellbent on
>>> destroying newsgroups.
>>
>>Usernet's dead.
>
>Let's do unspeakable things with the corpse!
Make it wear bow ties!
Aratzio
And again:
How is that similar to USENET newsgroup moderation which was your
statement?
Steve Bonine
> Steve Bonine wrote:
>> Alexander Bartolich wrote:
>>
>>> [1] On the BIG8 292 / 2286 = 13 % percent of groups are moderated.
>> It would be instructive to see these numbers adjusted for reality, with
>> dead groups removed.
>
> Hmm. Counting moderated groups where at least one post exists in the
> spool might look like this:
>
> awk '/^(comp|humanities|misc|news|rec|sci|soc|talk)\..* m$/ && $2 - $3 > 0 {n++}END{print n}' /var/lib/news/active
>
> The BIG8 currently have a retention of 370 days on my server.
> Running above script with different values gives the following table:
>
> | Minimum number of posts | Number of groups |
> +-------------------------+------------------+
> | <= 0 (empty) + 121 |
> | > 0 + 171 |
> | > 10 + 141 |
> | > 100 + 87 |
> | > 1000 + 40 |
> | > 10000 + 9 |
> +-------------------------+------------------+
>
> 171 / 2286 = 7 %
You adjusted the numerator of the fraction, but not the denominator.
How many of the 2,286 groups are dead? That's much harder to answer for
unmoderated newsgroups, and it's not really easy even for moderated ones.
For example, you've assumed that moderated groups with less than 10
posts per year are dead. The fact that there are 171 of these is an
interesting fact, but I'm not sure how valid your assumption is. For
example, news.admin.moderation continues to have it's "welcome" article
posted twice per month, but it doesn't have a working moderation
platform. A newsgroup with less than one post per month isn't really
viable unless it's an announce group.
I am not really interested in getting back into the discussion of dead
groups and what to do with them. The definition and detection of "dead"
is difficult, time consuming, and contentious. The information derived
from such a study would be interesting, but not worth the time to produce.
Thanks for taking the time to further analyze the data.
Mark Kramer
Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:38:40 +0000 (UTC), in the land of news.groups,>>blackhelicopter.databasix.com is currently ranked 1206th place in the
>>TOP1000. Your users don't seem to produce much content.
>
>Umm, how does one place 1206 in the Top 1000?
The same way one gets to Carnegie Hall.
Practice.
Mark Kramer
Steve Bonine <s...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Peter J Ross wrote:
>
>> Then Usenet will be smaller, but better.
>
>Like FidoNet.
Death of Usenet predicted, film at 11. Sorry, I meant "flash animation
at 11:30."
Mark Kramer
Alexander Bartolich <alexander...@gmx.at> wrote:
>Usenet II tried to establish means for reliable retromoderation (among
>other things),
Usenet II tried to tie the hands of the admins by making them agree to
the "standards" set by the Usenet II controlers. They were unable to
succeed in limiting propogation (one of the standards that UsenetII
sites had to follow), so the fact they didn't succeed in the overall
goal is unremarkable.
>but failed.
Yes. Badly. And in doing so, created more bad experiences for Usenet users
than they solved by cleaning anything up. On those sites where Usenet II
leaked, users were faced with normal-looking Usenet groups where their
articles were postable but they never got a response. People left Usenet
II groups thinking that Usenet was useless since nobody responded to
anything they posted.
Sort of like really poorly propogated groups. No, EXACTLY like really
poorly propogated groups, because that's what they were. Sort of like
the current newgroup/rmgroup mishmash is doing to Usenet.
>NoCeM tries to establish means for reliable
>retromoderation (and nothing else), but meets overarching apathy.
NoCeM tried to create a new kind of control message acted upon by clients
and not servers, and thus was doomed to failure from the start. The
authors of NoCeM didn't have the abilities to issue patches for the
common newsreaders or the authority to get them installed. They wound
up having as little effect on Usenet as a whole as do their similarly
named counterparts in the insect world on the lives of elephants.
>Meanwhile the classic mechanism for retromoderation--third party cancel
>controls--has fallen out of fashion as its misuse ("rogue cancel")
>causes sites to deactivate third party cancels completely.
Retroactive Moderation met its death at the hands of its creator during
the Remarkable ARMM Flood of News.Groups in ... what, '92?
Adam H. Kerman
followup to the Treehouse, but to news.groups. I expect to receive,
shortly, a lecture from Squirrel Kathy or Squirrel Steve about my tone.
Don't bother.
Big-8 Management Board <bo...@big-8.org> wrote:
>The following were newly elected to the Board:
>- Alexander Bartolich
Due to certain rules imposed on his subscribers, Mr. Bartolich has a
serious conflict of interest in serving on the Big 8 Management Board.
I am going to renew my objection to the rules imposed on subscribers to
news.albasani.net who wish to participate in configging discussions. For
those who don't know, posters are required to set followups when
crossposting to a configging newsgroup. It's his ham handed way of
attempting to prevent his own subscribers from posting to certain threads
that he personally finds objectionable.
Just this morning, I was prevented from posting a followup to the gentlemen
using Sea Monkey as a newsreader who was having trouble subscribing to
rec.audio.tech.
Mr. Bartolich cannot distinguish in his own mind between ordinary and
necessary threads in news.groups, alt.config, and any other configging
newsgroups he imposes this posting restriction upon and Threads From
Hell like the moderated pond scum proposal and socmen herding proposal,
both of which resulted in startups of moderated newsgroups that failed
in predictable and laughable manners. As I've pointed out numerous times
since then, we haven't had any additional threads, so the only thing he
is accomplishing is preventing ordinary and appropriate participation by
his subscribers.
Previously I'd raised this objection in a local newsgroup. However, now
that Mr. Bartolich has accepted the appointment to the Big 8 Management
Board, this policy that he imposes on his own subscribers is now in
serious conflict of interest to his ability to act in an unbiased manner
on the Board which is why I'm discussing it again in the international
newsgroup. It wasn't a Usenet matter before but now it has become a
matter of concern for the entire Usenet community. This is far worse
than the silly and ungentlemanly manner in which he engaged in "debate"
with Aratzio over the last couple of days.
Mr. Bartolich has invited me not to post through his server, which
obviously he forces me to do anyway when I wish to post a followup to
these threads against his proprietary, unconventional, and unwarranted
rules. Mr. Bartolich is of course free to prevent me from using his
server rather than changing his objectionable policies. If he does that,
it will provide endless merriment to the entire Usenet community that
follows configging issues.
Of course, the rule his server--his rules applies, as always. But the
general rule that one's actual behavior on Usenet is what counts versus
one's promises of future actions. So based on his current behavior, he
cannot possibly act in an ethical manner in fulfilling his duties on the
Board.
Kathy Morgan
> Due to certain rules imposed on his subscribers, Mr. Bartolich has a
> serious conflict of interest in serving on the Big 8 Management Board.
I disagree about the conflict of interest. Administering a well-run
server that plays nicely with the rest of Usenet is an asset, not a
disqualification.
> I am going to renew my objection to the rules imposed on subscribers to
> news.albasani.net who wish to participate in configging discussions. For
> those who don't know, posters are required to set followups when
> crossposting to a configging newsgroup.
If you don't like the rules for the free server you use, exercise your
option to obtain an account on a different server. There are many free
and paid options out there.
> Just this morning, I was prevented from posting a followup to the gentlemen
> using Sea Monkey as a newsreader who was having trouble subscribing to
> rec.audio.tech.
That discussion has been inappropriately crossposted between news.groups
and rec.audio.tech. It is off topic in both groups. Setting a followup
to an appropriate group is the right thing to do.
--
Kathy, speaking just for myself