Usurp the B8MB
Dave Balderstone
news.groups to establish a method to determine which proposed groups in
the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message sent out?
Why are we arguing with the "Founders"? Let's just do the thing...
It's obvious there are a lot of people that think the "Founders" aka
the "beighters" are illegitimate.
So let's establish a competitive process. If the news admins accept it,
then we win. If they reject it, the 'beighters win.
What say you?
Doug McLaren
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
| Is there any reason that a group of sane people
A group of sane people? Here? Surely, you jest!
| could not use news.groups to establish a method to determine which
| proposed groups in the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message
| sent out?
I suspect you could certainly do what you're proposing.
The problem would be that any control messages you send out (newgroup
messages, I assume) would be generally ignored by the vast majority of
news servers out there.
If you were to forge the From: address to include the address of the
right person, you might have somewhat better luck, but without your
message being PGP signed with the appropriate key, or without
contacting each server admin individually and convincing them to add
your group manually, I doubt you'd get your group added on more than
5% of the news servers out there.
It actually used to work the way you're proposing -- anybody could
create groups, at first with no authentication at all and then later
authenticated only with the From: address. But many years of
accidents and abuse led us to the system in use today, which will
generally work to prevent you from succeeding at what you're
proposing.
| Why are we arguing with the "Founders"? Let's just do the thing...
The B8MB are not the `Founders'. Nobody currently on the B8MB really
was involved in founding Usenet that I'm aware of. At most we're just
the people currently put in charge of creating new groups (and a few
other things like removing idle groups and changing moderators and
such) by those with the keys to the kingdom.
Most of us have been using Usenet for a while, and a few currently run
or previously ran news servers, and many did or do other things with
Usenet, but I'm not aware of any of us who actually helped found
Usenet or even the Big-8 (or Big-7.)
| It's obvious there are a lot of people that think the "Founders" aka
| the "beighters" are illegitimate.
I suspect that it's not so much `a lot', but `a vocal few', but I
wouldn't really spend too much time arguing about it.
Personally, when I first heard of it's creation, I thought the B8MB
was a group trying to do exactly what you were proposing -- but upon
further investigation I learned that they did have the support of the
previous administration, and therefore did have a chance of success.
| So let's establish a competitive process. If the news admins accept it,
| then we win. If they reject it, the 'beighters win.
|
| What say you?
I'd say that years of abuse have stacked the odds against you (even if
you're not trying to be abusive) making a difference, but you're
probably welcome to try. As long as you don't forge your control
messages to say they're From: somebody else, you probably won't
attract too much unwanted attention from your ISP/NSP's abuse
department, but if you do, you might run into some problems with them.
You might want to run the idea by them first and see what they say,
just to make sure there aren't any surprises.
Out of curiosity, how would you do things differently than the B8MB?
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzied.us
99% of people have more than the average number of legs.
Jeremy Nixon
> Is there any reason that a group of sane people could not use
> news.groups to establish a method to determine which proposed groups in
> the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message sent out?
I suppose if you really hate Usenet that much and want to irreparably
damage it, you could do something stupid like that.
> So let's establish a competitive process. If the news admins accept it,
> then we win. If they reject it, the 'beighters win.
How about instead of trying to break Usenet, if you really think you can
do a better job, go start a new hierarchy? Of course, you won't, because
you care nothing about Usenet, your interest is only in destroying things,
and you *know* you can't do a better job -- you just like the conflict.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Thomas Lee
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> writes
>Is there any reason that a group of sane people could not use
>news.groups to establish a method to determine which proposed groups in
>the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message sent out?
You would not have the Big-8 PGP key which might limit the acceptance of
any such control mesagges.
I would assume that for your control messages to have any effect, you
could also need to forge from addresses etc. That might get your account
pulled.
It would be a shame to see such vandalism.
--
Thomas Lee - t...@psp.co.uk
A member of, but not speaking for, The Big-8 Management Board
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> transparently proposed:
I have no issue with this process. I'd say stay away from the
moderated proposals, that does seem to be the forte of the b8mb and
they do like their private playground.
But then again, I've been advocating that John Stanley, pain that he
can be, be placed as benevolent despot of b8 for a while.
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
>Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason that a group of sane people could not use
>> news.groups to establish a method to determine which proposed groups in
>> the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message sent out?
>
>I suppose if you really hate Usenet that much and want to irreparably
>damage it, you could do something stupid like that.
As opposed to what, placing lying, abusive usurpers in charge of the
b8? Like placing people who will lie in support of those self same
people on the board with them?
>
>> So let's establish a competitive process. If the news admins accept it,
>> then we win. If they reject it, the 'beighters win.
>
>How about instead of trying to break Usenet, if you really think you can
>do a better job, go start a new hierarchy? Of course, you won't, because
>you care nothing about Usenet, your interest is only in destroying things,
>and you *know* you can't do a better job -- you just like the conflict.
YAY, more hyperbole!
So other than looking like an idiot, what exactly does your
histrionics provide the discussion?
Here is the quandry, people disagree with you and the board. You and
the board refuse to listen in any way to the concerns. You are so
afraid of criticism you create a moderated group to protect yourselves
from the critics. The critics, realizing that you have no intention of
ever actually addressing the concerns of the critics foment revolt.
You scream like scalded cat because there are those who do not wish to
either accede to your authority nor accept your hyperbole as fact.
Funny how being authoritarian in your methods cause revolt.
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
>In message <210120072305154823%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave
>Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> writes
>>Is there any reason that a group of sane people could not use
>>news.groups to establish a method to determine which proposed groups in
>>the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message sent out?
>
>You would not have the Big-8 PGP key which might limit the acceptance of
>any such control mesagges.
>
>I would assume that for your control messages to have any effect, you
>could also need to forge from addresses etc. That might get your account
>pulled.
Why would anyone, excepting the forger Skirvin, need to forge any
message in either news.groups or control.*?
>
>It would be a shame to see such vandalism.
Then learn from your mistakes. Quit blaming "trolls" for problems of
your own making. Rational proposals like Haskell and Victory should
have been a clue. But no, you and the board have to try to protect
morons incapable of using a killfile.
"let's get involved in decade long flame wars and blame everyone but
ourselves when the process becomes a mess"
So will you continue to ignore the empirical evidence of Haskell and
Victory?
Thomas Lee
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> writes
>Why would anyone, excepting the forger Skirvin, need to forge any
>message in either news.groups or control.*?
I was assuming that vandals prepared to send rogue control messages
would do so by forging their from: address to increase the odds their
control message might be accepted by clueless news admins.
>>It would be a shame to see such vandalism.
>
>Then learn from your mistakes.
Indeed. Personally, I think this is great advice.
Thomas
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
>In message <itm9r21402qpp91ia...@4ax.com>, Aratzio
><a6ah...@sneakemail.com> writes
>
>>Why would anyone, excepting the forger Skirvin, need to forge any
>>message in either news.groups or control.*?
>
>I was assuming that vandals prepared to send rogue control messages
>would do so by forging their from: address to increase the odds their
>control message might be accepted by clueless news admins.
>
>>>It would be a shame to see such vandalism.
>>
>>Then learn from your mistakes.
>
>Indeed. Personally, I think this is great advice.
>
>Thomas
Care to expand? Or will you be assuming the standard plausible
deniablity defense?
Aratzio
transparently proposed:
>In message <itm9r21402qpp91ia...@4ax.com>, Aratzio
><a6ah...@sneakemail.com> writes
>
>>Why would anyone, excepting the forger Skirvin, need to forge any
>>message in either news.groups or control.*?
>
>I was assuming that vandals prepared to send rogue control messages
>would do so by forging their from: address to increase the odds their
>control message might be accepted by clueless news admins.
That was not what was proposed. Rather a whole different group would
in fact send the control messages. Create their own PGP key. Their own
From address. The point being, if this method works, the board is a
sham.
Since this was a challange from Jeremy, I see it as an opportunity to
allow the contrary opinion voice in the process. Something the board
has not allowed.
Still waiting for you or any other board member to explain how Haskell
and Victory were done so easily without the need for n.g.p. Not that I
expect you to admit the noise is of your own creation. Selecting to
get involved in flame wars in an official capacity is the problem, not
the trolls.
Brian Mailman
> In message <210120072305154823%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> writes
>> Is there any reason that a group of sane people could not use
>> news.groups to establish a method to determine which proposed
>> groups in the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message sent
>> out?
>
> You would not have the Big-8 PGP key which might limit the acceptance
> of any such control mesagges.
If such a thing were necessary... well, I've said this a couple times
now so this will be the last for a while. IF the people that Rebecca
Ore so desparately wishes were actually to return, that would be simply
a detail. There are *really* and *truly* malicious folk out there.
> I would assume that for your control messages to have any effect, you
> could also need to forge from addresses etc. That might get your
> account pulled.
You're living in the past.
I've been watching that kind of stuff in nanau and nanap. What used to
bring immediate outrage and swift action now just provokes hand-wringing
*at the most.*
> It would be a shame to see such vandalism.
Yes.
B/
Wayne Brown
> Thomas Lee wrote:
>
>> In message <210120072305154823%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
>> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> writes
>>> Is there any reason that a group of sane people could not use
>>> news.groups to establish a method to determine which proposed
>>> groups in the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message sent
>>> out?
>>
>> You would not have the Big-8 PGP key which might limit the acceptance
>> of any such control mesagges.
>
> If such a thing were necessary... well, I've said this a couple times
> now so this will be the last for a while. IF the people that Rebecca
> Ore so desparately wishes were actually to return, that would be simply
> a detail. There are *really* and *truly* malicious folk out there.
Such as...?
--
Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> (HPCC #1104)
Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)
Dave Balderstone
<t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> I would assume that for your control messages to have any effect, you
> could also need to forge from addresses etc.
Interesting that current beighters immediately assume some sort of
forgery.
Dave Balderstone
<t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> I was assuming that vandals prepared to send rogue control messages
> would do so by forging their from: address to increase the odds their
> control message might be accepted by clueless news admins.
Why would you assume such a thing? Just because Skirvin forges posts
doesn't mean everyone does it.
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
Their chairman is an expert.
Charles
Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> Is there any reason that a group of sane people could not use
> news.groups to establish a method to determine which proposed groups in
> the "Big 8" hierarchy would see a control message sent out?
You and your ilk are not sane.
> So let's establish a competitive process. If the news admins accept it,
> then we win. If they reject it, the 'beighters win.
LOL. You would lose any competition. You and your group of nuts are
obstructionists to creating new groups. You lose before you start.
--
Charles
Doug McLaren
To be fair, he didn't accuse you of or assume forgery. He just stated
what the odds of newgroup control messages posted by you actually
being acted upon were. (I'm not sure what `etc.' refers to, however
-- you're not likely to be able to do the PGP signature with the
correct key, and that's really the only other variable.)
Here's some estimates of the percentage of news servers out there that
will actually create the groups based on how the newgroup message goes
out :
1) Posted under your account/name: less than 1%.
2) Posted under the account/name of the person
listed as the `owner' of the Big-8: 3%
3) Posted under the same account as #2, and
also signed with the appropriate PGP key. 60%
Now, these figures are just estimates, and aren't really based on any
real carefully taken emperical data -- so please don't make them into
something they're not. (To be explicit: I have *not* tried to conduct
a study to determine how many news servers out there do create groups
when requested to by the B8MB, and the 60% figure is just a guess. If
somebody thinks the figure is higher or lower, that's fine.)
There is no assumption of forgery. However, *if* you were to forge
the appropriate email address in your posts, the odds of a group
you're asking to be created actually being created would go way up.
(The odds would still be low, but they would go way up.)
As long as you stick to method #1, you're not likely to have any
problems with your ISP/NSP's abuse department, and people would
(should?) not be calling you an `abuser' and such. If you were to
start using method #2, you'd probably have problems.
--
Doug McLaren, dou...@frenzied.us
Donuts. Is there anything they can't do? --Homer Simpson
Charles
> It would be a shame to see such vandalism.
The only likely vandalism will be their activity in this newsgroup.
They are inherently opposed to creating groups. To send out a control
message they would have to agree to create a newsgroup. Not likely to
ever happen. These people are about not creating groups.
--
Charles
Rebecca Ore
>>
>> But then again, I've been advocating that John Stanley, pain that he
>> can be, be placed as benevolent despot of b8 for a while.
>
> as I have a lot of respect for him.
Poor John, the only people who like him are trolls and mission posters.
If you want to surplant the Big Eight Management Board, you'd have to do
something like constructive work and cooperation and winning the confidence of
news admins. Starting with John Stanley is a way to nail your purpose to your
foot, for sure.
Aratzio
<spamtra...@verizon.net> got double secret probation because:
Of couse Rebecca can speak for the news admins because she is a close
personal friend of all the really important people on usenet.
Really, just ask her.
Dave Balderstone
<dougmc+usen...@frenzied.us> wrote:
> In article <220120071737200675%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> | In article <HL9d8A4W...@mail.psp.co.uk>, Thomas Lee
> | <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
> |
> | > I would assume that for your control messages to have any effect, you
> | > could also need to forge from addresses etc.
> |
> | Interesting that current beighters immediately assume some sort of
> | forgery.
>
> To be fair, he didn't accuse you of or assume forgery.
To be fair, I didn't claim he accused me of anything, and he actually
used the word "assume".
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>In article <11695138...@frenzied.us>, Doug McLaren
><dougmc+usen...@frenzied.us> wrote:
>
>> There is no assumption of forgery.
>
>Despite the actual use of the word "assume"
>
>> However, *if* you were to forge
>> the appropriate email address in your posts, the odds of a group
>> you're asking to be created actually being created would go way up.
>> (The odds would still be low, but they would go way up.)
>>
>> As long as you stick to method #1, you're not likely to have any
>> problems with your ISP/NSP's abuse department, and people would
>> (should?) not be calling you an `abuser' and such. If you were to
>> start using method #2, you'd probably have problems.
>
>I have not suggested forgery in any post. I suggested *competing* with
>the self-appointed, self-aggrandizing people who claim the ability to
>create Big 8 newsgroups.
>
>The personal attacks from the members of that group following my
>suggestion speak volumes.
Fear Factor: News.Groups
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 2007-01-22, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> But then again, I've been advocating that John Stanley, pain that he
> >> can be, be placed as benevolent despot of b8 for a while.
> >
> > I can easily live with that. I think John would be superb at the job,
> > as I have a lot of respect for him.
>
> Poor John, the only people who like him are trolls and mission posters.
>
> If you want to surplant the Big Eight Management Board, you'd have to do
> something like constructive work and cooperation and winning the confidence of
> news admins.
Precisely what I'm suggesting. Congratulations for understanding that.
> Starting with John Stanley is a way to nail your purpose to your
> foot, for sure.
And you know that news admins (in general) disagree with John's
understand of usenet and how it should operate precisely how?
Dave Balderstone
<for...@mac.com> wrote:
I'm working on RFD for this proposal, and will post it in the next week.
This is a positive idea aimed at strengthening usenet in general and
the Big 8 in particular.
Sharon B
wrote in <oisar2dacvc6aqjn7...@4ax.com>:
Do we have to eat live spiders? Cuz if we do, I'm getting DAEV to sub
me.
Phoebee Caulfield
B says...
What if we chocolate-coat them first?
--
"Meanwhile, somewhere in the twenty-first century, a young
girl named Phoebee Caulfield plops herself down on the sofa,
pops open a soda, and watches ... YOU!"
...PK
Jim Riley
wrote:
>In article <pDaWOtGK...@mail.psp.co.uk>,
>Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
[entire sentence restored. It was omitted by John Stanley].
>>I was assuming that vandals prepared to send rogue control messages
>>would do so by forging their from: address to increase the odds their
>>control message might be accepted by clueless news admins.
>Russ use to tell people that newgroups are just advisory and that anyone
>can send them. Now people who do it are vandals and their messages
>are "rogue".
I don't think that Russ Allbery meant for people to use the From
address of someone else.
--
Jim Riley
Jeremy Nixon
> This is a positive idea aimed at strengthening usenet in general and
> the Big 8 in particular.
And yet, the only effect it can possibly have is negative.
You are suggesting something that is likely to cause permanent damage to
the big-8, and which has exactly no chance of any positive outcome. At
best, you could create a situation where many news admins will simply
not honor *anyone's* control messages -- they're not going to try to
keep up with the political situation, they're just going to decide it's
more trouble than it's worth.
If you want to do this, start your own hierarchy. This reverses the
situation -- there is no damage you could do, the only outcome will
be either neutral or positive, and there is a 100% chance that you
can have your groups auto-created for a large portion of the Usenet
population. In other words, compete, don't merely try to destroy.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Sharon B
<pcaul...@notbex.edu> wrote in
<MPG.201f1882c...@notbxpats.edu>:
Fine with me; Dave's a big chocolate fan.
Dave Balderstone
Riley <jim...@pipeline.com> wrote:
And I *know* that forgery has not been suggested in this thread except
by the Beighters and their supporters.
I'm talking about replacing the Beighters, not pretending to *be* them.
Usenet doesn't need more of their nonsense. Usenet needs a responsible
way to quickly create useful newsgroups without having to give Skirvin
and his cronies a hand-job.
I'm suggesting that people who care about this consider competing with
the Beighters and let the news admins vote with their servers as to
which process they wish to acknowledge.
RFD to follow in a few days. Anyone who has useful suggestions for the
RFD can post here or contact me via email. In case it isn't obvious, I
prefer that discussions about usenet occur on usenet, but I will
respond to mail.
Jeremy Nixon
> (To be explicit: I have *not* tried to conduct a study to determine how
> many news servers out there do create groups when requested to by the
> B8MB, and the 60% figure is just a guess. If somebody thinks the figure
> is higher or lower, that's fine.)
It sounds reasonable for creation. Removals are much less widely honored,
for whatever reason.
> As long as you stick to method #1, you're not likely to have any
> problems with your ISP/NSP's abuse department, and people would
> (should?) not be calling you an `abuser' and such. If you were to
> start using method #2, you'd probably have problems.
The sending of control messages without forgery is not abuse. The
deliberate and systematic disruption of the management of a hierarchy,
however, is something I would very much consider abuse.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
> > This is a positive idea aimed at strengthening usenet in general and
> > the Big 8 in particular.
>
> And yet, the only effect it can possibly have is negative.
Black is white, eh?
> You are suggesting something that is likely to cause permanent damage to
> the big-8, and which has exactly no chance of any positive outcome. At
> best, you could create a situation where many news admins will simply
> not honor *anyone's* control messages -- they're not going to try to
> keep up with the political situation, they're just going to decide it's
> more trouble than it's worth.
I'm suggesting that your group can be REPLACED through the creation of
an alternate method of deciding what groups should have control
messages created for. I'm suggesting this be done in a public and
responsible manner. I'm suggesting something to be a permanent BENEFIT
to usenet.
> If you want to do this, start your own hierarchy. This reverses the
> situation -- there is no damage you could do, the only outcome will
> be either neutral or positive, and there is a 100% chance that you
> can have your groups auto-created for a large portion of the Usenet
> population. In other words, compete, don't merely try to destroy.
Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?
You do not own the right to send control messages for the Big 8. There
is no reason you can't be replaced, no matter how smugly you behave.
Jeremy Nixon
> LOL. You would lose any competition. You and your group of nuts are
> obstructionists to creating new groups. You lose before you start.
That's why he's not interested in providing competition. His motive
is disruption, plain and simple. If he were interested in competing
and actually creating newsgroups, he would suggest something that would
actually have that result, rather than something guaranteed not to have
that result.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
And is something that is only being suggested by the Beighters and
their supported in this thread.
I'll repeat again... I am proposing to replace the Beighters, not
pretend to be them.
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
As I've said, an RFD to discuss replacing the Beighters will be posted
in the next few days. There's no reason a process to create groups that
will be accepted by news admins cannot be put in place to replace you
folks and your nonsense.
Try to keep your panties dry in the meantime.
Rebecca Ore
The question isn't whether they agree or disagree with John's abstract vision
of usenet. The question is whether a bunch of trolls and one man with minimal
social skillz can interact reasonably with people who want to form groups and
with people who want to be reassured that the people in charge care about
usenet and know how various types of news sites work. The current board has
academic sites and large commercial sites covered, and may have smaller hobby
sites also covered (I don't know all the details on all of them). They've been
able to work patiently with more proponents than I've ever seen John be able to
work with.
I understand that you can't see your defects, but they're rather obvious to
others and making John your hero makes it even clearer that you couldn't work
with others.
Jeremy is an admin at a very large provider who is allowed to give feeds to
some very small sites. I peered with him when I ran a hobby server. He's one
of the good guys. Being technically skilled isn't enough to make someone one
of the good guys. John's vision of usenet is much more limited than most of
the Boards.
That Jeremy hasn't killfiled morons like Sharon B and Bob Officer shows that he
has an unusual amount of tolerance, more than I have. I've never seen John
show anything like it. And if the trolls think he's on their side, they'll
find out the hard way that he's not really.
Jeremy Nixon
> I'm suggesting that your group can be REPLACED through the creation of
> an alternate method of deciding what groups should have control
> messages created for. I'm suggesting this be done in a public and
> responsible manner.
But it won't happen that way. What you're suggesting is damaging to
Usenet as a whole, and even people who don't keep up with the day to day
politics will know it. But since they don't know the details, they
won't respond by choosing a side, they will respond by not choosing
any side and simply shut it off completely.
Can you not see that the *only* way Usenet works is if people agree on
what newsgroups exist?
> I'm suggesting something to be a permanent BENEFIT
> to usenet.
No, you are not. If you were interested in that, you would do it. If
you don't like the way this hierarchy is run, provide some competition.
What you're suggesting is not competition, it is disruption, plain and
simple, and will *not* result in groups being created. You have an
alternative, one that is *guaranteed* to result in your groups being
created, one that can only benefit Usenet, or failing that, have no
effect at all. But it's clear that your only motivation is to break
the existing system; you are not interested in benefiting Usenet.
> Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?
I'm not scared of competition. If it turns out that you can do a much
better job, that's great; if it turns out that you can do it so much
better that it makes us irrelevant, even better. I'll have more free
time back. It's not like there is any personal benefit to me, doing
this job. If someone else can do it better, I'm all for that; that's
good for Usenet, and that's the only reason I'm here.
As much as you want to believe that this has something to do with me,
it doesn't. You are flat-out wrong about me and you are wrong about
the Board. If you were to go and actually do something constructive,
you would come to see this -- there is no "power" here, there is no
benefit for us other than the good of Usenet.
You can kid yourself that I'm against your idea because it encroaches
on my, I dunno, territory or something, but that isn't the reason.
I'm against it because it would be disastrously bad for Usenet.
> You do not own the right to send control messages for the Big 8. There
> is no reason you can't be replaced, no matter how smugly you behave.
Of course we can be replaced. Why not try to do it in a way that isn't
bad for Usenet? You'll have my complete support, and I can guarantee
propagation of your groups from day one.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Aratzio
double secret probation because:
No, just mutant slugs
Jeremy Nixon
> I'm suggesting that people who care about this consider competing with
> the Beighters and let the news admins vote with their servers as to
> which process they wish to acknowledge.
How many news admins do you know, that you're under the woefully incorrect
impression that this would happen?
For that matter, how many news admins do you think there *are*? In reality
there are a lot fewer of us than there are Usenet sites. You may think
that every site has some dedicated news admin behind it, but that is far
from the case. If you go and create the kind of confusion that you want
to create it will not have a positive effect.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Rebecca Ore
>
> pretend to be them.
KoM was originally intended for such as you, not merely the insane.
Rebecca Ore
>
> in the next few days. There's no reason a process to create groups that
> will be accepted by news admins cannot be put in place to replace you
> folks and your nonsense.
I'd like to nominate you for Kook of the Month even thought it's against my
principles to do so. I suggest that it might not be against Kevin's
principles.
Usenet is not a ballot-stuffable democracy.
>
> Try to keep your panties dry in the meantime.
You need tin-foil for the one's you're wearing on your head.
Aratzio
got double secret probation because:
>Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>> This is a positive idea aimed at strengthening usenet in general and
>> the Big 8 in particular.
>
>And yet, the only effect it can possibly have is negative.
For the board and your reputation.
>
>You are suggesting something that is likely to cause permanent damage to
>the big-8, and which has exactly no chance of any positive outcome. At
>best, you could create a situation where many news admins will simply
>not honor *anyone's* control messages -- they're not going to try to
>keep up with the political situation, they're just going to decide it's
>more trouble than it's worth.
Well, that takes care of the board. Then maybe the process will be
done as chartered in the first place.
>
>If you want to do this, start your own hierarchy. This reverses the
>situation -- there is no damage you could do, the only outcome will
>be either neutral or positive, and there is a 100% chance that you
>can have your groups auto-created for a large portion of the Usenet
>population. In other words, compete, don't merely try to destroy.
Well maybe you should have taken people a little more seriously when
they tried to discuss things with you rather than having hissy fits
and calling proponents liars. You think your own actions do not have
consequence when you are in a position of authority. Until that
authority is challenged in a meaningful way, then it is time to
negotiate.
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
You charmer, you. Kisses.
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>
>RFD to follow in a few days. Anyone who has useful suggestions for the
>RFD can post here or contact me via email. In case it isn't obvious, I
>prefer that discussions about usenet occur on usenet, but I will
>respond to mail.
Look at some of the discussion about time limits. There were actually
some good ideas.
A readily available form with the blanks to fill in rather than having
to write it from scratch. No need to make things too difficult. Get
Adam Kerman and Brian Mailman involved there. Adam had some really
excellent ideas about what does not need to be in an RFD. Like Spam
verbiage.
2Rowdy has a newsgroup propagation tool. He may have emails for the
larger NSP or access to people with accounts.
Supreme overlord and a couple of minions.
Possible: John Stanley, Peter J Ross, Brian Mailman, Wayne Brown, Dave
Balderstone
Preferably 3 that have strong but differing opinions. No need to make
this a less interesting place.
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
> Of course we can be replaced. Why not try to do it in a way that isn't
> bad for Usenet? You'll have my complete support, and I can guarantee
> propagation of your groups from day one.
You still haven't explained how what I'm proposing is bad for usenet.
Please, do.
If you can convince me you're right, I'll withdraw.
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 2007-01-23, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >
> > As I've said, an RFD to discuss replacing the Beighters will be posted
> > in the next few days. There's no reason a process to create groups that
> > will be accepted by news admins cannot be put in place to replace you
> > folks and your nonsense.
>
> I'd like to nominate you for Kook of the Month even thought it's against my
> principles to do so.
Ooh, so scary you are.
> I suggest that it might not be against Kevin's
> principles.
Snort.
> Usenet is not a ballot-stuffable democracy.
Where have even mentioned voting? Or democracy. Cite, please?
I rate you a -2 as a reader.
Aratzio
got double secret probation because:
>Charles <for...@mac.com> wrote:
Contrary to your hyperbole, Dave is being quite clear in vision and
statement. You and the rest of the board are exaggerating the effect
and using FUD and derision to try to deflect from the simple fact,
Dave has an idea that can quite possibly work.
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>In article <12ravtq...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeremy Nixon
I want the rolaids concession at the next b8mb meeting.
Dave Balderstone
<jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
> For that matter, how many news admins do you think there *are*? In reality
> there are a lot fewer of us than there are Usenet sites. You may think
> that every site has some dedicated news admin behind it, but that is far
> from the case. If you go and create the kind of confusion that you want
> to create it will not have a positive effect.
Are you speaking for a collective "us", then?
Aratzio
got double secret probation because:
>Of course we can be replaced. Why not try to do it in a way that isn't
>bad for Usenet? You'll have my complete support, and I can guarantee
>propagation of your groups from day one.
You have a better plan? Go ahead Jeremy, explain what the alternative
you and the board have left those that disagree with b8 management.
procedures and existence. There is nothing left but a revolution. You
had your chance to work with the dissenting voices. You chose instead
to denigrate and vilify with your arrogance and your hyperbole. Live
with your choices.
Dave Balderstone
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
How do *you* spell relief?
Rebecca Ore
Only Reynolds Quilted Oven Ready for you. Remember it goes outside the
panties.
Brian Mailman
> Brian Mailman <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote:
>> Thomas Lee wrote:
>>> You would not have the Big-8 PGP key which might limit the acceptance
>>> of any such control mesagges.
>>
>> If such a thing were necessary... well, I've said this a couple times
>> now so this will be the last for a while. IF the people that Rebecca
>> Ore so desparately wishes were actually to return, that would be simply
>> a detail. There are *really* and *truly* malicious folk out there.
>
> Such as...?
No one here, that I know of.
B/
Rebecca Ore
>
>> Usenet is not a ballot-stuffable democracy.
>
> Where have even mentioned voting? Or democracy. Cite, please?
If you think you could get the support of any sane news admins, you need a
double layer of tinfoil.
>
> I rate you a -2 as a reader.
I second you as KoM if anyone else wants to nominate.
You know any real news admins or are you just trying to get attention as a
troll?
You're going to post a RFC and all the trolls will declare John Stanley head of
Usenet. And this will be utterly meaningless since it's just a troll.
If you're not planning to vote, then you're going to round up the Big Eight
Management Board and do what? How are you going to persuade Russ Allbery to
send the message for you?
I suspect that Jeremy, Skirvin and other have Russ's approval for what they're
doing way more than you do. What your gang appears to be doing here is
attempting to damage Usenet by making false accusations against people who are
volunteering, basically, to keep a list. You're, at best a malicious troll,
and if you're taking yourself seriously, you are a kook.
You're not offering a solution. I don't know if you're trolling or trying to
solve a non-problem, but you're contributing to why news proposals are
discussed in a moderate group. I think you're completely insane, but you could
just be trolling.
Everyone, but everyone on your side, is known to be a disruptor or a troll.
What is more likely than your putsch troll fest leading to anything good is
that the decisions will be made privately, among the news admins, and you
won't have a say in it, and there will be a real cabal.
And more and more places who aren't part of that system will drop usenet all
together since it's just a troll and spammer infested mess.
But you are getting your cookies now, aren't you, troll?
Aratzio
<pcaul...@notbex.edu> got double secret probation because:
>In article <ahtar21hqkt8iajj8...@4ax.com>, Sharon
>B says...
>
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:26:55 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
>> wrote in <oisar2dacvc6aqjn7...@4ax.com>:
>>
>> >On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:22:35 GMT, Dave Balderstone
>> ><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
>> >because:
>> >
>> >>In article <11695138...@frenzied.us>, Doug McLaren
>> >><dougmc+usen...@frenzied.us> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There is no assumption of forgery.
>> >>
>> >>Despite the actual use of the word "assume"
>> >>
>> >>> However, *if* you were to forge
>> >>> the appropriate email address in your posts, the odds of a group
>> >>> you're asking to be created actually being created would go way up.
>> >>> (The odds would still be low, but they would go way up.)
>> >>>
>> >>> As long as you stick to method #1, you're not likely to have any
>> >>> problems with your ISP/NSP's abuse department, and people would
>> >>> (should?) not be calling you an `abuser' and such. If you were to
>> >>> start using method #2, you'd probably have problems.
>> >>
>> >>I have not suggested forgery in any post. I suggested *competing* with
>> >>the self-appointed, self-aggrandizing people who claim the ability to
>> >>create Big 8 newsgroups.
>> >>
>> >>The personal attacks from the members of that group following my
>> >>suggestion speak volumes.
>> >
>> >Fear Factor: News.Groups
>>
>> Do we have to eat live spiders? Cuz if we do, I'm getting DAEV to sub
>> me.
>
>What if we chocolate-coat them first?
The DAEVs or the Spiders?
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> You're going to post a RFC and all the trolls will declare John Stanley head
> of
> Usenet. And this will be utterly meaningless since it's just a troll.
Define what you mean as troll.
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> If you're not planning to vote, then you're going to round up the Big Eight
> Management Board and do what? How are you going to persuade Russ Allbery to
> send the message for you?
More name dropping, Rebecca? I've not suggested asking Russ to do
anything.
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I suspect that Jeremy, Skirvin and other have Russ's approval for what they're
> doing way more than you do.
Suspicions are not fact, Rebecca.
> What your gang appears to be doing here is
> attempting to damage Usenet by making false accusations against people who are
> volunteering, basically, to keep a list.
Cool! Now I've been accused of having a gang in TWO Big 8 groups!
Maybe one day I'll actually organize such a thing.
I've accused no member of the Beight of *anything* in this thread.
Cite, please?
Or are you just trolling?
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>In article <slrnerb1re.4ih...@ottog.local>, Rebecca Ore
><spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2007-01-23, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > As I've said, an RFD to discuss replacing the Beighters will be posted
>> > in the next few days. There's no reason a process to create groups that
>> > will be accepted by news admins cannot be put in place to replace you
>> > folks and your nonsense.
>>
>> I'd like to nominate you for Kook of the Month even thought it's against my
>> principles to do so.
>
>Ooh, so scary you are.
And so well respected by the denizens of AUK. But I am however one of
the disrespectful denizens of AUK and I do believe Rebecca is using
k00k tactics to try to scare you. This is what the real denizens of
AUK call CotM. Coward of the Month.
>
>> I suggest that it might not be against Kevin's
>> principles.
>
>Snort.
While Kevin will disagree with this, it is well thought out and at
this point being taken as credible by several board members.
>
>> Usenet is not a ballot-stuffable democracy.
>
>Where have even mentioned voting? Or democracy. Cite, please?
>
>I rate you a -2 as a reader.
This is actually what Rebecca considers counter-trolling. She has a
funny definition of counter-trolling: posting like an idiot.
Cyli
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <HL9d8A4W...@mail.psp.co.uk>, Thomas Lee
><t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I would assume that for your control messages to have any effect, you
>> could also need to forge from addresses etc.
>
>Interesting that current beighters immediately assume some sort of
>forgery.
I thought it was, too. In a spooky chainsaw music sort of way.
--
r.bc: vixen
Minnow goddess.Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> You're not offering a solution.
I'm offering a challenge to a group of people that are doing things I
disagree with. It's called dissent, and rather than just whinging I'm
proposing to actually act on it.
I understand that you don't like it. Tough.
Aratzio
<spamtra...@verizon.net> got double secret probation because:
See, Rebecca, this is how one nominates for a Kook Award:
Threatening to nominate Dave Balderstone for a AUK award in hopes of
intimidating him into relenting in his revolution in news.groups.
For trying to nominate by proxy in hopes of intimidating Mr.
Balderstone.
I nominate Rebecca Ore for the January Coward of the Month
Seconds:
(That almost was a KotM for her hilarious & kooky belief that anyone
in AUK would second one of her nominations)
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Everyone, but everyone on your side, is known to be a disruptor or a troll.
> What is more likely than your putsch troll fest leading to anything good is
> that the decisions will be made privately, among the news admins, and you
> won't have a say in it, and there will be a real cabal.
Why do you have a problem with news admins making decisions about what
groups they'll carry on their servers? They do that now.
What I'm proposing is a competing process to the Beight making
suggestions to the news admins by issuing control messages.
You see this as threatening to... who? Usenet?
<shakes head>
Aratzio
Revolt.
Cyli
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 2007-01-22, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> But then again, I've been advocating that John Stanley, pain that he
>>> can be, be placed as benevolent despot of b8 for a while.
>>
>> I can easily live with that. I think John would be superb at the job,
>> as I have a lot of respect for him.
>
>Poor John, the only people who like him are trolls and mission posters.
Well, you've called me a troll once, so....
>
>If you want to surplant the Big Eight Management Board, you'd have to do
>something like constructive work and cooperation and winning the confidence of
>news admins. Starting with John Stanley is a way to nail your purpose to your
>foot, for sure.
John Stanley is dedicated, competent, and hard working. True, he's
also a nit picking pain once in a while here, but the rest far
outweighs that one rather minor flaw.
Now I don't have much against most of the board so far, except the way
they took office and the way a few have been nasty or dismissive of
posters for little reason I can see, but I do think John Stanley could
do an excellent job of running the big 8.
Wayne Brown
>
> Supreme overlord and a couple of minions.
> Possible: John Stanley, Peter J Ross, Brian Mailman, Wayne Brown, Dave
> Balderstone
I have no interest in being the Supreme Overlord, but probably wouldn't
mind being a minion. (I'd vote for John Stanley for Supreme Overlord.)
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>In article <slrnerb4ie.4m1...@ottog.local>, Rebecca Ore
She does seem to be lacking more clue than usual today.
Dave Balderstone
<spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> You're going to post a RFC and all the trolls will declare John Stanley head
> of Usenet.
What utter twaddle. I've said nothing like this.
I've said I will be posting an RFD in the next week (and just to remove
all doubt, by week I mean seven days) to propose an alternate to the
existing Beight's process.
At that time, I'm confident there will be discussion (the "D" in
"RFD"), and that the members of the current Beight will scream blue
murder (sort of like the Nazgul when they realized the One Ring was in
danger).
I'll be called all sorts of names, messages will be forged in my name,
Skirv will put me back in his "dungeon" and think it means something,
but a lot of intelligent people will offer intelligent suggestions
about how to establish a Big 8 group creation process that is at worst
different and at best superior to what currently exists.
And the idea that comes out of that discussion will either work, or it
won't. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
It's only usenet. No one dies.
Dave Balderstone
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:56:26 GMT, Rebecca Ore
> <spamtra...@verizon.net> got double secret probation because:
>
>
> See, Rebecca, this is how one nominates for a Kook Award:
>
> >On 2007-01-23, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> As I've said, an RFD to discuss replacing the Beighters will be posted
> >> in the next few days. There's no reason a process to create groups that
> >> will be accepted by news admins cannot be put in place to replace you
> >> folks and your nonsense.
> >
> >I'd like to nominate you for Kook of the Month even thought it's against my
> >principles to do so. I suggest that it might not be against Kevin's
> >principles.
> >
> >Usenet is not a ballot-stuffable democracy.
> >
> >>
> >> Try to keep your panties dry in the meantime.
> >
> >You need tin-foil for the one's you're wearing on your head.
>
> Threatening to nominate Dave Balderstone for a AUK award in hopes of
> intimidating him into relenting in his revolution in news.groups.
Made me pee my pants! Scared the hell out of the hamster!
> For trying to nominate by proxy in hopes of intimidating Mr.
> Balderstone.
My family had to coax me out from under the stairs with a bottle of
Appleton's!
> I nominate Rebecca Ore for the January Coward of the Month
>
> Seconds:
If allowed, I'll second. Hell, I'll skip, if it's a bonspiel!
Dave Balderstone
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
I just finished a game table and have no projects in the wood shop
until the weekend.
Rebecca, send me a mailing address and I'll custom craft a clue x 4 and
ship at my expense by Friday.
Bill Cole
Rebecca Ore <spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> The question is whether a bunch of trolls and one man with minimal
> social skillz
And worse, a track record for misreadings that look intentional, and
responses to those poor interpretations that tend towards belligerent
and even vicious.
John Stanley has a history here, and it is not one that argues for
trusting his judgment. It's hard to find his history in detail given his
cowardice about his own words, but you can get the gist at Google.
--
Now where did I hide that website...
Dave Balderstone
<cyl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Stanley is dedicated, competent, and hard working. True, he's
> also a nit picking pain once in a while here, but the rest far
> outweighs that one rather minor flaw.
Hear, hear!
Phoebee Caulfield
B says...
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:53:25 -0800, Phoebee Caulfield
> <pcaul...@notbex.edu> wrote in
> <MPG.201f1882c...@notbxpats.edu>:
>
> >In article <ahtar21hqkt8iajj8...@4ax.com>, Sharon
> >B says...
> >
> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:26:55 -0800, Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com>
> >> wrote in <oisar2dacvc6aqjn7...@4ax.com>:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 02:22:35 GMT, Dave Balderstone
> >> ><dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
> >> >because:
> >> >
> >> >>In article <11695138...@frenzied.us>, Doug McLaren
> >> >><dougmc+usen...@frenzied.us> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> There is no assumption of forgery.
> >> >>
> >> >>Despite the actual use of the word "assume"
> >> >>
> >> >>> However, *if* you were to forge
> >> >>> the appropriate email address in your posts, the odds of a group
> >> >>> you're asking to be created actually being created would go way up.
> >> >>> (The odds would still be low, but they would go way up.)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> As long as you stick to method #1, you're not likely to have any
> >> >>> problems with your ISP/NSP's abuse department, and people would
> >> >>> (should?) not be calling you an `abuser' and such. If you were to
> >> >>> start using method #2, you'd probably have problems.
> >> >>
> >> >>I have not suggested forgery in any post. I suggested *competing* with
> >> >>the self-appointed, self-aggrandizing people who claim the ability to
> >> >>create Big 8 newsgroups.
> >> >>
> >> >>The personal attacks from the members of that group following my
> >> >>suggestion speak volumes.
> >> >
> >> >Fear Factor: News.Groups
> >>
> >> Do we have to eat live spiders? Cuz if we do, I'm getting DAEV to sub
> >> me.
> >
> >What if we chocolate-coat them first?
>
> Fine with me; Dave's a big chocolate fan.
OK, then: Ziggy Stardust and teh Spyders from Marz
... with fudge syrup, whipped cream and a cherry
--
"Meanwhile, somewhere in the twenty-first century, a young
girl named Phoebee Caulfield plops herself down on the sofa,
pops open a soda, and watches ... YOU!"
...PK
Aratzio
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
because:
>In article <slrnerb4ie.4m1...@ottog.local>, Rebecca Ore
><spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Everyone, but everyone on your side, is known to be a disruptor or a troll.
People on the Dave Balderstone Lits O'Supporters:
Aratzio
Yes, she is correct. I am a quite well known usenet fuckhead and
raconteur. But I must damn well scare the crap out of her, seeing as
how I am "Everyone, but everyone on your side".
I suspect there are others but I do believe I am the obnly one to have
stated my support.
"I was speaking to god, he is pretty sure he can get me out of this,
but he said you're screwed"
>> What is more likely than your putsch troll fest leading to anything good is
>> that the decisions will be made privately, among the news admins, and you
>> won't have a say in it, and there will be a real cabal.
>
>Why do you have a problem with news admins making decisions about what
>groups they'll carry on their servers? They do that now.
Her close personal friends will not be in charge and she will lose
face with the "in" crowd.
>
>What I'm proposing is a competing process to the Beight making
>suggestions to the news admins by issuing control messages.
That is what is so frightening to the board and the sycophants. You
are being quite reasonable and quite truthful. Which is painting them
into a corner.
>
>You see this as threatening to... who? Usenet?
>
><shakes head>
<shakes dew>
Phoebee Caulfield
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>, Dave Balderstone says...
Alternate monthly froups list
Phoebee Caulfield
says...
I have to choose? Are we short on chocolate?
Aratzio
double secret probation because:
>In article <slrnerb0qc.4ih...@ottog.local>,
> Rebecca Ore <spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> The question is whether a bunch of trolls and one man with minimal
>> social skillz
>
>And worse, a track record for misreadings that look intentional, and
>responses to those poor interpretations that tend towards belligerent
>and even vicious.
Nice hypocrisy.
>
>John Stanley has a history here, and it is not one that argues for
>trusting his judgment. It's hard to find his history in detail given his
>cowardice about his own words, but you can get the gist at Google.
So you will just attack his character, call him a coward and then
rather than actually demonstrating those character assainations drop
some pathetic weaselling about google.
What is it about John Stanley that scares the *establishment* so much
they always resort to such tactics?
Dave Balderstone
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:07:48 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> got double secret probation
> because:
>
> >In article <slrnerb4ie.4m1...@ottog.local>, Rebecca Ore
> ><spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Everyone, but everyone on your side, is known to be a disruptor or a troll.
>
> People on the Dave Balderstone Lits O'Supporters:
> Aratzio
You say that like it's a good thing.
;-)
> Yes, she is correct. I am a quite well known usenet fuckhead and
> raconteur. But I must damn well scare the crap out of her, seeing as
> how I am "Everyone, but everyone on your side".
>
> I suspect there are others but I do believe I am the obnly one to have
> stated my support.
Well, we'll see what happens in a few days. I'll have an RFD up before
next weekend is over.
> "I was speaking to god, he is pretty sure he can get me out of this,
> but he said you're screwed"
Are You Drinking With Me, Jesus?
(Peter Berryman)
Do you nestle by my barstool
Makin' me so calm within
Have you touched me with your warmness
Or have I touched myself with gin?
cho: Are you drinkin' with me Jesus
I can't see you very clear
If you're drinkin' with me Jesus
Won't you buy a friend a beer?
If you're omnipresent, Jesus
You don't have to use the phone
If you're always by my side, Lord
You need never drink alone
Do you teeter with me, Jesus
On my way home so forlorn
If you think that you feel bad now
Wait until tomorrow morn
Does your head pound with the masses
As hungover you do rise
What does heaven look like, Jesus
Seen through holy bloodshot eyes
Should we take a taxi, Jesus
Should we try to walk from here
I know you can walk on water
Can you walk on this much beer?
Copyright Lou & Peter Berryman
HB
> >> What is more likely than your putsch troll fest leading to anything good is
> >> that the decisions will be made privately, among the news admins, and you
> >> won't have a say in it, and there will be a real cabal.
> >
> >Why do you have a problem with news admins making decisions about what
> >groups they'll carry on their servers? They do that now.
>
> Her close personal friends will not be in charge and she will lose
> face with the "in" crowd.
There's an "in" crowd on usenet? Or is she (as I suspect) a legend in
her own mind?
> >
> >What I'm proposing is a competing process to the Beight making
> >suggestions to the news admins by issuing control messages.
>
> That is what is so frightening to the board and the sycophants. You
> are being quite reasonable and quite truthful. Which is painting them
> into a corner.
Fascinating to see the response. In the world of commerce, competition
is seen as a good thing. The market decides. But if a monopoly is
threatened, slander and innuendo are weapons rapidly deployed. As we're
seeing.
Fortunately, I have no concern about what people say about me on
usenet, as it's trivial to demonstrate to anyone I care about
(including future employers, if it comes to that) how to distinguish
between fact and fucktard.
> >
> >You see this as threatening to... who? Usenet?
> >
> ><shakes head>
> <shakes dew>
??? That one slipped by me. Dew as in "dew on the grass" or "dew on the
rose petals"?
Dave Balderstone
<a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
My opinion only, but I'd opine that it's because John is always
absolutely clear about what he means when he constructs a sentence and
a paragraph, and is absolutely inflexible when people try to pretend he
meant something other that what he wrote.
It's a trait I admire.
Nigel Sixsmith
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca> wrote:
>My opinion only, but I'd opine that it's because John is always
>absolutely clear about what he means when he constructs a sentence and
>a paragraph, and is absolutely inflexible when people try to pretend he
>meant something other that what he wrote.
It's a real shame that despite his need for everyone else to be strictly,
factually correct in anything they say, (to the point of obsession it seems) he
is not always correct in his own statements however and often doesn't have the
guts to admit to or even correct his errors later.
Example msg id for the person who will no doubt claim I'm just saying something
without facts to back them up
Message-ID: <eo6ku2$82h$1...@shell.peak.org>
John stated OE cannot kill filter, period.
Wrong
OE can kill filter. It cannot kill filter on some fields
John just brushes off his mistake with "Based on what I've been told."
He reminds me of an old Happy Days episode. The one when the Fonz cannot admit
he was wrong
"I was wrooooo......... wrrrrrr........wwwwrrrroooo..."
--
Nigel Sixsmith
The Art Of Sound Studios
Gilbert, AZ
Tracks from my new Korg Oasys Album
"An Oasys in the Desert"
available at;
Jeremy Nixon
> Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>> For that matter, how many news admins do you think there *are*? In
>> reality there are a lot fewer of us than there are Usenet sites. You
>> may think that every site has some dedicated news admin behind it, but
>> that is far from the case. If you go and create the kind of confusion
>> that you want to create it will not have a positive effect.
>
> Are you speaking for a collective "us", then?
News admins.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Jeremy Nixon
>> If you want to do this, start your own hierarchy.
>
> Why didn't you start your own hierarchy when you wanted to change how
> things were being done? Why did YOU get to play with a broken production
> system instead of proving your concepts in a test platform?
Authority was transferred (or delegated, depending on how you look at it)
in an orderly fashion.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
John Ashby
> In article <slrneraojv.4hp...@ottog.local>,
> Rebecca Ore <spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Poor John, the only people who like him are trolls and mission
>>posters.
>
> What exactly IS your problem, Rebecca, that you seem compelled to
> insult me when I'm not even participating in a thread?
>
>>Starting with John Stanley is a way to nail your purpose to your
>>foot, for sure.
>
> Why don't you just keep my name out of your articles unless you are
> actually replying to something I've said?
Just a thought - the character of proposed moderators for a group has
widely been considered fair game for discussion in news.groups, even if
the proposed moderators are not themselves participants in the thread.
You are being proposed as Supreme Overlord of an entire hierarchy; how
much more relevant is it to discuss your character?
And if you can't shrug off negative comments, mightn't that be
considered a demonstration of your unfitness for the post?
john
Jeremy Nixon
> You still haven't explained how what I'm proposing is bad for usenet.
> Please, do.
I thought I had. I'll try once more.
Usenet works only if and because the various systems agree on what
newsgroups exist.
The idea of the big-8 was that it's a stable "core" of Usenet; a set of
groups that are widely agreed upon to exist, that can be expected to
reach (almost) everyone. That's why it requires management, to ensure
that it remains stable and suitable for most Usenet sites.
Now, think about what you're proposing. It seems to be based upon a
certain idea of how the whole thing works -- an idea that, unfortunately,
is at this point fantasy at best. The days when, behind each Usenet
system, there was a dedicated news administrator deciding how that
system is run, are long gone.
The smaller, commercial systems don't have "news administrators". They
are run by people who got stuck with it because no one else wanted to
do it. They don't use Usenet, never have, and probably never will.
They are blissfully unaware of the politics we deal with here. They
do *not* examine the situation and decide how to run Usenet at their
site; they just let it run.
The idea that these people are going to "decide" in any meaningful way
what to do about your little scheme is pure fantasy. Some of them will
ignore you; some, probably more, will look at what they see as two groups
of people arguing over something they don't know or care about, and end
up throwing up their hands in frustration and shutting off the whole
group-creation thing because they don't care enough to figure out who
is who and what the best thing to do might be, and they're not willing
to take a side and risk it being the wrong one over something they don't
even want to be doing in the first place (running a news server). They
will take the path of least resistance.
This is bad for everyone because it further undermines the big-8 system.
Then you have the big systems and the news admins who run them. I know
most of these people. I *know* them, and *I* can't convince many of them
even to remove long-dead groups. Some of them have a customer ask them
for, for example, comp.lang.perl, which hasn't existed in years, and they
actually think they're doing him a favor by putting it on their group
list, instead of directing him to comp.lang.perl.misc, where he might
actually have his questions answered. It's that whole "agreeing on what
groups exist" thing, and it's an uphill battle.
So you're going to come along and ask them to accept you for the big-8.
Oh, some of them will carry some of your groups; I could even tell you
right now which ones will. Now, what does this accomplish? You end
up with people trying to communicate using these groups, and having
limited success.
People are going to come along simply wanting to start a new newsgroup,
and you're going to tell them that you can do this for them, and you
can't deliver in any meaningful way. These people also don't know or
care about the politics. All they will know is that the big-8 doesn't
work. Confidence is undermined. You've taken these people and stuck
them, unwilling and unknowingly, in the middle of your crusade, and
that's what they're going to come away with -- the big-8 is broken.
That will spread, and that will be even worse for everyone.
In the meantime, you're interfering with the work we're trying to do.
Yes, I know you have a problem with some of that, but we're *doing* it,
and it works; if it becomes harder to make it work, that, too, is bad
for everyone, because, again, the big-8 is broken. The situation has
already deteriorated enough; we (and by "we" I mean all of us, users
of Usenet) really don't need it to go any further downhill.
So, if you don't like how the thing is working right now, that's one
thing, but your plan is simply to break it *more*, and hinder our
efforts to fix it, to return to a situation where groups can be
widely propagated immediately and people can just come in and use
them successfully and not have to care about all the mess we have
going on here. To what end?
It's hard enough to have proponents come in here and have to deal with
all the crap. You intend to throw them all in the middle of this thing?
How many "normal" Usenet users are going to want to deal with that?
Now, what you *can* do, if you think you can do a better job, is to
go and do it -- take some part of the namespace that isn't currently
in use and go to it. Create your groups your way; offer a viable
alternative in competition with what we're doing here. Honestly, I
don't think you (the collective "you", the people being suggested in
this thread) *can* do a better job, but great, go ahead and prove me
wrong. I *want* to be wrong. If you succeed, it's good for everyone.
If you fail, there's no harm done, and even then we may all learn
something, even the big-8 Board.
Most of the large systems will carry your groups right off the bat.
Some of them will even auto-create them, if you sign your control
messages. When someone wants a new group, you can say, hey, we can
do that for you, and you can deliver. Google may take some
convincing, but that's Google, and they'll be on board eventually.
At worst you'll be on a level playing field with us in that regard.
The smaller systems will, at worst, be a matter of you saying to them,
hi, we're the administrators of the foo.* hierarchy, here's how to
carry our groups. They will do it, because you're offering them
something with no controversy and no downside. In many cases they
will come to you, when their users ask for your groups.
Meanwhile, we can try our best over here, and will probably do a better
job because of the whole thing. If you do a better job than we do,
then there you go.
> If you can convince me you're right, I'll withdraw.
Please do. There is just no reason to disrupt the process any further
than has already happened. It's just bad for everyone. If the thing
breaks beyond repair, that's it -- it won't come back, not in the
current Internet climate.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Wayne Brown
> In article <slrnerb0qc.4ih...@ottog.local>,
> Rebecca Ore <spamtra...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>That Jeremy hasn't killfiled morons like Sharon B and Bob Officer shows that he
>>has an unusual amount of tolerance, more than I have. I've never seen John
>>show anything like it.
>
> My tolerance for your repeated insults is growing very thin. I think I've
> been very tolerant of your blathering and mission posting. If you think
> you are sucking up to the board by insulting me when I am not a participant
> of your thread, you are a moron.
Actually, she's a moron whether she thinks that or not.
--
Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net> (HPCC #1104)
Þæs ofereode, ðisses swa mæg. ("That passed away, this also can.")
from "Deor," in the Exeter Book (folios 100r-100v)
Wayne Brown
>
> John Stanley is dedicated, competent, and hard working. True, he's
> also a nit picking pain once in a while here, but the rest far
> outweighs that one rather minor flaw.
>
> Now I don't have much against most of the board so far, except the way
> they took office and the way a few have been nasty or dismissive of
> posters for little reason I can see, but I do think John Stanley could
> do an excellent job of running the big 8.
\begin{AOL}
I strongly agree with all except the "don't have much against most of
the board so far" part.
\end{AOL}
Wayne Brown
> Charles <for...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> LOL. You would lose any competition. You and your group of nuts are
>> obstructionists to creating new groups. You lose before you start.
>
> That's why he's not interested in providing competition. His motive
> is disruption, plain and simple. If he were interested in competing
> and actually creating newsgroups, he would suggest something that would
> actually have that result, rather than something guaranteed not to have
> that result.
You're just afraid of losing control of real USENET, so you're trying
to send him off to play with some make-believe hierarchy.
David Bostwick
[...]
>
>I'll repeat again... I am proposing to replace the Beighters, not
>pretend to be them.
So do it.
David Bostwick
[...]
>
>And you didn't mention respect... We gotta respect the b*mby, just
>because it is The B*MBy...
>
>Grow up, jeremy.
>
>
Hey, some folks hate the board just because it's the board, so it evens out.