Cross-Posting and the FAQ
Mike Silverman
In article <6jg829$9pq$1...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu>, ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu
wrote:
> It seems to me hypocritical for the FAQ to ban cross-posting
> into or out of soc.motss if a significant number of motssers
> are participating in cross-posting. The current spate, which
> seems to revolve around the arch-bigot Fred Cherry and the
> arch-fool Timothy Sutter involves a number of highly capable,
> greatly experienced locals so it's presumably intentional
> rather than inadvertant.
>
> It currently amounts to somewhere between a third and half of
> the entire soc.motss traffic.
>
> Unless I hear loud yowling to the contrary, I expect to take
> the ban out of the FAQ for the next release. It's certainly
> ineffectual in its present form. Other suggestions are welcome,
> of course.
Drawing and quartering?
--
Mike Silverman -- cubsfan at turnleft.com -- Lawrence, KS
http://www.turnleft.com/personal
Ken Rudolph
Jess Anderson wrote:
> Unless I hear loud yowling to the contrary, I expect to take
> the ban out of the FAQ for the next release. It's certainly
> ineffectual in its present form. Other suggestions are welcome,
> of course.
The wording shouldn't be an out-and-out ban anyway. Just something
like "cross posting is strongly discouraged." Nothing else can
really be effectively enforced anyway, short of going to
soc.motss.moderated.
My personal policy (I'm not big on group-think) is that I read most
of these cross-posted threads, and very selectively respond to some
of them, usually keeping the cross-posts intact...though I could
easily trim the newsgroup line. It's a close call whether to do
this or not. If I really feel like publicly adding my commentary; I
certainly wish to do it for everybody reading the thread. I have
never *started* a cross-posted thread, and never will. Maybe what
the FAQ should attempt to ban for people who wish to be good
soc.motss netizens is cross-posting a "new" article.
One thing I'm pretty sure is that somebody is cancelling spam on
soc.motss. How else to explain its absence compared to other
newsgroups? If this is happening, I sure do appreciate it, even
though I suspect it is somehow illegal.
--Ken Rudolph
Jack Hamilton
Ken Rudolph wrote in message <6jg9ki$j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>One thing I'm pretty sure is that somebody is cancelling spam on
>soc.motss. How else to explain its absence compared to other
>newsgroups?
Perhaps because "s" is so far down in the alphabet? By the time the
spammers get this far, someone has already started canceling them.
>If this is happening, I sure do appreciate it, even
>though I suspect it is somehow illegal.
Probably no more illegal than spamming in the first place.
JTEM
Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>Unless I hear loud yowling to the contrary, I expect to take
>the ban out of the FAQ for the next release. It's certainly
>ineffectual in its present form. Other suggestions are welcome,
>of course.
Okay, I suggest you don't.
John
Eric Bohlman
Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: My personal policy (I'm not big on group-think) is that I read most
: of these cross-posted threads, and very selectively respond to some
: of them, usually keeping the cross-posts intact...though I could
: easily trim the newsgroup line. It's a close call whether to do
: this or not. If I really feel like publicly adding my commentary; I
: certainly wish to do it for everybody reading the thread. I have
: never *started* a cross-posted thread, and never will. Maybe what
: the FAQ should attempt to ban for people who wish to be good
: soc.motss netizens is cross-posting a "new" article.
Usenet has a long-standing mechanism for dealing with the situation you
describe. You leave the Newsgroups: header in your follow-up intact, so
that everybody following the thread sees your reply, but you set the
Followup-to: header to only those newsgroups in which you wish to
continue the thread. You also indicate in the body of the message which
groups were trimmed from the followups. Except under rare circumstances,
it's impolite to include groups in the followups that weren't included in
the original post.
Basically, what you're saying by trimming the followups is "I'm writing
this to all of you, but if you want to respond to me, you need to do it
in a group that I regularly participate in."
Jake Coughlin
"Jack Hamilton" <j...@alumni.stanford.org> writes:
> Perhaps because "s" is so far down in the alphabet? By the time the
> spammers get this far, someone has already started canceling them.
don't be too sure. whatever happened to the moratorium
on spam cancelling? USENET was supposed to groan and
be crushed under the weight of open-festival spamming,
and yet, i haven't noticed any difference at all.
__
\/ Jake Coughlin (ja...@panix.com)
"Who *are* you? *What* are you? And, who moved the rock?"
-- _The Addams' Family Values_
Arnold Zwicky
in article <6jg829$9pq$1...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu>, jess anderson
<ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> comments on the faq:
>It seems to me hypocritical for the FAQ to ban cross-posting
>into or out of soc.motss if a significant number of motssers
>are participating in cross-posting...
well, the faq can't *ban* anything; it can only advise people
not to do it.
but i don't see anything hypocritical in having the faq advise against
something even when a significant number of motssers are engaging in
it. a significant number of motssers engage in gratuitous insults and
name-calling on occasion; despite that, it's still good advice to
avoid such behavior - or, at least, to think very carefully about
what you might achieve by engaging in it.
>Unless I hear loud yowling to the contrary, I expect to take
>the ban out of the FAQ for the next release. It's certainly
>ineffectual in its present form. Other suggestions are welcome,
>of course.
i'd like to see some caution against cross-posting remain. though
what the faq says won't have much effect on me; my kill-file removes
anything cross-posted to a.p.h or to any alt.sex group and anything
cross-posted to three or more groups. lots of motssers don't have
kill-files like this available to them, however, and any protection
that can be achieved through a warning in the faq would probably be
a good thing.
b not loud yowling but an opinion a in cols
Ayana Craven
In article <pqqpvhf...@panix3.panix.com>,
Jake Coughlin <ja...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
>"Jack Hamilton" <j...@alumni.stanford.org> writes:
>> Perhaps because "s" is so far down in the alphabet? By the time the
>> spammers get this far, someone has already started canceling them.
>
>don't be too sure. whatever happened to the moratorium
>on spam cancelling? USENET was supposed to groan and
>be crushed under the weight of open-festival spamming,
>and yet, i haven't noticed any difference at all.
My own pet theory is that soc.motss has enough netcop types who
read headers and complain to admins that spammers find it
counter-productive to spam here.
As to the cancel moratorium, it was never complete (one major bot
kept running), and the main effect seems to have been to get a
number of large sites to filter, which has reduced the amount of
spam getting passed on.
That, and alt.* seems to have been declared a lost cause wrt spam.
The groups that are strongly viable are going moderated.
Ayana
--
"From the place where I stand watching
I swear my ship is coming in!"
-- Nanci Griffith
Josh Simon
In article <6ji8t8$uhc$1...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu>,
Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote, quoting biiig arnold:
>> i'd like to see some caution against cross-posting remain.
Four.
-j
--
= Josh Simon These opinions may not be my employers'. =
= j...@clock.org Home page: http://www.clock.org/~jss/ =
"There is a hole in your mind."
Cobra Woman
ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>I was using the word "ban" loosely. It does not simply advise
>people not to do it, though; it says, flat-out, "do not", which
>is arguably stronger.
>If one sees the FAQ as official (it *says* it is) and in that
>sense having authority, then indeed it not only can but does ban
>cross-posting: it says, "Don't cross-post" which is prohibiting
>by authority or officially forbidding, a kind of amalgam of AHD
>entries under "ban" and "prohibit".
I think it would be a mistake to soften the statement.
Note that I'm not speaking officially for Panix here, but I am
speaking as someone who's been part of the ISP scene from the
very beginning.
When a notorious crossposter (mentioned in this thread) was
posting from Panix, it was the ban in the FAQ that provided us
the ammunition to separate ourselves from him. A fair amount
of (very) angry mail failed to do what a direct pointer to the
FAQ with it's ban on crossposting between soc.motss and
alt.politics.homosexuality did. (Thanks, Josh.)
>I think that's probably largely a matter of degree. If Gort from
>alt.klaatu, upon being informed that the our FAQ "bans" xposting,
>nevertheless continues and provokes someone to report the
>infraction to Gort's ISP, Gort has a pretty good defense if it can
>be shown that regulars A thru M routinely xpost themselves.
If the ISP is receiving complaints about the regulars and isn't
acting on them, that's one thing. We don't go looking for
offenses against FAQs in order to toss accounts, but we do look
into complaints.
--
Mara Chibnik
Panix - m...@panix.com Personal - ma...@panix.com
Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Ken Rudolph
Jess Anderson wrote:
>
> ...If Gort from
> alt.klaatu,
Hey what about equal time for alt.barada.nicto?
--Ken Rudolph
JTEM
Jake Coughlin <ja...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
>don't be too sure. whatever happened to the moratorium
>on spam cancelling? USENET was supposed to groan and
>be crushed under the weight of open-festival spamming,
>and yet, i haven't noticed any difference at all.
Over in aph, we saw one day alone where there was something like 1,200
commercial postings. It's not unusual there for me to <space> past 4 or
5 pages at a time, at 20 articles to a page, before seeing a single entry
to a thread.
John
Ayana Craven
In article <6ji9j8$7vn$1...@news.ysu.edu>,
Josh Simon <j...@cesium.clock.org> wrote:
>In article <6ji8t8$uhc$1...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu>,
>Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote, quoting biiig arnold:
>>> i'd like to see some caution against cross-posting remain.
>> So noted. That makes three.
>
>Four.
Five. And Mara has the best point, IMO -- a huge factor in being
able to keep the place cleaned up is to be able to show ISPs that
their users are knowingly violating the charter/FAQ for the group.
Shawn
Ken Rudolph wrote in message <6jg9ki$j...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>My personal policy (I'm not big on group-think) is that I read most
>of these cross-posted threads, and very selectively respond to some
>of them, usually keeping the cross-posts intact...though I could
>easily trim the newsgroup line. It's a close call whether to do
>this or not. If I really feel like publicly adding my commentary; I
>certainly wish to do it for everybody reading the thread. I have
>never *started* a cross-posted thread, and never will. Maybe what
>the FAQ should attempt to ban for people who wish to be good
>soc.motss netizens is cross-posting a "new" article.
On the rare occasion I do respond to a crosspost, I normally
remove soc.motss from the newsgroups line. Certain rabid
crossposters are wary of this but generally miss the act if only
one group was deleted. Then, if I wish to see the result of my
post (which I rarely do) I simply subscribe to a.p.h, which invariably
is also in the newsgroups line, and read from there.
My one wish is to have an Outlook Express with a filter for the
number of newsgroups posted to. Some readers have it, but
the mightly useful OExpress stops with simple subject and
from header filtering. Damn them.
Shawn
Shawn
Ayana Craven wrote in message <6jklv6$7...@panix3.panix.com>...
>In article <6ji9j8$7vn$1...@news.ysu.edu>,
>Josh Simon <j...@cesium.clock.org> wrote:
>>In article <6ji8t8$uhc$1...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu>,
>>Jess Anderson <ande...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote, quoting biiig arnold:
>>>> i'd like to see some caution against cross-posting remain.
>>> So noted. That makes three.
>>
>>Four.
>
>Five
Six.
Can the soc.motss.weimaraner vote too?
Shawn
Timothy Sutter
Jess Anderson wrote:
> It seems to me hypocritical for the FAQ to ban cross-posting
> into or out of soc.motss if a significant number of motssers
> seems to revolve around the arch-bigot Fred Cherry and the
> arch-fool Timothy Sutter involves a number of highly capable,
> greatly experienced locals so it's presumably intentional
> rather than inadvertant.
I tried to be nice.
now, I certainly will disregard
any plaint that comes my way.
--
I Won't Dignify That With a Response. No One
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2307/
Michael Palmer
Only if the soc.motss.dachshund can as well.
Michael, wondering if Clara also has a vote, and if so whether Marina
has been authorized to act as her proxy in such matters
---
Michael Palmer
Famous Bovines International
Claremont, California
mpa...@netcom.com
Marina Muilwijk
Michael Palmer wrote:
[voting on the issue of "some caution against cross-posting
remain"ing
in the FAQ]
>
> Michael, wondering if Clara also has a vote,
Of course.
> and if so whether Marina
> has been authorized to act as her proxy in such matters
Yes.
So, that makes seven and eight.
Clara and Marina
DRS
Shawn wrote in message <6jqrsm$73c$1...@supernews.com>...
[...]
>My one wish is to have an Outlook Express with a filter for the
>number of newsgroups posted to. Some readers have it, but
>the mightly useful OExpress stops with simple subject and
>from header filtering. Damn them.
I have already submitted a request for the next version that it supports
proper killfiles. However, I'm not convinced that Eric Miller (MS OE guy)
fully understands the necessity of MS not trying to reinvent the wheel.
Feel free to add your voice in
news://microsoft.public.inetexplorer.ie4.outlookexpress and at
http://www.okinfoweb.com/moe/.
--
Beware of the Spam-Dog
Fred Cherry
In Message-ID: <6jg829$9pq$1...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Cross-Posting and the FAQ
Date: 14 May 1998 21:08:09 -0500
ande...@ambach.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote:
> It seems to me hypocritical for the FAQ to ban cross-posting
> into or out of soc.motss if a significant number of motssers
> are participating in cross-posting. The current spate, which
> seems to revolve around the arch-bigot Fred Cherry and the
> arch-fool Timothy Sutter involves a number of highly capable,
> greatly experienced locals so it's presumably intentional
> rather than inadvertant.
First of all, there was a thread titled: "Does God approve of
homosexuality?" I posted NOTHING in that thread, although a number of you
fags and dykes did. Since that thread was crossposted to
alt.religion.christian.baptist, I assume that the god referred to is the
Christian god. The Christian god, if such a god actually exists, has not
conveyed his views on the matter to me. Therefore I feel unqualified to
offer any opinion on that subject.
Next, I am the arch-bigot, am I? When and where have I ever said anything
as bigoted as THIS???
---------------------------------snip--------------------------------
From: st...@MCS.COM (Joseph B. Dunphy)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship,alt.homosexual,alt.politics.homosexuality,
alt.sex,alt.sex.services,alt.sex.brothels,soc.men,soc.women,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.mens-rights,ne.motss,soc.motss,
soc.culture.israel,soc.culture.african.american,
alt.current-events.net-abuse,comp.org.eff.talk,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,
soc.singles,talk.rumors
Subject: Re: NAMBLA Needs Psychiatric Help
Date: 8 Oct 1995 23:02:37 -0500
Organization: MCSNet Services
Lines: 67
Distribution: inet
Messag -ID: <45a6st$i...@Venus.mcs.com>
References: <radowDF...@netcom.com> <446v85$s...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
<1995Sep26.1...@msuvx2.memphis.edu> <449fh8$8...@panix2.panix.com>
<john1.813082240@earth> <456ie9$a...@Mars.mcs.com>
<456rsl$k...@Mercury.mcs.com> <457to0$d...@Venus.mcs.com>
<457uce$d...@Venus.mcs.com> <459uka$r...@Venus.mcs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.mcs.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2 (KSD)]
Oh, by the way, I will discarding further e-mail replies to anything
on this thread without reading them first, so if you bother sending
any, the time you spent writing them, and - oh, let me see if I can
say this without breaking down in laughter - thinking them up, will
be totally wasted.
The response which I've gotten has been utterly brain dead.
The previous post, being addressed to the memberships of the groups in
which it appeared, in response to comments received from them, clearly
belonged in them. All that I received in return was a series of knee
jerk replies. Form letters about inappropriate posts, that didn't
apply to the current situation.
Get this straight. An assinine comment, repeated by multiple writers,
remains assinine. The only "discussion" I've gotten has been a
string of such comments from people who plainly didn't even bother
to read what they were responding to.
Well, I am not about to let myself be browbeaten into going along
with anything, not even something that I initially agreed with. Like
I said, Fuck you. If that's how you want it, fine. I'm going to
join in on Mr. Cherry's little spamming effort, even though I was
initially, and openly opposed to it, just to teach you assholes a few
manners. I ask the people on this thread to do you want, and you're
going to mailbomb me for having done so ? Fuck you ! I'm not going to
take this shit out of you or anyone else. And if you send me some
bullshit pile of mail, you'd better fucking believe that I'm going to
fell free to talk about it here, you little jagoffs ! What, you can
drop crap in my box, but I need your permission to talk about that fact
in public ? Fuck you !
Congratulations. You've turned an ally into an enemy. I'm now going to
spam your worthless little groups just to spite you. I wasn't going to
before. But the response to that last post where I explained my reasons for
phrasing the group narrowing request as I did, after one of you had the
chutzpah to complain about the fashion in which I did you schmucks a favor,
was the last straw.
If you didn't like that post, where I invited the other posters on this
thread to take it out of your group, why the hell didn't one of you see
fit to make the effort yourself ? What, you're just going to sit there,
complain, do nothing, and then take potshots at whoever does do something ?
What the fuck is wrong with you people ?
Joseph B. Dunphy
PS. I hope that Saddam Hussein blows the crap out of Tel Aviv, and clobbers
Jerusalem badly enough that noone can be sure which pieces of rubble left
over used to be part of the wailing wall. I hope that your wives and
daughters are raped as the Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian armies
close in for the kill, and wipe your shitty little country off the map
forever. May the tattered, bleeding remnants of your population flee
into the ocean, watching their cities vanish beneath the nuclear bonfires
that will light up the skies on your nation's last night. May they
toss from wave to wave, on their fragile little boats, praying to a god
who doesn't hear them that a storm won't come, or that they've be
able to find a friendly shore to put in on, before the last drop of
moisture in them is lost to the heat, and the burning sun.
In other words, I'm not happy with you right now. Go away.
----------------------------------snip--------------------------------
It is quite obvious that the only form of bigotry you fags and dykes
recognize is so-called "homophobia." You fags and dykes think you are
better than any other minority. And you are the most incredible bunch of
liars ever seen since Goebbels and his gang. For example, some bigot started
a thread in soc.culture.african.american titled: "What pisses me off about
niggers." I responded with an anti racial post, and then JTEM followed up
my post with a call for people to mail-bomb my ISP, accusing me, among
other things, of racism.
*************************************************************************
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - Lincoln
jo...@prostitution.org (Fred Cherry)
Fred Cherry
In Message-ID: <6jinbf$1...@panix.com>
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Cross-Posting and the FAQ
Date: 15 May 1998 20:41:19 -0400
ma...@panix.com (Cobra Woman) wrote:
Mara, like most fags and dykes you are a liar! The reason panix got rid of
me is that Alexis Rosen, one of the two owners of panix, is a fag and he
will not put up with any criticism of a fellow fag from a het. His
solidarity with his fellow fags goes so far that he specifically wrote that
he prefers Roy Radow, one of the official spokesmen for NAMBLA, to me. here
is the evidence:
==============================snip----------------------------
From panix.chat Wed Feb 22 14:19:26 1995
Path: panix!not-for-mail
From: ale...@panix.com (Alexis Rosen)
Newsgroups: panix.chat
Subject: Re: Netcom Contract
Date: 21 Feb 1995 14:54:28 -0500
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC
Lines: 10
Messag -ID: <3idgdk$3...@panix4.panix.com>
References: <3i0rgg$1...@panix.com> <3i152k$5...@panix.com>
<3i16li$q...@news.panix.com> <3ia4d9$2...@panix3.panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.7.0.5
jo...@panix.com (Fred Cherry) writes:
>Anyway, I'm glad that this happened. I later found out that Netcom is
>where Roy Radow posts from. There isn't room enough on one service for
>both myself and Roy Radow. As a matter of fact, there isn't room enough
>on one PLANET for me and Roy Radow.
Good ol' Roy Radow of Nambla? Never thought I'd miss him when he left.
You never can tell...
/a
================================snip--------------------------------
You fags and dykes of panix never let up. At the beginning of 1996 I filed
suit in federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996. The papers are on file in the United
States Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y. The title and Index
Number of the case is Cherry v. Reno, 96 Civ. 2498 (DLC). My suit was based
on the fact that Rod Swift, the most devoted supporter of NAMBLA on Usenet
at that time was using indecent language to vilify me. He hated the fact
that I was posting material that showed NAMBLA up for the phonies that they
are. I claimed that since Swift, an Australian citizen posting from
Australia, had the right to use indecent language in his support of NAMBLA,
I should have the right to use the same type of language in order to
counter him.
There was another case being litigated in the same court at the same time
also challenging the same law. The title and Index Number of that case is
Shea v. Reno, 96 Civ. 976 (DLC).
I attended most of the proceedings of the Shea case. On one occasion Clay
Shirky, one of the prominent fags of panix, testified against me. He
claimed that I had "polluted" the newsgroup alt.christnet. The fact is that
said newsgroup had already been "polluted" by Rod Swift. Rod Swift had
previously posted a message in that newsgroup stating that Jesus Christ had
a nine-hundred-foot-long penis. There was a shorthand reporter taking this
down, and it should appear in the transcript of the proceedings for that
date.
Anyway, the material below is from MY case. It is part of the record of MY
case.
-------------------------------snip----------------------------------
Now, as I said at the start, my entire case boils down to whether or
not I have the right to criticize the North American Man/Boy Love
Association (NAMBLA), the largest and most powerful organization of
homosexual child-molesters in the world. I am the only litigant of all the
litigants who raises the issue of whether or not I should be allowed to
respond to "patently offensive" personal attacks on myself. Said attacks
are made on behalf of NAMBLA, by foreigners who are not subject to the
penalties of the Communications decency Act of 1996. The Communications
decency Act of 1996 denies me the right to respond to those "patently
offensive" personal attacks with "patently offensive" counter-attacks of my
own.
I hereby request an evidentiary hearing on several matters. This court
has heard Clay Shirky testify. On 4/30/96, Mr. Shirky testified against me,
accusing me of polluting (so to speak) the newsgroup alt.christnet. I was
never given an opportunity to rebut this testimony. The fact is that Clay
Shirky is a friend of the owners of panix.com, an Internet Service
Provider. I used to be a subscriber to panix.com, until I was terminated
for my attacks against NAMBLA. Panix.com was an Internet Service Provider
for Roy Radow, the chief spokesman for NAMBLA on the Internet. Radow was
never terminated by panix.com. In fact, just before I was terminated by
panix.com, Alexis Rosen, one of the two owners of panix.com stated that he
would rather have Roy Radow as a subscriber to panix.com than myself. Here
is a transcript of that message:
--------------------------------------snip---------------------------
The transcript referred to above is the same material I have quoted
previously.
You fags and dykes will go to any and all lengths to defend NAMBLA by
discrediting me. But no matter how hard you try, you are not going to stop
me from telling the truth about NAMBLA.
Don Stubbs
Interestingly enough, for ALL-L-L-L-L the information the SOC.MOTTS FAQ does
contain (at least the one I read at
http://www.jesscc.com/doc/lgb/motss_faq_text.html ), it does NOT contain any
information on just how one might go about changing the FAQ. Nor does the
appendix (at http://www.jesscc.com/doc/lgb/motss_faq_app_text.html ).
Rules are rules, I guess.
Hm-m-m-m-m.
--
S P A M S P O I L E R ! !
Remove "SPF" from my email
address before sending your reply
--
Don Stubbs Email: dast...@visi.com
Minneapolis MN Website: http://www.visi.com/~dastubbs
MEMBER: Human Rights Campaign http://www.hrcusa.org
Ned Deily
Jess:
>Jess:
>>I await your emndations.
>Send typo corrections to me, too.
`
"Eamonnations"
--
Ned Deily,
n...@visi.com -- []