More feedback from Quaker-L
Ian Davis
letter here inspired me to go check it out, although I only did so
superficially. Here is probably a dumb question: when I found s.r.q.,
it was a google group. Is this the same s.r.q. that used to be a usenet
group?
It seems to me that the list serves and discussion group have been fading
away for some time, partly because other forms of social networking
are replacing them, but also because of some of the issues you raise
-- the unmoderated format sooner or later allows scope for escalating
contentiousness or grandstanding that causes others participants to
lose interest and drop out. I think it's been at least a decade since
the controversial moderation decision on Quaker-L. Those who disagreed
with the idea of moderation started Quaker-Spectrum. Q-S has either
faded away or all but; Q-L is hardly more vital these days.
My first reaction to your question was to say, let it go -- put it out
of its misery. But something doesn't sit right with me about the idea
of silencing a forum because it isn't appropriately representational.
I think of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting elders trying to censor
ministry in the monthly meetings in the early nineteenth century, and
what a mess followed after that! (There are at least two logical flaws
in this analogy, but it calls for some attention, anyway.)
Is it possible to leave soc.religion.quaker up and have some kind of
"disclaimer" banner at the top that notes it is a wide open forum on
which anyone can post, and that no specific posting, to say nothing
of the overall tenor, should be interpreted as representing Quakerism?
Ian Davis
A further response on Quaker-L to the above..
Dear Friends,
[The above] speaks my mind.
As a veteran of the pre-moderated Quaker-L,
I feel one important lesson I learned from that experience
is to be proactive, not reactive,
and especially not to be motivated by fear.
In addition to a disclaimer/banner,
could we have something like a mutual understanding
(perhaps explicitly stated in the welcome message)
that every member shares responsibility
to offer positive care and alternative witness
whenever the need to adjust the balance is felt?
Shared knowledge of that mutual agreement
may go a long way toward both removing the fear
and preventing the actual occurrence
of misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
In essentials, unity.
In inessentials, liberty.
In all things, charity.
Yowie
news:hhj1to$d6b$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca
Please get back to Quaker-L and explain why a banner on the top of the page
etc etc cannot work.
That being said, a regularly published FAQ with the above idea expressed in
it *might* answer some of these concerns.
As could just robo-moderating out cross-posting and spam, rather than also
moderating on 'topic' as well.
Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.
Ian Davis
Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>"Ian Davis" <ijd...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>
>it *might* answer some of these concerns.
>
I could explore setting up a script to post the FAQ once a week or whatever,
and enhancing it to say something about SRQ itself.
>As could just robo-moderating out cross-posting and spam, rather than also
>moderating on 'topic' as well.
>
Don't know.. I wonder if the Big-8 might be able to comment on changing
this newsgroup to not accept cross-posts as well as whatever spam filtering
is currently in effect.
Do you know how to contact them?
Ian
Seebs
> Please get back to Quaker-L and explain why a banner on the top of the page
> etc etc cannot work.
Yeah. That would perhaps work for a forum, but it doesn't really work on
Usenet.
> That being said, a regularly published FAQ with the above idea expressed in
> it *might* answer some of these concerns.
That's a pretty good idea.
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Yowie
I sorta kinda know how to contact them - news.groups.propose is a good place
to begin. However a 'no spam, no crossposting' policy is still a form of
moderation, although a very very light one.
Would everyone here agree that the regular posting of a FAQ much like the
old one[1], plus the addition of the idea that this NG /not/ representative
of RSoF nor is it is endorsed by RSoF and is in fact just a Usenet group,
plus robomoderation to ban crossposting and remove spam be the best
solution?
[1] The old FAQ can be found here http://www.faqs.org/faqs/Quaker-faq/
(<<Kelly>>)
> "Ian Davis" <ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:hhjc0k$r5k$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <7q4omcFlc...@mid.individual.net>,
> > Yowie <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> "Ian Davis" <ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>
> >> That being said, a regularly published FAQ with the above idea
> >> expressed in it *might* answer some of these concerns.
>
> > I could explore setting up a script to post the FAQ once a week or
> > whatever, and enhancing it to say something about SRQ itself.
>
> >> As could just robo-moderating out cross-posting and spam, rather
> >> than also moderating on 'topic' as well.
>
> > Don't know.. I wonder if the Big-8 might be able to comment on
> > changing this newsgroup to not accept cross-posts as well as whatever
> > spam filtering is currently in effect.
>
> > Do you know how to contact them?
>
> I sorta kinda know how to contact them - news.groups.propose is a good place
> to begin. However a 'no spam, no crossposting' policy is still a form of
> moderation, although a very very light one.
>
> Would everyone here agree that the regular posting of a FAQ much like the
> old one[1], plus the addition of the idea that this NG /not/ representative
> of RSoF nor is it is endorsed by RSoF and is in fact just a Usenet group,
> plus robomoderation to ban crossposting and remove spam be the best
> solution?
>
> [1] The old FAQ can be found herehttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/Quaker-faq/
Sounds uncomplicated and as if it will, at the very least, solve
something the vast majority of us (save one) believe is a problem that
needs to be solved.
I vote yes.
Seebs
> Would everyone here agree that the regular posting of a FAQ much like the
> old one[1], plus the addition of the idea that this NG /not/ representative
> of RSoF nor is it is endorsed by RSoF and is in fact just a Usenet group,
> plus robomoderation to ban crossposting and remove spam be the best
> solution?
Any kind of moderation that isn't an actual moderation queue (with all the
dictatory stuff that implies) is going to be technically irrelevant to a
very large number of users. People tend not to respect cancel messages that
don't have some kind of plausible authenticity or authority.
Yowie
news:slrnhjqli1.p9t...@guild.seebs.net
> On 2010-01-01, Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> Would everyone here agree that the regular posting of a FAQ much
>> like the old one[1], plus the addition of the idea that this NG
>> /not/ representative of RSoF nor is it is endorsed by RSoF and is in
>> fact just a Usenet group, plus robomoderation to ban crossposting
>> and remove spam be the best solution?
>
> Any kind of moderation that isn't an actual moderation queue (with
> all the dictatory stuff that implies) is going to be technically
> irrelevant to a very large number of users. People tend not to
> respect cancel messages that don't have some kind of plausible
> authenticity or authority.
Ok, you've lost me there.
I am the first to admit I have no idea how moderation works in terms of
Usenet propagation. AFAIK, if the hypothetical moderator of SRQ (robo or
otherwise) comes across a crossposted message, it simply refuses to post it
to SRQ. What effect it has on other groups, I do not know. I thought this
would be automatic - why does it need to have other people respect cancel
messages? Are you saying that the way robomoderation works is that it allows
all posts to go through and then 'cancels' the ones it doesn't like? Seems
like a closing-the-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted sort of solution.
Anyway, if we can work out the technical aspects, do you agree that a FAQ
and weeding out crossposting and/or spam ('spam' I guess is subjective -
perhaps that point system might work?) would work for SRQ?
Thus far, I think it is the only solution bar 'do nothing' which seems to
meet the requirements of those who have expressed an opinion about 'what to
do about SRQ'.
Seebs
> I am the first to admit I have no idea how moderation works in terms of
> Usenet propagation. AFAIK, if the hypothetical moderator of SRQ (robo or
> otherwise) comes across a crossposted message, it simply refuses to post it
> to SRQ. What effect it has on other groups, I do not know. I thought this
> would be automatic - why does it need to have other people respect cancel
> messages? Are you saying that the way robomoderation works is that it allows
> all posts to go through and then 'cancels' the ones it doesn't like? Seems
> like a closing-the-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted sort of solution.
I believe people used to have some groups "moderated" by cancels.
> Anyway, if we can work out the technical aspects, do you agree that a FAQ
> and weeding out crossposting and/or spam ('spam' I guess is subjective -
> perhaps that point system might work?) would work for SRQ?
I would be inclined to allow for occasional special cases. The problem, of
course, is that not all crossposting is intrinsically bad; it's just that
we have a specific active troll (or two) who crossposts heavily and
inappropriately.
> Thus far, I think it is the only solution bar 'do nothing' which seems to
> meet the requirements of those who have expressed an opinion about 'what to
> do about SRQ'.
I am inclined to think it'd work. I think robomoderation could probably do
a lot of it. That said, while crunch is clearly insane, I'm pretty sure
he's smart enough to get around any reasonably trivial robomoderation, and
that he's unwilling to accept that the community has expressed an active
desire for him to take that garbage somewhere else.
I dunno, I'm half inclined to see if we could at least get him onto his
massively one-sided accounts of his divorce just so there'd be at least
a change of topics for a while.
(<<Kelly>>)
I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say he's insane. He (likely) has
a condition that certainly classifies him as having a mental illness.
Clinical depression is a form of mental illness. Those with clinical
depression alone aren't classified as insane just as those with NPD
aren't classified as insane.
Of late I have wondered, however, if Soggy doesn't live in some sort
of controlled environment - or at the very least, does not have a
computer of his own and is forced to use one in a public library. My
reasoning is that you never see him post after anywhere from 8-9pm
EST. If he lives in a "controlled environment" (and I'm not even
going to guess as to what that could be) that could explain the
seeming cutoff of computer use. And if he *is* living in a
"controlled environment", it very well may be because due to emotional
distress or other like condition he is classified as disabled and
qualifies for living in such an environment.
Of course, it's all speculation - and only Soggy can give the true
picture.
And it's a sure bet he never will.
Seebs
> I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say he's insane. He (likely) has
> a condition that certainly classifies him as having a mental illness.
> Clinical depression is a form of mental illness. Those with clinical
> depression alone aren't classified as insane just as those with NPD
> aren't classified as insane.
Maybe you're using the term more formally. I would describe any mental
disorder that prevents you from having basically successful interactions
with other people as "being insane".
> And if he *is* living in a
> "controlled environment", it very well may be because due to emotional
> distress or other like condition he is classified as disabled and
> qualifies for living in such an environment.
Yes. That would be the kind of thing that would support my theory that
he is non-sane. I see no evidence that he has been, at any point in
the last decade or longer, capable of basically functional interactions
with other people.
Ian Davis
>I would be inclined to allow for occasional special cases. The problem, of
>course, is that not all crossposting is intrinsically bad; it's just that
>we have a specific active troll (or two) who crossposts heavily and
>inappropriately.
How hard is it for someone to post something to multiple forums. The
only purpose of cross-posting is to drag people from existing forums
to new ones, or to make people notice people on other forums. If
cross-posting is sometimes appropriate show me such a post, here in the
last year. Roger Pierce (sp?) used to post on SRQ. These days I see
some comments by him cross-posted to SRQ, so I know that he has decided
to move on to other forums. If he wanted to subscribe to SRQ he would.
If he doesn't want to it seems inappropriate to me for him to still see
posts from SRQ. Quakerism (and I may be wildly out of line here) is as
much about building community as practicing a religion. A community
needs to be tight knit to become one. Combining 10 newsgroups into
a single super-group does not foster community -- it fosters alienation
and a lack of common identity. It is not that I imagine it desirable
to have some sort of small clique be the presence on SRQ.. what I
imagine desirable is that there is some genuine commitment to this
forum. Make every post go to 10 forums and there is a diluting of
commitment across all of them. Eventually that process leads to
a culture where people gadfly about from newsgroup to newsgroup,
which is pretty much the opposite of commitment. I may feel this
more than most.. I'm loyal to only one newsgroup at a time. I don't
have the time or the energy to commit to more than one, and if I did
my commitment to this would as consequence be less than total.
But I'd welcome other takes on cross-posting. I'm trying to flesh out
gut feelings, combined with having been taught by those I admired that
cross-posting was harmful bordering on being spam.
Ian.
Tom McDonald
I think that would be useful.
I think the posting of the group charter, on a similar schedule,
would also be a good idea. Posting of the charter and a FAQ would
at least set the bar for what is and isn't on-topic here.
--
Tom "Go Pack" McDonald
Sir David
wrote:
> Of late I have wondered, however, if Soggy doesn't live in some sort
> of controlled environment - or at the very least, does not have a
> computer of his own and is forced to use one in a public library. My
> reasoning is that you never see him post after anywhere from 8-9pm
> EST.
He has frequently had binges of wee-hour posts (ca 2:00 - 4:00 AM).
Bill Samuel
wrote:
> I had not looked at soc.religion.quaker in a very long time, and your
> letter here inspired me to go check it out, although I only did so
> superficially. Here is probably a dumb question: when I found s.r.q.,
> it was a google group. Is this the same s.r.q. that used to be a usenet
> group?
Google Groups started as a service to allow people to read and post to
Usenet. It also allows groups that are original to Google Groups.
Both Usenet and non-Usenet groups are accessed through the same
interface. srq has always been a Usenet group.
Usenet is dying. Most ISPs no longer provide access to Usenet. Most
people looking for Quakers will not look for them on Usenet. The
group has not served as a good place for people interested in Quakers
for many years, but I don't see the point of investing a lot of effort
into trying to make it something which would better suit its original
purpose.
Bill Samuel
Ian Davis
If you knew nothing about Quakers, would it not serve you better to have
this forum somewhere which could edify you about Quakers, than have it
a forum where there was zero edification about anything, or worse one
which left you imagining terrible things of Quakers?
For myself I see things a little differently. I tend to imagine that all
things have as their shadows what they were meant to be. It is natural
for me to imagine the failure for anything to be what it was meant to be
as comprising part of the universe as a whole failing to be what it was
meant to be. So for me failing to be what one was meant to be, is a
pretty serious business.
Ian.
Bill Samuel
> If you knew nothing about Quakers, would it not serve you better to have
> this forum somewhere which could edify you about Quakers, than have it
> a forum where there was zero edification about anything, or worse one
> which left you imagining terrible things of Quakers?
There are fora in more contemporary formats than Usenet which do this,
such as the QuakerInfo.com Forum and QuakerQuaker.org. Is there any
evidence that there are any significant number of people coming to
Usenet to find information about Quakers these days?
Bill Samuel
Ian Davis
I don't know. I came in the hope of finding fellowship with Quakers here.
http://www.quakerinfo.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4&sid=4e33b9908ffaead8fb94208d403184b3
Interesting.
http://www.quakerquaker.org/group/convergent
http://www.quakerquaker.org/group/liberal
Interesting.
You move me towards my original position which was that perhaps SRQ should
be scrapped.
Ian
(<<Kelly>>)
wrote:
> In article <76ef3e32-80e3-45f4-bd57-842685754...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill Samuel <billsam...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 1, 3:52 pm, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis) wrote:
>
> >> If you knew nothing about Quakers, would it not serve you better to have
> >> this forum somewhere which could edify you about Quakers, than have it
> >> a forum where there was zero edification about anything, or worse one
> >> which left you imagining terrible things of Quakers?
>
> >There are fora in more contemporary formats than Usenet which do this,
> >such as the QuakerInfo.com Forum and QuakerQuaker.org. Is there any
> >evidence that there are any significant number of people coming to
> >Usenet to find information about Quakers these days?
>
> >Bill Samuel
>
> I don't know. I came in the hope of finding fellowship with Quakers here.
>
>
> Interesting.
>
> http://www.quakerquaker.org/group/convergenthttp://www.quakerquaker.org/group/liberal
>
> Interesting.
>
> You move me towards my original position which was that perhaps SRQ should
> be scrapped.
That opinion tells me that you are like those who think that just
because they don't like something, it should be gotten rid of.
Problem is, you're not the only person here. Neither are Yowie and
Seebs, for that matter. Usenet doesn't revolve around what you think
or what you like. But...If you don't like SRQ anymore - start your
own group, don't tell certain people where it is, and have at it. If
you don't like SRQ anymore, don't read it or post to it. It's the
same as seeing a TV program you don't like or hearing something on the
radio you don't like. If it's a problem for you - turn it off - but
don't expect the rest of those listening or watching or reading to
have something they aren't as bothered by as you are to agree that
something "should be scrapped" just because you object to it.
Ian Davis
Bill this link in the SRQ.FAQ is currently broken.
http://cpcug.org/user/wsamuel/qeu.html
Is there a replacement link?
Ian
Ian Davis
Not at all. I think that the isssue of whether SRQ is serving a useful
purpose any more is one which is worth reflecting on. I'd hardly have
spend 9 years on a forum I didn't like. There are enough other forums
to choose from if I disliked this one. It actually saddens me that it
might be time to lay down SRQ. But when the purpose for which something
exists ceases to justify its continued existance, it is time to reflect on
whether is should continue to exist.
I wonder if you could put aside what you want and what you imagine I want
and reflect on what your God might want. Is your God one who thinks anything
should be permitted provided only that some want to engage in it? Or is your
God one who hopes that like good girl guides we'll leave this world just a
little better than we found it as consequence of our presence here. The issue
is not for me what I want.. the issue is which is the better universe..
one in which SRQ has not folded, or one in which it has.
>Problem is, you're not the only person here. Neither are Yowie and
>Seebs, for that matter. Usenet doesn't revolve around what you think
>or what you like. But...If you don't like SRQ anymore - start your
>own group, don't tell certain people where it is, and have at it. If
>you don't like SRQ anymore, don't read it or post to it. It's the
>same as seeing a TV program you don't like or hearing something on the
>radio you don't like. If it's a problem for you - turn it off - but
>don't expect the rest of those listening or watching or reading to
>have something they aren't as bothered by as you are to agree that
>something "should be scrapped" just because you object to it.
>
You are ignoring the part of the problem that concerns me.. this forum
does a disservice to the word religion and to the RSofF. It troubles me
that this is so. That is the problem which I seek to explore rectifying.
I'd have no problem with this forum if it didn't make the claim in its
title that it existed to be a forum about religion and quakers. I'd have
no problem with it if it was. It is the inconsistency between its proper
role and its current role that troubles me. I am an absolutist.. I think
the difference between what something is and what it should be matters.
Perhaps you do not. Please clarify?
Bill moves me towards the position of saying that SRQ is an embarrassment
to the RSofF and should be disbanded because it offers at its best
arguably nothing that is not already provided by other forums he cited.
At its worst it offers far less. The discussion about moderating as an
alternative seems mute if there are already equally good other quaker
moderated forums.
What do you get out of this forum?
Ian
Whiskers
> On 2010-01-01, Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> I am the first to admit I have no idea how moderation works in terms of
>> Usenet propagation. AFAIK, if the hypothetical moderator of SRQ (robo or
>> otherwise) comes across a crossposted message, it simply refuses to post it
>> to SRQ. What effect it has on other groups, I do not know. I thought this
>> would be automatic - why does it need to have other people respect cancel
>> messages? Are you saying that the way robomoderation works is that it allows
>> all posts to go through and then 'cancels' the ones it doesn't like? Seems
>> like a closing-the-door-after-the-horse-has-bolted sort of solution.
>
> I believe people used to have some groups "moderated" by cancels.
That sounds to me like the problem of 'rogue cancels', which has resulted
in most news server admins deciding to ignore all 'cancels'.
Individual.net and some others have a more subtle approach that allows the
original poster to cancel their own posts, though.
Moderation of a newsgroup is, in plain speach, censorship of what can
appear in it. That censorship can to some extent be automated.
But what happens to a moderated group when the only permitted moderators,
cease to do the job? That can and does happen - and reviving such a group
seems to be pretty near impossible.
>> Anyway, if we can work out the technical aspects, do you agree that a FAQ
>> and weeding out crossposting and/or spam ('spam' I guess is subjective -
>> perhaps that point system might work?) would work for SRQ?
A regular auto-post of a FAQ wouldn't do any harm. Some groups get
several competing FAQs posted to them ... and of course, the regulars
filter them out just as automatically.
> I would be inclined to allow for occasional special cases. The problem, of
> course, is that not all crossposting is intrinsically bad; it's just that
> we have a specific active troll (or two) who crossposts heavily and
> inappropriately.
>
>> Thus far, I think it is the only solution bar 'do nothing' which seems to
>> meet the requirements of those who have expressed an opinion about 'what to
>> do about SRQ'.
>
> I am inclined to think it'd work. I think robomoderation could probably do
> a lot of it. That said, while crunch is clearly insane, I'm pretty sure
> he's smart enough to get around any reasonably trivial robomoderation, and
> that he's unwilling to accept that the community has expressed an active
> desire for him to take that garbage somewhere else.
>
> I dunno, I'm half inclined to see if we could at least get him onto his
> massively one-sided accounts of his divorce just so there'd be at least
> a change of topics for a while.
>
> -s
There may be a case for creating a new moderated newsgroup. There are
procedures for doing that <http://www.anta.net/misc/nnq/ncreate.shtml>.
Alternatives to newsgroups are mailing-lists and web forums; both can be
as private as the members want - and (like moderated newsgroups) unwanted
posts will still find their way in from sufficiently determined
individuals. Members who dissent from the 'exclusivity' decisions of the
other members can render such forums almost useless.
Removing, or changing the moderated status of, a newsgroup is not totally
reliable; some news-server admins don't put the changes into effect
properly or at all. There is no single controlling entity of usenet or
newsgroups in general or of any un-moderated newsgroup.
Newsgroup participants who use good purpose-built newsreader software can
filter out the posts they don't want to see, fairly effectively. Those
reading via web-forum interfaces such as Google's have no such tools,
which is a strong argument against using such services.
'Google Groups' is notoriously responsible for being the service most
often used by those posting the sort of thing that is damaging this
newsgroup - so some people filter out anything posted using Google, just
for a start. Which is another good reason not to post via Google, of
course.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Whiskers
> I had not looked at soc.religion.quaker in a very long time, and your
> letter here inspired me to go check it out, although I only did so
> superficially. Here is probably a dumb question: when I found s.r.q.,
> it was a google group. Is this the same s.r.q. that used to be a usenet
> group?
[...]
Google took over an archive of usenet, known as 'DejaNews'. They added a
facility for posting to those newsgroups, then they added web forums of
their own using the same web interface as they provided to the archived
newsgroups. Google call that whole thing "Google Groups". But they do
not control or own any of the real newsgroups they carry. They also seem
to make no attempt to prevent spam from being posted to newsgroups via
their service, and they appear to ignore almost all complaints about
postings made by their users. There is considerable ire among 'real'
usenetters about the very damaging effect Google are having, particularly
now that the archive is almost useless thanks to Google making the search
facilities more or less non-functional.
Real newsgroups continue to be accessible using conventional news-servers
and newsreader software.
Seebs
> Moderation of a newsgroup is, in plain speach, censorship of what can
> appear in it. That censorship can to some extent be automated.
Yes.
And if you think that any kind of censorship of what can be said is
contrary to the spirit of Quaker meetings, ask the people that crunch
used to harass about his divorce for years and years why he isn't allowed
at their meetings anymore. Or try just going to a meeting for worship
and talking on your cell phone the whole time.
> But what happens to a moderated group when the only permitted moderators,
> cease to do the job? That can and does happen - and reviving such a group
> seems to be pretty near impossible.
If there's no visible moderators, it's usually possible to get the moderation
address changed.
> Alternatives to newsgroups are mailing-lists and web forums;
Such already exist, but do not serve the same purpose as a newsgroup.
> Newsgroup participants who use good purpose-built newsreader software can
> filter out the posts they don't want to see, fairly effectively. Those
> reading via web-forum interfaces such as Google's have no such tools,
> which is a strong argument against using such services.
The biggest problem isn't the direct harm of crunch's spam, it's all the
people responding to it -- many of whom are people I would rather not
killfile.
-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
Bill Samuel
> In article <hho1lf$ce...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
>
>
>
> Ian Davis <ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >In article <76ef3e32-80e3-45f4-bd57-842685754...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >>On Jan 1, 3:52 pm, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis) wrote:
>
> >>> If you knew nothing about Quakers, would it not serve you better to have
> >>> this forum somewhere which could edify you about Quakers, than have it
> >>> a forum where there was zero edification about anything, or worse one
> >>> which left you imagining terrible things of Quakers?
>
> >>There are fora in more contemporary formats than Usenet which do this,
> >>such as the QuakerInfo.com Forum and QuakerQuaker.org. Is there any
> >>evidence that there are any significant number of people coming to
> >>Usenet to find information about Quakers these days?
>
> >>Bill Samuel
>
> >I don't know. I came in the hope of finding fellowship with Quakers here.
>
>
> >Interesting.
>
> >http://www.quakerquaker.org/group/convergent
> >http://www.quakerquaker.org/group/liberal
>
> >Interesting.
>
> >You move me towards my original position which was that perhaps SRQ should
> >be scrapped.
>
> >Ian
>
> Bill this link in the SRQ.FAQ is currently broken.
>
> http://cpcug.org/user/wsamuel/qeu.html
>
> Is there a replacement link?
>
> Ian
http://www.quakerinfo.com/qeu.shtml But I really haven't kept that
up.
That the srq FAQ uses a link that has been out of date for probably at
least a decade is indicative of how srq has largely been abandoned.
Bill Samuel
Ian Davis
No, it is indicative of the lack of willingness to keep the FAQ up to
date. That is an issue I and others are trying to address. But while
I don't think it indicative I do agree that SRQ has been largely
abandoned.
Any comments on my attempt to fairly describe SRQ to those who might
arrive here under the misconception that it was a "Quaker" forum?
Ian.
crunch
Friend Bill Samuel,
I have informed interested parties at Cambridge
Meeting in Cambridge, Mass. USA of the current, sorry,
degraded status of SRQ.
Peace,
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
Sir David
> I have informed interested parties at Cambridge
> Meeting in Cambridge, Mass. USA of the current, sorry,
> degraded status of SRQ.
Did you tell them that the current state of SRQ is largely caused by
your campaign of trolling, spamming, and crossposting your neurotic
obsessions; as part of your campaign of revenge against all Friends
everywhere for the entirely justifiable and righteous actions taken
against you by Wellesley Meeting?
No, you're too much of a liar and a coward to be that honest and
candid. The Friends at Cambridge are well aware of your mental
problems, as well as your history of disruptive behavior. And at least
one of them reads your mountainous heaps of hobbyhorsemanure and your
demands for attention(*) here.Your time there may be shorter than you
think. Sucks to be you.
> Davey-Wavey Crunchystain
(*) Including your threat here that Friends Meeting at Cambridge would
have to answer for Wellesley Meeting's tossing your sorry ass out the
door.
Ian Davis
Sir David <sird...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 10:34�am, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com> caroled:
>> I have informed interested parties at Cambridge
>> Meeting in Cambridge, Mass. USA of the current, sorry,
>> degraded status of SRQ.
>
>Did you tell them that the current state of SRQ is largely caused by
>your campaign of trolling, spamming, and crossposting your neurotic
>obsessions; as part of your campaign of revenge against all Friends
>everywhere for the entirely justifiable and righteous actions taken
>against you by Wellesley Meeting?
>
>No, you're too much of a liar and a coward to be that honest and
>candid. The Friends at Cambridge are well aware of your mental
>problems, as well as your history of disruptive behavior. And at least
>one of them reads your mountainous heaps of hobbyhorsemanure and your
>demands for attention(*) here.Your time there may be shorter than you
>think. Sucks to be you.
>
How many people do you think have told David this, and how many times
has David been told this? Even a guestimate would put things in
perspective perhaps for you.
David either:
(1) does not believe what all others tell him and never will so won't change
(2) does believe it and just is incapable of change so won't change
(3) does believe it and simply lacks the empathy to care so won't change
(4) enjoys the misery he causes others here so won't change
(5) can be convinced to change his behaviour here.
Now I think the possibility of (5) so vanishingly small, that David is
long past being worth the vast expenditure of the 672 characters above
devoted entirely to him, in the vain hope that one might be able to get
through to him.
What think you Sir David? Did I omit anything from the list of possibilities?
Ian
crunch
wrote:
> In article <889e79b6-ea7b-40aa-b250-f211e6ef8...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
I think your SRQ message here is riddled with error.
Further, Friend Bill Samuel is right that Friends have
abandoned SRQ. However, I have given a full report
of the current, degraded status of SRQ to a member
of Ministry & Counsel at Cambridge Meeting in
Cambridge, Mass. USA.
Peace,
David Christainsen
Ian Davis
crunch <pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 4, 12:51�pm, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis)
>
>
Whatever. Ian
crunch
> In article <31068c43-ca9a-463c-ae18-24bab8873...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
>
> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 4, 12:51 pm, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis)
>
> >I think your SRQ message here is riddled with error.
>
> Whatever. Ian
It's not a whatever. Also, you should strive
to correct your errors. IOW you owe me to
make amends.
Dave
Ian Davis
crunch
> In article <46270ba3-8894-4d49-9f62-6a6412f62...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 4, 5:21 pm, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis) wrote:
> >> In article
> ><31068c43-ca9a-463c-ae18-24bab8873...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 4, 12:51 pm, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis)
>
> >> >I think your SRQ message here is riddled with error.
>
> >> Whatever. Ian
>
> >It's not a whatever. Also, you should strive
> >to correct your errors. IOW you owe me to
> >make amends.
>
> >Dave
>
> Whatever. Ian
I insist. Dave
(<<Kelly>>)
(<<Kelly>>)
> On Jan 4, 5:21 pm, ijda...@softbase.cs.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis) wrote:
> It's not a whatever.
You're right - it's actually a brush-off.
Take the hint.
> Also, you should strive
> to correct your errors.
Seems you have a severe case of pole-eye goin' on here, Soggy.
> IOW you owe me to
> make amends.
Nobody owes you anything.
(<<Kelly>>)
> I think your SRQ message here is riddled with error.
Nobody cares what you think.
Ian Davis
Ian Davis
One of those rare posts I completely agree with.
Ian.
Ian Davis
Oh it is worse than that. David demands an apology but is probably incapable
of actually saying why he even imagines himself owed one. It is much the
same as the posturing in the Great Divorce (not by the Tragedian this time)
but by the man who claims somewhat idiotically given how much he was in the
wrong that "he knows his rights".
On a forum such as this David's desire to posture, throw his weight around,
and dictate to others what they must do, is thwarted by the fact that David
has no weight to throw around here to begin with, unless people give it him.
I'm pretty much through with wasting needless keystrokes on David. It is
after all an utter waste of time.
Perhaps if I set the example, others (such as yourself) might follow it.
Ian.
Whiskers
> On 2010-01-04, Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Newsgroup participants who use good purpose-built newsreader software can
>> filter out the posts they don't want to see, fairly effectively. Those
>> reading via web-forum interfaces such as Google's have no such tools,
>> which is a strong argument against using such services.
>
> The biggest problem isn't the direct harm of crunch's spam, it's all the
> people responding to it -- many of whom are people I would rather not
> killfile.
>
> -s
Ah, well, that's usenet for you: some people you like to engage with also
sometimes engage with people you'd rather ignore. Just like real life,
really.
I have yet to attend any Friends meeting of any sort, but I'd be
astonished if inappropriate conduct were tolerated any more than it is in
any other sort of meeting, secular or otherwise. But that's where the
difference between usenet and face-to-face meetings in enclosed spaces
becomes clear; whereas (in extremis) a person on private premises can be
physically ejected and barred, there are no physical barriers or physical
presences here in virtual space, so there are no analogues of 'ejection'
or 'barring'. The only conduct you can control, is your own.
On the technical front, 'killfiles' as such are rather crude. Better
newsreader software gives much more flexible ways of hiding stuff you'd
rather not see - eg 'ignore thread/subthread' or 'ignore responses to this
person' (the terminology and precise tools available varies). With
practice, such tools - or the 'scoring' tool some newsreaders offer - can
transform your experience of newsgroups. For both moral and practical
reasons, I think that approach is hugely better than 'moderation' of
any sort (apart from some very specialised newsgroups which are more about
precise technical matters than 'free conversation').
Whiskers
[...]
> Any comments on my attempt to fairly describe SRQ to those who might
> arrive here under the misconception that it was a "Quaker" forum?
>
> Ian.
'Although nominally intended for discussion of matters related to the
Religious Society of Friends, in practice people post whatever they like
and it's up to you to decide which discussions to take part in.'
Ian Davis
Certainly so.. but if that is actually said in a FAQ, it helps clear up
confusion in the minds of any who might think it otherwise. One goal
of the FAQ is not to change behaviour. It is to explain it and distance
the RSofF from any suggestion that such behaviour is quakerly.
Ian
Whiskers
That's why I put the quotes around it - as a suggested insert in the FAQ
(somewhere near the top, ideally). I think that means we're in agreement
;))