importance being placed on upholding the faq..
~lil num
ive noticed of late the discussion re the importance of the ng strictly
following the faq the possible voting on changing the direction of the
ng etc
i find it strange that many of the people complaining about how the
group has degenerated of late were not around in the time before the faq
was written while it makes an excellent starting place for people who
have wandered into the ng without a clue if i remember correctly it
was originally written so that we no longer had to answer the annoyingly
repetitive questions of newbies basically it gave us the ability to
stop posting long explainations and loudly proclaim _go read the damn
faq_
over the years the faq has evolved to include an interesting set of
basic _rules_ and information but i dont think anyone should be running
around with a torch screaming _we must uphold the faq at all costs_
the ng has suffered influxes of _the truth_ and flamewars in the past
(quick, does anoyone other than myself, travis casey, duv and ennui
remember steven brown?) and im certain it will continue to survive
through them in future
these long drawn out threads espousing and/or dissecting _the truth_ as
someone sees it would rapidly decline (imho) if we followed the path
suggested by chiller respond to them to the point that you are
satisfied that they have no proof and then ignore them a person cant
continue to respond to a thread that is being ignored or has been kill
filed most of those who are posting simply for the attention they
receive will soon get tired of being ignored and leave those who dont
often end up as valuable and enjoyable members of the ng
while i had in the past considered many of the members of this ng like
family quite a few of those have left leaving fewer still to carry the
memory of the orignal ng like a dying flame as much as id like to stir
up the embers i think its about time many of us let go to the past
and begin dealing with the ng in a present and future sense for
exmaple many of the current members of this group hold foldly to the
memory of threads babbling on about barbeques personally i found them
to be annoying at the time because they fell so far out of the
boundaries of what was - at the time - the established focus of the
ng instead of lashing out however i chose not to participate in
them they eventually died and those same members who remain today
have often posted material which i enjoy reading now
the group is cyclic make your own choices and deal
numindan
*mourning the absence of ravnos katrina karafon emrys and desnoirs -
to name a few*
Francis J Yenca
Excerpts from netnews.alt.vampyres: 15-Jan-98 importance being placed on
.. by ~lil n...@earthling.net
>
> numindan
> *mourning the absence of ravnos katrina karafon emrys and desnoirs -
> to name a few*
Absolutely!
All I can add is that we should contribute toward making the group what
we want, rather than bemoaning it's loss... focus on the future, rather
than the past.
Frank, with impending stories
B J Kuehl
Frank Yenca wrote:n
> All I can add is that we should contribute toward making the group what
> we want, rather than bemoaning it's loss... focus on the future, rather
> than the past.
Which is exactly the line of discussion in which I'm trying to engage
the group. What do we see or wish to see for this group in the
future? I'm afraid that, now, I don't feel very positive about the
direction it is heading. If it keeps on in the direction it is going,
it will end up a place for messiahs to post and argue about their
competing truths, and the rest of us will be confronted with either
disproving the pseudoscientific inaccuracies of their claims or
constructing elaborate killfiles to eliminate the unwnated garbage.
The future that I'm see for alt.vampyres is one of a lost reputation
of being the only vampire-related newsgroup which is not set up for
fantasy role-playing or discussion of the vampire in a particular
milieu such as anne rice, whitewolf or forever knight. I'm not
so much rueing the past as I am the future.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Jarno Uurainen
B J Kuehl <b...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
: Which is exactly the line of discussion in which I'm trying to engage
: the group. What do we see or wish to see for this group in the
: future? I'm afraid that, now, I don't feel very positive about the
: direction it is heading. If it keeps on in the direction it is going,
: it will end up a place for messiahs to post and argue about their
: competing truths
I agree. It's just that the regular posters are few in numbers,
and SeekerSA seems to be inviting his AOL followers here.
I know there are a lot of sensible, intelligent people
lurking in here. It would be the time for them to speak up
also.
The messiahs seem to have a need to spread their truths, and
no one here wants to hear those truths. What we need is an
appropriate NG for people who claim that vampires are
real and they know the truth. They don't like us, we don't
like them, and we were here first (Not me though, but thats
irrelevant) - they may create alt.vampyres.real and post
there. I sure as hell won't be subscribing.
With this, they have a place where to go, and we have means
of complaining to AOL postmaster or whoever if they crosspost
to alt.vampyres.
In my opinion, alt.vampyres should be a place where vampires
are discussed as modern science knows them - in mythology
and fiction.
-Jake
B J Kuehl
When I wrote:
> : Which is exactly the line of discussion in which I'm trying to engage
> : the group. What do we see or wish to see for this group in the
> : future? I'm afraid that, now, I don't feel very positive about the
> : direction it is heading. If it keeps on in the direction it is going,
> : it will end up a place for messiahs to post and argue about their
> : competing truths
Jake agreed:
> I agree. It's just that the regular posters are few in numbers,
> and SeekerSA seems to be inviting his AOL followers here.
> I know there are a lot of sensible, intelligent people
> lurking in here. It would be the time for them to speak up
> also.
Actually, I've heard from a lot of people in email who have decided,
for whatever reasons, not to post their opinions to the group.
As soon as it seems like those who are going to speak their minds
have done so, I will summarize the responses and present some of
the suggestions that have been presented.
Of course, there is no way that I can enforce anything here or
make any changes to the faq without some kind of group consensus,
so the outcome of this little misadventure is still highly
debatable.
> In my opinion, alt.vampyres should be a place where vampires
> are discussed as modern science knows them - in mythology
> and fiction.
Mine, too. But we may be in the minority.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Amy Krieytaz
B J Kuehl wrote:
>
[...]
> > are discussed as modern science knows them - in mythology
> > and fiction.
>
> Mine, too. But we may be in the minority.
May I ask how you reconcile the above with your statement that you do
not object to people who call themselves vampires _per_se_, or thet you
do not object to (non-Truth-Saying) discussion of said people?
(Note that I am *asking* how your reconcile the above, rather than
*accusing* you of contradicting yourself, as you so hastily accused
me....)
Amy Krieytaz
akrieytaz @ hotmail.com
Vampire Research Resource Page
http://www.necronomi.com/users/akrieytaz/
*** Please CC public replies to E-mail.
*** I will do likewise unless you ask me not to.
ScatterbuG
Baby J wrote:
(but jake said this first):
>> I agree. It's just that the regular posters are few in numbers,
>> and SeekerSA seems to be inviting his AOL followers here.
>> I know there are a lot of sensible, intelligent people
>> lurking in here. It would be the time for them to speak up
>> also.
as one of the (hopefully) sensible, intelligent people, i am speaking
up. catherine and crew bug the ever living hell out of me with their
garbage. but, as ever, i do not believe in flaming. the 'real'
creatures are, to me, trolls. and as i've always said, a troll ignored
is a troll that goes away.
>Of course, there is no way that I can enforce anything here or
>make any changes to the faq without some kind of group consensus,
>so the outcome of this little misadventure is still highly
>debatable.
ok, just a lil question, what with all the talk of changing the faq...
WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO?!? it's not like the faq'll be changed, and the
next time its posted, catherine will read it, and jump up proclaiming
'o my gawd! i've gotta find someplace new to spread my garba... er...
teachings'. no, she and her lot will continue doing what they are
doing now.
>> In my opinion, alt.vampyres should be a place where vampires
>> are discussed as modern science knows them - in mythology
>> and fiction.
>
>Mine, too. But we may be in the minority.
i believe we are the majority, but the minority is so much louder...
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
ScatterbuG
-immortality through reruns-
http://www.mhonline.net/~scatter
B J Kuehl
When Jake wrote:
>>> In my opinion, alt.vampyres should be a place where vampires
>>> are discussed as modern science knows them - in mythology
>>> and fiction.
I agreed:
>> Mine, too. But we may be in the minority.
And Amy Krieytaz, spokesperson to the diseased vampires, asked:
>May I ask how you reconcile the above with your statement that you do
>not object to people who call themselves vampires _per_se_, or thet you
>do not object to (non-Truth-Saying) discussion of said people?
I've already answered that. This newsgroup, as I have known it over
the past three years, accepts anyone, no matter their ideology, so
long as they don't prostelytize it. ONce they announce that they
have... eureka... found the Truth(tm), they are, rightfully, asked
by the rest of us stupid searchers to provide the evidence.
Funny thing is that they never can.
One of the things that distinguishes this group from all the others is
that we have a large number of educated and scientific individuals
posting here. We don't buy eurekas... or unfounded theories.
But we do discuss them.... sometimes to the detriment of the
Truthsayers.
^V^ Baby JInx ^V^
Julian Richards
> I've already answered that. This newsgroup, as I have known it over
> the past three years, accepts anyone, no matter their ideology, so
> long as they don't prostelytize it. ONce they announce that they
> have... eureka... found the Truth(tm), they are, rightfully, asked
> by the rest of us stupid searchers to provide the evidence.
>
> Funny thing is that they never can.
>
> One of the things that distinguishes this group from all the others is
> that we have a large number of educated and scientific individuals
> posting here. We don't buy eurekas... or unfounded theories.
>
> But we do discuss them.... sometimes to the detriment of the
> Truthsayers.
>
>
> ^V^ Baby JInx ^V^
I think that I'm being framed for murder. Every time I ask questions of
someone in the group (mainly but not exclusively Real(TM) vampires), it
would seem that someone kills them and they're unable to reply.
They seem to disappear up their own arses, except for a certain
pseudomilitary character who probably disappeared up someone else's.
Jarno Uurainen
ScatterbuG <scatter...@mhonline.net> wrote:
: ok, just a lil question, what with all the talk of changing the faq...
: WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO?!? it's not like the faq'll be changed, and the
: next time its posted, catherine will read it, and jump up proclaiming
: 'o my gawd! i've gotta find someplace new to spread my garba... er...
: teachings'. no, she and her lot will continue doing what they are
: doing now.
As the FAQ is changed, at least I will be bugging the living hell
out of certain postmasters.
-Jake
B J Kuehl
When ScatterbuG wondered:
> : ok, just a lil question, what with all the talk of changing the faq...
> : WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO?!? it's not like the faq'll be changed, and the
> : next time its posted, catherine will read it, and jump up proclaiming
> : 'o my gawd! i've gotta find someplace new to spread my garba... er...
> : teachings'. no, she and her lot will continue doing what they are
> : doing now.
Jake responded:
> As the FAQ is changed, at least I will be bugging the living hell
> out of certain postmasters.
And it will give the residents of this newsgroup a leg on which
to stand when they simply point out that such evangelizing of
unproven theories as the truth goes against the purpose of this
newsgroup as stated in its faq. Then we can ignore them rather
than even bothering to engage them in conversation.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Julian Richards
> And it will give the residents of this newsgroup a leg on which
> to stand when they simply point out that such evangelizing of
> unproven theories as the truth goes against the purpose of this
> newsgroup as stated in its faq. Then we can ignore them rather
> than even bothering to engage them in conversation.
>
>
> ^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
I rather like being their predator, although they're rather like a gazelle
with three legs. Perhaps rather than picking them off one by one I could
produce generic postings for each type. Then as they arrive, they could be
given the appropriate debunking which would have to be modified as each
tries to develop theories to get around the attack. Either that or find out
where they live and kill them.
Amy Krieytaz
Julian Richards wrote:
> I think that I'm being framed for murder. Every time I ask questions of
> someone in the group (mainly but not exclusively Real(TM) vampires), it
> would seem that someone kills them and they're unable to reply.
>
> They seem to disappear up their own arses, except for a certain
> pseudomilitary character who probably disappeared up someone else's.
Do you save copies of your critiques? If so, and if indeed they are so
effective at making their objects disappear (as othere in the group
evidently desire), would you be willing re-post them every so often?
Certainly this would be both more interesting and a lot less tiresome
than all the flaming I see here.
Amy Krieytaz
Julian Richards wrote:
Re: importance being placed on upholding the faq..
> I rather like being their predator, although they're rather like a gazelle
> with three legs. Perhaps rather than picking them off one by one I could
> produce generic postings for each type. Then as they arrive, they could be
> given the appropriate debunking which would have to be modified as each
> tries to develop theories to get around the attack.
Sounds good to me.
Note to BJ and Jake: Julian Richards has stated here that he, unlike
you, still ENJOYS "being their predator." In a previous post, Julian
also claimed to be very effectiva at making the "Truth Sayers" disappear
(at least for a while). Is this indeed true? If so, then is there
really any further need for you to get all wound up about the "Truth
Sayers"? Perhaps you could just let Julian handle 'em?
Amy Krieytaz
akrieytaz @ hotmail.com
Vampire Research Resource Page
http://www.necronomi.com/users/akrieytaz/
(For a list of message boards discussing real-life self-described
vampires, click on "Real-life blood-drinkers and psychic vampires," then
click on "message boards.")
B J Kuehl
Amy Krieytaz writes:
> Note to BJ and Jake: Julian Richards has stated here that he, unlike
> you, still ENJOYS "being their predator." In a previous post, Julian
> also claimed to be very effectiva at making the "Truth Sayers" disappear
> (at least for a while). Is this indeed true? If so, then is there
> really any further need for you to get all wound up about the "Truth
> Sayers"? Perhaps you could just let Julian handle 'em?
Julian has been a member of this group for about a month, and
has shown himself to be an intelligent and thoughtful person.
If he wishes to respond in this manner to the truthsayers, he
is welcomed to do so. This does not, however, mean that he has
taken on this responsibility or that anyone else, myself and
Jake included, is heretofore precluded from flaming, answering
or in any way responding to the truthsayers.
Sorry, but I agree to nothing.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
ScatterbuG
maybe i should just put 'em on the List, regardless of the fact they
already claim to be vampires... noone who's been put on the List has
ever been heard from again... not MY fault of course, it just seems to
work that way.
White Spirit
ScatterbuG wrote:
> ok, just a lil question, what with all the talk of changing the faq...
> WHAT GOOD WILL IT DO?!?
I s'pose it'll be handy when it's time to complain to their post-masters
about what will be spamming, if it isn't already.
> i believe we are the majority, but the minority is so much louder...
Welcome to fasc... er, I mean, democracy ;)
Chiller
jet...@i.hate.spam opined thus: -
>i've always felt like the ppl here are a group with vampires as a common
>interest... if we stayed on topic all the time, this place would just
>feel _cold_...
You say it like it's a bad thing! *Wounded look*
>(no offense to chiller, of course. *grin*)
Oh, well that's alright then. *Grin* None taken.
Chiller
Ice and a slice?
chi...@cold.demon.co.uk
http://www.cold.demon.co.uk/index.html
Chiller
~lil num <numi...@earthling.net> opined thus: -
<Kitty Slice>
>these long drawn out threads espousing and/or dissecting _the truth_ as
>someone sees it would rapidly decline (imho) if we followed the path
>suggested by chiller respond to them to the point that you are
>satisfied that they have no proof and then ignore them a person cant
>continue to respond to a thread that is being ignored or has been kill
>filed most of those who are posting simply for the attention they
>receive will soon get tired of being ignored and leave those who dont
>often end up as valuable and enjoyable members of the ng
It has long been my feeling that:
a) I don't really want to waste time on the "truthsayers".
b) What is (in part) really destroying this newsgroup is not their
arrival, per se (a simple "You bore me: fuck off" once it is
established there is no truth in their claims should be
sufficient to end the conversation); what's destroying the
"feel" of this newsgroup is the long-drawn-out hammering and bad
feeling that results from trying to get an admission from these
people that they don't have physical evidence for their claims.
As i have stated in the past; if they're delusional enough to
believe that their "theories" are true, then there is no point
aiming a logic-gun at them and firing it. They're effectively
immune to the rays.
It can be said in truth that BJ has been instrumental in drawing
out most of these conversations (I say this because she keeps
asking if we think she's to blame for the decline of alt.V - in
fact I don't - but please read on...), but one cannot suggest
she has been alone in this. It is also futile to suggest that
people should stop doing this - if it's BJ's and some other
people's nature to relentlessly pursue a thing, even beyond the
point where that's constructive - well, that's her /their way.
3) The other thing that's destroying this newsgroup is when
situations arise where *the wrong people* are browbeaten into a
corner, or lumped together with "truthsayers", and get a very
rough ride as a result. This is ugly and it's happening more
often. It seems to me that after the thrill of the chase (?)
with someone like Catherene, when people's dander is up, they
look around for the next potential victim, and sometimes someone
who is actually quite pleasant or intelligent receives a flaming
for no good reason. Amy, for instance, strikes me as reasoned
and intelligent, and when she suggested that alt.V is a public
forum - which it is -and that people we don't want here will
persistently turn up, she was accused of threatening to *bring*
them here. Sang posted about thinking she was a Vampire, and
that it was caused by a virus, and was instantly lumped in with
the "messiah" crew.
The arrival of messiahs is not what's ruining this newsgroup - what's
ruining it is the witch-hunt that goes on after their arrival.
As BJ has rightly pointed out in her responses to Amy's emails, it's not
as though we have no possible course of action when people like
Catherene turn up. If you want them to leave, I suggest you tell them
to piss off, or ignore them (that last option may only be taken as
passive acceptance however). There is no point in discussing their
mental states / debunking the bunk that is their theories, or getting so
worked up about them that you lash out at unconnected parties. If they
persist on alt.v (as I personally think Catherene might for a while);
it's up to individuals whether they post a "This person is a false
messiah" message after their every word to protect the hopelessly naive.
I think that doing so may have an admirable base, but it seems to only
fan the flame wars which are discouraging good, solid posts.
White Spirit
Chiller wrote:
> The arrival of messiahs is not what's ruining this newsgroup - what's
> ruining it is the witch-hunt that goes on after their arrival.
But what if they went unchallenged? What would happen then when they
turn the group into another of their personal fan-bases?
> As BJ has rightly pointed out in her responses to Amy's emails, it's not
> as though we have no possible course of action when people like
> Catherene turn up. If you want them to leave, I suggest you tell them
> to piss off, or ignore them (that last option may only be taken as
> passive acceptance however). There is no point in discussing their
> mental states / debunking the bunk that is their theories, or getting so
> worked up about them that you lash out at unconnected parties. If they
> persist on alt.v (as I personally think Catherene might for a while);
> it's up to individuals whether they post a "This person is a false
> messiah" message after their every word to protect the hopelessly naive.
> I think that doing so may have an admirable base, but it seems to only
> fan the flame wars which are discouraging good, solid posts.
I think the flame-wars detract from the group but in my opinion alt.v
isn't the right place for people to set themselves up as self-appointed
leaders of their "truth" in the search for more converts to their cult
of denial. Better to discredit them I think, even if it means there's
the risk of a resulting flame-war.
What I think could help would be if someone organises a vote on what has
been suggested about altering the FAQ to reflect the recent scourge and
hopefully then give a way of getting something done about it.
B J Kuehl
White Spirit suggests:
> What I think could help would be if someone organises a vote on what has
> been suggested about altering the FAQ to reflect the recent scourge and
> hopefully then give a way of getting something done about it.
I will summarize all the opinions/suggestions that have been made
on this topic over the past several days and present them to the
group. If it becomes necessary, we can decide whether or not to
actually vote on which procedure(s), if any, to follow.
^V^ Baby Jinx ^V^
Chiller
White Spirit <wsp...@hotmail.com> opined thus: -
>Chiller wrote:
>
>> The arrival of messiahs is not what's ruining this newsgroup - what's
>> ruining it is the witch-hunt that goes on after their arrival.
>
>But what if they went unchallenged? What would happen then when they
>turn the group into another of their personal fan-bases?
No - read my following paragraph, where I suggest that ignoring them may
not work, so perhaps we should tell them to piss off, nice and plainly.
>> As BJ has rightly pointed out in her responses to Amy's emails, it's not
>> as though we have no possible course of action when people like
>> Catherene turn up. If you want them to leave, I suggest you tell them
>> to piss off, or ignore them (that last option may only be taken as
>> passive acceptance however). There is no point in discussing their
>> mental states / debunking the bunk that is their theories, or getting so
>> worked up about them that you lash out at unconnected parties. If they
>> persist on alt.v (as I personally think Catherene might for a while);
>> it's up to individuals whether they post a "This person is a false
>> messiah" message after their every word to protect the hopelessly naive.
>> I think that doing so may have an admirable base, but it seems to only
>> fan the flame wars which are discouraging good, solid posts.
>
>I think the flame-wars detract from the group but in my opinion alt.v
>isn't the right place for people to set themselves up as self-appointed
>leaders of their "truth" in the search for more converts to their cult
>of denial. Better to discredit them I think, even if it means there's
>the risk of a resulting flame-war.
>
>What I think could help would be if someone organises a vote on what has
>been suggested about altering the FAQ to reflect the recent scourge and
>hopefully then give a way of getting something done about it.
I agree, it might help.
White Spirit
Chiller wrote:
[messiahs]
> >But what if they went unchallenged? What would happen then when they
> >turn the group into another of their personal fan-bases?
> No - read my following paragraph, where I suggest that ignoring them may
> not work, so perhaps we should tell them to piss off, nice and plainly.
Ah. They could ignore that too, though :(
As much as it can get boring a good thing about the witch-hunt thing is
that it brings things out like, for example, Winged Wolf's plans for a
symbiont removal being more of a home auto-execution kit. Maybe I
should post the schematics to alt.suicide.holiday?
Chiller
White Spirit <wsp...@hotmail.com> opined thus: -
>Chiller wrote:
That was something of a high point in an otherwise rather dismaying
thread. It wasn't as good as your "cure" though. ;)