Now I try to be amused (was Re: I Used to Be Disgusted)
Elvis Costello
flu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote while addressing net.scum Chris Lewis
the email address forger...
-
-And actually, a _lot_ more people 'turning it off' would help
-tremendously, for everyone involved. It's hard to do that, I know, I
-play with trolls too.
-
-The group making up 'hacks' wants to be in everyone's faces, as much as
-possible, getting its message out. Meeting that often hostile stuff
-with the same only serves to amplify it. Every time someone lets off a
-zinger about Stephe, he is strengthened, made more visible.
Well the cabal simply is not very good at reasoned debate and thus
the problem. They really don't want to discuss issues which is why
Henrietta for example will not address Dave the Resurrectors failure
in regards to the Bellomy content cancels. That leaves the cabal
dregs left--like Mr. Ratcliffe, Sam, etc. which of course are suportive
of our contentions in a way they'll never understand. And Mr. Lewis
is so obsessed with the good Dr. Grubor he can think of nothing
else it appears.
But most importantly--about your 'in everyone's faces' nonsense is
that forging cancels is certainly 'in you face' behavior. And in
terms of the cabals unwillingness to address serious issues (they
start sometimes and then retreat due to enormous internal dissent)
we've still the lack of replies from those who in the past have been
viewed as credible but then cited the Dynasour-SP nonsense as
legitimate references, then backtracked and now fall silent. That
to me indicates lack of character--and you can't debate--much
less negotiate with those who are presently so lacking in backbone.
-
-Hipcrime's canceltoy falls into the same category. The intention isn't
-to wipe out Usenet, it's to be a highly visible pest. To actually wipe
-out news, there are far more effective methods.
Well I can't speak for Hipcrime but I do know there is a very strong
sentiment--one that I agree with--that if the cancels continue software
distribution to the masses will become a necessity. You're already
on record I believe as saying that cancels are stupid and counter-
productive but the mystic about Chris Lewis is such (and even after
his SP nonsense) that you won't even address him honsestly. I thought
there was more to you than that (thought the same of Henrietta for
that matter).
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Fluffy
Elvis Costello <el...@red.shoes.gov> wrote:
> Well the cabal simply is not very good at reasoned debate and thus
> the problem. They really don't want to discuss issues which is why
> Henrietta for example will not address Dave the Resurrectors failure
> in regards to the Bellomy content cancels. That leaves the cabal
> dregs left--like Mr. Ratcliffe, Sam, etc. which of course are suportive
> of our contentions in a way they'll never understand. And Mr. Lewis
> is so obsessed with the good Dr. Grubor he can think of nothing
> else it appears.
See Steve, this is just the sort of thing I was talking about. It's
politically expedient for you to have The Enemy, to reinforce the
idea of a cabal so that your ideas are more visible with the contrast.
There are others who attempt to do the same with your words, playing
off the "if you're not with us you're against us" fallacy to create
contrast and visibility.
Both you, and those who play against you, are wrong.
> But most importantly--about your 'in everyone's faces' nonsense is
> that forging cancels is certainly 'in you face' behavior.
They're not in my face. Only Hipcrime's crowing is.
> And in terms of the cabals unwillingness to address serious issues
> (they start sometimes and then retreat due to enormous internal
> dissent)
It would seem inconsistent if you hold to the belief that there is one
'cabal.' There are in fact many, some consisting of only one person.
There is groupthink, but it is not where you are looking.
> we've still the lack of replies from those who in the past have been
> viewed as credible but then cited the Dynasour-SP nonsense as
> legitimate references, then backtracked and now fall silent.
Keep in mind who called that stuff into question as being somehow
'definitive.' You might also want to note that Dennis' credibility has
never been universal, not by a long shot.
> That to me indicates lack of character--and you can't debate--much
> less negotiate with those who are presently so lacking in backbone.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think it's just a
gratuitous slam. And yes, you can debate and negotiate. Just don't
bother with people who spend all their time politicking, and instead
address the others. Actually, you and Dennis are so much alike that I
have to wonder why I'm bothering to write this.
> -Hipcrime's canceltoy falls into the same category. The intention isn't
> -to wipe out Usenet, it's to be a highly visible pest. To actually wipe
> -out news, there are far more effective methods.
>
> Well I can't speak for Hipcrime but I do know there is a very strong
> sentiment--one that I agree with--that if the cancels continue software
> distribution to the masses will become a necessity.
That doesn't follow. Canceltoys like that won't have the effect you
desire. They won't take away cancels; instead, they'll make cancels
the exclusive domain of high-volume despammers and take the ability
away from the end user. Software like that _encourages_ the growth of
a cabal by restricting the ability to delete messages to an anointed
few.
> You're already on record I believe as saying that cancels are stupid
> and counter- productive
Yes, I am. There are very few situations where they help.
> but the mystic about Chris Lewis is such (and even after his SP
> nonsense) that you won't even address him honsestly.
Oh, but I have. I think you're looking for polarization where there is
none. I think that _both_ sides of this years-long pissing match are
wrong.
> I thought there was more to you than that (thought the same of
> Henrietta for that matter).
There is more to me, but you are unable (unwilling?) to see it. Open
your eyes, Steve.
--
__ __ _
| \/ |___ _____ __ _| |
| |\/| / -_) _ \ V V /_|
|_| |_\___\___/\_/\_/(_) <URL:http://www.shore.net/~fluffy/>
Dr.G
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Elvis Costello wrote:
> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 03:44:03 GMT
> From: Elvis Costello <el...@red.shoes.gov>
> Reply-To: bou...@alt.net
> Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship, alt.wired, news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
> alt.god.grubor, alt.culture.usenet, alt.nude.gymnastics
> Subject: Re: Now I try to be amused (was Re: I Used to Be Disgusted)
>
> flu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote while addressing net.scum Chris Lewis
> the email address forger...
> -
> -And actually, a _lot_ more people 'turning it off' would help
> -tremendously, for everyone involved. It's hard to do that, I know, I
> -play with trolls too.
> -
> -The group making up 'hacks' wants to be in everyone's faces, as much as
> -possible, getting its message out. Meeting that often hostile stuff
> -with the same only serves to amplify it. Every time someone lets off a
> -zinger about Stephe, he is strengthened, made more visible.
>
> Well the cabal simply is not very good at reasoned debate and thus
> the problem. They really don't want to discuss issues which is why
> Henrietta for example will not address Dave the Resurrectors failure
> in regards to the Bellomy content cancels. That leaves the cabal
> dregs left--like Mr. Ratcliffe, Sam, etc. which of course are suportive
> of our contentions in a way they'll never understand. And Mr. Lewis
> is so obsessed with the good Dr. Grubor he can think of nothing
> else it appears.
>
Ant that is why we shall eliminate his effectiveness and
replace it with an American UNCENSORED Usenet.
> But most importantly--about your 'in everyone's faces' nonsense is
> that forging cancels is certainly 'in you face' behavior. And in
> terms of the cabals unwillingness to address serious issues (they
> start sometimes and then retreat due to enormous internal dissent)
> we've still the lack of replies from those who in the past have been
> viewed as credible but then cited the Dynasour-SP nonsense as
> legitimate references, then backtracked and now fall silent. That
> to me indicates lack of character--and you can't debate--much
> less negotiate with those who are presently so lacking in backbone.
>
> -
> -Hipcrime's canceltoy falls into the same category. The intention isn't
> -to wipe out Usenet, it's to be a highly visible pest. To actually wipe
> -out news, there are far more effective methods.
>
> Well I can't speak for Hipcrime but I do know there is a very strong
> sentiment--one that I agree with--that if the cancels continue software
> distribution to the masses will become a necessity. You're already
> on record I believe as saying that cancels are stupid and counter-
> productive but the mystic about Chris Lewis is such (and even after
> his SP nonsense) that you won't even address him honsestly. I thought
> there was more to you than that (thought the same of Henrietta for
> that matter).
>
> Steve
> news.admin.censorship
>
>
Just cancel all of Chris Lewis and you have solved the problem.
We must have AMERICAN rule of this Usenet so we may execute
contracts which can be enforced in Federal Court.
-DrG
Rebecca Ore
"Dr.G" <d...@pgh.org> writes:
>
> Just cancel all of Chris Lewis and you have solved the problem.
Are you sure you're not attacking The Fake Chris Lewis? There
are fake open servers -- setting up a Fake Chris Lewis would only be a
little bit more difficult.
Seriously, if you didn't have Chris, whatever would you do
with the rest of your life?
>
> We must have AMERICAN rule of this Usenet so we may execute
> contracts which can be enforced in Federal Court.
All Usenet contracts will be enforced by the World Court in
The Hague.
Grubor, it's a great Lenny Bruce routine in some ways, not as
funny or as much fun, as some I've been party to.
--
Rebecca Ore
Master Randy Newman
flu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
-
-Elvis Costello <el...@red.shoes.gov> wrote:
<large clips>
-> You're already on record I believe as saying that cancels are
-> stupid and counter- productive
-
-Yes, I am. There are very few situations where they help.
Yet you condemn Hipcrime but do not do the same
of Chris Lewis or Rebecca (god bless her). That's quite
a double standard. One is no more or less legitimate
than the other.
-> but the mystic about Chris Lewis is such (and even after his
-> SP nonsense) that you won't even address him honsestly.
-
-Oh, but I have. I think you're looking for polarization where there is
-none. I think that _both_ sides of this years-long pissing match are
-wrong.
Not at all--I'm looking for an end to all types of system
wide filteirng. I would truely like peace if that could
be accomplished--sort of that there will be
polerization simply because the players are miles
apart.
-> I thought there was more to you than that (thought the same of
-> Henrietta for that matter).
-
-There is more to me, but you are unable (unwilling?) to see it. Open
-your eyes, Steve.
Oh-- I know there is much more to you than that--in fact
you've engaged in some insightful and productive discussions.
But the post that I followed up with was beneath you--you
referred to those who oppose such filtering as kooks (talk
about feeding into polerization) and your comments where
quite partisan in the direction of the forgers and filterers.
But back to Henrietta because if you still keeps evading
it (and maybe not as I'm just touching the surface of this
evenings posts) I'm going to write a FAQ to post weekly
pointing out the inconsistencies and evasiveness.
You see Henrietta does have a lot of substance.
But she cited the SP/Lewis/Dynasour nonsense as
if it were a legitimate reference, than backed off but
has still not addressed the matter other than retreat
in to silence. You talk about polarity--I had expected
and still hope for much more from her.
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Thomas De Quincey
flu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
-
-{original newsgroups were news.admin.censorship,alt.wired,
-news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.god.grubor,alt.culture.usenet. I'm
-narrowing up to nanau for now because people tend to ignore
-crossposts.
Not really--in many groups crossposts are tradition--especially
the political ones. And I'm not much interested in anyone that
is that retentive anyway--one is hardly going to influence
them--would take years of intensive psychoanalysis for
that to happen.
-Feel free to quote and add back, if you think it's useful.}
Thanks--I did and added alt.forgery as it's relevant as well.
-Master Randy Newman <ra...@burn.on.edu> wrote:
-
-> flu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
-
-> -Yes, I am. There are very few situations where they help.
->
-> Yet you condemn Hipcrime
-
-I think that Hipcrime's doing something that's really dumb. I'm not
-condemning _him_. There's a big difference.
Well that's true--thank you for make that clear. I admire hipcrime
and he's anything but dumb.
-> but do not do the same of Chris Lewis or Rebecca (god bless her).
-
-Then you really _haven't_ been paying attention.
I do my best Fluffy--really Mom said that's all that's fair to ask
of another..
- I've very sharply criticized the system in the past; there are somethings
-(test posts, for example) that are very clearly identical by the very strictest
-definition, but those aren't considered to be cancellable spam. The
-rationale is that different people are posting those tests and
-therefore are saying different things.
Well there are countless examples of double standards amoung
the cabal--take a look at Dave the Resurrectors failure with
the Rosenthal cancels--that one is disgusting.
-At the same time, different people posting the same attachments for
-possibly entirely different reasons _are_ having their articles
-cancelled. Yet, we're told that no newsgroup is special, that spam is
-spam no matter where it appears.
But they've never been honest.
-Some aspects of despamming clearly _are_ content based, or worse,
-an attempt is made to determine what the poster was thinking.
That's an excellent post--imagine the arrogance behind that!
-That business is entirely wrong in my eyes; I don't repeat it day in and day
-out because I've already said it, and saying it more times isn't going
-to make my argument more convincing.
True--it's just that your post I was following up on appeared to be
a one-sided assault and you've been taking a more reasoned
approach lately.
-> That's quite a double standard. One is no more or less legitimate
-> than the other.
-
-You're not paying attention.
But I am doing the best that I can--Mom always said that's all
you can expect of others.
-I haven't given spam cancels any sort of blanket endorsement, not by
-any stretch. I think that the 'rules' are markedly flawed.
To the point where there are no rules--just a matter of who one is
and who they know, etc. aside from content of course. Again I refer
back to the Rosenthal forged cancels based solely on content.
-I want to see Hipcrime stop for a different reason than you may think.
-It's not because he's issuing cancels, it's because he's using open
-servers to send them. Open servers are a valuable and increasingly
-rare resource, and canceltoys are one of the most effective methods
-available for getting them shut down.
And of all the 'abuse' of open servers hipcrime is hardly significant.
In fact he's making excellent use of them for a very good cause.
You must admit that if that were your primary concern Hipcrime
would not be the major cause of worry regarding them.
-
->-> but the mystic about Chris Lewis is such (and even after his
->-> SP nonsense) that you won't even address him honsestly.
-> -
-> -Oh, but I have. I think you're looking for polarization where there is
-> -none. I think that _both_ sides of this years-long pissing match are
-> -wrong.
I remember as a kid pissing in the snow--seeing just how far you could
get. And then that classic song by Frank Zappa warning others not
to 'eat that yellow snow'.
-> Not at all--I'm looking for an end to all types of system wide
-> filteirng.
-
-That's a goal you cannot achieve.
Well most goals are not fully obtainable--it's a matter of degree.
They'll always be a few rogues--just as there with countries, etc.
-Newsguy, for example, uses its
-filtering as a selling point, and has many, many satisfied customers.
-Others -- alt.net, for example -- offer the opposite and also have a
-satisfied clientele. There is room for both extremes and a bit of
-everything in between. The free market is working for news.
Yes--but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to filters
that are passed along to others downstream. If an ISP wants
to censor its feed and tells it's customers upfront that it is
doing so and is honest in telling them exactly what it
is filtering (many lie about it being spam) that's fine with
me.
-> I would truely like peace if that could be accomplished--sort of that
-> there will be polerization simply because the players are miles
-> apart.
-
-You _can_ simply reject the despamming activities and be happy. You've
-got an accounts with Earthlink and Altopia, neither of which filters.
I'm more interested it it from the free speech perspective--yes--I can
get very close to a full feed but most users are not aware of the degree
of censorship and it needs to stop.
-AOL keeps its filtering optional. I've got no problems with what an
-ISP chooses, filtered or not, so long as that choice is disclosed to
-the customer.
Nor do I. In fact NoCems, currently under widespread abuse, could
be offered via a menu to customers if an ISP chose to do so. As long
as it's the consumer that chooses what to filter that's fine. But the
forgers and NoCem thugs don't want that to happen--they want
the control over others content and that is what is so distressing.
-> -There is more to me, but you are unable (unwilling?) to see it. Open
-> -your eyes, Steve.
->
-> Oh-- I know there is much more to you than that--in fact
-> you've engaged in some insightful and productive discussions.
-> But the post that I followed up with was beneath you--you
-> referred to those who oppose such filtering as kooks (talk
-> about feeding into polerization) and your comments where
-> quite partisan in the direction of the forgers and filterers.
-
-Oh, no. I didn't say that people who oppose this stuff are kooks,
-unless I want to start calling myself a kook. I do use the term 'kook
-from time to time because, well hell, even the most vocal opponents to
-cancels and stuff have taken to calling _themselves_ kooks. Okay, maybe
-I _am_ a kook, but that's neither here nor there. I disagree with the
-personal attacks from _both_ ends of the argument. Personal attacks
-only breed more bitterness, they don't solve the disagreements.
-
-I'm primarily addressing the people in support of cancelling, simply
-because they make up the vast majority of people who subscribe to (or
-at least post to) nanau. If I'm going to make an appeal, it makes
-sense to me to address the largest number of people.
-
-> But back to Henrietta because if you still keeps evading
-> it (and maybe not as I'm just touching the surface of this
-> evenings posts) I'm going to write a FAQ to post weekly
-> pointing out the inconsistencies and evasiveness.
-
-Okay, if you feel it's important. It seems clear to me that you
-see value in pointing out the differences among people. I think that
-it's more valuable to point out what everyone has in common. After
-all, just about everyone wants the same thing, which is a Usenet that
-works better.
I strongly disagree with you there--that's quite niave. There are
some in the cabal that have that desire--others--including Chris
Lewis--want nothing more than control over others. And when
I see others treat them with deference I tend to dismiss them
as either real censors or fools. Again--take a look at the
Rosenthal forged content cancels and Dave the Resurrector's
failure--i.e. Chris Lewis.
-There are of course wildly varying opinions of what constitues a
-better-working Usenet,
Indeed.
-but we all want to see what each of us would call an improvement. This
-fighting has been going on since the green card incident. It's not helping,
-so why not look at diffeent approaches?
Oh--it's helped a great deal--cancels have been become quite insignicant
for a majority of consumers at this point. The cabal has little
crediblity left.
-> You see Henrietta does have a lot of substance.
-
-Yup. I particularly admire that she's willing to look at all sides and
-to let her opinions evolve as she learns more about what all the
-different 'camps' want. That's a difficult skill to acquire; I know
-it's not been easy for me to let go of comfortable old ideas when I've
-realized they don't fit.
-
-> But she cited the SP/Lewis/Dynasour nonsense as if it were a
-> legitimate reference,
-
-That may have been for the sake of debate.
Then she needs to publically say so--that was very serious and
many are affected.
- I know that this was my approach in discussing those files. Even taken
-at face value, they did not support many of the claims being attributed to
-them,
True--it still amazing me though--both in terms that Chris Lewis and
Dynasour are treated with any respect at all and that those who cited
them as legitimate references did so in the first place.
-so that determining whether of not they were indeed genuine is somewhat
-beside the point.
If they are being cited as legitimate references it's quite to the point
for those being 'quoted' and those doing the citations. And even some
of the email that appears like it might be legit violates the cabals long
standing claim that it is wrong to post private email and that it is
grounds for cancellation.
I keep getting back to Chris Lewis on this because I find it amazing,
especially after this nonsense, that he is given any credibility at all.
Not too long ago he was posting outrageous charges about me in
these newsgroups--outright lies--and when asked to substantiate
he did not do so. Yet where were the cabal with honor--Henrietta,
etc. That's what gets me--the partisan politics. Here's a guy without
integrity--openly lies, forges, and lately downright obsesses on
Dr. Grubor, still being treated by the cabal as if he's worthy of anything
more than a boot in the ass.
Organizaitons--and the cabal is one--cannot have respect with such
people still considered leaders. He's also a member of CAUCE which
pretends to oppose unsolicited email yet he's emailed me many times
long after being told it was unwelcome harassement.
So as far as focusing on differences--yes--it needs to be done
because they'll be no mutual agreements or solutions with people
like Lewis involved.
Hell--to show you just how desparate the cabal has become lately
we've Russ Albury falsely accusing me on something online--I call
him on it--he retracts (he's usually somewhat honorable) and then
fires off another post to the effect that 'IF' what he's heard is true
I'm this and that--engaging in really slimy behaviors. That tells
me the cabal is disintegrating and in a panic--and much of it
has to do with their rather serious loyalty to discredited net.scum
Chris Lewis.
-> than backed off but has still not addressed the matter other than
-> retreat in to silence. You talk about polarity--I had expected and
-> still hope for much more from her.
-
-But I see that as an example of the willingness to learn that I
-described a paragraph or two up. Henrietta's got a tendency to think
-out loud, to post snapshots of her thoughts as they progress. It's a
That's what makes her interesting.
-great exercise in classical debating, to present a premise and then to
-see whether it will stand. She's got a lot of courage to do that,
-particularly in a place like Usenet where there is a strong tendency
-for people to think "if you said that once, you must believe it fully,
-now and for all time." It's okay for people to change their minds, and
-I strongly encourage people to give others the space to do that.
-
-For that reason, I will express my _strong_ disagreement with your idea
-of compiling an 'inconsistencies' FAQ. IMHO, if would be more helpful
Well out of respect for you sir I did take a couple of days to reflect on
your opinion here and it did affect me. I may not do that--but I certainly
intend to get a clarification from her both on her citations of the
SP-Lewis-Dynasour files and on content cancels in terms of Lewis
and Rosenthal (i.e. failure of Dave the Resurrector). No way I'm
letting that drop without very clear explanations.
-to give people that room to evolve and not need to endlessly defend
-past gaffes. And yes, I sincerely wish that others would do the same
-for you.
That would be nice--I've made many mistakes and will make many
more. And Henrietta has made hers as well. All I want to hear
from her is that it was a mistake to cite those files as a legitimate
reference--or the contrary--whatever. But clarification on that
is called for as a character issue for future reference. If the
cabal cannot discipline it's own (Lewis, Dynasaur) how the
hell are they to expect any type of peace?
Steve
news.admin.censorship
Fluffy
{much cutting throughout, it's been too long and I'm too tired.}
Waaaaaaaaaaaay back on 21 June, Steve Boursy as t...@opiate.mil (Thomas De
Quincey) wrote:
> flu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
> -I think that Hipcrime's doing something that's really dumb. I'm not
> -condemning _him_. There's a big difference.
>
> Well that's true--thank you for make that clear. I admire hipcrime
> and he's anything but dumb.
I dunno about that. He's too easily trolled; I _knew_ the supersede spam
was coming.
> -Then you really _haven't_ been paying attention.
>
> I do my best Fluffy--really Mom said that's all that's fair to ask
> of another..
The not-paying-attention stuff has been a widespeard problem around these
parts. There are too many conclusions and too few facts.
> Well there are countless examples of double standards amoung
> the cabal--take a look at Dave the Resurrectors failure with
> the Rosenthal cancels--that one is disgusting.
I haven't seen those cancels. Are they being posted only to austin.*
newsgroups or to the full, original set? If they are only being posted to
austin.* then odds are pretty good that they never reach DtR in the first
place.
At any rate, I have to wonder if the whole episode would have blown over a
lot sooner if no one started playing with UDPs. I really don't know what
went on there, since I don't have access to the austin.* groups.
> -At the same time, different people posting the same attachments for
> -possibly entirely different reasons _are_ having their articles
> -cancelled. Yet, we're told that no newsgroup is special, that spam is
> -spam no matter where it appears.
>
> But they've never been honest.
Inconsistency isn't always a sign of dishonesty. More often, perceived or
real inconsistency is the result of missing information, either on the part
of the actor or the observer. Lots of bad actions are carried out with
good intentions.
> -Some aspects of despamming clearly _are_ content based, or worse,
> -an attempt is made to determine what the poster was thinking.
>
> That's an excellent post--imagine the arrogance behind that!
I'd chalk it up more to expediency than arrogance.
"Something must be done about this!"
"I suppose, but we don't have a good way to deal with it."
"Okay, so we'll fix it the lousy way and sweat the details later."
That's pretty much how we got where we are today =)
> True--it's just that your post I was following up on appeared to be
> a one-sided assault and you've been taking a more reasoned
> approach lately.
I don't try to fit everything I think about everything into every article.
That's why I didn't just post one and go away =)
> -I haven't given spam cancels any sort of blanket endorsement, not by
> -any stretch. I think that the 'rules' are markedly flawed.
>
> To the point where there are no rules--just a matter of who one is
> and who they know, etc. aside from content of course. Again I refer
> back to the Rosenthal forged cancels based solely on content.
Huh. I thought those cancels were based on headers. A UDP is about as
content-blind as you can get.
> And of all the 'abuse' of open servers hipcrime is hardly significant.
> In fact he's making excellent use of them for a very good cause.
> You must admit that if that were your primary concern Hipcrime
> would not be the major cause of worry regarding them.
Yeah, he is exacerbating the problem ans accomplishing nothing. He can't
touch server-based filters, and even the popular INN-in-a-box that's part of
Red Hat includes one now. The idea may have had a real effect a few years
ago but not today when the technology's beyond that.
> -> Not at all--I'm looking for an end to all types of system wide
> -> filteirng.
> -
> -That's a goal you cannot achieve.
>
> Well most goals are not fully obtainable--it's a matter of degree.
> They'll always be a few rogues--just as there with countries, etc.
How about Newsguy and Supernews and IBM and Mindspring, representing
boatloads of Usenet readers? They shut off spamcancels (some drop all
cancels), but they're still dumping the same articles the spamcencels would
have got. Some are dumping much more than spamcancels ever touched.
Even Altopia offers an optional crosspost filter that will hide most of what
you post.
> -Newsguy, for example, uses its
> -filtering as a selling point, and has many, many satisfied customers.
> -Others -- alt.net, for example -- offer the opposite and also have a
> -satisfied clientele. There is room for both extremes and a bit of
> -everything in between. The free market is working for news.
>
> Yes--but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to filters
> that are passed along to others downstream. If an ISP wants to censor its
> feed and tells it's customers upfront that it is doing so and is honest in
> telling them exactly what it is filtering (many lie about it being spam)
> that's fine with me.
User-selectable filtering is the idea I like best, though I wish the the
biggest implementor so far (AOL) offered something more than on or off for
the whole thing. And even if the filters are generated elsewhere, that's
cool with me as long as it's up to the reader whether or not to make use of
them.
> -You _can_ simply reject the despamming activities and be happy. You've
> -got an accounts with Earthlink and Altopia, neither of which filters.
>
> I'm more interested it it from the free speech perspective--yes--I can
> get very close to a full feed but most users are not aware of the degree
> of censorship and it needs to stop.
But people _do_ notice when things go missing. Rememeber all the whining in
the Zipnet groups about the crappy newsfeed? (That is, when they took time
away from complaining about the crappy dialups)
> -AOL keeps its filtering optional. I've got no problems with what an
> -ISP chooses, filtered or not, so long as that choice is disclosed to
> -the customer.
>
> Nor do I. In fact NoCems, currently under widespread abuse, could
> be offered via a menu to customers if an ISP chose to do so. As long
> as it's the consumer that chooses what to filter that's fine. But the
> forgers and NoCem thugs don't want that to happen--they want
> the control over others content and that is what is so distressing.
Too bad. I'm playing with the menu stuff, to hell with what the people
issuing them may want.
{inconsistencies FAQs}
> -Okay, if you feel it's important. It seems clear to me that you
> -see value in pointing out the differences among people. I think that
> -it's more valuable to point out what everyone has in common. After
> -all, just about everyone wants the same thing, which is a Usenet that
> -works better.
>
> I strongly disagree with you there--that's quite niave. There are
> some in the cabal that have that desire--others--including Chris
> Lewis--want nothing more than control over others. And when
> I see others treat them with deference I tend to dismiss them
> as either real censors or fools. Again--take a look at the
> Rosenthal forged content cancels and Dave the Resurrector's
> failure--i.e. Chris Lewis.
Again, I'd have to wee the cancels to know if that's something DtR could
even see. Since I can't see the cancels, I suspect that they aren't being
issued outside austin.*
>
> -There are of course wildly varying opinions of what constitues a
> -better-working Usenet,
>
> Indeed.
>
> -but we all want to see what each of us would call an improvement. This
> -fighting has been going on since the green card incident. It's not helping,
> -so why not look at diffeent approaches?
>
> Oh--it's helped a great deal--cancels have been become quite insignicant
> for a majority of consumers at this point. The cabal has little
> crediblity left.
But that cabal has also provided the filters that the above-mentioned Very
Large News Sites are employing.
{SP's 'hacks' archive thingy}
> -so that determining whether of not they were indeed genuine is somewhat
> -beside the point.
>
> If they are being cited as legitimate references it's quite to the point
> for those being 'quoted' and those doing the citations. And even some
> of the email that appears like it might be legit violates the cabals long
> standing claim that it is wrong to post private email and that it is
> grounds for cancellation.
They didn't amount to a hell of a lot. Maybe I'd care more if i thought
this cabal stuff was relevant.
> I keep getting back to Chris Lewis on this because I find it amazing,
> especially after this nonsense, that he is given any credibility at all.
Chris didn't post those files. That was a Sputum group effort; SFAIK Chris
doesn't get into that bullshit.
> Not too long ago he was posting outrageous charges about me in
> these newsgroups--outright lies--and when asked to substantiate
> he did not do so.
He also posted some things for you to substantiate, and you didn't either.
> Yet where were the cabal with honor--Henrietta, etc.
Gah. Henrietta's Henrietta. To lump her in with any cabal is laughable;
half of them blindly hate her because she doesn't buy the party line.
> That's what gets me--the partisan politics. Here's a guy without
> integrity--openly lies, forges, and lately downright obsesses on
> Dr. Grubor, still being treated by the cabal as if he's worthy of anything
> more than a boot in the ass.
I think that you see Chris as more influential than he really is. From what
I've seen, he gets ignored about as much as people listen to him. (Example:
if Chris had that much influence, dimwits like Sam would not be spending
every waking hour trying to pester you.)
> Organizaitons--and the cabal is one--cannot have respect with such
> people still considered leaders. He's also a member of CAUCE which
> pretends to oppose unsolicited email yet he's emailed me many times
> long after being told it was unwelcome harassement.
This sounds like a personal problem between you and Chris. He's not the
leader of any valid organization that _I_ recognize.
> So as far as focusing on differences--yes--it needs to be done
> because they'll be no mutual agreements or solutions with people
> like Lewis involved.
Sure there can. Just work _around_ people who try to get in your way.
--
Get Censored. Get Newsguy.
Dr.G
He must call on the telephone and identify himself, off the record.
I shall turn the cancelbot off for the rest of the day, so we can
see if they turn DtR off. The bot canceled about 16,000 Articles
yesterday, and we shall triple the both the Lewis cancels and
the DtR is shut down.
The past 24 hours is just a taste of what is to come.
out.
-DrG
On 13 Jul 1998, Fluffy wrote:
> Date: 13 Jul 1998 22:08:26 -0400
> From: Fluffy <flu...@meow.org>
> Newsgroups: news.admin.censorship, alt.wired, news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,
> alt.god.grubor, alt.forgery
> Subject: Re: Now I try to be amused (was Re: I Used to Be Disgusted)
>
>
Joe We are Borg Foster
> This guy can not be trusted as long as he remains anonymous.
> He must call on the telephone and identify himself, off the record.
This sounds like a job for the Jerky Boys! =)
> I shall turn the cancelbot off for the rest of the day, so we can
> see if they turn DtR off. The bot canceled about 16,000 Articles
> yesterday, and we shall triple the both the Lewis cancels and
> the DtR is shut down.
Suuuure that's why it's off. What's the matter, get served process
by one of the companies whose servers you've hijacked? Get slapped
with a TRO perhaps?
> The past 24 hours is just a taste of what is to come.
Will the trial be webcast or something? That'll probably eat more
bandwidth than all this impotent DipSlime!
--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> or <mailto:j...@bftsi0.gate.net>
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!
Albert Nurick
>On 13 Jul 1998 22:08:26 -0400, Fluffy <flu...@meow.org> wrote:
>>Huh. I thought those cancels were based on headers. A UDP is about as
>>content-blind as you can get.
>
>Unless content is what caused the UDP as in the austin.* case.
Content wasn't the cause of the UDP; network abuse was. If content were
the issue, Boursey would be among the first to be UDPed, but as Chip
recently pointed out, he's not under UDP.
>The fact that the filtering rules are name and/or provider based does
>not exclude the possibility that the rules were implemented based on
>the "rule writer's" content biases.
But in this case, that's simply not what happened, despite the rampant
whining of those who were UDPed and those who support them.
>The reason given for the UDP was that Altopia would not provide
>information that allowed Rosenthal to single out a particular user if
>he morphed his from address.
Yep. Altopia seems to pride itself as a haven for kooks, and takes
measures to thwart author-specific UDPs. Thus the result.
<< tired paranoid drivel snipped >>
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@data.net - ICQ #4403737
Elvis Costello
-
-
-{much cutting throughout, it's been too long and I'm too tired.}
Yes--appreciated. You'll have to do it again no doubt if
you respond.
-Waaaaaaaaaaaay back on 21 June, Steve Boursy as
-t...@opiate.mil (Thomas De Quincey) wrote:
How'd you know it was me?
-> flu...@meow.org (Fluffy) wrote:
->
->-I think that Hipcrime's doing something that's really dumb. I'm not
->-condemning _him_. There's a big difference.
->
-> Well that's true--thank you for make that clear. I admire hipcrime
-> and he's anything but dumb.
-
-I dunno about that. He's too easily trolled; I _knew_ the supersede
-spam was coming.
Yes--but it was fun and effective on the servers I saw.
-> -Then you really _haven't_ been paying attention.
->
-> I do my best Fluffy--really Mom said that's all that's fair to ask
-> of another..
-
-The not-paying-attention stuff has been a widespeard problem around
-these parts. There are too many conclusions and too few facts.
I'd agree although I'm not sure we have the same area's in mind.
-> Well there are countless examples of double standards amoung
-> the cabal--take a look at Dave the Resurrectors failure with
-> the Rosenthal cancels--that one is disgusting.
-
-I haven't seen those cancels. Are they being posted only to austin.*
-newsgroups or to the full, original set? If they are only being posted to
-austin.* then odds are pretty good that they never reach DtR in the
-first place.
As an example if I send a post to austin.internet or austin.general
about ongoing censorship and/or consumer fraud in the Austin
area and crosspost it to news.admin.censorship, etc. he forges
a cancel on it--the cancel affects all of the groups. Chris Lewis
will not resurrect those posts because he is friends with Rosenthal.
Now he'll also cancel any of my posts to just one Austin group
without a crosspost--both examples are when I post from alt.net
which is my preferred server.
Rosenthal also cancels all posts by Star Traveller, Jerry,
Rsj regardless of where they post from given they are highly
critical of either the ISP industry in austin of Rosenthals
censorship. With me he only cancels when I post from
alt.net because he cancels any post from alt.net although
I just read a rather amusing threat he posted that he's
considering canceling all posts I make there regardless
of server used. The groups are unmoderated and the
posts quite on-topic.
I did a history search of the group long before my arrival
there and crossposting was always accepted--he makes
that an excuse now when he's desparate. And anytime
someone complains about crossposting I add groups
on principle--fucking asswipes.
-At any rate, I have to wonder if the whole episode would have
-blown over a lot sooner if no one started playing with UDPs.
That was Chip Rosenthal with the full support of Lewis.
He UDP'd--only on his own personal authority, RSJ and
Star Traveller and all posters from alt.net.
-I really don't know what went on there, since I don't have
-access to the austin.* groups.
That's odd--all of the austin groups are on every account
I have--from AOL to Earthlink to thecia.net. Contrary to
what some of the local admins like to pretend a majority
of users in Austin that are connected to the net are
on large national providers--not the crooked Texas.net.
You might make the effort to look in to the matter because
it was the final straw for many regarding the necessity of
HipCrimes NewsAgent and they'll never be any peace or
negotiations on with any cabal as long as Rosenthal is
in business. He's representative of the very worst
of usenet.
-> -At the same time, different people posting the same attachments for
-> -possibly entirely different reasons _are_ having their articles
-> -cancelled. Yet, we're told that no newsgroup is special, that spam is
-> -spam no matter where it appears.
->
-> But they've never been honest.
-
-Inconsistency isn't always a sign of dishonesty. More often, perceived or
-real inconsistency is the result of missing information, either on the part
-of the actor or the observer. Lots of bad actions are carried out with
-good intentions.
True. But Chris Lewis is opening engaging in content based NoCem--no
pretence at good intentions there. The reason I keep bringing the
guy up is that in private email conversations with many cabal they
have a rather irrational loyalty (manifested more often than not
by just remaining silent when he content censors) due to the past.
Can't work with people as blinded as that. I can understand and
appreciate loyalty based on past deeds but his time for
any active role has long since past and that needs to be accepted.
-> -Some aspects of despamming clearly _are_ content based, or worse,
-> -an attempt is made to determine what the poster was thinking.
->
-> That's an excellent post--imagine the arrogance behind that!
-
-I'd chalk it up more to expediency than arrogance.
Well we can differ on their motives and I imagine
they vary but the result is one of censorship so motive
is quite irrelevant.
-"Something must be done about this!"
- "I suppose, but we don't have a good way to deal with it."
-"Okay, so we'll fix it the lousy way and sweat the details later."
-
-That's pretty much how we got where we are today =)
Yes--and we're at a critical point right now. Filtering
on a system level be it via cancels, NoCem, etc. is gong to
stop or Admins are going to start going to jail for kiddie porn
and warez and servers are going to be shut down
not to mention a host of other responses (from what I've
heard on the grapevine). They are not going to be allowed
to continue--it would be best to shut down usenet altogether
than allow that.
Now no doubt many cabal will ridicule the above statement
and I don't mind if they have their self indulgent laugh at it
but it is going to happen. I honestly believe--deep within
my soul, that an admin who filters their feed for their users
without their full knowledge and consent as to exactly
what is being filtered has no rights and all is permissable
with them--both on and offline. Same is true with plug
pullers or any admin who acts as anythign but a servant
to their customers.
In terms of decision making regarding content and
news in general they are only technicians who follow
consumer wishes and again--if there is to be peace via
negotion, which seems highly unlikely, they are out of
the loop. If they bring up ownership I sincerely believe
they should be forced to swallow their processors--they
either participate in a cooperative fashion or they can
unplug from the net but none of this 'Its my server' bullshit.
-> To the point where there are no rules--just a matter of who one is
-> and who they know, etc. aside from content of course. Again I refer
-> back to the Rosenthal forged cancels based solely on content.
-
-Huh. I thought those cancels were based on headers. A UDP is
-about as content-blind as you can get.
Not in the Rosenthal instance. He UDP's specific users based
solely on content--and it's a good thing as he's created several
very dedicated activists in the process and most of us are so
disgusted with him we won't rest until .....
-> And of all the 'abuse' of open servers hipcrime is hardly significant.
-> In fact he's making excellent use of them for a very good cause.
-> You must admit that if that were your primary concern Hipcrime
-> would not be the major cause of worry regarding them.
-
-Yeah, he is exacerbating the problem ans accomplishing nothing.
Oh--the users of his software 'News Agent' are accomplishing a
great deal--in fact cancels are virtually at an end. The odd thing
is that on one appreciates HipCrimes restraint.
-He can't touch server-based filters, and even the popular INN-
-in-a-box that's part of -Red Hat includes one now. The idea may have
-had a real effect a few years ago but not today when the technology's
-beyond that.
Not the technology currently in use affecting most servers--in
fact it's been very amusing to watch. Server based filters need
to be dealt with with a variety of other methods mentioned above.
-
-> -> Not at all--I'm looking for an end to all types of system wide
-> -> filteirng.
-> -
-> -That's a goal you cannot achieve.
->
-> Well most goals are not fully obtainable--it's a matter of degree.
-> They'll always be a few rogues--just as there with countries, etc.
-
-How about Newsguy and Supernews and IBM and Mindspring,
-representing boatloads of Usenet readers? They shut off spamcancels
-(some drop all cancels), but they're still dumping the same articles the
-spamcencels would have got.
Again--one problem at a time. First cancels and then we'll move on
to dealing with pricks on an individual server basis.
- Some are dumping much more than spamcancels ever touched.
-Even Altopia offers an optional crosspost filter that will hide most of
-what you post.
'OPTIONS TO FILTER' selected by an the individual user is the
only respectable way to go--that's very good. AOL has much the
same thing--filtering is completely off by default but users
can select what is deemed a spam filter although it zaps more
content posts than spam. Most importantly the default is
always off--the user must make the effort to turn it on.
-
-> -Newsguy, for example, uses it
-> -filtering as a selling point, and has many, many satisfied customers.
If they are honest in their representation of that I have no
problem. If they advertise they filter spam and not content
then they are crooked as hell and need to be dealt with.
-> -Others -- alt.net, for example -- offer the opposite and also have a
-> -satisfied clientele. There is room for both extremes and a bit of
-> -everything in between. The free market is working for news.
If it's honest--sure. The other critical piece about your Newguy
example (and they are being dishonest in representing what they
are doing) is that it's not acceptable if they pass their filtered feed
down the pipleline to others.
-> Yes--but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to filters
-> that are passed along to others downstream. If an ISP wants to
-> censor its feed and tells it's customers upfront that it is doing so
-> and is honest in telling them exactly what it is filtering (many lie
-> about it being spam) that's fine with me.
-
-User-selectable filtering is the idea I like best,
Me too--it's the only rational way to go for any one--regardless of
the many sides--if there is every to be some semblance of peace
and cooperation. But you'll always have those who use filtering
as a means of censorship and they'll never buy in to it.
-though I wish the the biggest implementor so far (AOL) offered
-something more than on or off for the whole thing.
I agree.
- And even if the filters are generated elsewhere, that's
-cool with me as long as it's up to the reader whether or not to make
-use of them.
We're in full agreement. That's a very workable solution but those
truely involved in censorship will oppose that a great deal--for
example Mr. Rosenthal mentioned above. There are many that
insist they are somehow special people and have the right to
decide what others may and may not read.
-
-> -You _can_ simply reject the despamming activities and be happy.
-> -You've got an accounts with Earthlink and Altopia, neither of which
-> -filters.
->
-> I'm more interested it it from the free speech perspective--yes--I can
-> get very close to a full feed but most users are not aware of the
-> degree of censorship and it needs to stop.
-
-But people _do_ notice when things go missing. Rememeber all the
-whining in the Zipnet groups about the crappy newsfeed?
Yes--and numerous plugs where pulled and ziplink is still crooked
as hell. All to often the average consumer is afraid--if a sys admin
speaks they think they must fall in line. The point is that such a
sys admin is not worth the air that they breath and consumers need
to be sufficiently empowered to the point where those types of
admins can be taken out in an instant. A sys admin has a right
to post their opinions on usenet as much as anyone else--the problem
is that many of them feel that their opinions carry more weight.
-(That is, when they took time
-away from complaining about the crappy dialups)
The shitheads actually currently advertise no busy signals in
the local press!!!
->-AOL keeps its filtering optional. I've got no problems with what an
->-ISP chooses, filtered or not, so long as that choice is disclosed to
->-the customer.
->
-> Nor do I. In fact NoCems, currently under widespread abuse, could
-> be offered via a menu to customers if an ISP chose to do so. As long
-> as it's the consumer that chooses what to filter that's fine. But the
-> forgers and NoCem thugs don't want that to happen--they want
-> the control over others content and that is what is so distressing.
-
-Too bad. I'm playing with the menu stuff, to hell with what the people
-issuing them may want.
Excellent. But I'll tell you--even if you developed a no-brainer install
and maintainance many would fight you simply because they sincerely
do want control of content--this spam thing has been an excuse for
a long time--atleast it would take that away from them.
-
-{inconsistencies FAQs}
-> -Okay, if you feel it's important. It seems clear to me that you
-> -see value in pointing out the differences among people. I think that
-> -it's more valuable to point out what everyone has in common. After
-> -all, just about everyone wants the same thing, which is a Usenet that
-> -works better.
->
-> I strongly disagree with you there--that's quite niave. There are
-> some in the cabal that have that desire--others--including Chris
-> Lewis--want nothing more than control over others. And when
-> I see others treat them with deference I tend to dismiss them
-> as either real censors or fools. Again--take a look at the
-> Rosenthal forged content cancels and Dave the Resurrector's
-> failure--i.e. Chris Lewis.
-
-Again, I'd have to wee the cancels to know if that's something DtR
-could even see.
Oh--it is. I can cc you my future posts from alt.net that are relevant
for a while if you like. Most servers, all the large nationals I'm aware
of carry the austin.* groups--a cancel on the article zaps it in
news.admin.* as well on dishonorable servers that accept cancels.
-Since I can't see the cancels, I suspect that they aren't being
-issued outside austin.*
-
->
-> -There are of course wildly varying opinions of what constitues a
-> -better-working Usenet,
->
-> Indeed.
->
-> -but we all want to see what each of us would call an improvement. This
-> -fighting has been going on since the green card incident. It's not helping,
-> -so why not look at diffeent approaches?
->
-> Oh--it's helped a great deal--cancels have been become quite insignicant
-> for a majority of consumers at this point. The cabal has little
-> crediblity left.
-
-But that cabal has also provided the filters that the above-mentioned Very
-Large News Sites are employing.
See above :>, Some of them are going to have pretty wide assholes
by the time they get out.
-> I keep getting back to Chris Lewis on this because I find it amazing,
-> especially after this nonsense, that he is given any credibility at all.
-
-Chris didn't post those files. That was a Sputum group effort; SFAIK Chris
-doesn't get into that bullshit.
Oh he did--in fact his active participation is what convinced some like
Rebecca and Henrietta that they might be legit. He claims to have
met with SP and reviewed the files--he's as involved as Sputum
in the forgery.
-> Not too long ago he was posting outrageous charges about me in
-> these newsgroups--outright lies--and when asked to substantiate
-> he did not do so.
-
-He also posted some things for you to substantiate, and you didn't
-either.
If I saw them I did--what outstanding ones are there? He's made
some outragiously untrue statements about me indicative of rather
acute paranoia. At the same time he says I'm irrevant--such a
lying little asswipe I'm amazed, regardless of past loyalties, that
anyone would get anywhere near the thing.
-> Yet where were the cabal with honor--Henrietta, etc.
-
-Gah. Henrietta's Henrietta. To lump her in with any cabal is
-laughable;
No--she's cabal through and through--more intelligent than
most of them but cabal none the less. She believes and
offers support to system wide filtering amoung other things.
-half of them blindly hate her because she doesn't buy the party
-line.
They hate her more likely because she's much brighter than
they are. But she has a fatal flaw--when caught with an
inconsistency or an embarressment--such as Lewis not
resurrecting the Rosenthal cancelled posts--she tends to
retreat and them come back later as if nothing happened.
I've got the same list of questions waiting for her.
-> That's what gets me--the partisan politics. Here's a guy without
-> integrity--openly lies, forges, and lately downright obsesses on
-> Dr. Grubor, still being treated by the cabal as if he's worthy of anything
-> more than a boot in the ass.
-
-I think that you see Chris as more influential than he really is.
Yes--since the moratorium has has lost a lot of influence and
his open involvement now in content filtering has revealed his
soul to many.
-From what I've seen, he gets ignored about as much as people listen
-to him.
In this arena that's still prety good.
-(Example:
-if Chris had that much influence, dimwits like Sam
He is a dimwit isn't he? He's like Ed Foster or
Jim Manson--stalkers. But they are worth their
weight in gold actually--free publicity plus no matter
what you've written, even on a very bad night--they
make you look good in comparison.
-would not be spending
-every waking hour trying to pester you.)
It's the only way Sam can pop off from what
I understand.
-
-> Organizaitons--and the cabal is one--cannot have respect with such
-> people still considered leaders. He's also a member of CAUCE which
-> pretends to oppose unsolicited email yet he's emailed me many times
-> long after being told it was unwelcome harassement.
-
-This sounds like a personal problem between you and Chris. He's not
-the leader of any valid organization that _I_ recognize.
-
-> So as far as focusing on differences--yes--it needs to be done
-> because they'll be no mutual agreements or solutions with people
-> like Lewis involved.
-
-Sure there can. Just work _around_ people who try to get in your way.
You are very wise and of course much more objective than me--I'm
glad your around. It would be far preferable to have a peaceful
solution. But if the systemwide filtering continues if's going
to blow up real fast--Rosenthal, while a minor figure in the
scheme of things, was the straw that broke the camels back
(and when I read someone arguing that a regional group may
do whatever some renagade likes and is somehow different
I disregard the person in the future).
Steve
news.admin.censorhship