New IRC Network
TigerLady
irc.qdeckers.com & irc.qdeckers.net & irc.qdeckers.org
Let's start with a brief history on The QDeckers IRC Network. The
QDeckers IRC Network was started in February of 2001. The purpose for
starting the network was a few years ago there was a chat server
called irc.qdeck.com or irc.globalchat.com, I like many others was a
regular user of this chat server. The server was shut down three years
ago, in the meantime the users from the server had scattered across
many differant IRC servers. Occassionally I would
log on to these other servers and seen everyone scattered here and
there, but none of these servers had the same home feeling like our
original server did. After some time of thinking, I finally decided to
do something about it. Therefore, I opened the QDeckers server.
Our Network offers a stable chatting environment, and services. Our
services include, Nickserv, to register your nickname so that you own
it; Chanserv, to register a channel to ensure no channel takeovers and
lets you own the channel to maintain; and Memoserv, which allows you
to leave a message for registered users who are offline.
Chaz
Doesn't every? *sigh*
Registrant:
QDeckers IRC
none
Pittsburgh, PA 12345
US
Domain Name: QDECKERS.COM
Administrative Contact:
Colalella, Catherine ad...@qdeckers.com
none
Pittsburgh, PA 12345
US
123-456-7890
Technical Contact:
Colalella, Catherine ad...@qdeckers.com
none
Pittsburgh, PA 12345
US
123-456-7890
Billing Contact:
Colalella, Catherine ad...@qdeckers.com
none
Pittsburgh, PA 12345
US
123-456-7890
Record last updated on 17-Aug-2001.
Record expires on 20-Feb-2002.
Record Created on 20-Feb-2001.
Domain servers in listed order:
LOD.LOD.COM 199.120.223.1
COSMOS.LOD.COM 199.120.223.4
$ORIGIN qdeckers.com.
@ 10M IN SOA lod.com. marauder.lod.com. (
144400007 ; serial
3H ; refresh
1H ; retry
1W ; expiry
1D ) ; minimum
10M IN NS lod.lod.com.
10M IN NS cosmos.lod.com.
10M IN A 63.219.178.162
10M IN MX 10 rnoc.lod.com.
ftp 10M IN CNAME @
irc 10M IN CNAME @
www 10M IN CNAME @
@ 10M IN SOA lod.com. marauder.lod.com. (
144400007 ; serial
3H ; refresh
1H ; retry
1W ; expiry
1D ) ; minimum
17 pos2-0.core.mcl.cais.net (63.216.0.57) 51.106 ms 50.799 ms 55.295 ms
18 pos5-0.colo1.mcl.cais.net (63.216.0.34) 53.531 ms 50.993 ms 51.381 ms
19 63.219.178.162 (63.219.178.162) 51.611 ms 51.103 ms 53.524 ms
TigerLady
domain info..glad to see you took the time
Chaz
news:eae0a870.01081...@posting.google.com...
> Well aren't you very impressive Chaz...anyone can look up someone's
> domain info..glad to see you took the time
That's rich, coming from a spammer.
^Tickler^
Chaz <ch...@ro0t.com> wrote in message
news:kI2g7.10073$in6.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
brother?
Ah well, one more for the ignore list i guess, TigerLady, ignore him (him,
it or her, i dunno) he's just one of the dimwits in here but please could
you advertise in alt.irc.servers or alt.irc.networks next time.
Thanks
^Tickler^
Chaz
obsessive
> brother?
No to both. If you bothered to spend 5 seconds looking, Viper is in America
and I'm in England.
> Ah well, one more for the ignore list i guess, TigerLady, ignore him (him,
> it or her, i dunno) he's just one of the dimwits
Care to take an iq test? I want to keep this group close to the charter.
^Tickler^
> Care to take an iq test? I want to keep this group close to the charter.
Okay, thats good, but can you do it without saying "I'm reporting you for
spam" etc, just tell them where to go instead, the trouble is, once they've
done it theres no point, reporting them is just gonna piss them off, the
damage has been done, if you could find a way to stop people from coming in
and posting about a new server then do so.
Phil Casimiri
deterent to other spammers who want to post their IRC Network
Advertisment here. Of course, replying to *EVERY* message that is
spammed is a little excessive.
--Phil
--
Phil Casimiri
Emergency Medical Responder
St. John Ambulance
TigerLady
to post about my network here, considering the group is alt.irc that I
posted to, which would mean it has something to do with IRC, I didn't
see an alt.irc.networks or server when I initially posted my message.
Who is Chaz to say what belongs here and what does not. if the group
is just alt.irc then no wonder people post about their servers and
networks here, the group is thought to be about IRC in general.
Chaz
the group. If you want me to stop, thats fine with me.
"^Tickler^" <burble...@SPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ltr0h$3vk$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
Chaz
suggest you read it.
"TigerLady" <ad...@qdeckers.com> wrote in message
news:eae0a870.01082...@posting.google.com...
David Schwartz
TigerLady wrote:
How hard is it to find out what's appropriate on a newsgroup before you
post an ad to it?
The way I know this isn't an honest mistake is your search for
'alt.irc.networks'. What does what other newsgroups exist or don't exist
have to do with is or isn't on-topic in this newsgroup?
This group is about IRC in general, but it is a discussion group. It is
for discussions. Your post was not part of a discussion nor was it an
attempt to start one. It was simply an advertisement. There is no way
you can honestly say that you thought anyone cared that there was yet
another new IRC network with 15 users on it.
DS
TigerLady
Second I did a search on the web for irc and found a link pointing to
the alt.irc and no I did not see anything that said what was permitted
on this news group. And a news group is also for "NEWS" So I think a
new network starting would be considered that. Get off your damn high
horses and give it a break. It was a mistake and obviously many others
make the same, I am not the only person who ever posted an
announcement of their new servers here.
David Schwartz
How can you, in the same paragraph, both justify something "a news
group is also for 'NEWS'" and say it was a mistake "It was a mistake".
It's one or the other, either it was justified or it was a mistake. Are
you now saying that your post was off-topic and inappropriate? Or not?
DS
Contention
>First off, I don't think I too much care for the ignorant remarks,
Indeed. Please read the last few months of discussion; once you have
done so, if you still believe that you have any new insight, viewpoint
or even humour to contribute to the debate, feel free to do so.
In the meantime, you could stop making yourself look stupid by
repeating complaints that have been done to death. :)
Contention.
--
Andrew J. Shore
Polynomian ("Many names, no personality") [DragonCode on request]
Interests: Maths, Dragons, Science Fiction & Fantasy, Anime, Computing,
et cetera, et-bloody-cetera. Quote: <whine>"I'm tired"</whine>
TigerLady
defending my actions as making myself look stupid. I did read your
other posts last night on this subject, and it seems to me you people
are putting more time into trying to play god and bitching and
complaining about every little thing that someone posts that you do
not like, they don't want people advertising their new servers on this
group, however is there some place stating the rules, saying that you
shouldn't besides users bitching and complaining cause they don't like
it? It seems it has been brought to the attention of the group that
you don't want it here because it takes up your bandwidth...well
doesn't posting 50 complaints to the original post also do that? As
far as complaining to ISP's, go ahead and do that, you do not need to
connect through your ISP's news account to post here, like I said I
have posted from the internet, do a search on IRC on google and tell
me what you find. You want to file complaints against people on here?
Give it a break, is that really worth your time? If so perhaps you
have too much time on your hands. I think I am done here. I made my
point, and could really give a shit less what a bunch of whining,
bitching babies think about what I do.
Thanks for nothing!
TigerLady
QDeckers IRC Network
Admin / Owner
http://www.qdeckers.com
irc.qdeckers.com
Martin Edwards
You're absolutely right. Where you get geeks, you get social
problems, hence ignorant remarks, high horses and stuff.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway when you can take the Red Car for a nickel
-Eddy Valiant
David Schwartz
> It seems it has been brought to the attention of the group that
> you don't want it here because it takes up your bandwidth...well
> doesn't posting 50 complaints to the original post also do that?
No, because 14 people will read those complaints and then not post
their own spam to this newsgroup. 72 people will read those complaints
and not post spam to other newsgroups. 175 people will read those
complaints in other newsgroups and not post spam to this newsgroup.
It is extremely important that the message that spam is not tolerated
be widely propogated. Spammers should know that if they spam, they will
lose more than they benefit. People who don't intend to spam should see
everywhere the message that they _must_ figure out if their post is
topical before they post it.
DS
l337_5cr1p70r
I agree with tiger lady i may be new but thier really isnt any "rules" to
USENET and another thing "SPAM" is unsolocited E-Mails this is a message
board and noone Really "owns" Usenet so you all really dont have any say so
in what people say and dont say on here .. and i know i am probably gonna
get flamed up the ass for saying this but ... everyone is entitled to thier
opinion , right ..
peace out ... wes
BTW : Tiger Lady only one of your servers is up and noone on it !!
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:3B840C99...@webmaster.com...
them
room/IRC channel. Specifically ads, I know a few groups that don't mind
an ad if [AD] is in the subject.
Also Usenet's rules are dictated on a group by group basis, what is wrong
in one group isn't in another. The rules are dictated by an FAQ, I have
no idea where it is for this group, and the regulars of the group.
And yes everyone is entitled to an opinion, however there is a thing
called respect for others opinions. You don't go around your town telling
everyone of a new porn shop with a loud speaker in a car, do you? Yes you
advertise but in socially accepted ways, Usenet is its own little
society. Try to accept its 'rules of thumb', even if your opinion tells
you otherwise (that's why theres the kill filter, so you can ignore
posters that constantly get on your nerves).
This post is in no way meant to be a flame but may be perceived that way.
--
them` on IRCnet
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." --Dean
Martin
My other sig has been moved to a program with foam rubber spell checkers.
PPOG #94
Viper
<l337_5...@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:
>Hmmmm ..
>I agree with tiger lady i may be new but thier really isnt any "rules" to
>USENET and another thing "SPAM" is unsolocited E-Mails this is a message
>board and noone Really "owns" Usenet so you all really dont have any say so
>in what people say and dont say on here .. and i know i am probably gonna
>get flamed up the ass for saying this but ... everyone is entitled to thier
>opinion , right ..
>
ummm sine when did this become a message board? I thought it was
Usenet.. and you better think again each ISP decides what belongs
here.
David Schwartz
> Hmmmm ..
> I agree with tiger lady i may be new but thier really isnt any "rules" to
> USENET
What?
> and another thing "SPAM" is unsolocited E-Mails
Huh?
> this is a message
> board and noone Really "owns" Usenet
Huh?
> so you all really dont have any say so
> in what people say and dont say on here
What?
> .. and i know i am probably gonna
> get flamed up the ass for saying this but ... everyone is entitled to thier
> opinion , right ..
Sure, but an opinion should be about things where there aren't clear
obvious facts to the contrary.
DS
Daniel Rose
that made me laugh
what? huh? what? huh? best fun i've had all day =D
--
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:3B97E420...@webmaster.com...
`
TigerLady <ad...@qdeckers.com> escreveu nas notícias de mensagem:eae0a870.01081...@posting.google.com...
: Please [skip]
Spam!
chika
` <rena...@SPAM.IS.SHIT.brasnet.org> wrote:
> Spam!
No thanks. Cheese on mine today... :)
Martin Edwards
wrote:
Have you got anything without spam?
chika
Martin Edwards <MartinE...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:48:57 +0100, chika <miy...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >In article <9oj6ju$d82ks$2...@ID-88878.news.dfncis.de>,
> > ` <rena...@SPAM.IS.SHIT.brasnet.org> wrote:
> >> Spam!
> >
> >No thanks. Cheese on mine today... :)
> >
> Have you got anything without spam?
Well, there's egg, bacon, spam and sausage. That hasn't got much spam... :)
Tony Miller
TigerLady <ad...@qdeckers.com> wrote:
Chaz (and previously Viper) decided that alt.irc was their own little
playground, and it gives them woodies when they get to tell other people
what to do. They are probably "IRC cops" on their own little servers but
they can't get people to go there and get bullied by them.
One time postings of new network announcements was never off topic in the
original charter, it's just that recently some (most notably peas) has
taken it upon themselves to rewrite the FAQ in their own image.
On a more practical note, you'll generally find that the regulars here
have their own networks that they hang out on, and your advertisement of a
network without people which is as good or worse than the one they already
have friends on.
The folks you WILL attract are losers who have gotten klined from every
other network, and folks who read your ad and want to pop in to make fun
of you. Not to mention the spamcop posts (which BTW have nothing to do
with IRC and as such are off topic).
So if you want to open yourself to that kind of abuse, you've come to the
right place. ;)
-Tony
PS: this place hasn't changed much since I went on my alt.irc vacation.
--
Reliable, "eggable" Unix shell accounts. http://www.jtan.com/proshell/
cl00bie @ IRC - /server cookie.sorcery.net 9000, http://www.sorcery.net
We welcome WebTV'ers - http://www.sorcery.net/help/index.html#WebTV
MJ Ray
> One time postings of new network announcements was never off topic in the
> original charter
What original charter?
--
MJR
I work for this clever Internet developer ==> http://www.luminas.co.uk/
chika
Remarque <rema...@jabber.com> wrote:
> > What original charter?
> Charters don't really matter on Usenet anyway now cos no ISP would
> ever kick anyone just for breaking a charter. In fact I advocate that
> we ignore all the usenet lawmakers and post what the fuck we like.
And get kicked. FYI there are groups out there with legitimate charters
that vigorously defend them. ISP's that do not pursue users that break
these charters have been known to suffer themselves as they are given UDP
sentences (@home is one example).
The argument here is not one of Usenet in general, it is what is allowable
on this group in particular and whether a "charter" for this group
actually exists. As is the case on many alt groups, such an item may not
exist and therefore cannot be used, so defining OT posts becomes harder
and kicking users becomes that much harder for ISP's to do. Which is why
ISP's tend to ignore kick requests from alt groups.
There are two options, as I see it. Either legitimise the group with a
charter that everyone agrees on (by which I mean regulars, not
troublemakers that drift in just to stir the shit) or forget it. But it
would need total agreement - the peas FAQ approach did not enjoy this, the
result being that it fell into disuse by many.
Jacob News
>> There are two options, as I see it. Either legitimise the group
>> with a charter that everyone agrees on (by which I mean regulars,
>> not troublemakers that drift in just to stir the shit) or forget
>> it.
Remarque <rema...@jabber.com> wrote:
>So who decides who the regulars are. Is it by volume, by quantity,
>longevity, or nepotism?
The "rule" for what is on-topic for alt.irc was rather simple for the
first eight years or so of its lifetime:
1) If it's posted by someone who reads alt.irc, it's on topic.
2) If it's posted by someone who doesn't read alt.irc, it's not on topic.
Our lives were so much simpler when that was our "charter".
-Jacob
David Schwartz
> > There are two options, as I see it. Either legitimise the group
> > with a charter that everyone agrees on (by which I mean regulars,
> > not troublemakers that drift in just to stir the shit) or forget
> > it.
> So who decides who the regulars are. Is it by volume, by quantity,
> longevity, or nepotism?
It doesn't matter because the only power such a decision will have is
who is willing to honor and enforce it. If you pick the wrong people,
you'll just wind up with a charter that nobody respects.
DS
Contention
>1) If it's posted by someone who reads alt.irc, it's on topic.
>2) If it's posted by someone who doesn't read alt.irc, it's not on topic.
That's workable, give or take the definition of "reading alt.irc". I
suppose I prefer something like "if you think it will interest people on
alt.irc, then it's on topic". That doesn't excuse you from finding out
what will be interesting *before* you post. If you're wrong about it
being interesting, you get flamed. :P
It says something, I think, that it's more common for people who
post adverts here to bitch than it is for them to apologise. Whether
they're politely told that the post was inappropriate, or flamed to a
cinder, the response is "I CAN DO THIS AND YOU CANT STOP ME". Not "I
thought this would be interesting, sorry"[1], but "HAHAHAHAHA I RUL3Z
URE IRC 91\/ M3 URE R007". Who the hell do they think is reading the
advert, who did they hope to attract - are they trolling, or are they
just confused?
Contention.
[1] Emphasis on that word. "I thought this would be interesting, fuck
you" does not impress me. :)
Jacob News
>>1) If it's posted by someone who reads alt.irc, it's on topic.
>>2) If it's posted by someone who doesn't read alt.irc, it's not on topic.
Contention <Conte...@soaring.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That's workable, give or take the definition of "reading alt.irc". I
>suppose I prefer something like "if you think it will interest people on
>alt.irc, then it's on topic". That doesn't excuse you from finding out
>what will be interesting *before* you post. If you're wrong about it
>being interesting, you get flamed. :P
No, really; "interest to the readers" is not what the criterion was.
Many things may be thought to be of interest to people on alt.irc, but
if you were someone who was going to read the followup(s) to your post,
then you were off topic. Historically alt.irc has been by and large
very tolerant [1] of *any* sort of crap on this newsgroup, just as long
as it's posted by someone who actually, you know, *reads* the group.
-Jacob "Insipid Drivel" News
[1] "tolerant" meaning "what was said on the newsgroup stayed on the
newsgroup". In other words, you could pretty much do whatever you
wanted and nobody tried to have you removed from the group (ie, by
net.copping you) -- instead you were subject to peer ridicule. When
you had your fill of being demeaned by others, you would leave, or you
would change your behavior to fit the acceptable norms for the group.
David Schwartz
> > It doesn't matter because the only power such a decision
> > will have is
> > who is willing to honor and enforce it. If you pick the wrong
> > people, you'll just wind up with a charter that nobody respects.
> If who picks the wrong people? Damn it you're still speaking as if
> someone is in charge here. This is usenet we're talking about, the
> greatest peer to peer network ever devised. No one is in control. No
> one can be in control.
That is not true. There is control, and there can be control. To some
extent, the control is by each site administrator who decides what
articles they will carry. To some extent it's by deciding whose cancels
they will honor. To some extent, it's every ISP when they decide whose
accounts to cancel.
It's distributed control for sure. But USENET is both owned and
controlled. Make no mistake about it.
DS
David Schwartz
> > That is not true. There is control, and there can be control. To
> > some extent, the control is by each site administrator who
> > decides what articles they will carry. To some extent it's by
> > deciding whose cancels they will honor. To some extent, it's
> > every ISP when they decide whose accounts to cancel.
> Suffice it to say you're talking about a different kind of control,
> but interestingly and I'm sure you know this, Demon Internet made a
> legal challenge recently to the general concept that an ISP was
> responsible for the content of usenet postings.
There is a difference between the ability to exercise control when you
choose to exercise it and the responsibility to take control over. I am
talking about the former and you are talking about the latter.
> In the light of the goddfrey case it had been feared that ISPs
> were, at least in the de facto sense, rsponsible for primary
> censorship. The new ruling allowed that they could only be expected
> to react after the event.
In the United States, you needn't worry about this because ammendments
to the telecommunication act make it clear that ISPs are not responsible
for information that they simply propogate automatically from one place
to another.
> On a moral level, I would say the day usenet can really be
> moderated, that's the day it's no longer useful. That's the day you
> may as well read state run press, or listen to the Afghanistan
> Radio for your Middle East News.
I would say that's you're very wrong. Moderation increases the value of
information by reducing the amount of garbage you have to wade through
to get to the good stuff -- that's why I read the New York Times rather
than the Enquirer. Moderation is neither inherently bad nor inherently
good -- it depends upon what its purpose is and what the goals of the
particular forum are.
There are advantages to having content-neutral forums, where anyone can
express any view on a particular topic or broad range of topics. But
there is no advantage I can think of to having forums with no rules at
all. There are people who are averse to open communication and having no
rules at all allows them to drown out the valuable open communication of
relevant content by flooding the unprotected forum with total garbage.
In sum, moderation is essential to open communication.
DS
chika
<rema...@jabber.com> wrote:
> In article <4ac42957...@argonet.co.uk> chika <miy...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > The argument here is not one of Usenet in general, it is what is
> > allowable on this group in particular and whether a "charter" for this
> > group actually exists. As is the case on many alt groups, such an item
> > may not exist and therefore cannot be used, so defining OT posts
> > becomes harder and kicking users becomes that much harder for ISP's to
> > do. Which is why ISP's tend to ignore kick requests from alt groups.
> Exactly. If you wanted to police the group you should have set it up in
> a mainstream hierarchy. I stck to the Charters of the mainstream
> hierarchies but i post exactly what I like in the alt groups, because
> that's what they're for.
> Besides which, when it comes right down to it we can post what we want
> anyway. Take a quick look at this heade and ask yourself who you'd
> complain to.
I'd start at freedom.gmsociety.org then move on to the folk behind
news.tele.dk. That is one reason why it is harder to hide yourself on
Usenet; the "Path" header...
chika
Remarque <rema...@jabber.com> wrote:
> chika <miy...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in
> news:4ac42957...@argonet.co.uk:
> > There are two options, as I see it. Either legitimise the group
> > with a charter that everyone agrees on (by which I mean regulars,
> > not troublemakers that drift in just to stir the shit) or forget
> > it.
> So who decides who the regulars are. Is it by volume, by quantity,
> longevity, or nepotism?
In a group like this, it is usually decided by consensus. We all know who
is a regular, who is an occasional visitor and so on.
Contention
>Yes but what is far from obvious to me is whether or not on-topic
>notices of new irc servers constitute something of interest. I
>think they do. You obviously don't agree, but we've never had the
>discussion.
We haven't. The rest of this group has. ;)
>In the group alt.free.newsservers it is considered something
>positive to advertise open servers. To me this group seems to fall
>into a similar vein. Have you any logical argument against that?
Perhaps, but I'd have to look at alt.free.newsservers. You're
looking for a way of proving that you're "right", though, while I'll
settle for showing you that you're impractical. :)
You can be of three minds about adverts. Either you actively want to
see them, you couldn't care less, or you don't want to see them.
I'm mostly neutral - I dislike them because they tend to demonstrate
all the intelligence and charisma of a dead whelk. If someone came up
with a genuinely amusing or attractive advert, rather than "go 2 r nu
serva is grate k thnx bye", I might even check out the network in
question.
Some people, however, *really* don't want to see those adverts here.
I support them because I believe they represent the majority of the
subscribers, and because nobody is hurt by insisting those ads go
elsewhere. Not vanish off usenet, go elsewhere.
This is a "traditional" way of dealing with the problem, for those
who care more about tradition than results. alt.irc.mirc was set up
because mIRC threads were causing flame wars. I submit that server ads
are causing flame wars. In this case, we don't even have to create a new
group.
Contention.
Igor2
>
> In a group like this, it is usually decided by consensus. We all know who
> is a regular, who is an occasional visitor and so on.
>
>
Anyway, it's not about the above topic, i think someone should make a list
about the regulars :)
thanx
Igor2
chika
Probably the best way to do that would be to compile stats on postings. At
the moment there is no conclusive way to prove who is a regular except by
reputation (for example, we all know that V|per is a regular. A regular
*what* is a moot point...) ;)
David Schwartz
> Probably the best way to do that would be to compile stats on postings. At
> the moment there is no conclusive way to prove who is a regular except by
> reputation (for example, we all know that V|per is a regular. A regular
> *what* is a moot point...) ;)
Wow! This is the first time in ages that I've actually used the term
"moot point" used correctly. Generally it's misused to mean unimportant
or not worth discussing, but that's *not* what it means at all.
DS
Jacob News
>> [...snip...]
>> *what* is a moot point...) ;)
David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> Wow! This is the first time in ages that I've actually used the term
>"moot point" used correctly. Generally it's misused to mean unimportant
>or not worth discussing, but that's *not* what it means at all.
Speaking of moot points, are you one of those english lawyers who believe
that each word has one and only one meaning, usually the oldest one? :P
-Jacob "To be moot, or not to be moot, that is the question..."
Contention
> Wow! This is the first time in ages that I've actually used the term
>"moot point" used correctly. Generally it's misused to mean unimportant
>or not worth discussing, but that's *not* what it means at all.
We shouldn't be getting into this, but... ;)
/* ------------------------------------------------------------------ */
tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots
To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1.
Law. To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.
adj.
1) Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2)
a. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously
decided or settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
Usage Note:
-----------
The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th
century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical
case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot
question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th
century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as
its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean *of no
significance or relevance.* Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is
one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to
this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence
"The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to
support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans
announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination." When using moot
one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.
/* ------------------------------------------------------------------ */
Of no practical importance/ irrelevant, and (assumed) not worth
discussing in the opinion of the person using the phrase "moot point".
This very subthread is moot in two out of three senses of the word.
*grins*
Tony Miller
Contention <Conte...@soaring.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Remarque <rema...@jabber.com> wrote:
<Snip>
> You can be of three minds about adverts. Either you actively want to
>see them, you couldn't care less, or you don't want to see them.
>
> I'm mostly neutral - I dislike them because they tend to demonstrate
>all the intelligence and charisma of a dead whelk. If someone came up
>with a genuinely amusing or attractive advert, rather than "go 2 r nu
>serva is grate k thnx bye", I might even check out the network in
>question.
I think that network ought to outline *why* you you should frequent their
server. A well thought out charter, a pleasant (not necessarily
professional) webpage is a must.
Forget the ones that offer O:lines to anyone who joins. Would you want to
chat on a network who was recruiting opers from the dregs of society
(those people who hang on a tiny network for an O:Line).
Give us some info on what makes them different. Don't say they have
chanserv and nickserv, there are tons of networks out there with those who
have *people*.
Outline any special services you offer, if you give channels a free
webpage say that.
But saying "Come to my new network. We could be great only if we had
people." ain't going to cut it.
> Some people, however, *really* don't want to see those adverts here.
>I support them because I believe they represent the majority of the
>subscribers, and because nobody is hurt by insisting those ads go
>elsewhere. Not vanish off usenet, go elsewhere.
The ads are ineffective only because the majority of regulars in this
newsgroup have their favorite network that they hang out in. They're not
going to pull up stakes and move because of a badly written ad.
I'd prefer not to hear from the 20 or so people bitching at the "spammer".
> This is a "traditional" way of dealing with the problem, for those
>who care more about tradition than results. alt.irc.mirc was set up
>because mIRC threads were causing flame wars. I submit that server ads
>are causing flame wars. In this case, we don't even have to create a new
>group.
One thing about posting in alt.irc.networks or alt.irc.servers, it gets
you in google groups.
>Contention.
-Tony
Tony Miller
Remarque <rema...@jabber.com> wrote:
<Snip>
>On a moral level, I would say the day usenet can really be
>moderated, that's the day it's no longer useful. That's the day you
>may as well read state run press, or listen to the Afghanistan
>Radio for your Middle East News.
Consider a moderated newsgroup like a trade journal with an editorial
board. Those who subscribe to the journal (newsgroup) accept the job of
the moderator. Depending on the charter can be a really neat way to run a
newsgroup.
You will get those few people who bitch about censorship, and whatnot, but
there are so many anarchistic venues on the internet you don't need to
park in one place. Simply subscribe to something else.
-Tony
MJ Ray
> for example, we all know that V|per is a regular.
How do you know? Are you camped in his bathroom?
--
MJR
Do you need advice about the Internet or particular net services? Why
not talk to my employers? See http://www.luminas.co.uk/ for details.
David Schwartz
> David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > Wow! This is the first time in ages that I've actually used the term
> >"moot point" used correctly. Generally it's misused to mean unimportant
> >or not worth discussing, but that's *not* what it means at all.
> Speaking of moot points, are you one of those english lawyers who believe
> that each word has one and only one meaning, usually the oldest one? :P
Nope, definitely not. However, I don't think an incorrect word use
becomes correct just because many people use it that way. When the
stewardess says, "the plane will be in the air momentarily", I panic. I
want it to *stay* in the air a bit longer than that! :P
DS
David Schwartz
> > Wow! This is the first time in ages that I've actually used the term
> >"moot point" used correctly. Generally it's misused to mean unimportant
> >or not worth discussing, but that's *not* what it means at all.
> 1) Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
This is the primary usage. That's why the '1' is there.
> 2)
> a. Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously
> decided or settled.
> b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
This is the usage in phrases like 'moot court'.
> The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th
> century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical
> case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot
> question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th
> century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as
> its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean *of no
> significance or relevance.* Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is
> one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to
> this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence
> "The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to
> support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans
> announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination." When using moot
> one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.
Well then I disagree with 59% of the usage panel. Language is not
determined by majority anyway. If 4 out of 10 experts consider a usage
invalid, you certainly shouldn't use it.
> This very subthread is moot in two out of three senses of the word.
> *grins*
Certainly so. :)
DS
Jacob News
David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
>> > Wow! This is the first time in ages that I've actually used the term
>> >"moot point" used correctly. Generally it's misused to mean unimportant
>> >or not worth discussing, but that's *not* what it means at all.
>> Speaking of moot points, are you one of those english lawyers who believe
>> that each word has one and only one meaning, usually the oldest one? :P
David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> Nope, definitely not. However, I don't think an incorrect word use
>becomes correct just because many people use it that way. When the
>stewardess says, "the plane will be in the air momentarily", I panic. I
>want it to *stay* in the air a bit longer than that! :P
Oh; my dictionary's second definition for "moot" says "deprived of practical
significance" which matches the popular, but controversal usage...
-Jacob
Jacob News
> Language is not determined by majority anyway. If 4 out of 10
>experts consider a usage invalid, you certainly shouldn't use it.
Language is for the purpose of communicating your thoughts to other people.
If I had to take a poll of experts every time I wanted to figure out if
enough of them considered a particular word or grammar sentence to be
constructed properly, I wouldn't have much time left over to actually, you
know, communicate.
If 8 out of 10 experts agreed that speaking using largely a french
vocabulary was invalid, would you say certainly nobody should speak
french?
[Oh wait... ;-)]
-Jacob (Who is just being ornery, in a fun sort of way)
Contention
> Well then I disagree with 59% of the usage panel. Language is not
>determined by majority anyway. If 4 out of 10 experts consider a usage
>invalid, you certainly shouldn't use it.
If it conveys the proper meaning, you certainly should. You didn't
suggest that you don't know what is meant when "moot" is used in its
more popular form.
We're not even talking about a meaning that isn't in the dictionary,
but let's suppose we were. Suppose half the words in use are *not* in
the dictionary, because the dictionary is never updated. At that point,
the common language is incorrect according to the dictionary, but it is
equally true to say that the dictionary is "incorrect", or more
precisely, a reference to a language that no longer exists. Which is why
dictionaries are updated to include formerly unused words and meanings,
because useless dictionaries don't sell...
NB that the meaning we're arguing about appeared in the 19th
century, not last week, and that the first printed lists of words
probably didn't include most of the words and meanings you use every
day. ;)
David Schwartz
> > Well then I disagree with 59% of the usage panel. Language is not
> >determined by majority anyway. If 4 out of 10 experts consider a usage
> >invalid, you certainly shouldn't use it.
> If it conveys the proper meaning, you certainly should. You didn't
> suggest that you don't know what is meant when "moot" is used in its
> more popular form.
While communicating your idea clearly is a requirement for proper
usage, it is not sufficient. For example, if you say, "me go store", any
English speaker can figure out what you mean. That does *not* make it
proper usage. In this particular case, it's especially bad because the
correct meaning and the incorrect meaning are sufficiently similar that
it's genuinely hard to tell which is meant. Even those who argue that
both uses are correct warn that you have to go to a special effort to
make sure it's clear what you mean. That *can't* be good use of
language.
> We're not even talking about a meaning that isn't in the dictionary,
> but let's suppose we were. Suppose half the words in use are *not* in
> the dictionary, because the dictionary is never updated. At that point,
> the common language is incorrect according to the dictionary, but it is
> equally true to say that the dictionary is "incorrect", or more
> precisely, a reference to a language that no longer exists. Which is why
> dictionaries are updated to include formerly unused words and meanings,
> because useless dictionaries don't sell...
Right. Dictionaries are handy references. They have their strengths and
weaknesses. I would never argue that, "because the dictionary says X is
allowed, it must be good usage" nor would I argue, "because the
dictionary doesn't say you can use X to mean Y, you can't".
> NB that the meaning we're arguing about appeared in the 19th
> century, not last week, and that the first printed lists of words
> probably didn't include most of the words and meanings you use every
> day. ;)
So what? If somebody tries to make "bad" mean "good", I'll oppose them
whether they did it yesterday or 800 years ago.
DS
Contention
> While communicating your idea clearly is a requirement for proper
>usage, it is not sufficient. For example, if you say, "me go store", any
>English speaker can figure out what you mean. That does *not* make it
>proper usage. In this particular case, it's especially bad because the
>correct meaning and the incorrect meaning are sufficiently similar that
>it's genuinely hard to tell which is meant. Even those who argue that
>both uses are correct warn that you have to go to a special effort to
>make sure it's clear what you mean. That *can't* be good use of
>language.
There is no significant percentage of the population which says "me
go store", AOL jokes aside. If there were, then it would have to be
considered a part of the language in some way, as a phrase or whatever.
I agree that we should avoid ambiguity, but I'd be more inclined to
drop the earlier definition, if I *had* to make a choice (rather than
looking at context), because more people seem to use the later one.
chika
> > for example, we all know that V|per is a regular.
> How do you know? Are you camped in his bathroom?
OOoooo... even worse!!!! (I thought my comment was catty!) :)
Contention
>> Forget the ones that offer O:lines to anyone who joins. Would
>> you want to chat on a network who was recruiting opers from the
>> dregs of society (those people who hang on a tiny network for an
>> O:Line).
>
>I hate elitism and that comment was deprorable. Each new server
>deserves to have the same chance as the servers or yore and so do
>the newbies that inhabit them. Who are you to draw the timeline
>anyway? All those established servers started out using whoever
>would volunteer their time.
You don't think that those who hang out on a small network *just* so
they can be 84|) 455 IRCops are pretty sad people? The phrase "the dregs
of society" does have elitist connotations, but in principle I have to
agree with him - a network that offers O: lines to anyone who asks is
one step down from anarchy. On most networks, epecially those that
survive to become "established", it's /don't call us, we'll call you/.
From my reading of the original post, Tony wasn't suggesting that
small networks shouldn't get a chance, only that they should earn that
chance.
Tony Miller
Contention <Conte...@soaring.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<Snip>
> From my reading of the original post, Tony wasn't suggesting that
>small networks shouldn't get a chance, only that they should earn that
>chance.
Of course all small networks should get a chance. The network I frequent
started out small, 20 people if I remember, 12 of those opers, and 4 of
the rest services bots.
You need to have something unique to offer. You also have to have people
willing to entice their friends to go there. Problem is if you have a
bunch of people with no friends founding the network, or people who are
*only* friends with each other.
The key to success of a small network if you want it to remain to become a
medium network is not attracting new people, but keeping your *existing*
people. This means treating them well, and not messing with them so they
want to stay on your network.
overfl0w
>Remarque <rema...@jabber.com> wrote:
>
>>> Forget the ones that offer O:lines to anyone who joins. Would
>>> you want to chat on a network who was recruiting opers from the
>>> dregs of society (those people who hang on a tiny network for an
>>> O:Line).
>>
>>I hate elitism and that comment was deprorable. Each new server
>>deserves to have the same chance as the servers or yore and so do
>>the newbies that inhabit them. Who are you to draw the timeline
>>anyway? All those established servers started out using whoever
>>would volunteer their time.
>
> You don't think that those who hang out on a small network *just* so
>they can be 84|) 455 IRCops are pretty sad people? The phrase "the dregs
>of society" does have elitist connotations, but in principle I have to
>agree with him - a network that offers O: lines to anyone who asks is
>one step down from anarchy. On most networks, epecially those that
>survive to become "established", it's /don't call us, we'll call you/.
>
> From my reading of the original post, Tony wasn't suggesting that
>small networks shouldn't get a chance, only that they should earn that
>chance.
I agree with this post.