NEW NETWORK
AUCS Admin
users WANTED!!!!!!
--
****************************************************************************
*******************
The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of
the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to
receive it. It may contain confidential or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the
contents is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by responding to this e-mail and then delete it and any
attachments.
****************************************************************************
*******************
Wouter Schoot
"AUCS Admin" <sha...@pacific.net.au> wrote in message
news:10057143...@news.ozonline.com.au...
twice?
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Wouter Schoot
--
Wouter Schoot (wou...@schoot.org)
Website: http://www.schoot.org
UIN# 42109851
Crazy Diamond
Joyful as I may sound, I must forewarn you, however, that am not prepared to
relocate to Austria this time. Not that I have anything against Austria--t's a
wonderful country with lots of snow--but it's because I hadI neglected to take
German lessons in college.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
Chaz
> users WANTED!!!!!!
Blatant spam reported. Once for each spam.
Regards, Chris.
Jacob News
Chaz <ch...@ro0t.com> wrote:
>Blatant spam reported. Once for each spam.
We really, truly, passionately don't care that your penis is so short
that you need to vicariously find ways to explore your manhood by telling
us about the conquests of all the "spams" you have net.copped. Please
in the future feel free to not share this information with the rest of
us, since it's pretty much taken for granted that we _don't care_.
Your presumed cooperation is *greatly* appreciated.
-Jacob
Viper
Tony Miller
Dear blueyonder abuse officer:
The following user consistently forges his headers in violation of the
following rule in your AUP:
-- Usenet
6. Forging of header information. This includes attempting to circumvent
the approval process for posting to a moderated newsgroup.
This user also consistently posts information in alt.irc in violation of
our FAQ. Net-cop posts are not related to IRC, and have no business in
alt.irc. However, posts that ARE on topic (new IRC networks) he turns in
other users and posts the results to us.
Could you please discipline him as per your abuse policies.
Thank you very much for your time.
-Tony
to...@cigardiary.com
-- Post with full headers follows --
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:51:31 GMT,
Chaz <ch...@ro0t.com> wrote:
>Path: news.freenet.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!newsfeed.icl.net!shale.ftech.net!news.ftech.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!int
ernal-news-hub.cableinet.net!news1.cableinet.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
>Reply-To: "Chaz" <ch...@ro0t.com>
>From: "Chaz" <ch...@ro0t.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.irc
>References: <10057143...@news.ozonline.com.au>
>Subject: Re: NEW NETWORK
>Lines: 10
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
>Message-ID: <7qwI7.1583$GY4.1...@news1.cableinet.net>
>Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:51:31 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.31.95.116
>X-Complaints-To: http://www.blueyonder.co.uk/abuse
>X-Trace: news1.cableinet.net 1005753091 62.31.95.116 (Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:51:31 GMT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 15:51:31 GMT
>Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder)
>Xref: news.freenet.de alt.irc:72438
--
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
Tony Miller
Would you please report me too, dumbass?
>Regards, Chris.
-Tony
Viper
ads here.
Rob
news:slrn9v5hl...@io.jtan.com...
> [Following posted and mailed to abuse officer ]
>
> Dear blueyonder abuse officer:
>
> The following user consistently forges his headers in violation of the
> following rule in your AUP:
>
>
>
>
> to...@cigardiary.com
>
hmmmm... Binary NG's incomplete, poor retention in text-only NG's, Average
connection speed 44000bps on dial-up if you can connect, not much faster if
using their broadband, pings of 500 plus when gaming online, webcache that
doesn't work, transparent cache that interferes with other available
webcaches resulting in slow or no web access most of the time, 2min - 6hrs
wait for telephone support to answer the phones!!!.... the list is
endless!!!!!
what else can blueyonder to to punish him??? do you not think he is
suffering enough???
;o)
--
Rob
Never underestimate the fool!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ThePhantomsLair.cjb.net
------------------------------------------------------------
overfl0w
>Ill email themn too, But Ill let them know the regulars do NOT want server
>ads here.
Who are the "regulars"? You?
Rob
>
> Dear blueyonder abuse officer:
>
> The following user consistently forges his headers in violation of the
> following rule in your AUP:
>
>
> Could you please discipline him as per your abuse policies.
>
DayDragon
"Rob" <ThePhantoms...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:seKI7.1959$kS1.15...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
> hmmmm... Binary NG's incomplete, poor retention in text-only NG's,
Average
> connection speed 44000bps on dial-up if you can connect, not much faster
if
> using their broadband, pings of 500 plus when gaming online, webcache
that
> doesn't work, transparent cache that interferes with other available
> webcaches resulting in slow or no web access most of the time, 2min - 6hrs
> wait for telephone support to answer the phones!!!.... the list is
> endless!!!!!
>
> what else can blueyonder to to punish him??? do you not think he is
> suffering enough???
> ;o)
>
Rob
news:9t0pbg$l06$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
> "Rob" <ThePhantoms...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:seKI7.1959$kS1.15...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> >
> >
>
>
afraid so... well at times anyway.... that's most times... ;o)
chika
He never said what sort of regular... ;)
/me®
Rob <Phantomtdb9...@blueyonder.co.uk> escreveu nas notícias de mensagem:jkKI7.2866$bC5.3...@news1.cableinet.net...
: "Tony Miller" <to...@cigardiary.com> wrote in message
: news:slrn9v5hl...@io.jtan.com...
: > [Following posted and mailed to abuse officer ]
: >
: > Dear blueyonder abuse officer:
: >
: > The following user consistently forges his headers in violation of the
: > following rule in your AUP:
: >
: >
: > Could you please discipline him as per your abuse policies.
: >
: >
: > -Tony
: > to...@cigardiary.com
: >
:
: hmmmm... Binary NG's incomplete, poor retention in text-only NG's, Average
: connection speed 44000bps on dial-up if you can connect, not much faster if
: using their broadband, pings of 500 plus when gaming online, webcache that
: doesn't work, transparent cache that interferes with other available
: webcaches resulting in slow or no web access most of the time, 2min - 6hrs
: wait for telephone support to answer the phones!!!.... the list is
: endless!!!!!
:
: what else can blueyonder to to punish him??? do you not think he is
: suffering enough???
to punish it in brazil use ig(www.ig.com.br): 33600 max, no nntp, [sh]{it}(ty) webmail, traceroutes took 1 hour, 3000 pings, ping
timeouts on IRC, s([(h](i)t)t)]y auth.
David Schwartz
> When did you poll the regulars - whoever they might be? For my part I
> don't mind seeing the odd advert for relevant services - ie IRC services
> - since the groups designated for that are too obscure - carried by too
> few servers to offer a viable alternative.
There is really no way to say, "I don't mind seeing the odd advert for
relevant services". You pretty much either hold the line or open the
floodgates.
DS
Tony Miller
Hell, I say open the floodgates. Every ad that is posted, is publicly
netcopped by at least 3 idiots... Legalize one-time server/network ads,
and you get rid of the netcops.
If they post more or become irritating, we sic Viper on them.
> DS
-Tony
David Schwartz
> Hell, I say open the floodgates. Every ad that is posted, is publicly
> netcopped by at least 3 idiots... Legalize one-time server/network ads,
> and you get rid of the netcops.
If you legalize them, they increase by a factor of 50. That's nothing
compared to 3 netcops. Plus, the 3 netcops have the side advantage of
teaching people a lesson in topicality that other newsgroups benefit
from.
DS
Martin Edwards
>
>> Who are the "regulars"? You?
>
>He never said what sort of regular... ;)
>
of any movement some of you seem to think you belong to. I don't know
anyone else who's into irc in real life. I think occasional ads are
ok: I usually check them out.
******Martin Edwards.******
Come on! Nobody's gonna drive that lousy freeway
when you can take the Red Car for a nickel.
-Eddy Valiant
Tony Miller
As a percentage, how many of those who post server ads here ever read the
netcop replies? I figure maybe one out of 20 (and that's only by figuring
those who respond to the netcop posts).
Besides, who cares. If a network has some neat new service (or even
doesn't) it's IRC related. As a SorceryNet admin I'd love to see someone
advertise an original service we don't have. If it was a good one we'd
stea^H^H^H^Hcopy it an supply it to our userbase.
Everyone benefits (except those networks which have lost their innovative
edge).
David Schwartz
> > If you legalize them, they increase by a factor of 50. That's nothing
> >compared to 3 netcops. Plus, the 3 netcops have the side advantage of
> >teaching people a lesson in topicality that other newsgroups benefit
> >from.
> As a percentage, how many of those who post server ads here ever read the
> netcop replies? I figure maybe one out of 20 (and that's only by figuring
> those who respond to the netcop posts).
That has nothing to do with anything. The netcop replies aren't aimed
at the posts they're replying to (after all, it's not like they can make
that post go away). They're aimed at reducing the frequency of off-topic
posts by reminding everyone who uses USENET how important it is to
assure topicality before you post.
> Besides, who cares. If a network has some neat new service (or even
> doesn't) it's IRC related. As a SorceryNet admin I'd love to see someone
> advertise an original service we don't have. If it was a good one we'd
> stea^H^H^H^Hcopy it an supply it to our userbase.
Then let them start a discussion about that service. We can talk about
its pros and cons and whether it really does advance the technology of
IRC. That would be a great use of this newsgroup.
> Everyone benefits (except those networks which have lost their innovative
> edge).
That's fine with me.
DS
Jacob News
> That has nothing to do with anything. The netcop replies aren't aimed
>at the posts they're replying to (after all, it's not like they can make
>that post go away). They're aimed at reducing the frequency of off-topic
>posts by reminding everyone who uses USENET how important it is to
>assure topicality before you post.
You give the netcoppers far too much intellectual credit. You're assuming
that if *you* were to engage in network abuse like the netcoppers, this is
the rationale you would use. But there's a reason why you don't engage in
the abusive practice of fradulent netcopping, right? Because that's what
this all comes down to. Those who want to act fraudently, versus those who
refuse to condone it.
_Our_ net.coppers are looking for validation, self-indulgence, and in imposing
their will on others using bully tactics. Imposing restrictive rules requires
the burden of proof: all things are by default permitted unless rules are
imposed to the contrary -- why should only 3 or 4 people dicatate to us the
rules that we are to be ruled by? You don't see me calling for new rules
against certain types of posts here -- I think that we should be *very liberal*
in what we permit, rather than *excessively uptight*.
It blows my mind that you think this group is *so overwhelmed* with traffic
that server announcements (they never were called `ads' before viper decided
they were `spam', so i won't dignify him by calling them ads) are the one
thing that could push this newsgroup over the edge into uselessness.
Peas and viper are so big on their non-propogated vanity newsgroups, maybe
one of them should create alt.irc.peas-and-viper so they can get their
jollies by imposing their stupid and idiotic speech codes by fiat on the
readers of that group and leave the rest of us alone to get something done
without being interefered with by a couple of self-important wankers.
-Jacob
David Schwartz
> David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > That has nothing to do with anything. The netcop replies aren't aimed
> >at the posts they're replying to (after all, it's not like they can make
> >that post go away). They're aimed at reducing the frequency of off-topic
> >posts by reminding everyone who uses USENET how important it is to
> >assure topicality before you post.
> You give the netcoppers far too much intellectual credit. You're assuming
> that if *you* were to engage in network abuse like the netcoppers, this is
> the rationale you would use. But there's a reason why you don't engage in
> the abusive practice of fradulent netcopping, right? Because that's what
> this all comes down to. Those who want to act fraudently, versus those who
> refuse to condone it.
I don't mind if a person does the right thing for the wrong reason. If
a man invents the cure to cancer because he wants to prove how great he
is, that's fine with me.
> _Our_ net.coppers are looking for validation, self-indulgence, and in imposing
> their will on others using bully tactics. Imposing restrictive rules requires
> the burden of proof: all things are by default permitted unless rules are
> imposed to the contrary -- why should only 3 or 4 people dicatate to us the
> rules that we are to be ruled by? You don't see me calling for new rules
> against certain types of posts here -- I think that we should be *very liberal*
> in what we permit, rather than *excessively uptight*.
I'm not sure why you feel that imposing restrictive rules requires the
burden of proof. There are uses both for narrow and wide forums, and
USENET has plenty of room for all kinds. However, as soon as the focus
of a group becomes too wide, the group no longer becomes useful. Once
anything is on-topic, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes so high that the
people who really want to hold discussions go elsewhere.
> It blows my mind that you think this group is *so overwhelmed* with traffic
> that server announcements (they never were called `ads' before viper decided
> they were `spam', so i won't dignify him by calling them ads) are the one
> thing that could push this newsgroup over the edge into uselessness.
No, I don't think that this group is, but I think it would be if not
for the actions of people who mock and ridicule those who post server
ads. I've been active on USENET for a very long time now and have seen a
large number of groups become worthless, to be replaced by other groups
where the line was held for longer. You have to make a topicality policy
and enforce it with an iron fist. Every violation must be mercilessly
mocked.
> Peas and viper are so big on their non-propogated vanity newsgroups, maybe
> one of them should create alt.irc.peas-and-viper so they can get their
> jollies by imposing their stupid and idiotic speech codes by fiat on the
> readers of that group and leave the rest of us alone to get something done
> without being interefered with by a couple of self-important wankers.
I really don't see what one newsgroup has to do with another.
DS
Jacob News
> I don't mind if a person does the right thing for the wrong reason. If
>a man invents the cure to cancer because he wants to prove how great he
>is, that's fine with me.
I think the more proper analogy is what happens if a man invents the cure
to cancer while trying to develop a biochemical weapon? Do we pat him on
the head, tell him what a swell guy he is, and send him on his way?
> I'm not sure why you feel that imposing restrictive rules requires the
>burden of proof. There are uses both for narrow and wide forums, and
>USENET has plenty of room for all kinds. However, as soon as the focus
>of a group becomes too wide, the group no longer becomes useful. Once
>anything is on-topic, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes so high that the
>people who really want to hold discussions go elsewhere.
This group is nowhere near this alleged test of lack of usefulness. Therefore
I reject the notion that the focus of this group is already too wide and must
be further narrowed. Quite the contrary, I assert. Server announcements are
*NOT* the difference between this group being useful and this group being
useless.
> No, I don't think that this group is, but I think it would be if not
>for the actions of people who mock and ridicule those who post server
>ads. I've been active on USENET for a very long time now and have seen a
>large number of groups become worthless, to be replaced by other groups
>where the line was held for longer. You have to make a topicality policy
>and enforce it with an iron fist. Every violation must be mercilessly
>mocked.
Yes -- the topicality policy has already been set -- and netcop posts are
not on topic -- and we do mercilessly mock violators. I'm glad you agree
with us.
>> Peas and viper are so big on their non-propogated vanity newsgroups, maybe
>> one of them should create alt.irc.peas-and-viper so they can get their
>> jollies by imposing their stupid and idiotic speech codes by fiat on the
>> readers of that group and leave the rest of us alone to get something done
>> without being interefered with by a couple of self-important wankers.
>
> I really don't see what one newsgroup has to do with another.
Peas created the vanity newsgroup alt.irc.networks *for the sole and only
purpose* of being able to put in the "alt.irc FAQ" that server announcements
must not be sent to alt.irc because alt.irc.networks exists. You are of
course entirely correct. The existance of alt.irc.networks has nothing to
do with what is and is not on topic of alt.irc, and server announcements
are on topic on alt.irc as they have always been.
If peas really wanted a newsgroup where he could be king and tyrant, he
should have done that, instead of appointing himself ruler of alt.irc,
creating a second-class ghetto, and telling us that if we don't like the
way he's running things, we can feel free to exile ourselves there.
-Jacob
David Schwartz
> David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> >I don't mind if a person does the right thing for the wrong reason. If
> >a man invents the cure to cancer because he wants to prove how great he
> >is, that's fine with me.
> I think the more proper analogy is what happens if a man invents the cure
> to cancer while trying to develop a biochemical weapon? Do we pat him on
> the head, tell him what a swell guy he is, and send him on his way?
No, tell him what a horrible guy he is, but don't condemn the cure.
> >I'm not sure why you feel that imposing restrictive rules requires the
> >burden of proof. There are uses both for narrow and wide forums, and
> >USENET has plenty of room for all kinds. However, as soon as the focus
> >of a group becomes too wide, the group no longer becomes useful. Once
> >anything is on-topic, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes so high that the
> >people who really want to hold discussions go elsewhere.
> This group is nowhere near this alleged test of lack of usefulness. Therefore
> I reject the notion that the focus of this group is already too wide and must
> be further narrowed. Quite the contrary, I assert. Server announcements are
> *NOT* the difference between this group being useful and this group being
> useless.
So you think we should wait until we're swamped? Server announcements
do not foster IRC discussions. They don't advance the state of the art
of IRC. They generally don't even serve an informational purpose. They
are basically useless. Practically every server ad I've seen in this
newsgroup has been of the pure vanity type -- most of them not even
being endorsed by the networks they purport to advertise. This is a
discussion group.
> >No, I don't think that this group is, but I think it would be if not
> >for the actions of people who mock and ridicule those who post server
> >ads. I've been active on USENET for a very long time now and have seen a
> >large number of groups become worthless, to be replaced by other groups
> >where the line was held for longer. You have to make a topicality policy
> >and enforce it with an iron fist. Every violation must be mercilessly
> >mocked.
> Yes -- the topicality policy has already been set -- and netcop posts are
> not on topic -- and we do mercilessly mock violators. I'm glad you agree
> with us.
The netcop posts and discussions about their appropriateness to this
newsgroup are legitimate discussions about IRC, just as this thread is.
> >> Peas and viper are so big on their non-propogated vanity newsgroups, maybe
> >> one of them should create alt.irc.peas-and-viper so they can get their
> >> jollies by imposing their stupid and idiotic speech codes by fiat on the
> >> readers of that group and leave the rest of us alone to get something done
> >> without being interefered with by a couple of self-important wankers.
> > I really don't see what one newsgroup has to do with another.
> Peas created the vanity newsgroup alt.irc.networks *for the sole and only
> purpose* of being able to put in the "alt.irc FAQ" that server announcements
> must not be sent to alt.irc because alt.irc.networks exists. You are of
> course entirely correct. The existance of alt.irc.networks has nothing to
> do with what is and is not on topic of alt.irc, and server announcements
> are on topic on alt.irc as they have always been.
I agree with everything you said until the very last part.
Announcements are not appropriate in a discussion group unless there is
an honest intent to open a discussion on what was announced.
> If peas really wanted a newsgroup where he could be king and tyrant, he
> should have done that, instead of appointing himself ruler of alt.irc,
> creating a second-class ghetto, and telling us that if we don't like the
> way he's running things, we can feel free to exile ourselves there.
I really don't care what peas wants or does. All I want is to see
alt.irc remain (become?) a high-quality discussion newsgroup.
DS
Janne Nikula
<dav...@webmaster.com> says...
> > If peas really wanted a newsgroup where he could be king and tyrant, he
> > should have done that, instead of appointing himself ruler of alt.irc,
> > creating a second-class ghetto, and telling us that if we don't like the
> > way he's running things, we can feel free to exile ourselves there.
>
> I really don't care what peas wants or does. All I want is to see
> alt.irc remain (become?) a high-quality discussion newsgroup.
I think that the most harmful thing for this group is the endless
flamewar. It is rather sad because as far as I can tell, many people
here really have a very good idea how IRC really works and many have
lots of knowledge. As I now see things, the knowledge is mostly wasted
because of the endless flamewar which keeps repeating same arguments
over and over.
Basically I don't have any other wish but the regulars to talk to each
other in a constructive way to achieve some kind of a consensus about
server ads. I know for sure that everyone will never agree to a
specified way of doing things but still it is possible to organize
discussion and maybe even voting.
--
Janne Nikula, Geetee on IRCnet, http://www.zkelvin.net/jnikula/
David Schwartz
> I think that the most harmful thing for this group is the endless
> flamewar. It is rather sad because as far as I can tell, many people
> here really have a very good idea how IRC really works and many have
> lots of knowledge. As I now see things, the knowledge is mostly wasted
> because of the endless flamewar which keeps repeating same arguments
> over and over.
At least the flamewar is an IRC-related discussion. If it suppresses
off-topic noise, so much the better.
> Basically I don't have any other wish but the regulars to talk to each
> other in a constructive way to achieve some kind of a consensus about
> server ads. I know for sure that everyone will never agree to a
> specified way of doing things but still it is possible to organize
> discussion and maybe even voting.
Unfortunately, voting doesn't work. There's no way to tell what's an
actual person and the person with the greatest will to corrupt the vote
can and will do so. What does work is rational argument and making sure
that those who break the rules don't get any benefit from it. If a
server ad just makes you and your server look lame, why bother with one?
DS
Kyle Hutchins
> At least the flamewar is an IRC-related discussion. If it suppresses
> off-topic noise, so much the better.
But I thought you wanted a "high-quality discussion newsgroup." You
consider yelling back and forth to be high-quality discussion?
--
Kyle Hutchins
sfdr...@home.com
Daniel Neely
it's not. posts are 100x as pointless, adn there's far more of them
than anything else.
MJ Ray
>Announcements are not appropriate in a discussion group unless there is
>an honest intent to open a discussion on what was announced.
Who said this was "a discussion group"? You make the assertion many times
without ever justifying it.
The cynic would say that is because it is unjustifiable. This is alt.irc,
not alt.irc.discussion. Announcements *and* discussions about IRC are
on-topic here.
Jacob News
> So you think we should wait until we're swamped? Server announcements
>do not foster IRC discussions. They don't advance the state of the art
>of IRC. They generally don't even serve an informational purpose. They
>are basically useless.
Stop being so melodramatic. Netcops suffer from the exact same problems
you've stated here, except they're even *more* useless because they don't
provide any new or interesting information to the irc community. Yet
you champion the cause of netcops while decrying the posts with some
(albeit not much) useful information. Why is this?
> The netcop posts and discussions about their appropriateness to this
>newsgroup are legitimate discussions about IRC, just as this thread is.
Nice try, but you ain't sneaking this one by me. Discussions about netcop
posts may be "legitimite" but the netcop posts themselves are not and in fact
are *more illegitimite* than the server announcements they invariably follow.
> I agree with everything you said until the very last part.
>Announcements are not appropriate in a discussion group unless there is
>an honest intent to open a discussion on what was announced.
Why? Just because _you_ say so?
> I really don't care what peas wants or does. All I want is to see
>alt.irc remain (become?) a high-quality discussion newsgroup.
Please. What space ship did you just fall out of? alt.irc has never been
and never will be a place where "high-quality discussion" is engaged in.
Join us in the real world, _please_.
-Jacob
Jacob News
>I think that the most harmful thing for this group is the endless
>flamewar. It is rather sad because as far as I can tell, many people
>here really have a very good idea how IRC really works and many have
>lots of knowledge. As I now see things, the knowledge is mostly wasted
>because of the endless flamewar which keeps repeating same arguments
>over and over.
alt.irc has a long and storied history (stretching back longer than i've
been here, at least) as a flame group. Anything goes -- at least that
was the way it used to be before peas decided to declare himself the
mommy for all of us and viper decided to assume the role of mommy's
spoiled brat who just loves to tattle on people.
But I digress. The useful discussions go on -- as they always have --
in the alt.irc.* subgroups, such as alt.irc.questions and alt.irc.mirc
and alt.irc.servers. Alt.irc is a free-for-all. Some of us want to keep
it that way. There are *enough* "serious" irc groups. We don't need
to get rid of the one fun group in the entire hierarchy.
-Jacob
Jacob News
Welcome to alt.irc. I hope you have a pleasant visit. You can check in,
but you can't check out. Be sure to tip the bellboy.
-Jacob
David Schwartz
> Please. What space ship did you just fall out of? alt.irc has never been
> and never will be a place where "high-quality discussion" is engaged in.
> Join us in the real world, _please_.
Well then why bother? If you've already given up, why do you keep
fighting against those who haven't given up? Follow your convictions and
go away.
DS
Jacob News
>> Please. What space ship did you just fall out of? alt.irc has never been
>> and never will be a place where "high-quality discussion" is engaged in.
>> Join us in the real world, _please_.
David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> Well then why bother? If you've already given up, why do you keep
>fighting against those who haven't given up? Follow your convictions and
>go away.
Huh? Was that paragraph supposed to mean something? Or were you intending
it to say it to someone else? Because it certainly doesn't follow from
what I'm saying.
But maybe you didn't understand me. I'll say it slower, and in smaller
words so you can comprehend it.
Alt.irc is not about serious discussions related to irc. At least it
never _has_ been in the past. Previous attempts to "change" alt.irc into
a "serious discussion group" have failed. They even spawned backlash
groups (such as the EBOAI) to mock those who actively attempt to change
alt.irc. Your current crusade will fail for the same reasons all previous
crusades have failed. The sooner you accept that alt.irc is the newsgroup
for ALL TOPICS relating to irc and irc users, and solely and exclusively
for "high quality discussions" the sooner your adventure will lead you to
those groups where these discussions are already takign place and you will
stop this perverse attempt to change alt.irc into something it is not.
There. Was that simple enough for you?
-Jacob
David Schwartz
> Alt.irc is not about serious discussions related to irc.
I'm not sure where "serious" came into things.
> At least it
> never _has_ been in the past. Previous attempts to "change" alt.irc into
> a "serious discussion group" have failed. They even spawned backlash
> groups (such as the EBOAI) to mock those who actively attempt to change
> alt.irc. Your current crusade will fail for the same reasons all previous
> crusades have failed.
I'm not trying to change alt.irc. I'm actually quite happy with alt.irc
the way it is now. It seems to me that you are as well. (Right?)
> The sooner you accept that alt.irc is the newsgroup
> for ALL TOPICS relating to irc and irc users, and solely and exclusively
> for "high quality discussions" the sooner your adventure will lead you to
> those groups where these discussions are already takign place and you will
> stop this perverse attempt to change alt.irc into something it is not.
I'm not trying to change alt.irc. I'm perfectly happy with it the way
it is.
> There. Was that simple enough for you?
Where did you get that I was trying to change alt.irc? The only change
I'd like to see is the magical elimination of all server ads, but so
long as they're followed up by merciless mocking (as they usually are),
they don't even particularly bother me. In fact, I find them somewhat
entertaining.
DS
Jacob News
> I'm not trying to change alt.irc. I'm actually quite happy with alt.irc
>the way it is now. It seems to me that you are as well. (Right?)
No -- you are unhappy because you are trying to get rid of server
announcements and support netcopping to enforce this new rule. I, on
the other hand, do not support any new speech codes and am actively
campaigning against the application of any. I would no more netcop a
netcop than I would support anyone else to -- but I do support the merciless
taunting of anyone who attempts to impose speech codes on this group.
There is a distinct difference between speaking out against something
("You suck!") and engaging in abusive behavior (trying to get someone's
internet access shut down for violation of a rule that does not exist.)
That's what we're talking about. We're talking about people who are trying
to get other people's internet access shut off because they posted ONE server
announcement to alt.irc. We're talking about people trying to make other
people lose money (whatever they prepaid for their internet account) because
they posted a server announcement in the group that on the face of it is
the #1 most appropriate place for such a thing. We're talking about people
who have no concern or compassion for the impact that their vigilante actions
might have on other people's real lives.
We're talking about why you are one of the two or three people on this
newsgroup that support the abusive practice of netcopping.
You say you don't want changes, but in your post, you go on to start
listing the changes you want made! Does this have to go even further?
Can you follow your own arguments from one sentence to the next?
We all have the right to speak, but we don't all have the right to start
intruding in other people's real lives because they offended some
self-imposed speech code some schmoe decided he wanted some day.
-Jacob
Hesiod
> Jacob News wrote:
>
> Where did you get that I was trying to change alt.irc? The only change
> I'd like to see is the magical elimination of all server ads, but so
> long as they're followed up by merciless mocking (as they usually are),
> they don't even particularly bother me. In fact, I find them somewhat
> entertaining.
>
> DS
Mine wasn't an "ad"; should I be prohibited from ever mentioning the
network I participate in? I was willing and ready to take all sorts of
comments and critiques and flames about it; several people have offered
constructive questions and comments. I merely wanted to discuss it.
We are not on a quest for new users. Two participants here did join
and were very congenial, for which I am grateful. But if my mention of
NixHelp (woops sorry) garnered no new users I'd still be very happy.
I despise spam. I read nanae and nanau regularly. I have postfix
configured to check all manner of RBL lists and a good header_check
file. I routinely LART ISPs about spam and open relays.
One-off, non-multiposted, non-excessively-crossposted mentions of
IRC servers/networks are simply not spam; nor in my case is there
anything remotely commercial about it. They may be "off-topic", but when
will that be sorted out? I find Jacob News's arguments highly
rational and compelling. If this group is about the discussion of IRC,
then I will find it difficult never to mention what I am most closely
involved in in the IRC universe.
I like hearing why other people think Unreal sucks. It is informative.
So I mention my network, and that it offers SSL (which is rather new and
controversial to IRC if I am not mistaken), in the hopes of getting some
feedback. That's all. Why is that taken to be so nefarious?
Hesiod
--
Kua oti.
David Schwartz
> David Schwartz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> >I'm not trying to change alt.irc. I'm actually quite happy with alt.irc
> >the way it is now. It seems to me that you are as well. (Right?)
> No -- you are unhappy because you are trying to get rid of server
> announcements and support netcopping to enforce this new rule.
Thank your for telling me how I feel. No, I'm not unhappy. The low
level of off-topic posts in this newsgroup is not just tolerable but
actually impressive.
> I, on
> the other hand, do not support any new speech codes and am actively
> campaigning against the application of any.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
> You say you don't want changes, but in your post, you go on to start
> listing the changes you want made! Does this have to go even further?
> Can you follow your own arguments from one sentence to the next?
I honestly do not mind a moderate level of off-topic posts if they are
followed by merciless ridicule. Perhaps a zero level of off-topic posts
would render this newsgroup boring.
DS
Tony Miller
Why do you believe that "high quality discussion" in alt.irc is something
to be pursued? I like it just the way it is.
-=-peas-=-
"Jacob News" <jn...@epicsol.org> wrote in message
news:tvgbjtr...@corp.supernews.com...
<SNIP>
> Peas created the vanity newsgroup alt.irc.networks
No i didn't, go read the control message numb nuts. In fact the group
existed before i posted my document.
<SNIP>
> -Jacob
-=-peas-=-
Jacob News
>> Peas created the vanity newsgroup alt.irc.networks
-=-peas-=- <peas@_munged_.clara.net> wrote:
>No i didn't, go read the control message numb nuts. In fact the group
>existed before i posted my document.
I'm just engaging in a little creative history revisionism, as you are
so fond of doing. Why should you be the only one extended this courtesy?
-Jacob