alt.tv.csi
Lynn
running by the start of the season.
--
Lynn
http://www.lynnsland.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Life is a search for the truth; and there is no truth
- Chinese Proverb
=====================================================
Adam H. Kerman
>Is a valid newsgroup. Ask your ISP's to add it, so it'll be up and
>running by the start of the season.
No, it's not valid. It's another proposal hijacking like alt.tv.alias.
"K.W. Persson" is a troll who used open proxies to send a newgroup attack
of 100 or so revenge newsgroups. Among them were three newgroups for CSI.
I would urge the original proponent to return to alt.config for advice on
promoting this group. At the very least, he needs to send a booster message in
his own name to explain the situation for the record.
Lynn
>
>> Is a valid newsgroup.
>>
>
> No, it's not valid.
Whatever. It had a control message recorded at isc.org (?), which is
all SuperNews requires to add an alt* group. I'm not sure what GigaNews
(my other newsserver) requirements are, but I sorta asked them this
morning, but they haven't answered me yet. Haven't checked since noon
to see if they've added it.
raven
Lynn <cheops.k...@mailops.compound> wrote in message
news:udoicsc...@news.supernews.com...
> > Lynn <cheops.k...@mailops.compound> wrote:
> >
> >> Is a valid newsgroup.
> >>
> Adam H. Kerman proclaimed...
> >
> > No, it's not valid.
>
> Whatever. It had a control message recorded at isc.org (?), which is
> all SuperNews requires to add an alt* group. I'm not sure what GigaNews
> (my other newsserver) requirements are, but I sorta asked them this
> morning, but they haven't answered me yet. Haven't checked since noon
> to see if they've added it.
Outlook Express notified me that it was a new newsgroup this afternoon.
--
Lesley
"...and in my case the pay has been good."
Stephen King
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman proclaimed...
>>Lynn <cheops.k...@mailops.compound> wrote:
>>>Is a valid newsgroup.
>>No, it's not valid.
>Whatever. It had a control message recorded at isc.org (?), which is
>all SuperNews requires to add an alt* group. . . .
True. No news administrator is going to care that it was newgrouped by a
troll, a small-time Usenet vandal. It would be nice if the record reflected
what happened.
The problem is that the troll isn't going to promote the group, which means it
won't have the widespread propogation it should have. It's not too late for
someone to fix the situation.
Lynn, would you care to do it? You seem interested, while I don't really
expect to see the original proponent again.
K.W. Persson
On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Fri, 10 May 2002 20:11:16
-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
> Lynn <cheops.k...@mailops.compound> wrote:
>
> >Is a valid newsgroup. Ask your ISP's to add it, so it'll be up and
> >running by the start of the season.
>
> No, it's not valid. It's another proposal hijacking like alt.tv.alias.
> "K.W. Persson" is a troll
K.W. Persson, moi, a troll?
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
(Alt.tv.csi is active(ish). 12 messages in only two days. It's the most
successful group I have created. Just ask your isp's to bring it in.
Hopefully you don't have state owned ISP's like we have in Sweden
otherwise it can be a problem.)
> who used open proxies to send a newgroup attack
> of 100 or so revenge newsgroups.
I newgrouped 38 groups including boosters for alt.test, alt.tv.csi and
alt.soupprt.dylsxeia, but the other 35 were only part of a diversion to
prevent rmgroup-troll christinA pimfortyun from rmgrouping alt.tv.csi
and it worked.
> Among them were three newgroups for CSI.
Only two. One was sent by the Swedish (partially state controlled)
ISP-alliance "SOF".
> I would urge the original proponent to return to alt.config for advice
> on promoting this group.
I don't think he will return. You, Mr Kerman, accused him of being brain
dead.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=ucr385p...@corp.supernews.com&hl=en
"Dude, that's an excellent imitation of brain death. You auditioning to
be a corpse on the show?"
- Adam H. Kerman in alt.config 29 Apr 2002
> At the very least, he needs to send a booster
> message in his own name to explain the situation for the record.
He was posting from google.com. They can't sent control messages.
--
K.W. Persson http://shorl.com/hyfregregymadre
UTF-8:Hürfüñkärdëttäütfträmsëtñüdå? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!1
In teh ,face loosres! ;o) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! =|8-)))))))
För böhwelen! Ni ser juh ut som ett arschle i hufvudet karl!
'ddweø é
Adam H. Kerman
>Bom dia,
>On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Fri, 10 May 2002 20:11:16
>-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
>>Lynn <cheops.k...@mailops.compound> wrote:
>>>Is a valid newsgroup. Ask your ISP's to add it, so it'll be up and
>>>running by the start of the season.
>>No, it's not valid. It's another proposal hijacking like alt.tv.alias.
>>"K.W. Persson" is a troll
>K.W. Persson, moi, a troll?
>I find your lack of faith disturbing.
I can only judge you on your history of sending revenge newgroups and small
scale attacks in the past, not to mention your use of open proxies.
>Alt.tv.csi is active(ish). 12 messages in only two days. It's the most
>successful group I have created.
That's not "success". The group isn't "created" till it gets a reasonable
amount of sustained traffic. Someone who takes that seriously needs to
promote it.
>>who used open proxies to send a newgroup attack of 100 or so revenge
>>newsgroups.
>I newgrouped 38 groups including boosters for alt.test, alt.tv.csi and
>alt.soupprt.dylsxeia, but the other 35 were only part of a diversion to
>prevent rmgroup-troll christinA pimfortyun from rmgrouping alt.tv.csi
>and it worked.
You could have tried proposing it in alt.config, of course. Any news
administrator who paid attention would observe that you were a troll, using
open proxies, and refuse to honor any newgroup you send. Your stunt merely
harmed the group.
What are you doing to promote it, aside from sending revenge newgroups?
Incidentally, christinA never intended to send one for the CSI group. She
sent one for each of your revenge groups. She only sends them in response
to the real crappy newgroups, like yours.
>>Among them were three newgroups for CSI.
>Only two. One was sent by the Swedish (partially state controlled)
>ISP-alliance "SOF".
All three had your name on it.
>>I would urge the original proponent to return to alt.config for advice
>>on promoting this group.
>I don't think he will return. You, Mr Kerman, accused him of being brain
>dead.
>"Dude, that's an excellent imitation of brain death. You auditioning to
>be a corpse on the show?"
>- Adam H. Kerman in alt.config 29 Apr 2002
That wasn't the original proponent. The group was initially proposed in
July, 2001. Despite explicit instructions given by Eugene, no one favoring
the group sent the newgroup. It was proposed again in November. Then this
recent one.
Not one of those proponents made any effort. The most recent "brain dead"
one sent a one-line message to discuss a CSB (sic) show. Several others
followed up with advice. The "proponent" never reappeared. Seeing no sign
of life, I was inspired to post that witty rejoinder. I thought it was
appropriate.
What you share with those proponents is no history of discussing the topic.
>>At the very least, he needs to send a booster message in his own name to
>>explain the situation for the record.
>He was posting from google.com. They can't sent control messages.
"He", being a mythical proponent who takes promoting a newsgroup seriously.
Someone other than you. I know; I'm kidding myself.
Unlike you, I actually like the alt.* hierarchy and don't do things to
sabotage the hierarchy for legitimate proponents. Once upon a time, news
administrators would create alt.* groups automatically in response to a
control message. Knowing that people like you send boatloads of pointless
newgroups, they refuse to create alt.* groups lacking a user request. Thus,
propogation is dreadful. New alt.* groups don't get created on the small
servers whose users add the spice and variety Usenet needs to keep it
interesting. Hell, most news administrators refuse to read proposals in
newgroup messages.
You are one of the people causing specific harm to future proponents.
M. V.L. M.
>You are one of the people causing specific harm to future proponents.
Indeed.
Considering some of the recent hijackings of proposals, and other
gun-jumping occurring in alt.config lately, I'm sure it's making some
would-be proponents reluctant to go that route, for fear of their
group being created irresponsibly.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
m_v...@yahoo.com
Save 'Futurama'!!!: http://www.petitiononline.com/futufu/petition.html
The Music of 'Scrubs': http://us.geocities.com/my_fansite/music.html
Lynn
>
> The problem is that the troll isn't going to promote the group, which
> means it won't have the widespread propogation it should have. It's
> not too late for someone to fix the situation.
>
> Lynn, would you care to do it? You seem interested, while I don't
> really expect to see the original proponent again.
Nope. Sounds like work. I got it on SuperNews, am working on GigaNews
(my two news servers), but I haven't checked this morning to see if they
picked up my request (I piggybacked it on another message). What I
usually do is crosspost between rat and the new group (announcing that
in the first line of my post) so people will know it's there. Then,
those discussing it can request it.
I saw CJ in here pushing the group - I dunno how many TV groups he's on,
but between the two of us, there should be a way to mention it whenever
possible until traffic picks up.
Adam H. Kerman
>Adam H. Kerman proclaimed...
>>The problem is that the troll isn't going to promote the group, which
>>means it won't have the widespread propogation it should have. It's
>>not too late for someone to fix the situation.
>>Lynn, would you care to do it? You seem interested, while I don't
>>really expect to see the original proponent again.
>Nope. Sounds like work.
Well, yeah, it is! Generally, a hard-working proponent can turn even a half-
baked idea for a topic into a halfway decent newsgroup.
>I got it on SuperNews, am working on GigaNews (my two news servers),
Thanks for trying.
K.W. Persson
On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Sat, 11 May 2002 08:54:05
-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
> K.W. Persson <svalba...@jelena-dokic.com> wrote:
[...]
> >K.W. Persson, moi, a troll?
> >I find your lack of faith disturbing.
>
> I can only judge you on your history of sending revenge newgroups
Please provide some examples of the 100's of revenge groups I allegedly
created. The readers of rec.arts.tv might think you are telling the
trouth.
[...]
>
> >Alt.tv.csi is active(ish). 12 messages in only two days. It's the most
> >successful group I have created.
>
> That's not "success".
For me it is. Compare it with the other groups I created. Alt.tv.csi is
a huge success.
> The group isn't "created" till it gets a reasonable
> amount of sustained traffic.
I think the word you are looking for is "active".
[...]
> You could have tried proposing it in alt.config, of course.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=i5htcuk5utdpq30d5...@4ax.com&hl=en
[...]
> What are you doing to promote it,
Groups with good names promote themselves.
> aside from sending revenge newgroups?
I don't send revenge newgroups. I prefer to vent my anger in *.flame
groups, however I do sometimes enjoy sending nonsense newgroups when I
feel for it, mainly as a hobby and for a laugh, although it isn't as fun
as it used to be in the early 1990's.
> Incidentally, christinA never intended to send one for the CSI group. She
> sent one for each of your revenge groups. She only sends them in response
> to the real crappy newgroups, like yours.
Correction: First christinA didn't rmgroup alt.tv.csi because christinA
was to busy rmgrouping the 100's of groups created by "terry g" and
"Knight Shadow" (May 2-3 GMT). If they weren't there I'm quite sure that
christinA would rmgroup alt.tv.csi. (I also sent some newgroups for
alt.swnet.* but they were cancelled by a polish cancelbot).
On May 5, knowing what christinA is capabe of doing in control.rmgroup,
I decided to create the alt.perv.* groups as a diversion. She rmgrouped
the alt.perv.* groups and ignored the alt.tv.csi.
I know that this behaviour is regarded by many (including myself) as a
highly unorthodox method of avoiding rmgroups but lets face it, the
diversion obviously worked.
[...]
> "He", being a mythical proponent who takes promoting a newsgroup seriously.
> Someone other than you. I know; I'm kidding myself.
>
> Unlike you, I actually like the alt.* hierarchy and don't do things to
> sabotage the hierarchy for legitimate proponents. Once upon a time, news
> administrators would create alt.* groups automatically in response to a
> control message. Knowing that people like you send boatloads of pointless
> newgroups, they refuse to create alt.* groups lacking a user request.
Are you sure that you don't confuse me with "Knight Shadow" and "terry
g"? We used the same server that day.
> Thus,
> propogation is dreadful. New alt.* groups don't get created on the small
> servers whose users add the spice and variety Usenet needs to keep it
> interesting. Hell, most news administrators refuse to read proposals in
> newgroup messages.
>
> You are one of the people causing specific harm to future proponents.
That's just a load of BS and you know it. I don't know what you are
trying to achieve with your attempts to demonize me, but if you really
like the alt.* hierarchy like you claim, you must have noticed the ~6500
hipcrime/hipclone groups in the hierarchy. If so you also know that they
were there long before I created alt.tv.csi.
K.W. Persson
On "Lynn" <cheops.k...@mailops.compound> in Fri, 10 May 2002
15:28:32 -0700 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
> > Lynn <cheops.k...@mailops.compound> wrote:
> >
> >> Is a valid newsgroup.
> >>
> Adam H. Kerman proclaimed...
> >
> > No, it's not valid.
>
> Whatever. It had a control message recorded at isc.org (?), which is
> all SuperNews requires to add an alt* group. I'm not sure what GigaNews
> (my other newsserver) requirements are, but I sorta asked them this
> morning, but they haven't answered me yet. Haven't checked since noon
> to see if they've added it.
Please take Kerman's info about the alt.* hierarchy with a grain of
salt. The group alt.config serves a much appreciated role as an advisory
group for creating alt.* groups and also as a deterrent for newbies who
want a "alt.my-name.is.cool" group, but it's not mandatory to post a
proposal in alt.config to create an alt.* group.
The control message I sent was valid but the creation process was not
'by the book' or 'by the alt.config FAQ'.
According to RFC1036 section 3 a valid newgroup message must contain
"Control: newgroup group.name" and "Approved:" in the header. As you
wrote, the message was indeed recorded at isc.org so the group is
officially created and is ready to use.
Adam H. Kerman
>Please take Kerman's info about the alt.* hierarchy with a grain of
>salt. The group alt.config serves a much appreciated role as an advisory
>group for creating alt.* groups and also as a deterrent for newbies who
>want a "alt.my-name.is.cool" group, but it's not mandatory to post a
>proposal in alt.config to create an alt.* group.
It didn't stop you from sending the newgroup message attack.
>The control message I sent was valid but the creation process was not
>'by the book' or 'by the alt.config FAQ'.
The issue is the newgroup attack and the harm you do to the hierarchy.
>According to RFC1036 section 3 a valid newgroup message must contain
>"Control: newgroup group.name" and "Approved:" in the header. As you
>wrote, the message was indeed recorded at isc.org so the group is
>officially created and is ready to use.
As you are not an official, the group is not officially created. Proponents
don't create newsgroups. Only news administrators can do that.
Newgroup messages are advice, not orders. As you mostly send newgroups for the
most specious of reasons, your CSI group is lost among all the others whose
message is, "Look at me! I'm a troll!"
Adam H. Kerman
>Bom dia,
>On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Sat, 11 May 2002 08:54:05
>-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
>>K.W. Persson <svalba...@jelena-dokic.com> wrote:
>>>K.W. Persson, moi, a troll?
>>>I find your lack of faith disturbing.
>>I can only judge you on your history of sending revenge newgroups
>Please provide some examples of the 100's of revenge groups I allegedly
>created. The readers of rec.arts.tv might think you are telling the
>trouth.
You've already admitted to having sent the newgroup attacks. Your history is
archived. Don't weasel out of it now.
>>>Alt.tv.csi is active(ish). 12 messages in only two days. It's the most
>>>successful group I have created.
>>That's not "success".
>For me it is. Compare it with the other groups I created. Alt.tv.csi is
>a huge success.
Your record is pathetic. People like you who don't care about topics of
discussion have no business sending newgroups. You ruin things for those
who might care enough about the topic to promote its discussion.
>>The group isn't "created" till it gets a reasonable amount of sustained
>>traffic.
>I think the word you are looking for is "active".
The words I normally use are "Usenet newsgroup" and "established". Plenty of
topics have active discussion for brief periods. A newsgroup isn't established
till there's active discussion for the indefinite future.
>>You could have tried proposing it in alt.config, of course.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=i5htcuk5utdpq30d5...@4ax.com&hl=en
This is correct; you did post a followup. I didn't notice it till later. But
christinA did. She never would have sent a rmgroup.
>>What are you doing to promote it,
>Groups with good names promote themselves.
This is a lie or self-delusion or an excuse for doing nothing.
>>aside from sending revenge newgroups?
>I don't send revenge newgroups.
Your record says otherwise.
>>Incidentally, christinA never intended to send one for the CSI group. She
>>sent one for each of your revenge groups. She only sends them in response
>>to the real crappy newgroups, like yours.
>Correction: First christinA didn't rmgroup alt.tv.csi because christinA
>was to busy rmgrouping the 100's of groups created by "terry g" and
>"Knight Shadow" (May 2-3 GMT). If they weren't there I'm quite sure that
>christinA would rmgroup alt.tv.csi.
You're the only one with bad motives, here.
>(I also sent some newgroups for alt.swnet.* but they were cancelled by a
>polish cancelbot).
You have such a proud history.
>On May 5, knowing what christinA is capabe of doing in control.rmgroup,
>I decided to create the alt.perv.* groups as a diversion. She rmgrouped
>the alt.perv.* groups and ignored the alt.tv.csi.
You're nothing but a troll.
>I know that this behaviour is regarded by many (including myself) as a
>highly unorthodox method of avoiding rmgroups but lets face it, the
>diversion obviously worked.
You seem to have failed the concept of "logic". Did you eat and comb your hair
that day? christinA must have found out. That's what kept here from sending
the rmgroup.
>>Unlike you, I actually like the alt.* hierarchy and don't do things to
>>sabotage the hierarchy for legitimate proponents. Once upon a time, news
>>administrators would create alt.* groups automatically in response to a
>>control message. Knowing that people like you send boatloads of pointless
>>newgroups, they refuse to create alt.* groups lacking a user request.
>Are you sure that you don't confuse me with "Knight Shadow" and "terry
>g"? We used the same server that day.
Those two were Dana. You're bad motives are much darker than his.
>>Thus, propogation is dreadful. New alt.* groups don't get created on the
>>small servers whose users add the spice and variety Usenet needs to keep
>>it interesting. Hell, most news administrators refuse to read proposals
>>in newgroup messages.
>>You are one of the people causing specific harm to future proponents.
>That's just a load of BS and you know it.
This is what I know: It used to be far easier to get alt.* groups created.
There have been 10s of thousands of meaningless newgroups sent. News
adminsitrators don't expect it to stop. Therefore, nearly all of them have
turned off automatic creation of newsgroups (upon receipt of the initial
newgroup). Very few of them waste time reading proposals in newgroups.
You are among those who send newgroup attacks. You did this claiming to
disguise what might have been a useful group. You are among those cuasing
harm to legitimate proponents.
>I don't know what you are trying to achieve with your attempts to demonize me,
Exposing you for what your are.
>but if you really like the alt.* hierarchy like you claim, you must have
>noticed the ~6500 hipcrime/hipclone groups in the hierarchy.
Are you admitting to being a Hipclone? Because some have sent newgroup attacks
in the past, you are justified in sending them now? Pathetic.
>If so you also know that they were there long before I created alt.tv.csi.
You created nothing. Sending a newgroup is not "creation". It's advice, and
nothing more. Thanks to your newgroup attack, you advised news administators
that you are a troll and not to be listened to.
David Levy
> > > Alt.tv.csi is active(ish). 12 messages in only two days.
> > > It's the most successful group I have created.
> > That's not "success".
> For me it is. Compare it with the other groups I created.
> Alt.tv.csi is a huge success.
Let me get this straight; it's a "huge success," simply because it
hasn't faired quite as poorly as the numerous other newsgroups for
which you've sent control messages?
You're either a troll or a moron. (if not both)
> Groups with good names promote themselves.
This might be true, if not for the fact that they're buried amongst
the thousands of unjustified newsgroups that are created by idiots
such as yourself.
> I don't send revenge newgroups. I prefer to vent my anger in *.flame
> groups, however I do sometimes enjoy sending nonsense newgroups
> when I feel for it, mainly as a hobby and for a laugh, although it isn't
> as fun as it used to be in the early 1990's.
<sarcastic analogy>
I don't set revenge fires. I do sometimes enjoy setting nonsense
fires when I feel for it, mainly as a hobby and for a laugh, although
it isn't as fun as it was prior to the popularity of smoke detectors.
</sarcastic analogy>
You pathetic twit.
> First christinA didn't rmgroup alt.tv.csi because christinA was
> to busy rmgrouping the 100's of groups created by "terry g"
> and "Knight Shadow" (May 2-3 GMT). If they weren't there
> I'm quite sure that christinA would rmgroup alt.tv.csi.
<sarcastic analogy>
The police didn't arrest me for jaywalking, because they were too busy
investigating some murders. Had the murders not been committed, I'm
quite sure that the police would have arrested me for jaywalking.
</sarcastic analogy>
> On May 5, knowing what christinA is capabe of doing in control.rmgroup,
> I decided to create the alt.perv.* groups as a diversion. She rmgrouped
> the alt.perv.* groups and ignored the alt.tv.csi.
Did it ever occur to you that she might have ignored alt.tv.csi,
regardless of your alt.perv.* groups?
> I know that this behaviour is regarded by many (including myself)
> as a highly unorthodox method of avoiding rmgroups
Replace "unorthodox" with "asinine."
> but lets face it, the diversion obviously worked.
<sarcastic analogy>
The rates of both frozen confection sales and automobile thefts
increase during the summer. Therefore, eating ice cream obviously
causes people to steal cars.
</sarcastic analogy>
David Levy
K.W. Persson
On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Mon, 13 May 2002 22:53:57
-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
[...]
> You've already admitted to having sent the newgroup attacks. Your history is
> archived. Don't weasel out of it now.
I don't. I'm just trying make you understand that 100's of newgroups is
not equal to 21 newgroups and at the same time informing the readers of
rec.arts.tv that you were spreading lies about me when you wrote that I
newgrouped 100's of revenge groups. Since you have dropped your false
accusations that I created 100's of revenge groups I don't se any reason
to continue this part of the discussion.
[...]
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=i5htcuk5utdpq30d5...@4ax.com&hl=en
>
> This is correct; you did post a followup. I didn't notice it till later. But
> christinA did. She never would have sent a rmgroup.
So my diversion was entirely in vain? Rats!
[...]
> Are you admitting to being a Hipclone?
Ha, another one of those questions.
Are you still beating your boyfriend? (Please don't answer.)
> Because some have sent newgroup attacks
> in the past, you are justified in sending them now?
I ment that many admins permanently changed the
"newgroup:*:alt.*:doit=newgroup" or "newgroup:*:alt.*:mail" to
"newgroup:*:alt.*:drop" in their control.ctl file after the hipclowns
newgroup floods and that it happend long before I entered the arena.
If you are insinuating that some admins added
"newgroup:svalba...@eurosport.com:alt.*:drop"
to their control.ctl file after my little stunt, well that is something
I must learn to live with.
> Pathetic.
If you refer to your own interpretation of my text I totally agree.
> You created nothing.
Indirectly I did create alt.tv.csi.
> Sending a newgroup is not "creation". It's advice, and
> nothing more.
So by that rationale it wasn't the hipclowns who created all the junk
groups, it was the news admins on all the servers around the world. Huh?
> Thanks to your newgroup attack, you advised news administators
> that you are a troll and not to be listened to.
Calm down Kerman. You don't have to be so upset because I choose to
ignore some parts of your FAQ. Most alt.* groups that are created
nowadays are not discussed in alt.config so I think you should be happy
that I, at least partially, followed some advice in your FAQ before
newgrouping alt.tv.csi.
If it would make you feel better I can send a rmgroup for alt.tv.csi and
then send a booster for it again.
K.W. Persson
On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Mon, 13 May 2002 22:34:05
-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
> K.W. Persson <svalba...@jelena-dokic.com> wrote:
>
> >Please take Kerman's info about the alt.* hierarchy with a grain of
> >salt. The group alt.config serves a much appreciated role as an advisory
> >group for creating alt.* groups and also as a deterrent for newbies who
> >want a "alt.my-name.is.cool" group, but it's not mandatory to post a
> >proposal in alt.config to create an alt.* group.
>
> It didn't stop you from sending the newgroup message attack.
If I had proposed the alt.perv.* groups in alt.config they would have
been rejected anyway since they were a part in a diversion and are
totally pointless. I don't see why the process
discussion -> rejection -> newgroup -> rmgroup
is better than
newgroup -> rmgroup
when the end result is the same.
> >The control message I sent was valid but the creation process was not
> >'by the book' or 'by the alt.config FAQ'.
>
> The issue is the newgroup attack and the harm you do to the hierarchy.
It was a diversion and it turned out to be in vain.
> >According to RFC1036 section 3 a valid newgroup message must contain
> >"Control: newgroup group.name" and "Approved:" in the header. As you
> >wrote, the message was indeed recorded at isc.org so the group is
> >officially created and is ready to use.
>
> As you are not an official, the group is not officially created. Proponents
> don't create newsgroups. Only news administrators can do that.
So it was the news admins who created the alt.perv.* groups then. I can
live with that.
> Newgroup messages are advice, not orders. As you mostly send newgroups for the
> most specious of reasons, your CSI group is lost among all the others whose
> message is, "Look at me! I'm a troll!"
Ok, so I chose an extremely bad time to send the newgroup message for
alt.tv.csi. That can theoretically be "repaired" with some boosters but
I wouldn't be so pessimistic.
Most of the newsservers are parts of/linked to commercial companies and
they must, in order to survive economically, listen to their customers.
If the customers request that they want the group alt.tv.csi, and I
don't think that is unlikely since csi is a very popular tv show, the
ISP/NSP will add it.
Since the group name is clean (by "clean" I mean that it's not an
alt.something.something.tv.csi group) I don't see any obstacle for news
admins to add that group to their servers.
The "problem" you are addressing is merely an aestetical problem that
only harms my personal short term credibility in creating (oh, sorry,
requesting) alt.* groups. It does not in any way harm the future
possibility for fans of csi to discuss their favourite tv drama in
alt.tv.csi. To fix this "problem" I need to unsend the control message
and that can only be done by travelling back in time. That is (still)
impossible and most news admins are aware of that.
K.W. Persson
On David Levy <d_l...@lifeisunfair.net> in Tue, 14 May 2002 00:08:26
-0400 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
> K.W. Persson wrote:
>
> > > > Alt.tv.csi is active(ish). 12 messages in only two days.
> > > > It's the most successful group I have created.
>
> > > That's not "success".
>
> > For me it is. Compare it with the other groups I created.
> > Alt.tv.csi is a huge success.
>
> Let me get this straight; it's a "huge success," simply because it
> hasn't faired quite as poorly as the numerous other newsgroups for
> which you've sent control messages?
Yes. Everything is relative.
> > Groups with good names promote themselves.
>
> This might be true, if not for the fact that they're buried amongst
> the thousands of unjustified newsgroups that are created by idiots
> such as yourself.
Oh, now it's thousands! What is this? An auction? (If someone else care
to join Levy and Kerman the next bid is 10,000 groups.)
[The rest of David Levy's childish and highly immature remarks have been
snipped and ignored.]
David Levy
> > Let me get this straight; it's a "huge success," simply because
> > it hasn't faired quite as poorly as the numerous other newsgroups
> > for which you've sent control messages?
> Yes. Everything is relative.
That settles it; clearly, you're both a troll and a moron.
> > > Groups with good names promote themselves.
> > This might be true, if not for the fact that they're buried
> > amongst the thousands of unjustified newsgroups that
> > are created by idiots such as yourself.
> Oh, now it's thousands! What is this? An auction? (If someone else
> care to join Levy and Kerman the next bid is 10,000 groups.)
I said "created by idiots such as yourself," not "created solely by
you." (I'm not surprised that you lack basic linguistic
comprehension.)
Are you denying the fact that there are thousands of unjustified
newsgroups in existence?
> [The rest of David Levy's childish and highly immature
> remarks have been snipped and ignored.]
Yeah, *I'm* the childish one. Give me a break.
David Levy
David Levy
> If I had proposed the alt.perv.* groups in alt.config they would
> have been rejected anyway since they were a part in a diversion
> and are totally pointless. I don't see why the process
>
> discussion -> rejection -> newgroup -> rmgroup
>
> is better than
>
> newgroup -> rmgroup
>
> when the end result is the same.
There's *no* proper method for proposing "diversion" newsgroups, you
jackass.
David Levy
Adam H. Kerman
>Bom dia,
>On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Mon, 13 May 2002 22:34:05
>-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
>> K.W. Persson <svalba...@jelena-dokic.com> wrote:
>>>Please take Kerman's info about the alt.* hierarchy with a grain of
>>>salt. The group alt.config serves a much appreciated role as an advisory
>>>group for creating alt.* groups and also as a deterrent for newbies who
>>>want a "alt.my-name.is.cool" group, but it's not mandatory to post a
>>>proposal in alt.config to create an alt.* group.
>>It didn't stop you from sending the newgroup message attack.
>If I had proposed the alt.perv.* groups in alt.config they would have
>been rejected anyway
You are delusional. There's no approval; there's no rejection.
>>As you are not an official, the group is not officially created. Proponents
>>don't create newsgroups. Only news administrators can do that.
>So it was the news admins who created the alt.perv.* groups then.
A mere handful create new groups automatically. Thanks to your stunt, very
few do that. As long as proponents are not trustworthy, alt.* groups will not
get created.
>I can live with that.
Of course. You are a saboteur.
>>Newgroup messages are advice, not orders. As you mostly send newgroups
>>for the most specious of reasons, your CSI group is lost among all the
>>others whose message is, "Look at me! I'm a troll!"
>Ok, so I chose an extremely bad time to send the newgroup message for
>alt.tv.csi.
It'll always be a bad time if you send the newgroup. You have a bad
reputation. No one familiar with it will take your newgroups seriously. You
will always be viewed as a troll.
>That can theoretically be "repaired" with some boosters but I wouldn't be
>so pessimistic.
Boosters are irrelevant. Their only purpose is to hit whatever tiny handful
of auto-add servers missed the initial newgroup. It won't change your
reputation.
>Most of the newsservers are parts of/linked to commercial companies and
>they must, in order to survive economically, listen to their customers.
>If the customers request that they want the group alt.tv.csi, and I
>don't think that is unlikely since csi is a very popular tv show, the
>ISP/NSP will add it.
How will anyone know to request it? You're not promoting it. Given your
reputation, who will you convince? Promotion is actual hard work which you
are unwilling to do. It requires someone who cares about the topic, who is
motivated to get the group going. That's not you.
Most news servers are NOT commercial. You haven't a clue about Usenet.
>Since the group name is clean (by "clean" I mean that it's not an
>alt.something.something.tv.csi group) I don't see any obstacle for news
>admins to add that group to their servers.
The usual one: Apathy among Usenet users. You do nothing to overcome it.
Do you have any idea what the proponent's main job is?
>The "problem" you are addressing is merely an aestetical problem that
>only harms my personal short term credibility in creating (oh, sorry,
>requesting) alt.* groups.
No. You contribute to the problem of newgroup attacks. Don't weasel out of
what you did. As long as news administrators anticipate that there will
continue to be newgroup attacks, they will not automatically add new groups.
Hope you are proud of yourself. It's easy to ruin a resource for others.
So very difficult to make a contribution.
Adam H. Kerman
>Bom dia,
>On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Mon, 13 May 2002 22:53:57
>-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
>>You've already admitted to having sent the newgroup attacks. Your history is
>>archived. Don't weasel out of it now.
>I don't. I'm just trying make you understand that 100's of newgroups is
>not equal to 21 newgroups
Earlier, you admitted to having sent 38 newgroups.
>and at the same time informing the readers of rec.arts.tv that you were
>spreading lies about me when you wrote that I newgrouped 100's of revenge
>groups.
You sent the newgroups. Anyone can look them up. If you were concerned about
how others would perceive you, you shouldn't have done it.
>Since you have dropped your false accusations
I made no false accusations. I have dropped nothing.
>>Because some have sent newgroup attacks in the past, you are justified in
>>sending them now?
>I ment that many admins permanently changed the
>"newgroup:*:alt.*:doit=newgroup" or "newgroup:*:alt.*:mail" to
>"newgroup:*:alt.*:drop" in their control.ctl file after the hipclowns
>newgroup floods and that it happend long before I entered the arena.
A great many changed it in response to revenge groups as you send. The real
problem is not the Hipclone attacks but the actions of idiots like you. The
more idiotic newgroups sent, the less likely news administrators will bother
to read proposals.
That's the harm you have caused for serious proponents.
>>You created nothing.
>Indirectly I did create alt.tv.csi.
No, you did not. You hijacked a proposal (though you did improve it a bit) and
you sent a newgroup among a series of revenge groups as a newgroup attack.
>>Sending a newgroup is not "creation". It's advice, and
>>nothing more.
>So by that rationale it wasn't the hipclowns who created all the junk
>groups, it was the news admins on all the servers around the world. Huh?
News administrators are responsible for what groups they create. Yes.
>>Thanks to your newgroup attack, you advised news administators
>>that you are a troll and not to be listened to.
>Calm down Kerman. You don't have to be so upset because I choose to
>ignore some parts of your FAQ.
Stick to the issue. I am making an issue of your newgroup attack, the specific
harm you did to the hierarchy.
>Most alt.* groups that are created nowadays are not discussed in alt.config
You have no idea. Again, sending newgroup attacks is not "creation". Pretty
unlikely that those sending newgroup attacks pat themselves on the back in
public. You are the first I've encountered.
>so I think you should be happy that I, at least partially, followed some
>advice in your FAQ before newgrouping alt.tv.csi.
The format... big deal. You can cut and paste.
>If it would make you feel better I can send a rmgroup for alt.tv.csi and
>then send a booster for it again.
Stop sending control messages for topics you wish to sabotage.
K.W. Persson
On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Wed, 15 May 2002 03:26:49
-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
> K.W. Persson <svalba...@jelena-dokic.com> wrote:
> >Bom dia,
> >On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Mon, 13 May 2002 22:34:05
> >-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
> >> K.W. Persson <svalba...@jelena-dokic.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Please take Kerman's info about the alt.* hierarchy with a grain of
> >>>salt. The group alt.config serves a much appreciated role as an advisory
> >>>group for creating alt.* groups and also as a deterrent for newbies who
> >>>want a "alt.my-name.is.cool" group, but it's not mandatory to post a
> >>>proposal in alt.config to create an alt.* group.
>
> >>It didn't stop you from sending the newgroup message attack.
>
> >If I had proposed the alt.perv.* groups in alt.config they would have
> >been rejected anyway
>
> You are delusional. There's no approval; there's no rejection.
The fact that christinA sent rmgroups for the alt.perv.* groups
illustrates that it clearly was rejected by the alt.config regulars. You
are an alt.config regular and you know exactly what I refer to when I
use the word rejected. If you prefer to use another word to describe
that, so be it. You are nitpicking over semantics.
> >>As you are not an official, the group is not officially created. Proponents
> >>don't create newsgroups. Only news administrators can do that.
>
> >So it was the news admins who created the alt.perv.* groups then.
>
> A mere handful create new groups automatically.
If you by a handful mean 20-30% I agree.
> Thanks to your stunt, very
> few do that.
*ROTFLMAO!* Wow! Honestly, you don't really believe in that nonsense
yourself do you?
Yes they are.
> You haven't a clue about Usenet.
>
> >Since the group name is clean (by "clean" I mean that it's not an
> >alt.something.something.tv.csi group) I don't see any obstacle for news
> >admins to add that group to their servers.
>
> The usual one: Apathy among Usenet users. You do nothing to overcome it.
>
> Do you have any idea what the proponent's main job is?
>
> >The "problem" you are addressing is merely an aestetical problem that
> >only harms my personal short term credibility in creating (oh, sorry,
> >requesting) alt.* groups.
>
> No. You contribute to the problem of newgroup attacks. Don't weasel out of
> what you did. As long as news administrators anticipate that there will
> continue to be newgroup attacks, they will not automatically add new groups.
> Hope you are proud of yourself. It's easy to ruin a resource for others.
> So very difficult to make a contribution.
I see that you have, in a very humourus way, greatly overestimated your
own significance to the alt.* hierarchy.
K.W. Persson
On David Levy <d_l...@lifeisunfair.net> in Tue, 14 May 2002 21:27:37
-0400 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
> K.W. Persson wrote:
[...]
> That settles it; clearly, you're both a troll and a moron.
The fact that you are discussing with me ("a troll") proves that you
don't really consider me as a troll.
> > Oh, now it's thousands! What is this? An auction? (If someone else
> > care to join Levy and Kerman the next bid is 10,000 groups.)
>
> I said "created by idiots such as yourself," not "created solely by
> you." (I'm not surprised that you lack basic linguistic
> comprehension.)
Considering that English is only my 2nd language I think that your
message came through pretty well despite all your insults and childish
comments. If you find my poor comprehension of the english language
disturbing I suggest that you start writning in Swedish.
> Are you denying the fact that there are thousands of unjustified
> newsgroups in existence?
That depends on how you define "unjustified". There are over 90,000
groups that *I* don't use and that could be labeled "unjustified" from
my point of view. If we limit ourselves to the alt.* hierarchy and bear
in mind that the alt.* hierarchy is supposed to be free, so by
definition, there can't be any unjustified groups in the alt.*
hierarchy.
However, there are alot of groups in the alt.* hierarchy that alt.config
regulars, like Kerman, don't like, ie "unjustified" from their point of
view, but that hardly make the groups "unjustified" in a broad sense.
Nobody is forcing anyone to subscribe to those groups.
K.W. Persson
> K.W. Persson <svalba...@jelena-dokic.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> >If I had proposed the alt.perv.* groups in alt.config they would have
> >been rejected anyway
>
> You are delusional. There's no approval; there's no rejection.
The fact that christinA sent rmgroups for the alt.perv.* groups
illustrates that it clearly was rejected by the alt.config regulars. You
are an alt.config regular and you know exactly what I refer to when I
use the word rejected. If you prefer to use another word to describe
that, so be it. You are nitpicking over semantics.
> >>As you are not an official, the group is not officially created. Proponents
> >>don't create newsgroups. Only news administrators can do that.
>
> >So it was the news admins who created the alt.perv.* groups then.
>
> A mere handful create new groups automatically.
If you by a handful mean 20-30% I agree.
> Thanks to your stunt, very
> few do that.
*ROTFLMAO!* Wow! Honestly, you don't really believe in that nonsense
yourself do you?
K.W. Persson
On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Wed, 15 May 2002 03:41:17
-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
[...]
> Earlier, you admitted to having sent 38 newgroups.
21 on May 2 (first newgroup). 17 on May 5 (booster). 21 + 17 = 38.
(Earlier you claimed that I sent 100's of newgroups.)
[...]
> >Since you have dropped your false accusations
>
> I made no false accusations.
Yes you did. (100 > 38)
> I have dropped nothing.
Yes you have since you are unable to provide any evidence of the 100's
of revenge newgroups I sent. In an attempt to save what's left of your
credibility you are trying to accuse me of having any part in damaging a
hierarchy that already was executed by the hipclowns.
David Levy
> The fact that you are discussing with me ("a troll")
> proves that you don't really consider me as a troll.
No, it doesn't. I ignore incoherent trolls, but you're of a different
variety.
> Considering that English is only my 2nd language I
> think that your message came through pretty well
... except for that part that you completely misinterpreted.
> despite all your insults and childish comments
1. My insults are warranted, because you truly are an idiot.
2. To quote popular English saying, "actions speak louder than words."
No matter what we say to one another, no real harm will be done. Your
actions, on the other hand, are extremely harmful.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
> If you find my poor comprehension of the english language
> disturbing I suggest that you start writning in Swedish.
If you're unable to properly comprehend the English language, (or
unwilling to accept legitimate criticisms) I suggest that you post
only in Swedish.
> > Are you denying the fact that there are thousands
> > of unjustified newsgroups in existence?
> That depends on how you define "unjustified".
In this context, I'm referring to newsgroups that were created as
pranks (one of your hobbies) or without a reasonable amount of
interest. (They serve no practical purpose.)
David Levy
Adam H. Kerman
>Bom dia,
>On "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> in Wed, 15 May 2002 03:26:49
>-0000 rec.arts.tv ha scritto/a ecrit:
>> K.W. Persson <svalba...@jelena-dokic.com> wrote:
>>>If I had proposed the alt.perv.* groups in alt.config they would have
>>>been rejected anyway
>>You are delusional. There's no approval; there's no rejection.
>The fact that christinA sent rmgroups for the alt.perv.* groups
>illustrates that it clearly was rejected by the alt.config regulars.
No, you are still delusional. christinA sent the rmgroups to express her
contempt for your trollish antics with your newgroup attack. That's her
advice to news administrators, just like the revenge groups you sent were your
advice to news administrators. She's not in a position to reject your
newgroups. You get to send them, even for trolling purposes. She gets to send
rmgroups. Have you picked up the clue yet?
I don't send control messages. I express my contempt for your antics in
followups in this thread.
>You are an alt.config regular and you know exactly what I refer to when I
>use the word rejected. If you prefer to use another word to describe that,
>so be it. You are nitpicking over semantics.
Don't continue to be a fool. You have some very bizarre notions over how the
hierarchy works. Proponents are supposed to send newgroups. End of story. No
approval of the newgroup. No rejection of the newgroup. It's up to news
administrators to act on your advice.
>>>>As you are not an official, the group is not officially created. Proponents
>>>>don't create newsgroups. Only news administrators can do that.
>>>So it was the news admins who created the alt.perv.* groups then.
>>A mere handful create new groups automatically.
>If you by a handful mean 20-30% I agree.
You pulled that statistic out of your ass.
>>Thanks to your stunt, very few do that.
>*ROTFLMAO!* Wow! Honestly, you don't really believe in that nonsense
>yourself do you?
When news administrators expect there to be 90 proposals full of dreck for
every one proposals sent by a serious proponent, they don't bother to read
proposals in alt.* newgroups. You contributed to the dreck. You are the
problem in alt.*.
Adam H. Kerman
>Yes you have since you are unable to provide any evidence of the 100's
>of revenge newgroups I sent.
If anyone cares to check, the archive is
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/control/alt/
David Levy
> The fact that you are discussing with me ("a troll")
> proves that you don't really consider me as a troll.
No, it doesn't. I ignore incoherent trolls, but you're of a different
variety.
> Considering that English is only my 2nd language I
> think that your message came through pretty well
... except for that part that you completely misinterpreted.
> despite all your insults and childish comments
1. My insults are warranted, because you truly are an idiot.
2. To quote a popular English saying, "actions speak louder than
words."
No matter what we say to one another, no real harm will be done. Your
actions, on the other hand, are extremely harmful.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
> If you find my poor comprehension of the english language
> disturbing I suggest that you start writning in Swedish.
If you're unable to properly comprehend the English language, (or
unwilling to accept legitimate criticisms) I suggest that you post
only in Swedish.
> > Are you denying the fact that there are thousands
> > of unjustified newsgroups in existence?
> That depends on how you define "unjustified".
In this context, I'm referring to newsgroups that were created as