I Have No Objection to Retromoderation
Peter da Silva
That is false. It only became a flame group after certain people decided to
use it as the front lines in their war against Confurence.
This is stupid and rude. The people they're mad at don't post here... they
haven't for a long time. The guy who created this group doesn't even go to
cons on any regular basis (we're talking one Worldcon in the past 5 years,
and that's it).
We can't stop stupid psychopaths from posting flames here, but when they come
out with lies like this, well, it's only fair to point out they're wrong.
Followups to a more appropriate group.
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
Executive Vice President, Corporate Communications, Entropy Gradient Reversals.
Peter da Silva
-= Hawk =- <hawk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>NUKE A POST, LOSE AN ACCOUNT.
>
>Has that sunk into your furry skulls yet?
I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I have no intention of trying to impose
retromoderation on this group, but if I were to do so I would not lose any
accounts, I would not suffer any sanction worse than a few flames.
I have set cancelbots on other groups in the past. It's a last resort, and
it's only been applied to groups where the attacks are from outside... there
is no consensus in alt.fan.furry that such moderation is appropriate, as
there was in other cases... but I could do it without fear of losing anything.
Followups set to a more appropriate group, please respect them.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> In article <RyT8N6Gf=oauPo6pHI...@4ax.com>,
> -= Hawk =- <hawk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >NUKE A POST, LOSE AN ACCOUNT.
> >
> >Has that sunk into your furry skulls yet?
>
> I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I have no intention of trying to impose
> retromoderation on this group, but if I were to do so I would not lose any
> accounts, I would not suffer any sanction worse than a few flames.
Actually you would.
> I have set cancelbots on other groups in the past. It's a last resort, and
> it's only been applied to groups where the attacks are from outside... there
> is no consensus in alt.fan.furry that such moderation is appropriate, as
> there was in other cases... but I could do it without fear of losing anything.
No. Cancelling spam is an entirely different animal from cancelling
actual messages.
Spammers will not file complaints with ISPs over cancels. That would be
suicide for them so they keep quiet - if they even notice it at all.
Actual posters, though, are a whole different thing. Do you really think
Karl, Farlo, Random, et al, would hesitate to send a LART to your ISP or
its upstream if they saw their messages being censored? They would LOVE
to do it to anyone who made such an open act of disaggreement.
The person who brought the alt.config and alt.usenet.kooks crowd here
lost his (enter.net) account for these sort of actions. The ISP really
doesn't have much choice if it doesn't want problems with the rest of
the net. If anyone who wanted to could issue cancels without penalty
there could be no debate or even conversation on usenet.
> Followups set to a more appropriate group, please respect them.
No. This topic is THIS group. This IS the appropriate group. It IS
germane here, like it or not.
Is this a sample of your sort of moderation? Think about it.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <RyT8N6Gf=oauPo6pHI...@4ax.com>,
>-= Hawk =- <hawk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>NUKE A POST, LOSE AN ACCOUNT.
>>
>>Has that sunk into your furry skulls yet?
>
>I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I have no intention of trying to impose
>retromoderation on this group, but if I were to do so I would not lose any
>accounts, I would not suffer any sanction worse than a few flames.
So you think you can indescriminatly 3rd party cancel?
>I have set cancelbots on other groups in the past. It's a last resort, and
>it's only been applied to groups where the attacks are from outside... there
>is no consensus in alt.fan.furry that such moderation is appropriate, as
>there was in other cases... but I could do it without fear of losing anything.
Oh, I don't know about that, a quick note to your upstream provider should
solve that, if and when you do decided to rogue cancel in unmoderated
groups.
>Followups set to a more appropriate group, please respect them.
No.
--
In my dreams the world is black
and blood clots in pools around
the corpses that litter the street
and little children with knives
lie in wait outside your door.
-= Hawk =-
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>>
>> In article <RyT8N6Gf=oauPo6pHI...@4ax.com>,
>> -= Hawk =- <hawk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >NUKE A POST, LOSE AN ACCOUNT.
>> >
>> >Has that sunk into your furry skulls yet?
>>
>> I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I have no intention of trying to impose
>> retromoderation on this group, but if I were to do so I would not lose any
>> accounts, I would not suffer any sanction worse than a few flames.
>
>Actually you would.
>
>> I have set cancelbots on other groups in the past. It's a last resort, and
>> it's only been applied to groups where the attacks are from outside... there
>> is no consensus in alt.fan.furry that such moderation is appropriate, as
>> there was in other cases... but I could do it without fear of losing anything.
>
>No. Cancelling spam is an entirely different animal from cancelling
>actual messages.
>
>Spammers will not file complaints with ISPs over cancels. That would be
>suicide for them so they keep quiet - if they even notice it at all.
>
>Actual posters, though, are a whole different thing. Do you really think
>Karl, Farlo, Random, et al, would hesitate to send a LART to your ISP or
>its upstream if they saw their messages being censored? They would LOVE
>to do it to anyone who made such an open act of disaggreement.
>
>The person who brought the alt.config and alt.usenet.kooks crowd here
>lost his (enter.net) account for these sort of actions. The ISP really
>doesn't have much choice if it doesn't want problems with the rest of
>the net. If anyone who wanted to could issue cancels without penalty
>there could be no debate or even conversation on usenet.
Actually, Erik lost his account for cascading himself in several newsgroups,
the cancel complaint received a polite reply that if he did it (cancel 3rd
party) again he would lose his account, he then did the cascade thing and
larted himself off Enter.Net: See - "Erik Spams" on the AFE Erik Mouse
page.
http://www.fortunecity.com/bennyhills/mrbean/489/index.html
Or a direct link to his cascade at:
http://x31.deja.com/=dnc/viewthread.xp?AN=505661138&search=thread&svcclass=dnserver&ST=PS&CONTEXT=933073018.846987362&HIT_CONTEXT=933073018.846987362&HIT_NUM=9&recnum=%3c379...@news3.enter.net%3e%231/1&group=alt.fan.erik&frpage=getdoc.xp&back=clarinet
(sorry about the word wrap, look for messages, 13- 32)
>> Followups set to a more appropriate group, please respect them.
>
>No. This topic is THIS group. This IS the appropriate group. It IS
>germane here, like it or not.
>
>Is this a sample of your sort of moderation? Think about it.
Peter believes he's safe issuing cancels for posts because he's using his
own (or a business) server, complaints to his upstream provider would
solve that if he made such an attempt at content cancels in an unmoderated
newsgroup.
Peter da Silva
-= Hawk =- <brunswi...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>On 7 Oct 1999 13:01:49 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) scribbled:
>>-= Hawk =- <hawk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>NUKE A POST, LOSE AN ACCOUNT.
>>>Has that sunk into your furry skulls yet?
>>I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I have no intention of trying to impose
>>retromoderation on this group, but if I were to do so I would not lose any
>>accounts, I would not suffer any sanction worse than a few flames.
>So you think you can indescriminatly 3rd party cancel?
No, I know I can discriminantly third-party cancel (that's spelled with an
"i" after the "d" by the way). I've done it before.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> Actually, Erik lost his account for cascading himself in several newsgroups,
> the cancel complaint received a polite reply that if he did it (cancel 3rd
> party) again he would lose his account, he then did the cascade thing and
> larted himself off Enter.Net: See - "Erik Spams" on the AFE Erik Mouse
> page.
> http://www.fortunecity.com/bennyhills/mrbean/489/index.html
Quite true. However the cancels were what got his score with his ISP so
high that the next complaint about _anything_ got him nuked.
Not all ISPs are as tolerant as enter.net was with Erik.
Gee, I wonder if I can get away with crap by pretending I'm autistic.
> Peter believes he's safe issuing cancels for posts because he's using his
> own (or a business) server, complaints to his upstream provider would
> solve that if he made such an attempt at content cancels in an unmoderated
> newsgroup.
That was why I mentioned upstreams. The message was a general post to
all thinking about doing these things. I think you're in their filters
so your advice isn't getting through.
Of course, I might be in there too. In that case we might get to see
Darwinism in action.
-= Hawk =-
JayDee
<brunswi...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>In my dreams the world is black
>and blood clots in pools around
>the corpses that litter the street
>and little children with knives
>lie in wait outside your door.
you must be living around here, eh?
don't forget the feral cats, either...
Peter da Silva
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> In article <RyT8N6Gf=oauPo6pHI...@4ax.com>,
>> -= Hawk =- <hawk...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >NUKE A POST, LOSE AN ACCOUNT.
>> >Has that sunk into your furry skulls yet?
>> I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I have no intention of trying to impose
>> retromoderation on this group, but if I were to do so I would not lose any
>> accounts, I would not suffer any sanction worse than a few flames.
>Actually you would.
Nope. I've done it before.
>> I have set cancelbots on other groups in the past. It's a last resort, and
>> it's only been applied to groups where the attacks are from outside... there
>> is no consensus in alt.fan.furry that such moderation is appropriate, as
>> there was in other cases... but I could do it without fear of losing anything.
>No. Cancelling spam is an entirely different animal from cancelling
>actual messages.
This was not spam cancelling.
Peter da Silva
>can assure you that in this case that would not go overlooked and complaints
>would be made, if necessary a resurrector bot could easily be run on the
>group negating the rogue 3rd party cancels.
In the case of alt.animals.dolphins the people complaining were sanctioned by
their ISP for their harassing messages, and one of the last remaining rogue
ISPs on the net acknowledged that flooding a newsgroup with unwanted messages
was abuse. Anyone running a resurrector bot without the unanimous support of
the readers of alt.fan.furry (and you wouldn't have that support) would suffer
the same consequences.
You and your psychopathic friends are engaging in abusive behaviour, just like
the hell-flame-wars guys were. The difference is that there are a few regular
readers on this group that are unwilling to support a cancelbot, so I'm not
going to set one. Not because I'm afraid of getting my account pulled, but
because I'm not interested in coercing them.
Peter da Silva
>impossible to change the status of an alt group from or to moderation
>there is no way to convince all news admins around the world to accept
>the change.
It's difficult, but I did it for alt.sources.amiga... and that was back
when most sites were using B-news, which made the job even harder.
But splitting the group is easier, yes.
Peter da Silva
>> That is false. It only became a flame group after certain people decided to
>> use it as the front lines in their war against Confurence.
>I know first hand what AFF has been like since 1995. I also know
>that at that time there was already a horde of embittered former
>regulars who had left AFF in disgust years before that. You only
>newgrouped it in December of 1990. How long could this alleged
>golden age when AFF wasn't a flame group possibly have lasted? A
>few months?
By your own calculations, five yours.
I don't know what other newsgroup you're talking about in that lengthy screed
of yours, by the way, but the only new group I tacked on to my response was
alt.fan.furry.politics, and I set followups to there.
I'll be happy to do my best to keep this mysterious other group from getting
included in any further followups if you'll just tell me what it is.
Artax
> In article <01bf111c$52e59f80$100110ac@thedog>,
> Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
> > Peter da Silva wrote:
> > > > AFF is, always has been, and always will be a flame group.
> > >
> > > That is false. It only became a flame group after certain people decided to
> > > use it as the front lines in their war against Confurence.
> >
> > I know first hand what AFF has been like since 1995. I also know
> > that at that time there was already a horde of embittered former
> > regulars who had left AFF in disgust years before that. You only
> > newgrouped it in December of 1990. How long could this alleged
> > golden age when AFF wasn't a flame group possibly have lasted? A
> > few months?
>
> By your own calculations, five yours.
Smart-ass. How long DID it last? I know AFF was a flame group
long before I started reading it. I only started reading some
time after the Jazmyn Flamewar. DAC Crowell's departure was a
couple of years before that. I only caught the tail end of
Quozl's tenure. And I missed Joel Furr entirely.
> I don't know what other newsgroup you're talking about in that lengthy screed
> of yours, by the way, but the only new group I tacked on to my response was
> alt.fan.furry.politics, and I set followups to there.
My post was to alt.fan.furry only. Your reply was cross-posted
between alt.fan.furry, alt.lifestyle.furry, alt.flame,
alt.fan.erik, alt.usenet.kooks, and alt.fan.furry.politics.
It was your post, you figure out how it happened.
> I'll be happy to do my best to keep this mysterious other group from getting
> included in any further followups if you'll just tell me what it is.
alt.lifestyle.furry.
a res. | Artax
r p c | (Brad Austin)
t x o |
ax@i m | Oceanside, CA USA
Peter da Silva
Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>I know AFF was a flame group
>long before I started reading it. I only started reading some
>time after the Jazmyn Flamewar.
At the time Jazmyn left, the flaming was a sporadic problem. The majority of
the traffic was not flames, and the majority of the time there was no flaming
going on at all.
It's only been the last couple of years that the flame wars over Confurence
have taken over the group. Prior to that there were occasional outbursts
caused by individuals who generally got tired and quit.
>> I don't know what other newsgroup you're talking about in that lengthy screed
>> of yours, by the way, but the only new group I tacked on to my response was
>> alt.fan.furry.politics, and I set followups to there.
>My post was to alt.fan.furry only. Your reply was cross-posted
>between alt.fan.furry, alt.lifestyle.furry, alt.flame,
>alt.fan.erik, alt.usenet.kooks, and alt.fan.furry.politics.
I didn't add any groups to the newsgroup line. Are you sure my response was
directly to your message and not one of the trools who followed up to it?
>> I'll be happy to do my best to keep this mysterious other group from getting
>> included in any further followups if you'll just tell me what it is.
>alt.lifestyle.furry.
Done.
Artax
> At the time Jazmyn left, the flaming was a sporadic problem. The majority of
> the traffic was not flames, and the majority of the time there was no flaming
> going on at all.
>
> It's only been the last couple of years that the flame wars over Confurence
> have taken over the group. Prior to that there were occasional outbursts
> caused by individuals who generally got tired and quit.
It was nearly two years ago that I stopped reading AFF except for
posts by certain friends of mine, and occasionally the threads those
posts were in when they happened to be about something that caught
my attention. If what you say is true, then AFF is even more of a
flamepit now than it was in the years over which most of my
impression of it was formed.
> I didn't add any groups to the newsgroup line. Are you sure my response was
> directly to your message and not one of the trools who followed up to it?
No, I read news unthreaded. But you only quoted one sentence and
that one was mine. Are you in the habit of posting replies that
relate only to material that was already quoted in the message
you're replying to?
Peter da Silva
Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>It was nearly two years ago that I stopped reading AFF except for
>posts by certain friends of mine, and occasionally the threads those
>posts were in when they happened to be about something that caught
>my attention. If what you say is true, then AFF is even more of a
>flamepit now than it was in the years over which most of my
>impression of it was formed.
Yes, in the past couple of years it has attained a state where there are
multiple continual flame wars between the "burned furs" and a random
assortment of folks who can't give up and treat them as trolls.
I suspect that what you saw as "a flamepit" I saw as "a group periodically
invaded by flamers".
And even now, with a killfile and a threaded newsreader, there are quite
a few "real" threads worth following. The discussion about "Animal Farm" and
how it applies to the subsequent history of the Soviet state... and how the
recent "Animal Farm" movie seems to be a clumsy attempt to mirror that... has
been interesting.
>No, I read news unthreaded. But you only quoted one sentence and
>that one was mine. Are you in the habit of posting replies that
>relate only to material that was already quoted in the message
>you're replying to?
If the original message has expired by the time I get to it, yes. I run
with a very short expire.
Tlalocelotl Tlatoani
>
> In article <01bf1215$45244000$42374bd1@whitefang>,
> Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
> >It was nearly two years ago that I stopped reading AFF except for
> >posts by certain friends of mine, and occasionally the threads those
> >posts were in when they happened to be about something that caught
> >my attention. If what you say is true, then AFF is even more of a
> >flamepit now than it was in the years over which most of my
> >impression of it was formed.
>
> Yes, in the past couple of years it has attained a state where there are
> multiple continual flame wars between the "burned furs" and a random
> assortment of folks who can't give up and treat them as trolls.
>
> I suspect that what you saw as "a flamepit" I saw as "a group periodically
> invaded by flamers".
I agree with you guys, I've been totally unable (or rather, unwilling)
to sort through all this garbage to read what's going on at all.
-TT
Peter da Silva
>I recently discovered the "ignore thread" function in my Netscape browser...a great
>way to deal with flame-ridden threads. But what I'd really like to find is a way
>to filter out all cross-posted messages. Is there such a filter available?
I don't know if Netscape supports this, but in trn you can filter on multiple
commas in the "Newsgroups" line.
/Newsgroups:.*,.*,/h:j
This will kill all messages crossposted to 3 or more groups.
You can also kill messages crossposted to specific groups:
/Newsgroups:.*kook.*/h:j
Peter da Silva
>Most of the chronic flamers I remember from when I read a.f.f
>regularly were well-established readers of the newsgroup. It wasn't
>like they were 'invading' from somewhere else. In fact, most of the
>flaming was instigated on the premise that the flamers _were_
>well-established members of the group, and therefore had a mandate to
>try and drive out elements they considered unbdesireable in the
>fandom.
If you exclude the people who only ever take part in the flame threads, I
suspect that you'll find that there are fewer of these than you think...
that is, you're looking at "well-established flamers".
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 15:13:37 -0400, rune....@worldnet.att.mil
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> I'm afraid that you're mistaken. I have no intention of trying to impose
>> retromoderation on this group, but if I were to do so I would not lose any
>> accounts, I would not suffer any sanction worse than a few flames.
>
>Actually you would.
Unfortuantly what Peter da Silva says is true. He is able to cancel
without a signifigent risk to himself. Do a dejanews search for
dolphin bot.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <3vj8N51w2PULQV...@4ax.com>,
[...]
>>So you think you can indescriminatly 3rd party cancel?
>
>No, I know I can discriminantly third-party cancel (that's spelled with an
>"i" after the "d" by the way). I've done it before.
Personaly I think that was one of your less intelgent moments.
Peter da Silva
>Mr. da Silva, there is no Burned Fur.
"TINBF"?
TINLC, too. HTH. HAND.
Spirou
peter....@pdq.net (Hangdog) wrote:
>LLBF
>TINBF
>TINLC
>HTH
>HAND
...SMOF Code?, Illuminati jargon?, Silent Empire messages?,
Gang Slang?, Cyber Infobits?, BF Enigma Information
Strings?, Free Masons' Initiation Acronyms?, Nerds Love
Calls?, Lifestyler Furvey abbreviations?, TMTH? (*),...
Spirou
(*) Too Much Time in your Hands?.
Artax
> In article <01bf1215$45244000$42374bd1@whitefang>,
> Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
> > relate only to material that was already quoted in the message
> > you're replying to?
>
> If the original message has expired by the time I get to it, yes. I run
> with a very short expire.
I see. IMO this is a harmful practice. By responding to quoted
snippets from other posts that you haven't read you are quite
likely to be losing important context that is needed to avoid
misconstruing them. When people include text from other posts
they typically include only what is necessary to put their own
replies in context, not enough to put what they are replying to
in context. Worse, if you reply to one of my posts that you
saw only a snippet of, and as a result your reply was
incongruous, I'm going to have no obvious way of knowing that
your reply was based on incomplete knowledge of what I wrote,
and it's quite likely that either I will misconstrue your reply
because I'm expecting it to reflect knowledge of what I wrote
that you don't have, or I will leave out information in my
reply to your reply that you will need to understand it because
I expect you to have already seen it in my original message.
For example I now have no idea how much of my post in which I
said that AFF has always been a flame group that you actually
saw, so I don't know what you thought I was trying to say or in
what context that prompted you to call me stupid, a liar, and a
psychopath.
> Yes, in the past couple of years it has attained a state where there are
> multiple continual flame wars between the "burned furs" and a random
> assortment of folks who can't give up and treat them as trolls.
>
> I suspect that what you saw as "a flamepit" I saw as "a group periodically
> invaded by flamers".
>
> And even now, with a killfile and a threaded newsreader, there are quite
> a few "real" threads worth following. The discussion about "Animal Farm" and
> how it applies to the subsequent history of the Soviet state... and how the
> recent "Animal Farm" movie seems to be a clumsy attempt to mirror that... has
> been interesting.
Well, to put my characterization of AFF as a flame group back
in its original context, my point was (or at least my primary
one was) that the flames are, and to the best of my knowledge
always have been, sufficiently ubiquitous that there is no
clear distinction on this group between what is a flame that
should be subject to moderation if this were a moderated group,
and what is a message that is in keeping with this group's
purpose. The flamewars are, for the most part, de-facto
legitimate traffic for this newsgroup. Flaming has simply
become, by long tradition, the way that people here are
accustomed to interacting with each other when talking about
Furry Fandom. It doesn't matter if there are sometimes some
completely non-flame threads here as well. The problem is
that there's nowhere obvious to draw the line.
Peter da Silva
Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>For example I now have no idea how much of my post in which I
>said that AFF has always been a flame group that you actually
>saw, so I don't know what you thought I was trying to say or in
>what context that prompted you to call me stupid, a liar, and a
>psychopath.
Sorry, but you ought to get out of the habbit of tossing absolutes around
like that. They get misquoted by your enemies and the next thing you know
someone thinks you're part of the necktie party.
Even more unfortunate, you still seem to be arguing for the further
destruction of alt.fan.furry. Why?
-= Hawk =-
Platypus)) scribbled:
>Thmm ksm bvd pepv befl
>vote per ffkj jx vgqcr!
>
>Ylqv pqde ous efnv
>vgy iin mthb y mq
>glkls illqh fqpmxa pyylw vreg
>lake imlisl awfdad urd kmlm
>epw faa bnkno idmro
>gpxel dpslut on qlwc felrr pfzft
>kpl cmcu eio episc
>rqy iss djn xppe ek
>eei ees efflal basa
>keeo lhjtb zl a mwjw ftp oien
>su etfz lelvs rekp
>il o eeu vjiyr oeg
>lcyd o zlumb y lgse ffoilsk srso
>twm ebe oxeb o nelba
>ffpi csu fbur ldsb
>ylynfi gmykb rriie lolm onqlzk eyil.
>
>I gh peec kmg wlel!
>
>Adl mtrk xtcv blef y ifjrd
>iydei bstso eplk btk pfbgl yg?
>
>Psfl iqrme ysf pdehe
>iic erl jihm egmya
>msl ju ser dn
>yllm nysp kelf i ply.
>
>Whcf ysdq kqei yo
>irz uhl yhoo cfnt dleaf
>cc prqd y oi plb
>ek oyo svky zeilis gw ml
>znsf fpkd ffi dkww sg
>frehw neeyikr dsb zekne
>kiynyqd iyullex obeia pbpyesy tfceqob sa
>lplsb fulnss wcxaol pyb sfieqh gc
>ry edx eb well isa o hqnth.
>
>Eoysj pvfe dewl ykklp
>xsic telmx ewley dze
>cirsl bruu bgo mez umcma sy
>abufs eiejm vuplif lnn o mkj
>tie xfrb sbef y wyee mfl ofrir
>llm rc ro sfme oepw
>br pd dei o uk ljeb
>ksrs tucf xcopr bii msq kif
>mkoe lfyeqe les fbs?
>
>Y sxbm y idehhx fkf ccffi?
Whee, sporge!
--
ScottZf
-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote in message
news:5woAOHh4seWd2c...@4ax.com...
Yep, I think they are in this group because of the x-posted message from
alt.config.
-= Hawk =-
Whee, sporge!
--
In my dreams the world is black
and blood clots in pools around
the corpses that litter the street
and little children with knives
lie in wait outside your door.
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!howland.erols.net!novia!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspump.sol.net
From: Cosmo Roadkill <cosmo.roadkill%bofh...@rauug.mil.wi.us>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: cmsg cancel <5woAOHh4seWd2c...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <5woAOHh4seWd2c...@4ax.com>
Date: 10 Oct 1999 01:04:05 -0500
Organization: BOFH Space Command, Usenet Division
Lines: 1
Sender: -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com>
Approved: cosmo.roadkill%bofh...@rauug.mil.wi.us
Message-ID: <6erFNKa1zbRc3b...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.40.5.53
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:03:30 CDT
X-Trace: newscene.newscene.com 939535410 216.40.5.53 (Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:03:30 CDT)
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Cancelled-By: Cosmo Roadkill <cosmo.roadkill%bofh...@rauug.mil.wi.us>
X-Abuse-Reports-To: cosmo.roadkill%bofh...@rauug.mil.wi.us
Article cancelled as EMP/ECP, exceeding a BI of 20, Sick-O-Spam, Spam-B-Gon!
diespa...@best.com
: I agree with you guys, I've been totally unable (or rather, unwilling)
: to sort through all this garbage to read what's going on at all.
Then fuck off and leave, you spamming cunt.
-= Hawk =-
>
>-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote in message
>news:5woAOHh4seWd2c...@4ax.com...
>Yep, I think they are in this group because of the x-posted message from
>alt.config.
Probably just Hippy playing games and trying to prove how cool he is.
Artax
> Even more unfortunate, you still seem to be arguing for the further
> destruction of alt.fan.furry. Why?
I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. But to make it easy
I'll just summarize my position point by point, and let you decide:
1) I have a significant interest in anthropomorphic mainstream
animated cartoons, newspaper-style comic strips, and children's
picture books. I would like there to be a newsgroup on Usenet
where I could discuss such topics with people with similar
interests.
2) To say that alt.fan.furry does not serve that purpose well is
an understatement of epic proportions. AFF is far worse than
unusable. Reading it subjects people to horrible amounts of
gratuitous cognitive dissonance, and has done so continuously
for at least 4 years that I know first hand, and for much
longer than that according to everyone I've talked to who was
there other than you.
3) The flamewars over Furry Fandom issues are nevertheless
serving a need for someone, or at least what someone
perceives as their need. They can't be made to disappear
from Usenet altogether, nor IMO should they be made to. If
it were possible to moderate them out of AFF they would just
pop up somewhere else.
4) The flamewars over Furry Fandom issues don't, however, have
to happen in the same newsgroup as non-flame discussions of
stuff like anthropomorphic cartoons and comic strips. In
fact I believe it is impossible for one newsgroup to serve
both needs well. The flamewars tend to chase away people
who are not interested in participating in them, and consume
all the time and attention of the people who are.
5) Trying to split the traffic currently on AFF into two
newsgroups strictly along flame vs. non-flame lines I believe
is not practical. It's not black and white, but a
continuum of shades of grey. And the label "flame" is so
subjective as to be nearly useless anyway. A better solution
is to find a more objective dichotomy that has a strong
correlation with the subjective flame vs. non-flame dichotomy,
and use that one instead.
6) There does exist a more objective dichotomy with a very strong
correlation with the flame vs. non-flame dichotomy. People
very rarely get into flamewars over topics relating directly
to anthropomorphic cartoons or comic strips. They get into
flamewars over the abstract concept of Furry Fandom. These
are fairly objectively two different topics.
7) I don't care which half of the traffic stays in alt.fan.furry
and which half goes somewhere else. But I see several good
reasons why it would be more practical for the flame traffic
to stay here and the other traffic to leave. Firstly, the
flame traffic won't leave unless it can be somehow forced out.
The non-flame traffic already has a strong motivation to pack
up and go. Secondly, a new group could be given a more
specific charter, which is conducive to keeping flames to a
minimum. AFF's nearly non-existant charter works just fine
for a flame group. Thirdly, the name alt.fan.furry is more
applicable for a newsgroup for talking about Furry Fandom
issues than for a newsgroup for talking about anthropomorphic
cartoons and comic strips and stuff.
8) I don't accept your logic that creating a new newsgroup with a
topic that's a sub-set of that of another existing group
suddenly renders that sub-set off-topic on the existing group.
At least not in alt.*, and in 1999. The one topic = one
newsgroup model is obsolete and defunct. We are well into the
Age of Newsgroup Darwinism. So you can bloody well stop
setting followups to alt.fan.furry.politics. This is all still
on-topic here.
9) Cures for alt.fan.furry's problems that involve retromoderation
using forged cancels are worse than the disease. Regardless of
the fact that you personally could probably get away with it, it
would be unethical and also set a precedent for more widespread
abuse by people less conscientious than yourself. Nothing that
happens to a single newsgroup warrants making up new rules as
you go along for what's legitimately cancellable like that. If
you do it again I hope you get UDP'd. More so I hope you don't
do it.
That's about it. Clear now?
Darrel L. Exline
> >I have a feeling that you don't know who Peter is.
>
> I have a feeling I don't really care who the fuck he is, no one, no matter
> who the hell they are has the right to censor an unmoderated newsgroup.
>
> But for the sake of a good laugh, who is Peter and why the fuck should I
> care?
Again, with the profanities for no reason other than to accentuate the fact that
he can't think of a logical response.
> Oh, and stop moving the followup to a group the discussion has no place in.
>
Isn't that the pot calling the Kettle black? Why do you keep crossposting this
thread to half a dozen other newgroups who don't want it? And seeing that this
is political, it makes perfect sense to send followups to alt.fan.furry.politics
so that they don't continue cluttering this NG.
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darrel L. Exline "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear" |
| Director, "The ConFurence Group" -+- Co-Chair, "ConFurence" |
| 619-223-9482 http://polarden.org dar...@home.com |
|!! ConFurence 11: April 6 to April 9, 2000, Irvine Hilton !!|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Darrel L. Exline
> > I don't know what other newsgroup you're talking about in that lengthy screed
> > of yours, by the way, but the only new group I tacked on to my response was
> > alt.fan.furry.politics, and I set followups to there.
>
> My post was to alt.fan.furry only. Your reply was cross-posted
> between alt.fan.furry, alt.lifestyle.furry, alt.flame,
> alt.fan.erik, alt.usenet.kooks, and alt.fan.furry.politics.
That was Hawk's reply to Peter's message that was getting crossposted
everywhere... Hawk is the culprit.
According to the headers I'm receiving, Peter has only been adding a followup to
alt.fan.furry.politics
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>In article <cjv9N6dCcsXf8m...@4ax.com>,
>-= Hawk =- <brunswi...@deathpenguin.com> wrote:
>>this conversation about retromodding AFF belongs in AFF, moron.
>
>I have a feeling that you don't know who Peter is.
Hawk is so far out of his leage he doesn't even relize how far he is.
Peter da Silva
-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>On 10 Oct 1999 07:13:30 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) scribbled:
>>My response is in alt.fan.furry.politics. This discussion is off-topic in
>>alt.fan.furry. If you respond to that message in alt.fan.furry I will not
>>see it.
>How is the retromoderation OF AFF not on topic IN AFF?
The retromoderation of AFF is no longer on the table (though I don't expect
you to thank me for that, hypocrisy is rampant in kookdom), and splits within
the alt.fan.furry hierarchy are more appropriately discussed in the politics
group.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> I do not wish to see bestialists *increase* their official representation on
> UseNet, especially in the "*.furry" newsgroups.
I think zoophilia is off topic on alt.fan.furry and we should get back
to talking about furry fandom. At this point, a moderated newsgroup
would be the best course of action.
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Artax
> I'm sorry that your newsreader is not capable of handling complex killfiles,
> but there are stil a lot of people who are capable of ignoring the flamage
> and using the group... and they continue to use the group.
There are many problems that killfiles do not solve. You know that
perfectly well. Otherwise you wouldn't have set that bot on
alt.animals.dolphins.
> I have myself tried to provide alternate forums for the people who are using
> alt.fan.furry and ignoring the flamewars. They are not going to move. I don't
> know if this sort of dedication is laudable or not, but the majority of core
> non-flaming posters are not going to move to alt.arts.anthro or a.f.f.b or
> furrynet or any other forum.
Your opinion. The fact that you couldn't get them to move doesn't prove
that they can't be persuaded to move. The fact that they didn't move to
FurryNet is not good evidence because the FurryNet groups are handicapped
by the small number of news servers on which they are carried. The fact
that they didn't move to a.f.f.b is not good evidence because a.f.f.b is
handicapped by its poor name, and the perception that its only purpose is
for whining about how bad the flames are on AFF.
But it isn't even necessary for the majority to move. In fact it's not
even necessary for ANY of them to move. I would be satisfied if
alt.arts.anthro drew all of its audience from people who have never posted
to AFF, as long as it got enough of an audience to achieve sustained
traffic.
> > 8) I don't accept your logic that creating a new newsgroup with a
> > topic that's a sub-set of that of another existing group
> > suddenly renders that sub-set off-topic on the existing group.
>
> It absolutely does, that's what subgroups are for.
Subgroups serve several purposes. That is not one of the ones they
serve in alt.*. If that were true it would imply that a person who issues
a newgroup message in alt.* has far more power and authority than he has
in reality. In alt.* the decisions about how traffic is distributed
between newsgroups are ultimately decided by people voting with their feet,
not by people issuing newgroup and rmgroup messages. In particular the
decision about whether traffic on a certain range of topics shoud be
contained in one large newsgroup or split between multiple newsgroups is an
important one that one person acting unilaterally cannot be allowed to
dictate to everyone else simply on the basis of issuing a newgroup message.
If he thinks the traffic in a certain newsgroup should be re-organized, the
burden is on him to prove it. That burden is met by successfully persuading
the traffic to move.
> > 9) Cures for alt.fan.furry's problems that involve retromoderation
> > using forged cancels are worse than the disease.
>
> I have not proposed to do that. I have stated multiple times that I am not
> going to do it. Why are you continuing to press this point?
I'm referring also to your proposal to rmgroup alt.fan.furry and then set
up a retromod bot to cancel all posts in it. You have not stated that you
are not going to do to that.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>I have myself tried to provide alternate forums for the people who are using
>alt.fan.furry and ignoring the flamewars. They are not going to move. I don't
>know if this sort of dedication is laudable or not, but the majority of core
>non-flaming posters are not going to move to alt.arts.anthro or a.f.f.b or
>furrynet or any other forum.
I think if you wish to work out why the traffic hasn't moved before
you try and solve the problem.
>Arguing that it should simply be abandoned to the flames encourages
>psychopaths like -=Hawk=- to set up shop there.
I think there is still a place for aff in the world. People often
post articals that are not flames, they would not consider flames. I
think there should be a place for that.
-= Hawk =-
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!howland.erols.net!novia!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspump.sol.net
From: Cosmo Roadkill <cosmo.roadkill%bofh...@rauug.mil.wi.us>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: cmsg cancel <5woAOHh4seWd2c...@4ax.com>
Control: cancel <5woAOHh4seWd2c...@4ax.com>
Date: 10 Oct 1999 01:04:05 -0500
Organization: BOFH Space Command, Usenet Division
Lines: 1
Sender: -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com>
Approved: cosmo.roadkill%bofh...@rauug.mil.wi.us
Message-ID: <6erFNKa1zbRc3b...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.40.5.53
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 01:03:30 CDT
X-Trace: newscene.newscene.com 939535410 216.40.5.53 (Sun, 10 Oct 1999
01:03:30 CDT)
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Cancelled-By: Cosmo Roadkill <cosmo.roadkill%bofh...@rauug.mil.wi.us>
X-Abuse-Reports-To: cosmo.roadkill%bofh...@rauug.mil.wi.us
Article cancelled as EMP/ECP, exceeding a BI of 20, Sick-O-Spam, Spam-B-Gon!
Whee, sporge AND cancels!