CFD: splitting alt.fan.furry
Peter da Silva
group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
issue once and for all.
alt.fan.furry.flame
There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame" group be
created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I prefer to
be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more genteel name
I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
This would replace the existing alt.fan.furry. The moderation would be sped
up by a "whitelist" bot that automatically approves messages frm people who
are known to post on topic. Other messages would be held for manual moderation.
Existing furrynet sites that already run the furrynet monitor bot will be
approached to host this moderation bot as well.
alt.fan.furry (moderated)
The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
alt.fan.furry.politics
This group is for discussion of "furry fandom" and the politics within the
group. It already exists. Discussion of splitting the hierarchy will be
crossposted here for readers who don't want to venture into alt.config.
alt.fan.furry.muck
This group is for discussion of online interactive role playing environments
with a furry theme, whether they use the "Fuzzball" muck software or not. It
is currently functioning primarily as an announcement group.
alt.fan.furry.bleachers
This group is an "in-character" discussion group. It already exists.
This message will be separately posted to the other alt.fan.furry groups with
followups directed to alt.fan.furry.politics.
--
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.
diespa...@best.com
: The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
: group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
: alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
: issue once and for all.
A check of alt.fan.furry shows no such invasion or attack.
With the exception of TWO threads out of 250, all posts are
on-topic for the newsgroup. There is nothing wrong with AFF.
Sneaky da Silva tries to pull his first fast one.
No justifaction exists for this needless split.
Note that Sneaky da Silva also tries to divert discussion of theis
move AWAY from AFF, which he is proposing to totally destroy by
directing followups to a newsgroup not associated with this
proposal.
Sneaky da Silva tries to pull his second fast one.
THIS is the guy who wants to be moderator. You can see where this
is going already.
Joshua Kramer
> [pardon for the previous empty post, finger slipped]
>
> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
> alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
> issue once and for all.
>
> alt.fan.furry.flame
> alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
> alt.fan.furry.politics
> alt.fan.furry.muck
> alt.fan.furry.bleachers
I have never seen such a miserable proposal in my life.
Grow up, Pete. Try the not-so-control-freaky way:
> alt.fan.furry.moderated (moderated)
> alt.fan.furry
And all the dead already existing newsgroups.
What, do you want to dolphin more resonsible netizens into trolls again?
Back into retirement.
-= Hawk =-
>[pardon for the previous empty post, finger slipped]
>
>The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
>group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
>alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve the
>issue once and for all.
>
>alt.fan.furry.flame
>
>There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame" group be
>created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I prefer to
>be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more genteel name
>I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
This never works, creating a group for flamers to go to is just silly.
>alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
>
>This would replace the existing alt.fan.furry. The moderation would be sped
>up by a "whitelist" bot that automatically approves messages frm people who
>are known to post on topic. Other messages would be held for manual moderation.
>Existing furrynet sites that already run the furrynet monitor bot will be
>approached to host this moderation bot as well.
Create your moderated group, who cares.
>alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
>The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
>all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
>bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
No, fuck you and your censorous ideals, leave the unmoderated group the fuck
along and take your ego and power trip to your moderated group where you can
be worshipped as a Furry God.
>alt.fan.furry.politics
>
>This group is for discussion of "furry fandom" and the politics within the
>group. It already exists. Discussion of splitting the hierarchy will be
>crossposted here for readers who don't want to venture into alt.config.
Discussion will be crossposted into alt.fan.furry, since that is the group
in question of being split and destroyed by your power trip.
>alt.fan.furry.muck
>
>This group is for discussion of online interactive role playing environments
>with a furry theme, whether they use the "Fuzzball" muck software or not. It
>is currently functioning primarily as an announcement group.
>
>alt.fan.furry.bleachers
>
>This group is an "in-character" discussion group. It already exists.
>
>This message will be separately posted to the other alt.fan.furry groups with
>followups directed to alt.fan.furry.politics.
affp removed.
--
Want to propose a newsgroup? Browse these links for help:
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/alt/
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/calame/create.html
http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm
For Help with Deja keyword search:
http://www.deja.com/help/help_lang.shtml
For Deja Power search:
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/deja.html
For proposing WebTV alt.discuss groups:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/OpenMind/adrules.html
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
>In alt.fan.furry.bleachers Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
>> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
>> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
>> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>
> And you figure your chances of actually getting servers to honor the
>newgroup message that makes the group moderated as what?
>
> You might be better off just abandoning that group once and for all
>and directing people to the replacement groups with an auto-posted FAQ
>at least once a week.
But that wouldn't give him the sense of control and power that changing the
status of an unmoderated newsgroup canceling all posts to it would.
-= Hawk =-
>This message will be separately posted to the other alt.fan.furry groups with
>followups directed to alt.fan.furry.politics.
Please explain your reasoning behind not wanting the fate of alt.fan.furry
to be discussed in alt.fan.furry.
diespa...@best.com
: In article <3800E81D...@pdq.net>, Hangdog <peter....@pdq.net> wrote:
:> I am opposed, for two reasons:
:>
:> 1)The current trolling in aff in no way renders it unusable.
: It certainly does. Actual discussion of ontopic material is disrupted, and
: opening a newsgroup with over 100 posts to see that 95 of those are the
: afore-mentioend trolls is not exactly condusive to a pleasant reading
: experience.
BULLSHIT. Anyone can look in AFF and see a perfectly-ordered
newsgroup. Go look over on alt.horro.werewolves if you want
to see what 'invaded' is.
:> 2)A new group automoderated by a "whitelist" would give explicit
: sanction to known
:> bestialists in the new group.
: A BS argument, as I've already pointed out in alt.fan.furry.
"I say this is BS" does NOT equal proof.
diespa...@best.com
: On 10 Oct 1999 13:22:27 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) scribbled:
:>This message will be separately posted to the other alt.fan.furry groups with
:>followups directed to alt.fan.furry.politics.
: Please explain your reasoning behind not wanting the fate of alt.fan.furry
: to be discussed in alt.fan.furry.
Because if the people on AFF knew that Sneaky da Silva was planning
to cancel all posts to this newsgroup, they might raise a stink.
I may troll and flame, but I don't delete people's posts.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7tr0ra$444$1...@velar.olsy-na.com>,
>Brian W. Antoine <bri...@iea.com> wrote:
>> You might be better off just abandoning that group once and for all
>>and directing people to the replacement groups with an auto-posted FAQ
>>at least once a week.
>
>That's a good idea, too. Thanks.
That would be an acceptable option.
diespa...@best.com
:>In article <7tr0ra$444$1...@velar.olsy-na.com>,
:>Brian W. Antoine <bri...@iea.com> wrote:
:>> You might be better off just abandoning that group once and for all
:>>and directing people to the replacement groups with an auto-posted FAQ
:>>at least once a week.
:>
:>That's a good idea, too. Thanks.
: That would be an acceptable option.
Absolutely.
Peter da Silva
> Because if the people on AFF knew that Sneaky da Silva was planning
> to cancel all posts to this newsgroup, they might raise a stink.
It really sounds good when you say I'm planning on cancelling all the posts
in this group. Great theatrics. Doesn't sound nearly as good as I'm planning
on moderating it... and I'm not going to be personally involved in the
moderation process either. But of course that doesn't, you know, sound as
exciting.
Anyway, I think anyone who hasn't got the point yet is, like, not actually
a reader of the group.
So, like, let's pop over the the politics group so we don't further fuck up
alt.fan.furry in the meantime. Just in case, you know. Fair enough?
Can we make this the last post in this thread on a.f.f, please?
ScottZf
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in message
news:7tr6ac$p...@bonkers.taronga.com...
> So, like, let's pop over the the politics group so we don't further fuck up
> alt.fan.furry in the meantime. Just in case, you know. Fair enough?
>
> Can we make this the last post in this thread on a.f.f, please?
Uh, no.
It has already been pointed out that few servers even carry that group.
And don't give out the crap that they should request their ISP to carry it
just so they can participate in the discussion.
Even the fur.com server doesn't carry it.
diespa...@best.com
: In article <38011654$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
:> Because if the people on AFF knew that Sneaky da Silva was planning
:> to cancel all posts to this newsgroup, they might raise a stink.
: It really sounds good when you say I'm planning on cancelling all the posts
: in this group. Great theatrics. Doesn't sound nearly as good as I'm planning
: on moderating it... and I'm not going to be personally involved in the
: moderation process either. But of course that doesn't, you know, sound as
: exciting.
Quit trying to pull the wool over people's eyes, Peter.
Knowing you have NO authority to do what your proposing,
you're trying to bully though your own personal agenda.
1) Created AFF-M.
2) rmgrp AFF.
3) Cancelbot any posts made to AFF after the rmgrp
4) Force a moderator of your chosing on AFF-M.
Could you be just a little more blatent in your power grab.
And quit trying to hide your intentions by diverting your
posts to another newsgroup. The fate of AFF is DEFINITELY on-topic
on AFF!
Sergi
totally goes like:
>On 10 Oct 1999 13:22:27 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) scribbled:
>
>>This message will be separately posted to the other alt.fan.furry groups with
>>followups directed to alt.fan.furry.politics.
>
>Please explain your reasoning behind not wanting the fate of alt.fan.furry
>to be discussed in alt.fan.furry.
Same reason he answered my question about why he netcopped me (and everyone else
who posted in a certain thread, apparently) in email rather than on Usenet.
Peter doesn't like to have to explain his actions to the people they effect in
places where those people can see them.
--
Sergi, KotAGoR XXX
"I do not deny that I am a moron. Do you still have the okra
up your ass?" -Manny of the Jiffy Club, 7/21/99
alt.romath: Proud Sponsor of the Miss American Achievement Awards 2000
FREE JOSHUA KRAMER! NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
mcgruff
<sco...@dwave.net> wrote:
> Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in message
> news:7tr6ac$p...@bonkers.taronga.com...
> > So, like, let's pop over the the politics group so we don't further fuck up
> > alt.fan.furry in the meantime. Just in case, you know. Fair enough?
> >
> > Can we make this the last post in this thread on a.f.f, please?
No, I don't think so. I think it's only fair for the denizens of a.f.f to
know what you're up to. Most of them are unaware of a.f.f.politics or
alt.config.
Oh, and stop cancelling people's legitimate posts. Alt.fan.furry is NOT a
moderated group. Period.
Go and start a new group, if you want a moderated one. That's the correct
way to handle this.
> Uh, no.
> It has already been pointed out that few servers even carry that group.
> And don't give out the crap that they should request their ISP to carry it
> just so they can participate in the discussion.
> Even the fur.com server doesn't carry it.
Supernews (second-largest news service) does NOT carry
alt.fan.furry.politics either.
da Silva, here's a suggestion: Why not create you OWN personal mailing
list? Here's a title for it: The Furry NetGod Mailing List. What do you
think? Then you can just chat with all your furry pallies privately and
everyone would be happy.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>You asked me to stay out of your mailbox, so I will.
>
>In article <7trdvg$24s$7...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>Same reason he answered my question about why he netcopped me (and everyone else
>>who posted in a certain thread, apparently) in email rather than on Usenet.
>>Peter doesn't like to have to explain his actions to the people they effect in
>>places where those people can see them.
>
>I fail to see how sending a message to the person effected by my action
>qualifies as hiding it from the person effected by my action.
Didn't want to broadcast to the rest of the net that you netcopped everyone who
replied to a thread?
> This is one
>of those Zen things, isn't it?
No, but it might take a few brain cells to comprehend. Don't wear yourself out.
Sergi
<silver...@my-deja.com> totally goes like:
>In article <7tqlh3$k...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
> pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>> [pardon for the previous empty post, finger slipped]
>>
>> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the
>root
>> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who
>destroyed
>> alt.horror.werewolves, has proven an excellent opportunity to resolve
>the
>> issue once and for all.
>>
>> alt.fan.furry.flame
>>
>> There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame"
>group be
>> created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I
>prefer to
>> be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more
>genteel name
>> I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
>>
>> alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
>>
>> This would replace the existing alt.fan.furry. The moderation would
>be sped
>> up by a "whitelist" bot that automatically approves messages frm
>people who
>> are known to post on topic. Other messages would be held for manual
>moderation.
>> Existing furrynet sites that already run the furrynet monitor bot
>will be
>> approached to host this moderation bot as well.
>>
>> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>>
>> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply
>rejects
>> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the
>hierarchy. This
>> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>>
>> alt.fan.furry.politics
>>
>> This group is for discussion of "furry fandom" and the politics
>within the
>> group. It already exists. Discussion of splitting the hierarchy will
>be
>> crossposted here for readers who don't want to venture into
>alt.config.
>>
>> alt.fan.furry.muck
>>
>> This group is for discussion of online interactive role playing
>environments
>> with a furry theme, whether they use the "Fuzzball" muck software or
>not. It
>> is currently functioning primarily as an announcement group.
>>
>> alt.fan.furry.bleachers
>>
>> This group is an "in-character" discussion group. It already exists.
>>
>> This message will be separately posted to the other alt.fan.furry
>groups with
>> followups directed to alt.fan.furry.politics.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>silverpelican is a little bit lost. Isn't it the usual convention to
>have a RFD before the CVV? Or did that already happen and silverpelican
>missed it?
You're more than a little bit lost. There is no RFD or CFV in alt.*.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <7trh76$cb6$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>>No reason for a misc. You have alt.fan.furry. If deshitforbrains wants a
>>moderated group and if you do too, fine. Make one. alt.fan.furry.moderated
>
>If you have a serious proposal that doesn't involve insults and invective and
>doesn't involve letting a.f.f sink into the mud, please feel free to bring it
>up any time you feel like it.
I propose that you take your modem and shove it up your ass sideways, censor.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>[cc artax, in case he doesn't get the politics group. Apologies, and if you
> prefer I not mail you I won't]
>
>In article <01bf1390$30084550$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
>Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>>No, not by the same people. The alt.fan.karl-malden.nose crew were
>>involved in both, but they are just pawns in the recent vandalism of
>>alt.fan.furry. They were delibrately lured there by other people.
>
>Hmmm. Someone posted a message that we shouldn't upset "Hawk" or he's trash
>us like he trashed the werewolves group. I don't have that message still in
>my spool, alas, or I'd be able to quote more directly.
>
>Perhaps you can explain the phylogeny of these fellows more completely, in
>email if you prefer.
>
>>I prefer alt.fan.furry.advocacy. People will be more likely to
>>actually use it.
>
>That's three votes for advocacy, no votes for flame.
>
There are no votes in alt.*, Fuckface.
>>> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply
>>rejects
>>> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy.
>>This
>>> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>
>>No. I don't care how many new groups you want to create, but leave
>>existing unmoderated alt.* groups alone. Let your new moderated
>>group succeed or fail on its own merits. Don't try to force people
>>to move to a moderated group by taking away the unmoderated
>>alternative.
>
>OK, either alt.fan.furry is "a flame group" as you claim, in which case the
>new "advocacy" group is its replacement. Or it's a discussion group, as I
>claim, in which case the moderated group is the replacement. Or I will be
>unable to successfully get the group marked moderated, in which case the point
>is moot. In all three cases every single poster will still have a group to post
>in which carries the traffic that they prefer.
>
>In any case your preference for "advocacy" is noted.
JayDee
> Here we go again: Sneaky da Silva blithely discussing AFF's future,
> AWAY from AFF, like it's his to decide.
>
> Peter, you have gone totally rogue.
nah, it's just something control freaks and false gods do...
false gods usually get their empowerment from their worshippers
control freaks? I couldn't say, because I'm too close to that shit
I'm one, myself
woo...
Cipher
ha...@lart.com writes:
>Please explain your reasoning behind not wanting the fate of alt.fan.furry
>to be discussed in alt.fan.furry.
>
He thinks the dezinens of a.f.f have no right to be involved in the
discussion?
I cannot grasp the logic behind this move. Orchestrate a group's demise,
and take the discussion outside the group involved...
And that *rename* nonsense is just that, nonsense...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
)\ ( ) /( Cipher
)-(0^^0)-( Proud Member, Netscum Alumni Association
)/ \\// \( Protect privacy, boycott Intel:
(oo) http://www.bigbrotherinside.org
o@o ~~ o@o PGP Public Key available at my website or via finger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cipher
pe...@taronga.com writes:
>It really sounds good when you say I'm planning on cancelling all the posts
>in this group.
Didn't you say you would have the posts to A.F.F sent to a moderated
address as to *effectively kill propagation?* What was that about?
diespa...@best.com
: In article <380126d4$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
:> 1) Created AFF-M.
:> 2) rmgrp AFF.
: YM "rename a.f.f to a.f.f.misc".
Semantics. The name's different, the intent's the same.
AFF will be destroyed as a usable group where anyone can post, free
of your censorial methods.
:> 3) Cancelbot any posts made to AFF after the rmgrp
: Only messages with forged approval, as is normal for moderated groups.
The Real Politik of what Sneaky is saying here is "Only posts
that I approve of", because those are the only posts that
will carry the AFF-M "Seal of Approval". Don't toe the party
line? Sorry -- your post is cancelled. Don't like it?
Tough shit.
Ain't that right, Peter? No WONDER you don't want people on AFF
reading what you plan to do to their group.
: If it was a "power grab" I'd be a lot more subtle. When all is said and
: done I want to be completely out of the process, with someone else running
: the bot and other people doing the moderating.
"Toe the party line or be cancelled"
That's ALL this amounts to.
Naked-power-grab.
: My proposal is a lot less aggressive than what people were discussing before
: I made it.
You're making a shit sandwhich that you expect everyone else
to eat, and think your sandwhich is better because you suggested
whole wheat instead of white bread.
Quit trying to hide your little coup attempt by diverting posts to
a newsgroup no one carries. You're not fooling anyone with this
attempt at underhanded sneakiness.
Artax
> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
> alt.horror.werewolves
No, not by the same people. The alt.fan.karl-malden.nose crew were
involved in both, but they are just pawns in the recent vandalism of
alt.fan.furry. They were delibrately lured there by other people.
> alt.fan.furry.flame
>
> There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame" group be
> created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I prefer to
> be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more genteel name
> I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
I prefer alt.fan.furry.advocacy. People will be more likely to
actually use it.
> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
No. I don't care how many new groups you want to create, but leave
existing unmoderated alt.* groups alone. Let your new moderated
group succeed or fail on its own merits. Don't try to force people
to move to a moderated group by taking away the unmoderated
alternative.
a res. | Artax
r p c | (Brad Austin)
t x o |
ax@i m | Oceanside, CA USA
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
the notion that doing anything like "controlling" alt.fan.furry actually
means anything. Like there was anything that actually mattered in a tiny
ng that, in theory, was talking about an inconcequential media subgenre.
You'd think there was some real bucks involved, or that a.f.f. was the
mover and shaker of a multi-million dollar media industry.
Especially as all too many of the people making the most noise are not in
any real way fans of the genre, or at least haven't expressed such. (the
analogy of a church achitecture ng being harrassed by critics of sexual
misconduct by priests seems apt)
How about giveing alt.fan.furry back to the kind of peole who it was
created by and for?
Michael Pena
Truely a wonderful idea. A pity that troll nature will not allow this
to happen :(
Sincerely,
Michael Angel Peña(AKA Sparrow...A Rabbit)
Artist-Laughing Rabbit Graphics
http://lonestar.texas.net/~sparrow/sparrow.htm
PS-Your time is now!
diespa...@best.com
: Hello Steve,
: Truely a wonderful idea. A pity that troll nature will not allow this
: to happen :(
Pity the people who post here have no idea how the Usenet
actually works.
Don't like how the Usenet works? Go let AOL play den-mommy for
you.
diespa...@best.com
: Hmmm. Someone posted a message that we shouldn't upset "Hawk" or he's trash
: us like he trashed the werewolves group. I don't have that message still in
: my spool, alas, or I'd be able to quote more directly.
I posted that message.
: OK, either alt.fan.furry is "a flame group" as you claim, in which case the
: new "advocacy" group is its replacement. Or it's a discussion group, as I
: claim, in which case the moderated group is the replacement. Or I will be
: unable to successfully get the group marked moderated, in which case the point
: is moot. In all three cases every single poster will still have a group to post
: in which carries the traffic that they prefer.
: In any case your preference for "advocacy" is noted.
Your proposal's been declined by popular vote.
diespa...@best.com
: Peter da Silva wrote:
:> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
:>
:> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
:> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
:> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
: I approve, and volunteer to assist in the pass/fail analysis of the posts.
: I'll help restore this group to on-topic posts as best I can.
I decline this nomination on the grounds bias on Allen's part
against certain posters to AFF.
That, and the fact Sneaky's nasty little plan has been declined
in general.
Marco van Loon
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
Ah, the name sounded familiar and with some digging I found out the
host names match, so you must be related to Stephanie da Silva
AKA "Stuffyme da Silva"; the person that forced the 'renaming' of
rec.arts.anime to rec.arts.anime.misc down the rec.arts.anime regulars'
throats in 1995. grrr.
I guess you're just a family of newsgroup wreckers...
>alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>
>The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
>all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
>bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
Whahaha, you're going to try to moderate a group that will very likely
stay marked 'y' (unmoderated) on 99% of newsservers that carry it?
Please reboot your brain, since it seems to have crashed.
SD Maruko-kun (who voted 'no' to rec.arts.anime.misc along with the r.a.a
regs but was outvoted by news.groupies & clueless people)
-= Hawk =-
>In article <380126d4$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
>> 1) Created AFF-M.
>> 2) rmgrp AFF.
>
>YM "rename a.f.f to a.f.f.misc".
You can't rename an alt group.
>> 3) Cancelbot any posts made to AFF after the rmgrp
>
>Only messages with forged approval, as is normal for moderated groups.
AFF is not a moderated newsgroup.
>> 4) Force a moderator of your chosing on AFF-M.
>
>We haven't even *started* the discussion about moderators yet.
>
>> Could you be just a little more blatent in your power grab.
>
>If it was a "power grab" I'd be a lot more subtle. When all is said and
>done I want to be completely out of the process, with someone else running
>the bot and other people doing the moderating.
>
>My proposal is a lot less aggressive than what people were discussing before
>I made it.
I don't see how canceling ANY posts to AFF is 'less aggressive' than the
suggested retromoderation that started this.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7trgm4$7g4$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>>You hid by netcopping instead of talking about it in the newsgroup.
>
>Posting a message asking people to politely contact the ISPs of people
>invading the group is "hiding it". This is another Zen thing, right? The
>purloined letter schtick?
How is crossposting the the discussion of your impending take over of an
existing group 'invading' said group?
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7trh76$cb6$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>>No reason for a misc. You have alt.fan.furry. If deshitforbrains wants a
>>moderated group and if you do too, fine. Make one. alt.fan.furry.moderated
>
>If you have a serious proposal that doesn't involve insults and invective and
>doesn't involve letting a.f.f sink into the mud, please feel free to bring it
>up any time you feel like it.
alt.fan.furry.moderated what then do you care what happens to the
unmoderated group?
-= Hawk =-
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> The alt.fan.furry hierarchy is long overdue for a formal split of the root
>> group, and the recent attack, apparently by the same people who destroyed
>> alt.horror.werewolves
>
>No, not by the same people. The alt.fan.karl-malden.nose crew were
>involved in both, but they are just pawns in the recent vandalism of
>alt.fan.furry. They were delibrately lured there by other people.
>
>> alt.fan.furry.flame
>>
>> There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame" group be
>> created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups, I prefer to
>> be more honest and direct... though if people recommend a more genteel name
>> I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
>
>I prefer alt.fan.furry.advocacy. People will be more likely to
>actually use it.
>
>> alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>>
>> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
>> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
>> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>
>No. I don't care how many new groups you want to create, but leave
>existing unmoderated alt.* groups alone. Let your new moderated
>group succeed or fail on its own merits. Don't try to force people
>to move to a moderated group by taking away the unmoderated
>alternative.
Wow, a voice of reason from the furries, I wonder if Peter will bother to
hear it.
-= Hawk =-
>[cc artax, in case he doesn't get the politics group. Apologies, and if you
> prefer I not mail you I won't]
>
>In article <01bf1390$30084550$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
>Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>>No, not by the same people. The alt.fan.karl-malden.nose crew were
>>involved in both, but they are just pawns in the recent vandalism of
>>alt.fan.furry. They were delibrately lured there by other people.
>
>Hmmm. Someone posted a message that we shouldn't upset "Hawk" or he's trash
>us like he trashed the werewolves group. I don't have that message still in
>my spool, alas, or I'd be able to quote more directly.
Funny, I've NEVER once posted in the werewolves group, your information is
flawed.
>Perhaps you can explain the phylogeny of these fellows more completely, in
>email if you prefer.
>
>>I prefer alt.fan.furry.advocacy. People will be more likely to
>>actually use it.
>
>That's three votes for advocacy, no votes for flame.
>
>>> The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply
>>rejects
>>> all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy.
>>This
>>> bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>
>>No. I don't care how many new groups you want to create, but leave
>>existing unmoderated alt.* groups alone. Let your new moderated
>>group succeed or fail on its own merits. Don't try to force people
>>to move to a moderated group by taking away the unmoderated
>>alternative.
>
>OK, either alt.fan.furry is "a flame group" as you claim, in which case the
>new "advocacy" group is its replacement. Or it's a discussion group, as I
>claim, in which case the moderated group is the replacement. Or I will be
>unable to successfully get the group marked moderated, in which case the point
>is moot. In all three cases every single poster will still have a group to post
>in which carries the traffic that they prefer.
>
>In any case your preference for "advocacy" is noted.
--
diespa...@best.com
Oh LOOK: Here's Sneaky da Silva's little master plan, posted on
alt.fan.furry.politics so the readers of AFF would -never- see it:
:> against certain posters to AFF.
: Then propose someone with a contrary bias to co-moderate. I'm not sure which
: "side" he's on, but if you added (say) Chuck and -Xydexx- I imagine most people
: would be satisfied.
I wouldn't, Peter. Nice try at ramming this plan down our throats.
Sorry, you've over-stepped your bounds this time, buddy. Ain't
gonna happen.
Sergi
<gbur...@databasix.com> totally goes like:
>On 10 Oct 1999 23:50:14 -0500, in article <7trqa6$2...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>
>>In article <38016526$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
>>> I decline this nomination on the grounds bias on Allen's part
>>> against certain posters to AFF.
>>
>>Then propose someone with a contrary bias to co-moderate. I'm not sure which
>>"side" he's on, but if you added (say) Chuck and Xydexx I imagine most people
>>would be satisfied.
>
>You imagine quite a bit. You're still imagining that alt.fan.furry will
>magically change from unmoderated to moderated. Won't happen. Sorry. Move on.
>
>Next?
Aw, hell. I'll retromoderate it for him, if it will make him happy. Anyone
know where I can get a copy of NewsAgent?
diespa...@best.com
Here we go again: Sneaky da Silva blithely discussing AFF's future,
AWAY from AFF, like it's his to decide.
Peter, you have gone totally rogue.
In alt.config Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
: In article <01bf139d$e6076220$bb354bd1@whitefang>,
: Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
:>That wasn't Hawk. [explanation]
: Damn, that's simply twisted.
:>This is pure, unmitigated, Grade-A bullshit. alt.* groups are not
:>interchangable. You can't rmgroup one and newgroup another one to
:>replace it and call that a harmless change.
: Over the short term there will be some disruption, yes. That's why I
: have simply created replacement groups in the past. I do believe that
: the lesser harm, however, is going through the process and taking some
: loss in propogation over the short term rather than letting things fester
: indefinitely.
:>At the very least
:>you're going to be replacing a group with good propogation with
:>groups that will have near-zero propogation for the first few
:>months.
: There are ways to reduce this effect, such as creating the new groups some
: time before removing the old ones. These are not new problems and the
: solutions to them are well known and understood. And they work.
: I'm not talking about blithely issuing a flood of group creation and
: deletion messages in some Usenet equivalent of a nuclear bomb, the transition
: has to be carefully managed in a gradual fashion, and the exact nature of
: the transition is one of the reasons for having a discussion in the first
: place.
: It may be that we run the groups in parallel for months, maybe a year, and
: then re-evaluate them. But don't just dismiss the process just because it's
: rare in Altnet (it has been done, mind... I took alt.sources.amiga from
: unmoderated to moderated and back again). It's been applied successfully
: time and again in other hierarchies.
: In any case what I posted is a "proposal". It's subject to change. If it
: wasn't subject to change I wouldn't have called it a proposal.
: --
: 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.
--
"By and large, furry fandom is, uh, Bi and large . . . "
-- Eric Blumrich
Peter da Silva
-= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
>>Hmmm. Someone posted a message that we shouldn't upset "Hawk" or he's trash
>>us like he trashed the werewolves group. I don't have that message still in
>>my spool, alas, or I'd be able to quote more directly.
>Funny, I've NEVER once posted in the werewolves group, your information is
>flawed.
I apologise for promoting misinformation, and I apologise for any damage to
your reputation that I have caused.
According to Artax I misinterpreted something Mike Beebe said.
diespa...@best.com
: Aw, hell. I'll retromoderate it for him, if it will make him happy. Anyone
: know where I can get a copy of NewsAgent?
I second Sergi's nomination:
1) He's third party.
2) He doesn't give a shit about furry, so he's nuetral.
3) He hates Sneaky da Silva, so he won't be Mr. Party Line.
I will supply Sergi with a working copy of NewsAgent.
Peter da Silva
> I wouldn't, Peter. Nice try at ramming this plan down our throats.
Do you understand the word "discussion", Mike? Do you understand the word
"proposal"? These words mean "this is a proposal. It is subject to change,
and I would like to discuss changes and modify it to best fit the situation
before taking any action".
If it was a plan set in stone I'd have called it that.
But you know all this, 'cos you've been reading these threads and I've said
this same thing a bunch of times.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7trotk$4ls$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>silverpelican <silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Wish you would just let them-these guys-have their unmoderated group
>>without screwing it up with a bot or something.
>
>The problem is, the bitching and screaming is, with a few exceptions, not
>coming from the folks who would end up "having their unmoderated group".
>
>Otherwise I'd be happy to, but I'm getting positive responses from people on
>both sides of the flame wars *inside* the group. You ever see one of those
>movies where a bunch of bandits unite a warring township into driving them
>out?
>
>You know, if the bandits would just blow away, maybe we'd end up with a
>result more to their liking. There's a variety of opinions here, and I'm
>trying to make sense of them and come up with a solution everyone can live
>with.
Create alt.fan.furry.moderated.
Leave alt.fan.furry alone.
Rather simple.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7tqlh3$k...@bonkers.taronga.com>,
>Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>
>Ah, the name sounded familiar and with some digging I found out the
>host names match, so you must be related to Stephanie da Silva
>AKA "Stuffyme da Silva"; the person that forced the 'renaming' of
>rec.arts.anime to rec.arts.anime.misc down the rec.arts.anime regulars'
>throats in 1995. grrr.
>
>I guess you're just a family of newsgroup wreckers...
>
>>alt.fan.furry (moderated)
>>
>>The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that simply rejects
>>all messages and directs the poster to the other groups in the hierarchy. This
>>bot will run on the same server as the other moderation bot.
>Whahaha, you're going to try to moderate a group that will very likely
>stay marked 'y' (unmoderated) on 99% of newsservers that carry it?
>Please reboot your brain, since it seems to have crashed.
That's been pointed out to him, but he still claims he'll cancel any posts
to the group after he makes his changes to it.
-= Hawk =-
>In article <38017483$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
>> I wouldn't, Peter. Nice try at ramming this plan down our throats.
>
>Do you understand the word "discussion", Mike? Do you understand the word
>"proposal"? These words mean "this is a proposal. It is subject to change,
>and I would like to discuss changes and modify it to best fit the situation
>before taking any action".
>
>If it was a plan set in stone I'd have called it that.
>
>But you know all this, 'cos you've been reading these threads and I've said
>this same thing a bunch of times.
And yet you continue to exclude alt.fan.furry from the discussion of it's
own fate, why?
diespa...@best.com
: In article <38017483$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, <diespa...@best.com> wrote:
:> I wouldn't, Peter. Nice try at ramming this plan down our throats.
: Do you understand the word "discussion", Mike? Do you understand the word
: "proposal"? These words mean "this is a proposal. It is subject to change,
: and I would like to discuss changes and modify it to best fit the situation
: before taking any action".
Do you understand the phrase "Stick your proposal up your ass"?
It's rude, nasty and quite short, but it's my opinion of your
end-run attempt to make AFF your own little personal playground.
You have a long, sad history of rogue behavior, Peter, and I wouldn't
put it past you to try to pull some fiat accompli move because you
felt you could get away with it.
Now, all posturing aside, I appreciate what you've done in the past,
especially with alt.animals.dolphins. However, this ain't
alt.animals.dolphins, and the only invasion here is the one you
visited on AFF by netcopping the good folks at the Nose.
Your proposal is bankrupt.
: If it was a plan set in stone I'd have called it that.
: But you know all this, 'cos you've been reading these threads and I've said
: this same thing a bunch of times.
: --
: 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.
--
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
Xydexx has not been offered a position as moderator of the proposed
moderated furry group.
Xydexx didn't want a position as moderator of the proposed moderated
furry group anyway.
Xydexx is not a short aardvark named Cerebus.[1]
____________________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
[1] But we knew that already.
Peter da Silva
Artax <bo...@address.com> wrote:
>Hold the phone. I thought the point of setting alt.fan.furry to
>moderated was so you could quasi-legitimately cancel "forged
>approvals" in it. Now I don't understand. If you're not going
>to cancel messages then what would your creative abuse of the
>moderation flag accomplish that wouldn't be accomplished with a
>simple rmgroup?
Same thing that it accomplished for Boursy's news.admin.policy group.
>All you would be doing is requesting that sites
>redirect all a.f.f. posts to dev/null, instead of asking them to
>drop the group entirely.
Exactly, because if they drop the group entirely they would still
propogate the messages via "junk", or if they're not set for that they
would still propogate crossposts.
I guess I could send out a newgroup with it set to "x", but I don't
think that C-news honors that.
Rebecca Ore
(Snip)
Since discussion was redirected to one fan vanity group that no server I
know of carries, we assume this call for a discussion is a joke and the
answer is "No."
--
Rebecca Ore
Forrest
before a message can be blocked (designed to ensure that messages were not
blocked merely on the basis of political content) was brought up by me, not
Mr. Da Silva, on AFF, not AFFP.
Mr. Da Silva subsequently proposed an even more liberal plan -- multiple
moderators, any one of whom could -pass- a message -- which I support.
> Oh LOOK: Here's Sneaky da Silva's little master plan, posted on
> alt.fan.furry.politics so the readers of AFF would -never- see it:
>
>
>
> :> against certain posters to AFF.
>
> : Then propose someone with a contrary bias to co-moderate. I'm not sure
which
> : "side" he's on, but if you added (say) Chuck and -Xydexx- I imagine most
people
> : would be satisfied.
>
>
> I wouldn't, Peter. Nice try at ramming this plan down our throats.
>
dvus
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote in message
news:7trsfg$3...@bonkers.taronga.com...
> In article <onMBOEDWkOtp5w...@4ax.com>,
> -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com> wrote:
> >>Hmmm. Someone posted a message that we shouldn't upset "Hawk" or he's
trash
> >>us like he trashed the werewolves group. I don't have that message still
in
> >>my spool, alas, or I'd be able to quote more directly.
>
> >Funny, I've NEVER once posted in the werewolves group, your information
is
> >flawed.
>
> I apologise for promoting misinformation, and I apologise for any damage
to
> your reputation that I have caused.
>
> According to Artax I misinterpreted something Mike Beebe said.
>
> 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.
You seem to continually interject false information into this thread and
later backpedal on those facts which are called into question. Makes one
wonder how much of what you have stated as fact is untrue, but since not
questioned remains for future reference as qualification to your position.
It's an old tactic that worked for cagey dictators in the past.
Instead of arguing fringe issues you ought to take the direct course of
leaving the existing group to it's own devices and form a new moderated
group that can stand or fall on it's own merits. Any other course is
contrary to the tenets of a democratic entity.
alt.fan.furry obviously included,
alt.fan.furry.politics deleted due to being unresolved
dvus
Rebecca Ore
> It's not clear to me how many of the dissenters are just alt.config
> hangers-on or people holding personal grudges.
People who support him are urging him to leave the old group alone and
create a new moderated group. I've been checking on alt.fan.furry most
of the night. It took several hours for Peter to give up trying to post
the arguments to a poorly propagated vanity group that most of the
alt.fan.furry regulars couldn't get.
His claiming that posts about his proposal to alt.fan.furry were a flood
tended to heighten tensions, especially when he reported Sergi to
DataBasix and their upstream as a flooder when Sergi had only posted
three times to the group.
Henrietta K. Thomas
I've just reviewed this entire thread and I think the answer should be
'maybe'.
I think Peter goofed by trying to direct traffic to alf.fan.furry politics
rather than alt.fan.furry itself, but I don't think that should be held
against him on the general idea of reorganizing the alf.fan.furry.*
hierarchy. Most people disobeyed his instruction anyway, so no
real harm was done.
Most of the articles in this thread are from news.admin.net-abuse.
usenet, and they are almost uniformly opposed to the proposal.
I don't think their opinions should carry as much weight as the
opinions of regulars in alt.fan.furry. I don't know who they are,
but I *did* find articles indicating a more moderate view from:
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Message-ID: <7trim9$7...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
and
Michael Pena
Message-ID: <38016d0d...@news.fysh.org>
Both of which were posted only to alt.fan.furry.
I should like to take time to find out if there are any more 'insiders'
at alt.fan.furry who have similar moderate views, and I'd like to see
the noise makers give them a chance to speak.
Then there was a guy named Brian W. Antoine who posted the
following in Message-ID: <7tr0ra$444$1...@velar.olsy-na.com>:
>> You might be better off just abandoning that group once and for all
>>and directing people to the replacement groups with an auto-posted
>FAQ at least once a week.
This suggestion was endorsed by three of the flaming outsiders --
Hawk, diespammerdie, and Gary Burnore.
So I do not think this is the end of the story, and I'm hoping some
of the alt.fan.furry regulars will see this post and speak up as to
what they would like to have. I personally have no interest except
that I think people who've been using a group for some time should
have more say as to its fate than people who just come in to fling
around.
Alt.fan.furry regulars, the ball is in your court.
Henrietta K. Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com
--
Recommended reading for outsiders:
Message-ID: <3800E4B2...@pdq.net>
Subject: I Object to Retromoderation
4 artocles from 'insiders'
Message-ID: <38016EF8...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Three things that *are* essential requirements/safeguards for this
split/moderation plan
Suggestions endorsed by 5 'insiders'.
Message-ID: <38016CED...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Mega-response Re-mix: Serious Reservations about the new
split/moderation of a.f.f.
A long, thoughtful article by J.J. Novotny which gave me at least
one idea: alt.fan.furry.anthropomorphics anyone?
Kay Shapero
On <Oct 10 11:25>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote;
Pd>alt.fan.furry.flame
Pd>There have been suggestions in the past that a dedicated "flame"
Pd>group be created. While it is popular to call these "advocacy" groups,
Pd> I prefer to be more honest and direct... though if people recommend
Pd>a more genteel name
Pd>I will be quite willing to use alt.fan.furry.advocacy instead.
Has this tactic ever worked on the Internet? Anybody considerate enough to
confine themselves to such a group when sounding off would hardly be likely
to be a major flamer to begin with. Especially considering the lengths
some will go to to avoid being caught in a killfile, like changing
addresses, or substituting @ and 0 s for a and o in order to defeat
killfiles based on specific words. (btw guys - this not only makes you
look like a putz, it just gets another line added to the killfile...)
Pd>alt.fan.furry.misc (moderated)
Pd>alt.fan.furry (moderated)
Pd>The existing group will be marked moderated, with a bot that
Pd>simply rejects
Better, just leave alt.fan.furry alone, and create alt.fan.furry.moderated.
Less hassle, removes the "split" angle entirely, and makes it far more
likely you will actually accomplish something.
Peter da Silva
Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>Most of the articles in this thread are from news.admin.net-abuse.
>usenet, and they are almost uniformly opposed to the proposal.
The majority of posters inside the group have been in foavor of a split. The
very first positive responses, which were why I posted the original proposal,
were from BOTH SIDES of the "traditional" ongoing flame war.
>Then there was a guy named Brian W. Antoine who posted the
>following in Message-ID: <7tr0ra$444$1...@velar.olsy-na.com>:
>>> You might be better off just abandoning that group once and for all
>>>and directing people to the replacement groups with an auto-posted
>>FAQ at least once a week.
>This suggestion was endorsed by three of the flaming outsiders --
>Hawk, diespammerdie, and Gary Burnore.
Most of them following up to the message where I also said it was a good idea.
Incidentally, "diespammerdie" is an insider, one of the people who has
consistently been involved in the worst of the flame wars, and the only
strong and vocal opponent of this and every other proposal for changing
alt.fan.furry since, well, I don't know how long.
Peter da Silva
>His claiming that posts about his proposal to alt.fan.furry were a flood
>tended to heighten tensions,
I did not at any time make that claim. Has Gary shown you the message I
forwarded to Databasix? It wasn't about the proposal... in fact the proposal
hadn't been posted at that time I sent out my reports.
My proposal was posted in response to a flood already in progress, that had
spawned a discussion among a group of regulars about the possibility of setting
up a cancelbot.
Forrest
Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
> I should like to take time to find out if there are any more 'insiders'
> at alt.fan.furry who have similar moderate views, and I'd like to see
> the noise makers give them a chance to speak.
For the record, as an insider (~8 months posting, longer lurking):
There is an existing, normally intramural, controversy on AFF consisting of
two factions; this controversy extends beyond the confines of the newsgroup
and into fan-oriented activities such as conventions; I was formerly
associated with the conservative faction but am now independent.
# I support and advocate the creation of a moderated version of
alt.fan.furry -- the name of which new group is unimportant to me, but the
moderated characteristic of which *is*.
# I support and advocate the protection of all points of view within that
moderated group -- my original preference was for dual moderators of
opposing politics who would have to agree before a message could be
blocked -- with the proviso that I do not consider personal attacks
(examples available on request), regardless of the politics or identity of
the poster, to be worthy of that protection.
# I support and advocate the creation of a group to be titled
alt.flame.furry, alt.fan.furry.flames, or similar, as one very frequent
poster has promised to stop flaming in AFF upon the creation of such a
group.
# I support, but do not advocate, removal of the existing group; regular and
frequent redirection notices posted automatically to the original group will
suffice.
The current solutions recommended by Mr. Da Silva, as I understand them, are
acceptable to me.
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
>>There is no "plan to cancel posts in alt.fan.furry" in the proposal.
>Are you now denying that you plain to cancel posts in alt.fan.furry?
I am not planning on cancelling posts.
>If you'll answer that question, you'll likely relieve some of the pressure.
Answering it didn't work before, why would it work now?
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>kill aff?
"His claiming that posts about his proposal to alt.fan.furry were a flood
tended to heighten tensions" -- Rebecca Ore, <3801DC36...@op.net>
">That's not true. The only people I sent out abuse reports about were people
>involved in unrelated discussions crossposted into alt.fan.furry.
Because they were disagreeing with you."
-- Gary Burnore, <7tsu0i$gpa$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>
Xydexx the Sesquipedalian Squeakypony
h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) wrote:
> So I do not think this is the end of the story, and I'm hoping some
> of the alt.fan.furry regulars will see this post and speak up as to
> what they would like to have. I personally have no interest except
> that I think people who've been using a group for some time should
> have more say as to its fate than people who just come in to fling
> around.
>
> Alt.fan.furry regulars, the ball is in your court.
As a furry fan and regular subscriber to alt.fan.furry for the past 5
years, I would like to express my strong support for the moderated
alt.fan.furry newsgroup Mr. da Silva has proposed.
______________________________________________________
Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C. [ICQ: 7569393]
Xydexx's Anthrofurry Homepage
http://www.smart.net/~xydexx/anthrofurry/homepage.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Peter da Silva
Xydexx the Sesquipedalian Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>As a furry fan and regular subscriber to alt.fan.furry for the past 5
>years, I would like to express my strong support for the moderated
>alt.fan.furry newsgroup Mr. da Silva has proposed.
Thanks for the support but there isn't a strong commitment from other
readers to back you up. In a few days, after the flames die down, I'll
bring up a second proposal for discussion that doesn't involve such an
extreme move.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <3801DC36...@op.net>, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
>>His claiming that posts about his proposal to alt.fan.furry were a flood
>>tended to heighten tensions,
>
>I did not at any time make that claim. Has Gary shown you the message I
>forwarded to Databasix? It wasn't about the proposal... in fact the proposal
>hadn't been posted at that time I sent out my reports.
>
You put "Please ask your customer to stop newsgroup flooding" in the subject
line, and forwarded him a post of mine where I said "Bring me back a bottle of
Stolli." It was one of THREE FUCKING POSTS I had made to AFF.
>My proposal was posted in response to a flood already in progress, that had
>spawned a discussion among a group of regulars about the possibility of setting
>up a cancelbot.
There was no flood, you asshole. Like I told you before, I was only dimly aware
that the mousefucker group even existed until you took it upon yourself to
netcop me.
Peter da Silva
Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote:
>Like I told you before, I was only dimly aware
>that the mousefucker group even existed until you took it upon yourself to
>netcop me.
Thank you for verifying that, as I said, my response to the flood was unrelated
to any attempt to "silence critics", and I again apologise for inadvertently
fingering an innocent bystander.
Sergi
Silva) totally goes like:
>In article <7tt8il$3q9$3...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>Like I told you before, I was only dimly aware
>>that the mousefucker group even existed until you took it upon yourself to
>>netcop me.
>
>Thank you for verifying that, as I said, my response to the flood was unrelated
>to any attempt to "silence critics", and I again apologise for inadvertently
>fingering an innocent bystander.
Don't apologize. Just pay attention to what you're doing next time before you
start shotgunning bogus complaints all over the place. And you might want to
consider actually reading the AUP of the provider you're whining to before
hitting send as well.
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>alt.furry.moderated. Why not do it and move on?
For the same reason I presented a proposal for discussion in the first place
instead of just "doing it and moving on". There's a whole bunch of issues that
have to be addressed, and I would rather discuss them and get a consensus
about the best way to proceed:
1. The name of the new group or groups.
2. The identity of the moderators.
3. The moderation policy.
4. Whether or not a "fast track" list is used.
5. The location of the moderation software, if a "fast track"
list is used.
Some people like to use Usenet as a kind of "slow IRC". I prefer to do things
one step at a time.
Don't worry, I don't think I'll trouble y'all with any part of the next
proposal, though you are of course welcome to observe.
Baloo Ursidae
> In article <7tt4bg$3fh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Xydexx the Sesquipedalian Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>As a furry fan and regular subscriber to alt.fan.furry for the past 5
>>years, I would like to express my strong support for the moderated
>>alt.fan.furry newsgroup Mr. da Silva has proposed.
> Thanks for the support but there isn't a strong commitment from other
> readers to back you up. In a few days, after the flames die down, I'll
> bring up a second proposal for discussion that doesn't involve such an
> extreme move.
As a one-time regular, I know myself and quite a few other former regulars
that behaved themselves would come back if it weren't for the massive
ammounts of complete crap that spew forth from this newsgroup in its
current form. I endorse the moderated bit, and I really don't care how
nazi its done.
--
Baloo
Baloo Ursidae
> Has this tactic ever worked on the Internet? Anybody considerate enough to
> confine themselves to such a group when sounding off would hardly be likely
> to be a major flamer to begin with. Especially considering the lengths
> some will go to to avoid being caught in a killfile, like changing
> addresses, or substituting @ and 0 s for a and o in order to defeat
> killfiles based on specific words. (btw guys - this not only makes you
> look like a putz, it just gets another line added to the killfile...)
This works on some of the older groups on the net that have a lower kook
level, and works quite well on rec.scouting.*. That heirarchy(sp?)'s
flame group is rec.scouting.issues, and its worked quite well there.
> Better, just leave alt.fan.furry alone, and create alt.fan.furry.moderated.
> Less hassle, removes the "split" angle entirely, and makes it far more
> likely you will actually accomplish something.
My feed picked up alt.fan.furry.moderated today. Although no posts to it
so far.
--
Baloo
Peter da Silva
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>My feed picked up alt.fan.furry.moderated today. Although no posts to it
>so far.
Please send me the control message so I know who sent it out.
I have not created any such group. There is no moderator. There is no
moderation software. There is no charter. It's nowhere NEAR ready for
creation, even if that name is selected.
Brian W. Antoine
> I have not created any such group. There is no moderator. There is no
> moderation software. There is no charter. It's nowhere NEAR ready for
> creation, even if that name is selected.
Which is probably the point. It would appear that somebody wants to
pollute the namespace you're considering.
--
(UniKyrn on IM, ICQ#27068798)
Brian W. Antoine briana @ iea|dogear|circuit .com
http://velar.ctrl-c.liu.se/
Robert M. Guthrie
Bieber) wrote:
>On 11 Oct 1999 18:26:27 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) (Peter
>da Silva) left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:
>>>My feed picked up alt.fan.furry.moderated today.
>> Please send me the control message so I know who sent it out.
>Well, it hasn't made it to Mindspring/Netcom...
It popped up yesterday on News.Fysh.org out of the blue,...No
appeareances yet on other newsservers (Deja, BCandid, furry.ao.net, AOL,
Eathlink, Idt, FastPoint,...).
Tried a test post,... Nothing registers.
Who started it?,... And why?.
Robert
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
gbur...@databasix.com> writes:
> On 10 Oct 1999 21:36:02 -0500, in article <7triei$5o@> >If you have a serious proposal that doesn't involve insults and
> >invective and doesn't involve letting a.f.f sink into the mud,
> >please feel free to bring it up any time you feel like it.
>
> Let me make it purrfectly clear. YOU don't get to decide what I
> post, where I post it or when. If you don't like my posts, please
> feel free to killfile me.
> Otherwise, shove it up your netcopping little ass.
>
> Fucking asshole netcop censors like you should have your modems broken
> FOR you.
WOW! Now THIS is what I would call a PERFECT justification for a Moderated
group, just so we don't have to put up with pissy little cunts like this.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> In article <3801f7b7...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>,
> h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) wrote:
> > So I do not think this is the end of the story, and I'm hoping some
> > of the alt.fan.furry regulars will see this post and speak up as to
> > what they would like to have. I personally have no interest except
> > that I think people who've been using a group for some time should
> > have more say as to its fate than people who just come in to
> > fling around.
> >
> > Alt.fan.furry regulars, the ball is in your court.
>
> past 5 years, I would like to express my strong support for the
> moderated alt.fan.furry newsgroup Mr. da Silva has proposed.
And in a rare show of Unity between myself and Karl, I also support moderation
of a.f.f.
-= Hawk =-
scribbled:
>On 11 Oct 1999 18:26:27 -0500, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) (Peter
>da Silva) left the following spoor in alt.fan.furry:
>
>> In article <7ttqk4$b8r$5...@crucigera.fysh.org>,
>> Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> >My feed picked up alt.fan.furry.moderated today. Although no posts to it
>> >so far.
>>
>> Please send me the control message so I know who sent it out.
>>
> Well, it hasn't made it to Mindspring/Netcom...
Newsgroups are never created automagically on Mindspring, Jan sees to that,
the control message was however in control.newgroup.
--
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 =-
Resident) scribbled:
>In article <7tt4bg$3fh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Xydexx the Sesquipedalian
>Squeakypony <xyd...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> In article <3801f7b7...@newsfeed.sexzilla.net>,
>> h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) wrote:
>> > So I do not think this is the end of the story, and I'm hoping some
>> > of the alt.fan.furry regulars will see this post and speak up as to
>> > what they would like to have. I personally have no interest except
>> > that I think people who've been using a group for some time should
>> > have more say as to its fate than people who just come in to
>> > fling around.
>> >
>> > Alt.fan.furry regulars, the ball is in your court.
>>
>> As a furry fan and regular subscriber to alt.fan.furry for the
>> past 5 years, I would like to express my strong support for the
>> moderated alt.fan.furry newsgroup Mr. da Silva has proposed.
>
>And in a rare show of Unity between myself and Karl, I also support moderation
>of a.f.f.
You do realize that it's a 1000% easier to create a new moderated group
from scratch than it is to change the status of an existing group, right?
And that it's quite easy for anyone against the moderation of an existing
unmoderated group to simply send another control message flagging the
group unmoderated yet again, or to just rmgroup it.
--
Want to propose a newsgroup? Browse these links for help:
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/alt/
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/calame/create.html
http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/good-newgroup.html
http://nylon.net/alt/newgroup.htm
For information on moderating a newsgroup:
http://www.swcp.com/~dmckeon/mod-faq.html
For help with Deja keyword search:
http://www.deja.com/help/help_lang.shtml
For Deja power search:
http://www.exit109.com/~jeremy/news/deja.html
For proposing WebTV alt.discuss groups:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/OpenMind/adrules.html
Peter da Silva
Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
I wasn't, but I'll thanks for the suggestion. I'll think about it.
Flaagg
<pe...@taronga.com> says...
>In article <7tt8il$3q9$3...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>Like I told you before, I was only dimly aware
>>that the mousefucker group even existed until you took it upon yourself to
>>netcop me.
>
>Thank you for verifying that, as I said, my response to the flood was unrelated
>to any attempt to "silence critics", and I again apologise for inadvertently
>fingering an innocent bystander.
When evil floods defenseless dolphins or cute little fuzzy things,
Peter DaSilva will be there.
--
Aaron M. Henne -mhm 9x2-
"I have no idea what 'neener neener' means, so your insult
is lost on me." - Henrietta K. Thomas
http://www.flonk.org/mhm9x2
and
http://www.navicom.net/~flaagg
-= Hawk =-
>In article <7tvdqb$j88$1...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>Gary L. Burnore <dont...@not.to.me.anyway> wrote:
>>Planning another round of netcopping?
>
>I wasn't, but I'll thanks for the suggestion. I'll think about it.
This is alt, anyone can newgroup, anyone can rmgroup, for any
reason, for no reason, discussed ad nauseum in alt.config.
Sergi
<gbur...@databasix.com> totally goes like:
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 13:02:40 -0500, in article
><7tvss3$8pb$4...@nntpd.databasix.com>, Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote:
>
>>I was like, "Oh, my God! No WAY!" And so then -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com>
>>totally goes like:
>>
>>>On 12 Oct 1999 14:24:30 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the
>>>Platypus)) scribbled:
>>>
>>>>On 10 Oct 1999 21:56:38 -0500, Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
>>>>>In article <7trhn1$vrp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>>>>silverpelican <silver...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>>>>silverpelican is a little bit lost. Isn't it the usual convention to
>>>>>>have a RFD before the CVV? Or did that already happen and silverpelican
>>>>>>missed it?
>>>>>
>>>>>CFD stands for "call for discussion".
>>>>
>>>>I have it on good authority that it realy stands for Call for
>>>>Diatribes.
>>>
>>><humor>
>>>I thought it was Control Freaks Decision.
>>></humor>
>>
>>I thought it was come Flame daSilva.
>
>You mean it's NOT? Oh. Shit. Oh well, he deserves it anyway.
I thought that's what it meant. I'd hate to think we've been violating Usenet
protocol this whole time.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> You do realize that it's a 1000% easier to create a new moderated
> group from scratch than it is to change the status of an existing
> group, right?
I'm fully aware of that. Unfortunately, some blighted moron has already
damaged the namespace by newgrouping .moderated without setting it up
properly.
> And that it's quite easy for anyone against the moderation of an
> existing unmoderated group to simply send another control message
> flagging the group unmoderated yet again, or to just rmgroup it.
But which has more legitimacy, a request supported by the users of a
newsgroup, or the net.vandalism of a few malcontents with a personal gruge
against one guy?
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
gbur...@databasix.com> writes:
> >WOW! Now THIS is what I would call a PERFECT justification for
> >a Moderated group, just so we don't have to put up with pissy
> >little cunts like this.
>
> need others to censor for me."
Well, I've been on the net since 1990, and I'm perfectly conversant on the use
of killfiles. But, killfiling you would mean that I would have to give up on
the idea that you might ever have anything worthwhile to say.
But, since you've no assured me that I won't be missing anything by killfiling
you. *PLONK*.
Oh, and I'm SURE you're doing a little victory dance right now.
Now I won't be able to see you explain how good killfiles will make spam-
blighted groups like, say, alt.sex.bondage lively forums again.
Flaagg
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!gatech!SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu!juniper.cis.uab.edu!cis.uab.edu!news.lsu.edu!NEWS.LSUMC.EDU!chi.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!uunet!ams.uu.net!zapata.tvd.be!news.tvd.be!news2.euro.net!nl-news.euro.net!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.144.48.95
Newsgroups: comp.security.pgp.test,misc.test,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:52:01 -0500
Message-ID: <cancel.MPG.126cf...@news.navicom.net>
Approved: No...@gmx.net
Control: cancel <MPG.126cf7f2b...@news.navicom.net>
Subject: cmsg cancel <MPG.126cf7f2b...@news.navicom.net>
From: Nopel <nopel...@not.like.spam>
Organization: DNRC
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Cancelled-By: No...@gmx.net
X-Abuse-Reports-To: No...@gmx.net
Lines: 2
<MPG.126cf7f2b...@news.navicom.net> canceled as ECP/EMP.
-= Hawk =-
Resident) scribbled:
>In article <+vwCOLhOz+ebGt...@4ax.com>, -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com>
>writes:
>> You do realize that it's a 1000% easier to create a new moderated
>> group from scratch than it is to change the status of an existing
>> group, right?
>
>I'm fully aware of that. Unfortunately, some blighted moron has already
>damaged the namespace by newgrouping .moderated without setting it up
>properly.
Then pick another name for the moderated group, alt.fan.furry.safe-haven
alt.fan.furry.no-flames, alt.fan.furry.no-spam etc.
>> And that it's quite easy for anyone against the moderation of an
>> existing unmoderated group to simply send another control message
>> flagging the group unmoderated yet again, or to just rmgroup it.
>
>But which has more legitimacy, a request supported by the users of a
>newsgroup, or the net.vandalism of a few malcontents with a personal gruge
>against one guy?
In alt? all things are equal.
mr. me
<mau...@kendra.com> wrote:
>In article <+vwCOLhOz+ebGt...@4ax.com>, -= Hawk =- <ha...@lart.com>
>writes:
>> You do realize that it's a 1000% easier to create a new moderated
>> group from scratch than it is to change the status of an existing
>> group, right?
>
>I'm fully aware of that. Unfortunately, some blighted moron has already
>damaged the namespace by newgrouping .moderated without setting it up
>properly.
>
>> existing unmoderated group to simply send another control message
>> flagging the group unmoderated yet again, or to just rmgroup it.
>
>But which has more legitimacy, a request supported by the users of a
>newsgroup, or the net.vandalism of a few malcontents with a personal gruge
>against one guy?
Define legitimacy for alt.* and free.*. If you want less chaos, you should
try the Big 8.
--
dele...@deathpenguin.com
/ / / / 4 line sig?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>Thanks for the support but there isn't a strong commitment from other
>readers to back you up. In a few days, after the flames die down,
I've been waiting 5 years for the flames to die down.
--
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)
<gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
[...]
>Oh wait! And you _LIED_ when you said he was flooding.
Its only a lie if he didn't beleive it when he said it. Otherwise its
a mistake.
dvus
Gary L. Burnore <gbur...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:7u28a5$o4l$4...@nntpd.databasix.com...
> On 13 Oct 1999 14:35:05 GMT, in article
> <slrn80964a....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>, dfor...@zeta.org.au
(David
> Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:05:48 -0400, Gary L. Burnore
> ><gbur...@databasix.com> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>Oh wait! And you _LIED_ when you said he was flooding.
> >
> >Its only a lie if he didn't beleive it when he said it. Otherwise its
> >a mistake.
>
up.
> It looks a bit like it was made up at the beginning rather than at the
end,
> though.
Whereas yours has been open?
dvus
>
>
> --
> for i in databasix.com ntrnet.net primenet.com ; do ; gburnore@$i ; done
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> How you look depends on where you go.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> Gary L. Burnore | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> DOH! | нлГКнГоГКнГГнлКнГоГКнГнГоГКнГннлГ
> | нлГ 3 4 1 4 2 нГоГ 6 9 0 6 9 нлГ
> spamgard(tm): zamboni | Official Proof of Purchase
>
===========================================================================
> PGP Public Key: http://www.databasix.com/~gburnore/pubkey/pubkey.html
>
===========================================================================
Peter da Silva
Baloo Ursidae <ba...@ursine.dyndns.org> wrote:
>When you run a low bandwidth site with a group in unusual demand like this
>one, (Im not the only one who reads the furry groups from my site) you
>don't like crap filling up your feeds, so spam and trolls are a bad thing.
>I'll spell it out further: Trolls & Spam = Bad. Retromoderation = Good,
>depsite its wishful thinking at this point.
Regular moderation is even better in this case. Honest.
Flaagg
<h...@wwa.com> says...
>[alt.fan.furry removed from newsgroups line]
>
>
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on 17 Oct 1999 22:35:00 +0200,
>kaih=7R0pI...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
>
>>se...@databasix.com (Sergi) wrote on 11.10.99 in <7ttbmn$3q9$5...@nntpd.databasix.com>:
>>
>>> I was like, "Oh, my God! No WAY!" And so then pe...@taronga.com (Peter da
>>> Silva) totally goes like:
>>>
>>> >In article <7tt8il$3q9$3...@nntpd.databasix.com>,
>>> >Sergi <se...@databasix.com> wrote:
>>> >>Like I told you before, I was only dimly aware
>>> >>that the mousefucker group even existed until you took it upon yourself to
>>> >>netcop me.
>>> >
>>> >Thank you for verifying that, as I said, my response to the flood was
>>> >unrelated to any attempt to "silence critics", and I again apologise for
>>> >inadvertently fingering an innocent bystander.
>>>
>>> Don't apologize. Just pay attention to what you're doing next time before
>>> you start shotgunning bogus complaints all over the place. And you might
>>> want to consider actually reading the AUP of the provider you're whining to
>>> before hitting send as well.
>>
>>Or you might not. I certainly can't see why one would want to do that.
>>(Apart from the fact that most provider's AUPs aren't easy to even find
>>anyway.)
>>
>>If, as I suspect you're trying to suggest, there's something bad in that
>>AUP that causes unfortunate repercussions for you, too bad, but it was
>>_you_ who agreed to that AUP, not anybody else. Maybe you shouldn't have,
>>but it's certainly not anybody else's responsibility.
>
>Actually, Kai, Sergi's trying to rub Peter's nose in a mistake Peter made
>while trying to deal with what he (Peter) thought was a growing flood of
>trolls in alt.fan.furry. Peter accidentally reported Sergi to his ISP as a
>flooder when, in fact, Sergi had only made 3 posts to the group. The ISP,
>databasix.com, rejected the complaint, and now Sergi is scoring a few
>points at Peter's expense. Sad that some people here have nothing
>better to do.
I agree. Sergi's time would be better spent reporting people to
their ISPs for things they didn't do.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
[...]
>Oh, and just _why_ did AFF have to die in your design? I don't recall
>that ever being answered. Why was the existance of an unmoderated,
>trolled, spam-filled, group a threat? Hmmm?
It was just a bad case of miscizm, nothing more sinister then that.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> On Sun, 17 Oct 1999 00:35:48 -0400, rune....@worldnet.att.mil
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Oh, and just _why_ did AFF have to die in your design? I don't recall
> >that ever being answered. Why was the existance of an unmoderated,
> >trolled, spam-filled, group a threat? Hmmm?
>
> It was just a bad case of miscizm, nothing more sinister then that.
A case of what? Got an English word for that?
Do you really want to keep this going? I _was_ letting it drop.
Or was I right in an earlier thread when I said that silence, instead of
being regarded as being taken that nothing need be said, would be
regarded as losing the discussion? Perhaps I should resume?
Your call.
JayDee
>I agree. Sergi's time would be better spent reporting people to
>their ISPs for things they didn't do.
I'm doing that to myself, to test the ISP's smarts-factor...
if they kill the account on a fake complaint, then they suck
-= Hawk =-
[Sorry. This message is no longer available.]
Gee, look at ALL the canceled messages in AFF...
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> [Sorry. This message is no longer available.]
>
> Gee, look at ALL the canceled messages in AFF...
Yeah. Sporge attack on anything in NANAU. Crossposts brought it here and
to alt.config and anywhere else the original msg was crossed to.
Sergi
Thomas) totally goes like:
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on 20 Oct 1999 19:13:00 +0200,
>kaih=7REvF...@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote:
>
>>h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) wrote on 18.10.99 in <380b0288...@il.news.verio.net>:
>>Yes, I'd read as much.
>>
>>>The ISP,
>>> databasix.com, rejected the complaint,
>>
>>Then what on earth is the guy complaining about?
I object to idiocy on general principal.
>>
>>>and now Sergi is scoring a few
>>> points at Peter's expense.
>>
>>Actually, seems that at least with me, he lost those points instead.
>
How's alt.fan.furry.moderated working out for y'all?
>LOL! It seems that way to me as well.
Ram it up your shit chute, Henrietta.
--
Sergi, KotAGoR XXX
.---. .---.
( X )
`---'|`---'
|
_.-._
.' | | `. Tjhor, the Vjiking Gjod of Lutefjisk
/ | | \
|____| |____|
| NO CARRIER|
>>------|____(_)____|------>
/| (@| |@) |\
/ | | | | \
\ | (|_|) | /
| \/ \/ |
/ / ___ \ \
VK/mc ( : )
After \ : /
jim '.____:__.'
:
"You are a 1st class dorkus malorkus."
-Sheercon demonstrates his flaming prowess. 10/15/99