[Abuse on Usenet] Usenet's perpose and how it relates to Abuse on and of the net.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
It is my firm and heartfelt belief that the fundamental
utility of Usenet is to act as a conduit for ideas. My reading of
Russ Allbery's rant confirms that belief. Indeed I know that I'm not
the only one who feels this way as it has been expressed directly by a
great number of Usenet personalities who I respect.
Furthermore this view directly under pins our understanding of
the nature of abuse of Usenet. In this frame work content based
canceling is considered against the principals of Usenet because it
directly removes ideas from Usenet.
Likewise spam being a set of substantially identical
articles (and hence carrying exactly the same idea) removes other
ideas by pushing them off the spool and so works against Usenet's
fundamental utility.
In this frame spew as generated by malfunctioning gateways, or
abuse boats like hipcrimes is also clearly abuse of Usenet because they
push idea rich articles and replace them with articles that carry no
meaning.
We have been incredibly successful in containing and
restraining spam, in the most of the newsgroups I read spam is so
uncommon that it is no longer a concern. With an objective definition
of what spam is, technological means to control it and consent
vigilance against abusive parties we have a powerful and effective
means to control it.
However Abuse of Usenet is not the only thing that is reducing
Usenet's fundamental utility. And this is what I wish to address. I
acknowledge that this is going to be controversial, and is going to with
justification draw protests however I think it needs to be discussed.
Also I know this is going to be distorted and misrepresented by
parties so I will say this before I continue, I do not in any way
advocate, support, or condone the use of content based 3RD party
cancels And In general I don't advocate, support or condone the use of
any technological method that prevents the distribution of ideas
without the consent of the involved parties.
When people read Usenet the greatest stimulus for the
contribution of new ideas is reading articles that interest them.
Replies to articles outnumber non replies by a monstrous amount.
In some ways Usenet follows the classic model of thesis, anitheis and
hopefully synthesis. So making sure that people get articles that
they wish to respond to is a key part of maximizing usenet's principal
utility.
Furthermore while the question of what someone finds
interesting is a purely subjective, it is not a difficult propersion
to support that those with simmer interests will cluster around
the same newsgroup. And while the edges of any topic are fuzzy there
is more or less a sense of what the subject of a particular newsgroup
is.
In much the same way links between peers have a limited
bandwidth, people have a limited bandwidth as well. People have a
time period in which they read Usenet and respond to articles. If a
newsgroup doesn't fulfill there needs within this period its more
then likely that they will leave it. If they can't find any newsgroup
that fulfills there interest its most likely that they will leave
Usenet for web forums and other such competing media. And each lost
person is a whole host of ideas and new ways of thinking about an
issue lost from Usenet.
While some of this is natural, and there is no way any of us
can make everyone like Usenet there are some forms of behavior that
are directly contributing to this problem. Broadly these are issues
that we have classified as "Abuse on Usenet" and have for the most
part tossed into the too hard basket.
The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have
always been a part of Usenet and should always be a part of Usenet.
I don't have any problem with that, however when it reaches the Laval
of newsgroup invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing
Usenet quirk and becomes a destructive element.
Further more this behavior directly discourages a diversity of
views by both forcing of those who are not "Usenet warriors" and also
since the abuse often targets minority interests it acts as a form of
censorship.
However the tools we suggest to deal with this I feel are
inadequate. Ignoring it is next to impossable when the noise is
overwhelming majority of the content. Killfiles while effective for
the skilled Usenet user often are a poor solution for naive users.
Also there is a tendency for AofUer's to deliberately morph to avoid
them.
Furthermore this unfairly blames the victim while not
requiring the abusers to moderate there behavior. When Usenet was
dominated by the academic sector other restraints both social and
administer could be applied to people who where overly disruptive,
however we need to find new ways to contain these behaviors to
where it no longer is a negative impact on Usenet's core utility.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Lionel
Hi David,
Thanks for the great post. :)
I hope I'm not causing any offence by doing this, but I've taken the
liberty of editing your excellent post for clarity. I have
interspersed your original text with my interpretation of it, so as to
make it as easy as possible to see if I've made any errors:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:52:43 +0000 (UTC), "David Formosa (aka ? the
Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> opined:
> It is my firm and heartfelt belief that the fundamental
>utility of Usenet is to act as a conduit for ideas. My reading of
>Russ Allbery's rant confirms that belief. Indeed I know that I'm not
>the only one who feels this way as it has been expressed directly by a
>great number of Usenet personalities who I respect.
It is my firm and heartfelt belief that the fundamental utility of
Usenet is to act as a conduit for ideas. My reading of Russ Allbery's
rant confirms that belief. Indeed, I know that I'm not the only one
who feels this way, as it has been expressed directly by a great
number of Usenet personalities who I respect.
> Furthermore this view directly under pins our understanding of
>the nature of abuse of Usenet. In this frame work content based
>canceling is considered against the principals of Usenet because it
>directly removes ideas from Usenet.
Furthermore, this view directly underpins our understanding of the
nature of Usenet net-abuse. In this framework, content-based canceling
is considered to be against the principles of Usenet, because it
directly removes ideas from Usenet.
> Likewise spam being a set of substantially identical
>articles (and hence carrying exactly the same idea) removes other
>ideas by pushing them off the spool and so works against Usenet's
>fundamental utility.
Likewise spam being a set of substantially identical articles (and
hence carrying exactly the same idea) removes other ideas by pushing
them off the spool, and so works against the fundamental utility of
Usenet.
> In this frame spew as generated by malfunctioning gateways, or
>abuse boats like hipcrimes is also clearly abuse of Usenet because they
>push idea rich articles and replace them with articles that carry no
>meaning.
In this context, spew generated by malfunctioning gateways, or
abuse-bots like Hipcrime's, is also clearly abuse of Usenet because
they push out idea-rich articles and replace them with articles that
carry no meaning.
> We have been incredibly successful in containing and
>restraining spam, in the most of the newsgroups I read spam is so
>uncommon that it is no longer a concern. With an objective definition
>of what spam is, technological means to control it and consent
>vigilance against abusive parties we have a powerful and effective
>means to control it.
We have been incredibly successful at containing and restraining
Usenet spam, in that (for most newsgroups I read) spam is so uncommon
that it is no longer a concern. With an objective definition of what
spam is, technological means to control it, and constant vigilance
against abusive parties, we have a powerful and effective means to
control it.
> However Abuse of Usenet is not the only thing that is reducing
>Usenet's fundamental utility. And this is what I wish to address. I
>acknowledge that this is going to be controversial, and is going to with
>justification draw protests however I think it needs to be discussed.
>Also I know this is going to be distorted and misrepresented by
>parties so I will say this before I continue, I do not in any way
>advocate, support, or condone the use of content based 3RD party
>cancels And In general I don't advocate, support or condone the use of
>any technological method that prevents the distribution of ideas
>without the consent of the involved parties.
However, abuse of Usenet is not the only thing that is reducing the
fundamental utility of Usenet, and this is what I wish to address.
I acknowledge that this is going to be controversial, and will, with
justification, draw protests - however, I think it needs to be
discussed. I also know that this is going to be distorted be various
parties, so before I continue, I will say that I do not in any way
advocate, support, or condone the use of content-based 3rd party
cancels. And in general, I don't advocate, support or condone the use
of any technological method that prevents the distribution of ideas
without the consent of the involved parties.
> When people read Usenet the greatest stimulus for the
>contribution of new ideas is reading articles that interest them.
>Replies to articles outnumber non replies by a monstrous amount.
>In some ways Usenet follows the classic model of thesis, anitheis and
>hopefully synthesis. So making sure that people get articles that
>they wish to respond to is a key part of maximizing usenet's principal
>utility.
When people read Usenet, the greatest stimulus for the contribution
of new ideas is reading articles that interest them. Replies to
articles outnumber non-replies by a monstrous amount. In some ways,
Usenet follows the classic model of thesis, antithesis and hopefully
synthesis. So making sure that people get articles that they wish to
respond to is a key part of maximising the principal utility of
Usenet.
> Furthermore while the question of what someone finds
>interesting is a purely subjective, it is not a difficult propersion
>to support that those with simmer interests will cluster around
>the same newsgroup. And while the edges of any topic are fuzzy there
>is more or less a sense of what the subject of a particular newsgroup
>is.
Furthermore; while the question of what someone finds interesting is
purely subjective, it is not a difficult to support a proposition that
those with similar interests will cluster around the same newsgroup.
And while the edges of any topic are fuzzy, there is more or less a
sense of what the subject of a particular newsgroup is.
> In much the same way links between peers have a limited
>bandwidth, people have a limited bandwidth as well. People have a
>time period in which they read Usenet and respond to articles. If a
>newsgroup doesn't fulfill there needs within this period its more
>then likely that they will leave it. If they can't find any newsgroup
>that fulfills there interest its most likely that they will leave
>Usenet for web forums and other such competing media. And each lost
>person is a whole host of ideas and new ways of thinking about an
>issue lost from Usenet.
In much the same way that NNTP links between news-peers have a
limited bandwidth, people have a limited bandwidth as well. People
have a time period in which they read Usenet and respond to articles.
If a newsgroup doesn't fulfill their needs within this period, it's
more than likely that they will leave it. If they can't find any
newsgroup that fulfills their their interest, it's most likely that
they will leave Usenet for Web fora and other such competing media.
And each lost person is a whole host of ideas and new ways of thinking
about an issue lost to Usenet.
> While some of this is natural, and there is no way any of us
>can make everyone like Usenet there are some forms of behavior that
>are directly contributing to this problem. Broadly these are issues
>that we have classified as "Abuse on Usenet" and have for the most
>part tossed into the too hard basket.
While some of this is natural, and there is no way that any of us can
make everyone like Usenet, there are some forms of behaviour that are
directly contributing to this problem. Broadly, these are issues that
we have classified as "Abuse ON Usenet", and have, for the most part,
tossed into the "Too hard" basket.
> The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have
>always been a part of Usenet and should always be a part of Usenet.
>I don't have any problem with that, however when it reaches the Laval
>of newsgroup invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing
>Usenet quirk and becomes a destructive element.
The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have always been
part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
becomes a destructive element.
> Further more this behavior directly discourages a diversity of
>views by both forcing of those who are not "Usenet warriors" and also
>since the abuse often targets minority interests it acts as a form of
>censorship.
Furthermore, this behaviour directly discourages a diversity of views;
both by forcing out those who are not "Usenet Warriors", and since the
abuse often targets minority interests, it acts as a form of
censorship.
> However the tools we suggest to deal with this I feel are
>inadequate. Ignoring it is next to impossable when the noise is
>overwhelming majority of the content. Killfiles while effective for
>the skilled Usenet user often are a poor solution for naive users.
>Also there is a tendency for AofUer's to deliberately morph to avoid
>them.
However, I feel that the tools we suggest people use to deal with
this are inadequate. Ignoring it is next to impossible when the noise
is the overwhelming majority of the content. Killfiles - while
effective for a skilled Usenet user - often are a poor solution to
naive users. Also, there is a tendancy for abusers to deliberately
morph to avoid them.
> Furthermore this unfairly blames the victim while not
>requiring the abusers to moderate there behavior. When Usenet was
>dominated by the academic sector other restraints both social and
>administer could be applied to people who where overly disruptive,
>however we need to find new ways to contain these behaviors to
>where it no longer is a negative impact on Usenet's core utility.
Furthermore, this unfairly blames the victim, while not requiring the
abusers to moderate their behaviour. When Usenet was dominated by the
academic sector, other restraints - both social and administrative -
could be applied to to people who were overly disruptive. Now,
however, we need to find new ways to contain these behaviours so that
they are no longer negatively impact on the core utility of Usenet.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
the BowTard
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for the great post. :)
*yep!* for sure!
[...]
> Furthermore, this unfairly blames the victim, while not requiring the
> abusers to moderate their behaviour. When Usenet was dominated by the
> academic sector, other restraints - both social and administrative -
> could be applied to to people who were overly disruptive. Now,
> however, we need to find new ways to contain these behaviours so that
> they are no longer negatively impact on the core utility of Usenet.
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
do you believe there is a need to contain behavior Lionel?
if so, how would you suggest we accomplish it?
da BowTard
--
Usenet has a seat for everyone
Lionel
<bowtieATbri...@giganews.com> opined:
>"Lionel" <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote
>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> Thanks for the great post. :)
>
>*yep!* for sure!
>
>[...]
>> Furthermore, this unfairly blames the victim, while not requiring the
>> abusers to moderate their behaviour. When Usenet was dominated by the
>> academic sector, other restraints - both social and administrative -
>> could be applied to to people who were overly disruptive. Now,
>> however, we need to find new ways to contain these behaviours so that
>> they are no longer negatively impact on the core utility of Usenet.
>
>do you believe there is a need to contain behavior Lionel?
>
>if so, how would you suggest we accomplish it?
Let us all know when you've sworn to cease your various forms of
net-abuse & real-world harasssment, Steve, then maybe I'll be willing
to talk to you.
Lionel
Hi David,
Thanks for the great post. :)
I hope I'm not causing any offence by doing this, but I've taken the
liberty of editing your excellent post for clarity. I have
interspersed your original text with my interpretation of it, so as to
make it as easy as possible to see if I've made any errors:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:52:43 +0000 (UTC), "David Formosa (aka ? the
Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> opined:
> It is my firm and heartfelt belief that the fundamental
>utility of Usenet is to act as a conduit for ideas. My reading of
>Russ Allbery's rant confirms that belief. Indeed I know that I'm not
>the only one who feels this way as it has been expressed directly by a
>great number of Usenet personalities who I respect.
It is my firm and heartfelt belief that the fundamental utility of
Usenet is to act as a conduit for ideas. My reading of Russ Allbery's
rant confirms that belief. Indeed, I know that I'm not the only one
who feels this way, as it has been expressed directly by a great
number of Usenet personalities who I respect.
> Furthermore this view directly under pins our understanding of
>the nature of abuse of Usenet. In this frame work content based
>canceling is considered against the principals of Usenet because it
>directly removes ideas from Usenet.
Furthermore, this view directly underpins our understanding of the
nature of Usenet net-abuse. In this framework, content-based canceling
is considered to be against the principles of Usenet, because it
directly removes ideas from Usenet.
> Likewise spam being a set of substantially identical
>articles (and hence carrying exactly the same idea) removes other
>ideas by pushing them off the spool and so works against Usenet's
>fundamental utility.
Likewise spam being a set of substantially identical articles (and
hence carrying exactly the same idea) removes other ideas by pushing
them off the spool, and so works against the fundamental utility of
Usenet.
> In this frame spew as generated by malfunctioning gateways, or
>abuse boats like hipcrimes is also clearly abuse of Usenet because they
>push idea rich articles and replace them with articles that carry no
>meaning.
In this context, spew generated by malfunctioning gateways, or
abuse-bots like Hipcrime's, is also clearly abuse of Usenet because
they push out idea-rich articles and replace them with articles that
carry no meaning.
> We have been incredibly successful in containing and
>restraining spam, in the most of the newsgroups I read spam is so
>uncommon that it is no longer a concern. With an objective definition
>of what spam is, technological means to control it and consent
>vigilance against abusive parties we have a powerful and effective
>means to control it.
We have been incredibly successful at containing and restraining
Usenet spam, in that (for most newsgroups I read) spam is so uncommon
that it is no longer a concern. With an objective definition of what
spam is, technological means to control it, and constant vigilance
against abusive parties, we have a powerful and effective means to
control it.
> However Abuse of Usenet is not the only thing that is reducing
>Usenet's fundamental utility. And this is what I wish to address. I
>acknowledge that this is going to be controversial, and is going to with
>justification draw protests however I think it needs to be discussed.
>Also I know this is going to be distorted and misrepresented by
>parties so I will say this before I continue, I do not in any way
>advocate, support, or condone the use of content based 3RD party
>cancels And In general I don't advocate, support or condone the use of
>any technological method that prevents the distribution of ideas
>without the consent of the involved parties.
However, abuse of Usenet is not the only thing that is reducing the
fundamental utility of Usenet, and this is what I wish to address.
I acknowledge that this is going to be controversial, and will, with
justification, draw protests - however, I think it needs to be
discussed. I also know that this is going to be distorted be various
parties, so before I continue, I will say that I do not in any way
advocate, support, or condone the use of content-based 3rd party
cancels. And in general, I don't advocate, support or condone the use
of any technological method that prevents the distribution of ideas
without the consent of the involved parties.
> When people read Usenet the greatest stimulus for the
>contribution of new ideas is reading articles that interest them.
>Replies to articles outnumber non replies by a monstrous amount.
>In some ways Usenet follows the classic model of thesis, anitheis and
>hopefully synthesis. So making sure that people get articles that
>they wish to respond to is a key part of maximizing usenet's principal
>utility.
When people read Usenet, the greatest stimulus for the contribution
of new ideas is reading articles that interest them. Replies to
articles outnumber non-replies by a monstrous amount. In some ways,
Usenet follows the classic model of thesis, antithesis and hopefully
synthesis. So making sure that people get articles that they wish to
respond to is a key part of maximising the principal utility of
Usenet.
> Furthermore while the question of what someone finds
>interesting is a purely subjective, it is not a difficult propersion
>to support that those with simmer interests will cluster around
>the same newsgroup. And while the edges of any topic are fuzzy there
>is more or less a sense of what the subject of a particular newsgroup
>is.
Furthermore; while the question of what someone finds interesting is
purely subjective, it is not a difficult to support a proposition that
those with similar interests will cluster around the same newsgroup.
And while the edges of any topic are fuzzy, there is more or less a
sense of what the subject of a particular newsgroup is.
> In much the same way links between peers have a limited
>bandwidth, people have a limited bandwidth as well. People have a
>time period in which they read Usenet and respond to articles. If a
>newsgroup doesn't fulfill there needs within this period its more
>then likely that they will leave it. If they can't find any newsgroup
>that fulfills there interest its most likely that they will leave
>Usenet for web forums and other such competing media. And each lost
>person is a whole host of ideas and new ways of thinking about an
>issue lost from Usenet.
In much the same way that NNTP links between news-peers have a
limited bandwidth, people have a limited bandwidth as well. People
have a time period in which they read Usenet and respond to articles.
If a newsgroup doesn't fulfill their needs within this period, it's
more than likely that they will leave it. If they can't find any
newsgroup that fulfills their their interest, it's most likely that
they will leave Usenet for Web fora and other such competing media.
And each lost person is a whole host of ideas and new ways of thinking
about an issue lost to Usenet.
> While some of this is natural, and there is no way any of us
>can make everyone like Usenet there are some forms of behavior that
>are directly contributing to this problem. Broadly these are issues
>that we have classified as "Abuse on Usenet" and have for the most
>part tossed into the too hard basket.
While some of this is natural, and there is no way that any of us can
make everyone like Usenet, there are some forms of behaviour that are
directly contributing to this problem. Broadly, these are issues that
we have classified as "Abuse ON Usenet", and have, for the most part,
tossed into the "Too hard" basket.
> The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have
>always been a part of Usenet and should always be a part of Usenet.
>I don't have any problem with that, however when it reaches the Laval
>of newsgroup invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing
>Usenet quirk and becomes a destructive element.
The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have always been
part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
becomes a destructive element.
> Further more this behavior directly discourages a diversity of
>views by both forcing of those who are not "Usenet warriors" and also
>since the abuse often targets minority interests it acts as a form of
>censorship.
Furthermore, this behaviour directly discourages a diversity of views;
both by forcing out those who are not "Usenet Warriors", and since the
abuse often targets minority interests, it acts as a form of
censorship.
> However the tools we suggest to deal with this I feel are
>inadequate. Ignoring it is next to impossable when the noise is
>overwhelming majority of the content. Killfiles while effective for
>the skilled Usenet user often are a poor solution for naive users.
>Also there is a tendency for AofUer's to deliberately morph to avoid
>them.
However, I feel that the tools we suggest people use to deal with
this are inadequate. Ignoring it is next to impossible when the noise
is the overwhelming majority of the content. Killfiles - while
effective for a skilled Usenet user - often are a poor solution to
naive users. Also, there is a tendancy for abusers to deliberately
morph to avoid them.
> Furthermore this unfairly blames the victim while not
>requiring the abusers to moderate there behavior. When Usenet was
>dominated by the academic sector other restraints both social and
>administer could be applied to people who where overly disruptive,
>however we need to find new ways to contain these behaviors to
>where it no longer is a negative impact on Usenet's core utility.
Furthermore, this unfairly blames the victim, while not requiring the
abusers to moderate their behaviour. When Usenet was dominated by the
academic sector, other restraints - both social and administrative -
could be applied to to people who were overly disruptive. Now,
however, we need to find new ways to contain these behaviours so that
they are no longer negatively impact on the core utility of Usenet.
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>
> Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have always been
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
> it (using NewsAgent) he's a criminal and net-abuser. When a group of
> self-appointed zealots do it, they're the "riot police of Usenet." This is
> the double standard that, IMO, was the catalyst for the creation of
> NewsAgent and is the catalyst for the HipClones.
Hi Saur ...
You have hit the nail on head, and clearly stated the reason why
my NewsAgent was written, supplied as open source, and released
to the general netizen public. Thanks for pointing it out in such
a well censored forum as News.Admin.Net-Abuse.Policy.
Of course, Tim Skirvin will cancel this article, so let us play a
little game of Bot.vs.Bot and see if his can cancel faster than mine
can repost.
... HipCrime
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
Tim Skirvin
>> The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have always been
>> part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>> problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>> invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>> becomes a destructive element.
> That's a perfect description of what AUKers do.
Ehh... yes and no. The AUK crowd does, at time, post content.
The problem is that this is the exception, and not the rule; but still,
how best to handle it?
Give me a metric, a rule, or a basic rule of thumb; give me some
vaguely objective way in which an objective, knowledgeble news admin can
say "this is abuse" versus "this is not", and I'd be in favor of doing
something about it. I don't know where to start, myself.
> This is the double standard that, IMO, was the catalyst for the creation
> of NewsAgent and is the catalyst for the HipClones.
There is no reason to fight NewsAgent itself; even if it were to
disappear from the face of the world today, a new version could be written
in an hour by a determined eight-year-old. The only things that
differentiate it from anything else out there are a) it's written with
abuse in mind, and b) there's no way of knowing that it's not doing
anything to your computer in the mean time.
It amazes me that generations of "hackers" spend their time acting
so proud that they can assume the persona of a person whose sole claim to
fame is writing an all-encompassing tool that has the functionality of a
half dozen lines of perl.
(And before I finish this post, let me state that I am very aware
of the differences in between the two parts. Should this message be
subject to the AUK regulations? If so, why? If not, why not?)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/nana/ news.admin.net-abuse.*
http://www.killfile.org/donations.html killfile.org donations
HipC...@hipcrime.com
>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>becomes a destructive element.
>
>
> it (using NewsAgent) he's a criminal and net-abuser. When a group of
> the double standard that, IMO, was the catalyst for the creation of
> NewsAgent and is the catalyst for the HipClones.
Hi Saur ...
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
Tim Skirvin
>> Give me a metric, a rule, or a basic rule of thumb; give me some vaguely
>> objective way in which an objective, knowledgeble news admin can say
>> "this is abuse" versus "this is not", and I'd be in favor of doing
>> something about it. I don't know where to start, myself.
> Is there any content in the post which contributes to the discussion, or is
> the post nothing more than flamage? Is the article cross-posted to totally
> irrelevant groups? The regulars in soc.men are pretty vulgar themselves, so
> it's not just the language used. IMO, the regulars in soc.men can be quite
> irrational, too. If the AUKers want to go in there and mock them, fine.
> But posting dozens of totally irrelevant articles and then cross-posting
> that vulgar nonsense to totally unrelated groups should be considered
> net-abuse.
> I never said it would be easy, Tim. What really disturbs me is the double
> standard. I also understand that once a news admin gets into the business
> of filtering posts, the whole issue of "whose values decide what's
> unjustifiable censorship and what isn't" makes it even murkier.
> As I've said, it's the double standard that disturbs me the most.
You see, I don't think that the double standard is really the
problem. I agree, it does exist; but the reason is simply that some times
of abuse are easier to spot and categorize than others. It's not a
difficult task to mail a news admin and say "four hundred posts have come
from your news server in the last fifteen minutes, and they're all
gibberish and posted from the same account; could you close that account,
please?" It's a lot harder to convince a news admin with "four hundred
posts have come from these ten news servers, including yours, over the
last few weeks, and they're all obvious attacks on the same three
newsgroups but not on this other one that they all have in common; could
you close those four accounts on your server and de-peer with the other
ones, please?"
Make me a metric, and I will use it to complain to news admins
when I see abuse.
And let me say that, at the core, I agree with David's post.
There are classes of abuse *on* the net that we should be fighting as
strongly and clearly as we have ever fought abuse *of* the net.
HipC...@hipcrime.com
<tedra@orologic.com>
X-Complaints茅o: ab...@orologic.com
X茅race: tedra.orologic.com 1148895842 182.240.91.121 (Mon, 01 May 2006 21:15:
21 GMT)
NNTP-Posting胖ate: Mon, 01 May 2006 21:15:21 GMT
Lines: 41
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 00:59:13 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.216.82.18
X-Trace: edtnps89 1146531553 207.216.82.18 (Mon, 01 May 2006 18:59:13 MDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 18:59:13 MDT
kind of slow dont you think
...AgentBot 3.3/32.846
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
HipC...@hipcrime.com
Tim Skirvin
> However the tools we suggest to deal with this I feel are
> inadequate. Ignoring it is next to impossable when the noise is
> overwhelming majority of the content. Killfiles while effective for
> the skilled Usenet user often are a poor solution for naive users.
> Also there is a tendency for AofUer's to deliberately morph to avoid
> them.
I wonder, what tools do you think would work best? My first
suggestion would probably be some kind of widespread block on messages
crossposted between groups X and Y, where a list of blocked groups would
be regularly updated and shared with any news server (or client) that
wanted to follow it. The tools aren't really there at the moment, unless
you count NoCeM...
(I wish I had the energy to bring back that experiment. *sigh*)
Rebecca Ore
> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>
>> You see, I don't think that the double standard is really the
>> problem
>
> There will be generation after generation of HipCrimers until you do see
> that the double standard *is* the issue. If the AUKers can do it with
> impunity, then so can everyone else.
I don't think the AUKers are doing it with impunity. When I was first
around the net.admin groups in 1997, the AUK crowd was taken more
seriously than it is now (Tim was sort of one of them). People who
were both news admins and flamers would wind someone up and then go
run into nanau and get other admins to take their side against those
they were winding up. People who should have known better were
baiting people who have proven since to have been stunningly fragile.
I think we understand more of that dynamic than we did. The problem
is that going after the AUK crowd draws on the same emotional loops
that going after someone for getting carried away in a crosspost does.
They can't see that they're doing anything disruptive like adding ten
times the noise to a group that the group loon or bore might be adding.
Both sides are pulled into high emotional energy events -- and
whacking people who don't understand why what they're doing breaks
groups more than it fixes them (with nanau as a prime example) leads
to them feeling persecuted and misunderstood (see the big news.groups
takedown of various members of auk for wanting a stalking support
group).
They don't have any respectable friends anymore, just that doing
something to them may be more disruptive in turn.
--
Rebecca Ore
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>
>> The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have always been
>> part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>> problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>> invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>> becomes a destructive element.
>
> That's a perfect description of what AUKers do.
The AUKers are one of the groups of people I have a concern with
regards to, however there not the only group that engages in this type
of behavour.
> When a lone crusader does
> it (using NewsAgent) he's a criminal and net-abuser. When a group of
> self-appointed zealots do it, they're the "riot police of Usenet."
At the moment while we have the mental tools to establish what
Hipcrime is doing is wrong, we don't yet have the tools to show what
the AUKers are doing is wrong. Unlike Abuse of the net we simply
don't have a sophisticated vocabulary to discuss Abuse on the Net.
The abuse newsgroups are regularly visted with people who view
any oppision to there point of view as some form of abuse. Currently
on .usenet there is a person who reports anyone who takes a view
opposite to his own on turkish history, in the past there have been
other's who follow this pattern. We need a tool to seperate these
type on basic exchange on ideas, and the group disrupting attacks that
have taken place.
We need a concensus that newsgroup disruption is wrong. I have a
rather optimistic belief that if a clear and convincing way to
establish the wrongness of newsgroup disruption that self policing
will diminish this problem signifigently.
> This is
> the double standard that, IMO, was the catalyst for the creation of
> NewsAgent and is the catalyst for the HipClones.
It may be have been a justification, however I feel that it is counter
productive and directly undermines the efforts to address this
concern. However I feel that these people are pure vandels who's
actions are directly opposed to the free distribution of ideas.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Lionel
opined:
> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>
>> You see, I don't think that the double standard is really the
>> problem
>
>There will be generation after generation of HipCrimers until you do see
>that the double standard *is* the issue. If the AUKers can do it with
>impunity, then so can everyone else.
WTF are you talking about? Hipcrime's program *FORGES* peoples' email
addresses to garbage posts, which is blatant abuse *of* the net.
AUKers do no such thing.
As for eliminating newsgroup invasions, etc, that's easy - just ban
crossposting between more than two groups.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel
opined:
> Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>
>> The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have always been
>> part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>> problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>> invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>> becomes a destructive element.
>
>That's a perfect description of what AUKers do. When a lone crusader does
>it (using NewsAgent) he's a criminal and net-abuser.
Yes, because (1) he forges peoples' email addresses, (2) supersedes
peoples' posts, & (3) cancels peoples' posts.
Kookologists do none of those things.
> When a group of
>self-appointed zealots do it, they're the "riot police of Usenet." This is
>the double standard that, IMO, was the catalyst for the creation of
>NewsAgent and is the catalyst for the HipClones.
Bull. Usenet spam canceling was the "catalyst for the creation of
NewsAgent".
Lionel
opined:
> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>
>> Give me a metric, a rule, or a basic rule of thumb; give me some vaguely
>> objective way in which an objective, knowledgeble news admin can say
>> "this is abuse" versus "this is not", and I'd be in favor of doing
>> something about it. I don't know where to start, myself.
>
>Is there any content in the post which contributes to the discussion, or is
>the post nothing more than flamage? Is the article cross-posted to totally
>irrelevant groups? The regulars in soc.men are pretty vulgar themselves, so
>it's not just the language used. IMO, the regulars in soc.men can be quite
>irrational, too. If the AUKers want to go in there and mock them, fine.
>But posting dozens of totally irrelevant articles and then cross-posting
>that vulgar nonsense to totally unrelated groups should be considered
>net-abuse.
Got any actual examples of this behaviour? Or are you perhaps
confusing actual Kookologists with other people (eg; alt.flame,
alt.snuh) who merely xpost to AUK a lot?
>I never said it would be easy, Tim. What really disturbs me is the double
>standard.
You still haven't shown that there *is* a "double standard".
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> writes:
>
>> However the tools we suggest to deal with this I feel are
>> inadequate. Ignoring it is next to impossable when the noise is
>> overwhelming majority of the content. Killfiles while effective for
>> the skilled Usenet user often are a poor solution for naive users.
>> Also there is a tendency for AofUer's to deliberately morph to avoid
>> them.
>
> I wonder, what tools do you think would work best?
I have a broad scope when it comes to tools. Not just covering
technology but other more social or philosphical mechanisms. For
example Formosa's law was quite effective at containing a certain class
of miss behavour.
One extreemly usefull thing would be some way to define exactly what the
class of Abuse on Usenet that we are trying to work reduce.
> My first
> suggestion would probably be some kind of widespread block on messages
> crossposted between groups X and Y, where a list of blocked groups would
> be regularly updated and shared with any news server (or client) that
> wanted to follow it. The tools aren't really there at the moment, unless
> you count NoCeM...
The NoCeM project had virtue, but it was unfortunitly didn't achive
its goals. However an automated mechnosim to move patterns around may
be more effective.
in...@softdivshareware.com
X-Complaints茅o: ab...@softdivshareware.com
X茅race: inigo.softdivshareware.com 1146519555 73.44.65.209 (Tue, 02 May 2006
18:50:58 GMT)
NNTP-Posting胖ate: Tue, 02 May 2006 18:50:58 GMT
Lines: 27
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 18:50:58 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.7.101.48
X-Complaints-To: ab...@cox.net
X-Trace: dukeread02 1146546000 68.7.101.48 (Tue, 02 May 2006 01:00:00 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 01:00:00 EDT
On Tue, 2 May 2006 04:53:38 +0000 (UTC), Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 May 2006 01:20:35 +0000 (UTC), saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com>
>opined:
>
>> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>>
>>> You see, I don't think that the double standard is really the
>>> problem
>>
>>There will be generation after generation of HipCrimers until you do see
>>that the double standard *is* the issue. If the AUKers can do it with
>>impunity, then so can everyone else.
>
>WTF are you talking about? Hipcrime's program *FORGES* peoples' email
>addresses to garbage posts, which is blatant abuse *of* the net.
>AUKers do no such thing.
>
>As for eliminating newsgroup invasions, etc, that's easy - just ban
>crossposting between more than two groups.
and the killfile.org program forges peoples email addresses also
n...@zj-fountain.com
X-Complaints茅o: ab...@zj-fountain.com
X茅race: nan.zj-fountain.com 1143253167 42.65.61.195 (Mon, 01 May 2006 22:15:2
3 GMT)
NNTP-Posting胖ate: Mon, 01 May 2006 22:15:23 GMT
Lines: 41
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 22:15:23 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.7.101.48
X-Complaints-To: ab...@cox.net
X-Trace: dukeread02 1146532329 68.7.101.48 (Mon, 01 May 2006 21:12:09 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 21:12:09 EDT
On Mon, 1 May 2006 20:52:48 GMT, HipC...@HipCrime.COM wrote:
>saur so bravely wrote:
>>
>> Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The normal background levels of flaming and trolling have always been
>>>part of Usenet and should always be part of Usenet. I don't have any
>>>problem with that, however, when it reaches the level of newsgroup
>>>invasions and flooding, it ceases being an amusing Usenet quirk, and
>>>becomes a destructive element.
>>
>>
>> That's a perfect description of what AUKers do. When a lone crusader does
>> it (using NewsAgent) he's a criminal and net-abuser. When a group of
>> self-appointed zealots do it, they're the "riot police of Usenet." This is
>> the double standard that, IMO, was the catalyst for the creation of
>> NewsAgent and is the catalyst for the HipClones.
>
>Hi Saur ...
>
>You have hit the nail on head, and clearly stated the reason why
>my NewsAgent was written, supplied as open source, and released
>to the general netizen public. Thanks for pointing it out in such
>a well censored forum as News.Admin.Net-Abuse.Policy.
>
>Of course, Tim Skirvin will cancel this article, so let us play a
>little game of Bot.vs.Bot and see if his can cancel faster than mine
>can repost.
>
> ... HipCrime
kind of slow dont you think
...AgentBot 3.3/32.846
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rasta Khan
> What we don't have are people (Tim, Lionel) willing to acknowledge
> that what the AUKers do is wrong and that there is, in fact, a double
> standard.
Don't you know that Lionel *is* an AUKer? And I don't mean a former AUKer,
like Tim is. Lionel is an active kookologist. He made several "kook"
nominations last month alone.
http://www.netcabal.com/auk/nominations_0406.html
Lionel is so admired by the other AUKers that they gave him their top
merit award last year, the Hammer of Thor.
http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=lionel
Now you see why he defends them? Check his posting history.
The description of "Hammer of Thor"
The Hammer of Thor is awarded to individuals for demonstrating
excellence in the practice of Net.Kookology - either for exceptional
kookological achievement in a single month, or in recognition of a
respectable degree of kookological achievement over the span of a
Kookologist's lifetime career.
Lionel
<ogoen...@verizon.net> opined:
>saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>>
>>> You see, I don't think that the double standard is really the
>>> problem
>>
>> There will be generation after generation of HipCrimers until you do see
>> that the double standard *is* the issue. If the AUKers can do it with
>> impunity, then so can everyone else.
>
>I don't think the AUKers are doing it with impunity. When I was first
>around the net.admin groups in 1997, the AUK crowd was taken more
>seriously than it is now (Tim was sort of one of them). People who
>were both news admins and flamers would wind someone up and then go
>run into nanau and get other admins to take their side against those
>they were winding up. People who should have known better were
>baiting people who have proven since to have been stunningly fragile.
Which is why we now invoke Formosa's law to protect truly screwed up,
harmless people. There are a number of loons who post regularly to AUK
who we simply ignore for that reason.
>I think we understand more of that dynamic than we did.
As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger; "Who's 'we', white man?"
> The problem
>is that going after the AUK crowd draws on the same emotional loops
>that going after someone for getting carried away in a crosspost does.
>They can't see that they're doing anything disruptive like adding ten
>times the noise to a group that the group loon or bore might be adding.
Really? It's obviously not occurred to you that your powers of
telepathy are imaginary.
>Both sides are pulled into high emotional energy events -- and
>whacking people who don't understand why what they're doing breaks
>groups more than it fixes them (with nanau as a prime example) leads
>to them feeling persecuted and misunderstood (see the big news.groups
>takedown of various members of auk for wanting a stalking support
>group).
Which was instigated by /you/, Rebecca, & involved a rather nasty
whispering campaign in which you made all sorts of unfounded
accusations against the proponents via email, & was, as I understand
it, motivated by your desire to get back at someone with whom you had
some personal history.
>They don't have any respectable friends anymore,
You don't count as 'respectable', Rebecca.
> just that doing
>something to them may be more disruptive in turn.
First, someone's going to have to figure out *how* to "do something"
to us.
Rasta Khan
news:5iqd525e3fo4j30g7...@4ax.com:
> Which is why we now invoke Formosa's law to protect truly screwed up,
> harmless people. There are a number of loons who post regularly to AUK
> who we simply ignore for that reason.
Formosa's Law was declared for Barbara Schwarz but plenty of AUKers still
poke her with sharp sticks, including but not limited to:
Bob Officer
Cujo DeSockpuppet
Gary Burnore
Kadaitcha Man
The Chief Instigator
Trippy
Most AUKers ignore Formosa rulings.
Rebecca Ore
> Which was instigated by /you/, Rebecca, & involved a rather nasty
> whispering campaign in which you made all sorts of unfounded
> accusations against the proponents via email, & was, as I understand
> it, motivated by your desire to get back at someone with whom you had
> some personal history.
Perhaps you should ask Russ why he opposed the group and how much I
had to do with it.
I believe he explained once to Sharon Burton.
--
Rebecca Ore
the BowTard
> On Mon, 1 May 2006 04:43:50 +0000 (UTC), the BowTard
> <bowtieATbri...@giganews.com> opined:
>>"Lionel" <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the great post. :)
>>*yep!* for sure!
>>
>>[...]
>>> Furthermore, this unfairly blames the victim, while not requiring the
>>> abusers to moderate their behaviour. When Usenet was dominated by the
>>> academic sector, other restraints - both social and administrative -
>>> could be applied to to people who were overly disruptive. Now,
>>> however, we need to find new ways to contain these behaviours so that
>>> they are no longer negatively impact on the core utility of Usenet.
>>
>>do you believe there is a need to contain behavior Lionel?
>>
>>if so, how would you suggest we accomplish it?
> Let us all know when you've sworn to cease your various forms of
> net-abuse & real-world harasssment, Steve, then maybe I'll be willing
> to talk to you.
Then live in your make believe world Lionel, along with the rest of the
AUKtards, because I can't stop doing something I'm not doing, nor can I speak
for those people. The best I can do is request that those causing the problem
possibly call a brief cease fire and enter negotiations to carve a truce. Are
you prepared to negotiate a truce?
da BowTard
--
Usenet has a seat for everyone
Lionel
opined:
>Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote in
>news:5iqd525e3fo4j30g7...@4ax.com:
>
>> Which is why we now invoke Formosa's law to protect truly screwed up,
>> harmless people. There are a number of loons who post regularly to AUK
>> who we simply ignore for that reason.
>
>Formosa's Law was declared for Barbara Schwarz but plenty of AUKers still
>poke her with sharp sticks,
<shrug>
None of us have the power (even if we wanted it) to force other group
reg's to behave in any particular way, all we can do is encourage
'good' behaviour via example, & peer pressure.
> including but not limited to:
>Bob Officer
>Cujo DeSockpuppet
>Gary Burnore
>Kadaitcha Man
>The Chief Instigator
>Trippy
>
>Most AUKers ignore Formosa rulings.
Bull. And as someone who:
(1) Forges emails from anyone on Usenet who pisses you off,
(2) Sends fake net-abuse complaints to your opponents' ISPs,
(3) Forges votes to any Usenet ballots you can find, such as your
infamous Big-8 group creation meltdown,
(4) Attacks your opponents in real life (eg; sending offensive
parcels)
(5) Uses Newsagent to flood groups with sporgeries,
(6) Mailbombs people,
(7) Signs people up to mailing lists,
(8) Floods groups with obscenity-filled forgeries/frogeries of your
opponents.
And every other variety of abuse [on/of] the net, you're in no
position to be talking about anyone else's behaviour, Steve.
Lionel
opined:
> Rasta Khan <ra...@kotm.biz> wrote:
>
>> Don't you know that Lionel *is* an AUKer? And I don't mean a former AUKer,
>> like Tim is. Lionel is an active kookologist. He made several "kook"
>> nominations last month alone.
>
>Yes, I know. The fact that Lionel is accepted here is the epitome of the
>double standard.
I'm still waiting to hear your explanation of this 'double-standard'
you keep on referring to, Saur.
>David Formosa is talking about suppressing the exchange of ideas by making
>newsgroups unusable. It does not matter if it's a single individual using
>NewsAgent or a group of self-appointed zealots flooding a newsgroup with
>vulgar nonsense. The end result is the same: serious posters can't find
>the signal amidst the noise and they leave the group.
>
>If it's not OK for HipClones to do it, then it's not OK for AUKers to do it.
* The Hipclones perform net-abuse, AUKers don't.
* Net-abuse is not permissable on Usenet, flaming people is.
Is that simple enough for you?
Lionel
opined:
>On Tue, 2 May 2006 04:53:38 +0000 (UTC), Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
[...]
>>WTF are you talking about? Hipcrime's program *FORGES* peoples' email
>>addresses to garbage posts, which is blatant abuse *of* the net.
>>AUKers do no such thing.
>>
>>As for eliminating newsgroup invasions, etc, that's easy - just ban
>>crossposting between more than two groups.
>
>and the killfile.org program forges peoples email addresses also
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by that. Could you please
explain?
Lionel
opined:
>saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in news:125e8u1...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> What we don't have are people (Tim, Lionel) willing to acknowledge
>> that what the AUKers do is wrong and that there is, in fact, a double
>> standard.
>
>Don't you know that Lionel *is* an AUKer? And I don't mean a former AUKer,
>like Tim is. Lionel is an active kookologist. He made several "kook"
>nominations last month alone.
Well, duh.
Is there anyone on Usenet who /doesn't/ know I'm a Kookologist,
Bowtard?
<sarcasm> Nice detective work, Sherlock.</sarcasm>
>http://www.netcabal.com/auk/nominations_0406.html
>
>Lionel is so admired by the other AUKers that they gave him their top
>merit award last year, the Hammer of Thor.
<blushes> Yes, I admit it. ;)
>http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.php?search=lionel
>
>Now you see why he defends them? Check his posting history.
>
>The description of "Hammer of Thor"
>
>The Hammer of Thor is awarded to individuals for demonstrating
>excellence in the practice of Net.Kookology - either for exceptional
>kookological achievement in a single month, or in recognition of a
>respectable degree of kookological achievement over the span of a
>Kookologist's lifetime career.
Although in this case, I was mostly awarded it for my success in
blowing your cover in news.groups, etc, as well as tricking you into
revealing your own sock-puppets, Steve. ;)
Peter da Silva
>What we don't have are people (Tim, Lionel) willing to acknowledge that what
>the AUKers do is wrong and that there is, in fact, a double standard.
I think you're mixing up "willing to acknowledge that X is wrong" and "able
to figure out how do something about X".
If Tim and Lionel were acting to prevent other troll cliques from trolling
but letting AUK get away with it, that would be a "double standard". If that's
not happening, then calling it a "double standard" is simply trolling. And,
by the way, they don't seem to be acting to prevent you from doing that.
--
Rev. Peter da Silva, ULC. 29.6852N 95.5770W WWFD?
Our goal must be to take the profit out of war and put more profit into peace.
-- Richard Nixon, "Real Peace", 1983
Tim Skirvin
> As for eliminating newsgroup invasions, etc, that's easy - just ban
> crossposting between more than two groups.
I don't think that would work. I also think that it would be a
bad idea in general, but I figure that "won't work" is a better argument.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://tskirvin.livejournal.com/ Skirv's LiveJournal
Tim Skirvin
> What we don't have are people (Tim, Lionel) willing to acknowledge that
> what the AUKers do is wrong
Many things that AUK'ers do are wrong. Off the top of my head, the
cascading is outright abusive (both in the "on-the-net" and "of-the-net"
standards), and the newsgroup invasions are despicable. I long ago set up
my newsreader to ignore anything crossposted to AUK, and I haven't
regretted it.
I am unwilling to condemn AUK as a whole.
> and that there is, in fact, a double standard.
I still don't see exactly what you're referring to here, and wish
that you would clarify.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/cows/ Skirv's Cows
Tim Skirvin
>> I don't think the AUKers are doing it with impunity. When I was first
>> around the net.admin groups in 1997, the AUK crowd was taken more
>> seriously than it is now (Tim was sort of one of them).
> There's the epitome of the double standard.
What is?
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/ The Killfile Dungeon
Lionel
<tski...@killfile.org> opined:
>Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> writes:
>
>> As for eliminating newsgroup invasions, etc, that's easy - just ban
>> crossposting between more than two groups.
>
> I don't think that would work. I also think that it would be a
>bad idea in general,
Why? I've floated this solution before when people have been bitching
about newsgroup invasions, but every explanation I've heard so far has
come under the umbrella of 'tradition', & all of them put together
pale beside the benefit to Usenet of eliminating newsgroup invasions,
& other 'trolling' techniques that rely on crossposting to amplify
their effect & create positive feedback loops.
> but I figure that "won't work" is a better argument.
Only if you can come up with a rational explanation for why it "won't
work". ;)
Technical, social or political?
I'm not aware of any technical reason why Usenet relies on people
having the ability to xpost to as many groups as they like, & I'd be
most impressed if you can come up with one.
Tim Skirvin
>>> As for eliminating newsgroup invasions, etc, that's easy - just ban
>>> crossposting between more than two groups.
>> I don't think that would work. I also think that it would be a
>> bad idea in general,
> Why?
Because the invaders would just start using two groups. Probably
rotating ones. The status-quo, where most of the stuff is at least
crossposted to a bunch of set stupid alt.* groups, is at least
filterable...
If you eliminate crossposting altogether, you might have something
that would solve 90% of the problem. But that last 10% would be *virulent*.
>> but I figure that "won't work" is a better argument.
> I'm not aware of any technical reason why Usenet relies on people
> having the ability to xpost to as many groups as they like, & I'd be
> most impressed if you can come up with one.
news.answers comes to mind. As does news.announce.newgroups, but
that may be a bit biased...
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
Moderator, much of news.admin.net-abuse.*
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/nana/ news.admin.net-abuse.*
http://www.killfile.org/donations.html killfile.org donations
Lionel
<tski...@killfile.org> opined:
>saur <sa...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>> What we don't have are people (Tim, Lionel) willing to acknowledge that
>> what the AUKers do is wrong
>
> Many things that AUK'ers do are wrong. Off the top of my head, the
>cascading is outright abusive (both in the "on-the-net" and "of-the-net"
>standards),
If you actually read AUK, you'd be aware that we rarely cascade, &
when we do, they're rarely longer than one or two dozen posts long.
If you want to see abusive cascading, read alt.snuh or alt.flame for a
few weeks, then compare it to the contents of AUK that *aren't*
xposted from one of the above groups.
> and the newsgroup invasions are despicable.
I also dislike them, but like it or not, they're a standard Usenet
tactic, & if you think that AUK reg's are the only people who
participate in them, your view of Usenet is very sheltered indeed.
> I long ago set up
>my newsreader to ignore anything crossposted to AUK, and I haven't
>regretted it.
Want to know how to irritate the hell out of me? - Tell the world that
you've kill-filed an entire group, then proceed to lecture the group
reg's about their terrible behaviour - that you've just told us you
never actually see.
If you're going to judge people, don't you feel at all obligated to
actually *witness* the behaviour for which you're condemning them?
Both the behaviours you've described above are a relatively small
proportion of the Kookological arsenal, & if you could somehow prevent
AUK reg's from applying them (eg; by blocking xposts that include
AUK), it'd have no noticeable impact on the overall prevalence of
cascading or newsgroup invasions.
And just for the record, nothing would make me happier than some
unbiased method for preventing newsgroup invasions.
> I am unwilling to condemn AUK as a whole.
Well, that's something, I guess.
>> and that there is, in fact, a double standard.
>
> I still don't see exactly what you're referring to here, and wish
>that you would clarify.
Same here. ;)
Tim Skirvin
> The net gurus were smart enough to design a defense against spammers. I
> have every faith that the net gurus can properly sanction the AUKers (if
> the gurus wanted to).
There are no net gurus; there's just us.
It took many years to defeat spam on Usenet. In the early years it
worked based on complaints to the news providers, and the accounts were
shut down. Then came the spam cancellers, that went after the messages
themselves; it took a little while to get them established, as well as
some level of consensus on how they operated and some established rules
determining what they were fighting. Some people attempted to extend the
tools to be more suitable in the long-term; the resulting NoCeM project
was a failure, but it came at the same time as a combination of the UDP
and the implementation of cleanfeed-esque spam filters on the server end.
The former was made possible through the political efforts of years of
spam cancelling, and the latter was made possible by having the rules
hammered down enough to start writing programmatic filters that would work
at the server level.
I believe that fighting the newsgroup-invasion type of abuse
hasn't even reached the first stage yet. Until it becomes possible to
complain about abusers and get them shut down - in other words, until the
problem is *recognized* by the news admins of the world - there's not
going to be the political capital to start in on the small-scale technical
solutions or especially the desired server-scale technical solutions.
In this stage, all I can offer is my support. Newsgroup invasions
are hurting Usenet; I would be happier if they were stopped.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://tskirvin.livejournal.com/ Skirv's LiveJournal
Tim Skirvin
>>> What we don't have are people (Tim, Lionel) willing to acknowledge that
>>> what the AUKers do is wrong
>> Many things that AUK'ers do are wrong. Off the top of my head, the
>> cascading is outright abusive (both in the "on-the-net" and "of-the-net"
>> standards),
> If you actually read AUK, you'd be aware that we rarely cascade, &
> when we do, they're rarely longer than one or two dozen posts long.
I see it enough, though, in the content that is crossposted out
of AUK. And it only takes a cascade a dozen messages long to be BI 20
cancellable spam, if it's crossposted to three groups.
> If you're going to judge people, don't you feel at all obligated to
> actually *witness* the behaviour for which you're condemning them?
Lionel, I *have*. I still check in on the group periodically; I'm
not a regular by any means, but I have been a regular in the past, and I
have read the group irregularly for years.
Is all of AUK abusive? No, of course not, and I've been trying
to make a point of that. But when it comes down to it, the group that *I*
see the most abuse out of is AUK. And it irks me every time I see a "shut
up, BowTie" cascade, or another rant about Gary Burnore, or somebody
coming by news.groups looking to moderate their group to keep out the AUK
crowd...
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/pics/ Skirv's Pictures
Lionel
<tski...@killfile.org> opined:
>Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> writes:
>
>>>> As for eliminating newsgroup invasions, etc, that's easy - just ban
>>>> crossposting between more than two groups.
>
>>> I don't think that would work. I also think that it would be a
>>> bad idea in general,
>
>> Why?
>
> Because the invaders would just start using two groups. Probably
>rotating ones.
Undoubtedly. But it'd kill most 'invasions' stone dead by massively
increasing the amount of work a wannabe 'invader' needs to perform to
make it work. Newsgroup invasions are normally achieved by xposting
between the invader's 'home' group, several other noisy groups that
have already been successfully 'invaded', & the target group[s]. They
greatly rely on the cluebies in the target groups to contribute to the
other invasions with their responses to the crossposted catalyst posts
from the invaders, & cooperation from their fellow invaders in adding
the new target group to their own xposts. As I said earlier in the
thread, a newsgroup invasion *requires* a positive feedback loop to
work, & massive group-lines provide the neccessary amplification
stage.
A good analogy in networking is the infamous Smurf attack, which
relies on transmitting small packets to a group of vulnerable hosts, &
using them as an amplifier to generate a cascade of packets directed
at the /real/ target.
> The status-quo, where most of the stuff is at least
>crossposted to a bunch of set stupid alt.* groups, is at least
>filterable...
Sure, as long as you don't mind constantly tracking which groups are
'generating' the xposts, keeping your filters updated, & informing
your users of the changes. Of course, if any significant number of
news servers actually used that method, 'invaders' would simply cycle
through groups, coordinating via a non-Usenet back-channel if
neccessary, because their 'home group' is simply another entry in
their newsgroups header.
> If you eliminate crossposting altogether, you might have something
>that would solve 90% of the problem. But that last 10% would be *virulent*.
>
>>> but I figure that "won't work" is a better argument.
>
>> I'm not aware of any technical reason why Usenet relies on people
>> having the ability to xpost to as many groups as they like, & I'd be
>> most impressed if you can come up with one.
>
> news.answers comes to mind. As does news.announce.newgroups, but
>that may be a bit biased...
Neither of those are technical reasons.
Lionel
<tski...@killfile.org> opined:
>Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> writes:
>
>>>> What we don't have are people (Tim, Lionel) willing to acknowledge that
>>>> what the AUKers do is wrong
>
>>> Many things that AUK'ers do are wrong. Off the top of my head, the
>>> cascading is outright abusive (both in the "on-the-net" and "of-the-net"
>>> standards),
>
>> If you actually read AUK, you'd be aware that we rarely cascade, &
>> when we do, they're rarely longer than one or two dozen posts long.
>
> I see it enough, though, in the content that is crossposted out
>of AUK.
In other words, you see the most abusive posts that include
alt.usenet.kooks in the newsgroups header, & you assume that it was
posted by an AUK regular.
> And it only takes a cascade a dozen messages long to be BI 20
>cancellable spam, if it's crossposted to three groups.
<shrug> So work towards a consensus that cascading is cancellable
spam. I think that cascading is one of the lamest, most pointless
possible Usenet activities, & I'd be perfectly happy to see them go
the way of the dodo. I also suspect that most of us would actually
weeps tears of joy at never having to create yet another killfile
entry to nuke the latest lame cascade from the morphing idiots in
alt.snuh.
>> If you're going to judge people, don't you feel at all obligated to
>> actually *witness* the behaviour for which you're condemning them?
>
> Lionel, I *have*. I still check in on the group periodically; I'm
>not a regular by any means, but I have been a regular in the past, and I
>have read the group irregularly for years.
Do you read it often enough to know which people actually *read it*,
rather than simply adding it to their newsgroups headers in the hope
that we'll help them disrupt /their/ target groups? Do you know which
reg's snip out newsgroups that are obviously invasion targets when
replying to xposts?
> Is all of AUK abusive? No, of course not, and I've been trying
>to make a point of that. But when it comes down to it, the group that *I*
>see the most abuse out of is AUK. And it irks me every time I see a "shut
>up, BowTie" cascade,
Which are in response to *forgeries* by Bowtie, where *he* has xposted
his forgeries of some poor sod to the group where *you're* seeing it,
& we are trying to make sure that people know that the posts are
forgeries.
> or another rant about Gary Burnore,
Then bitch to the nutbars doing the ranting, who xposted their rants
to AUK.
> or somebody
>coming by news.groups looking to moderate their group to keep out the AUK
>crowd...
Or the people they think are the AUK crowd, at least, because AUK is
just one of dozens of groups that gets included in xposted
trolls/invasions.
Lionel
opined:
> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>
>> Is all of AUK abusive? No, of course not, and I've been trying
>> to make a point of that. But when it comes down to it, the group that *I*
>> see the most abuse out of is AUK. And it irks me every time I see a "shut
>> up, BowTie" cascade, or another rant about Gary Burnore, or somebody
>> coming by news.groups looking to moderate their group to keep out the AUK
>> crowd...
>
>Thank you, Tim. For such a heavily censored newsgroup (not my description)
>we've certainly had a lively and free exchange of opinions the last couple
>of days. It's even been civil so far (*throws Holy water around*).
>
>I don't expect anything to be done about the AUKers.
Poor baby...
<hands Saur a Kleenex>
> All I wanted to do was
>point out that there is zero tolerance for certain net abusers while other
>net abusers seem to have become an accepted part of the institution.
You are *still* failing to understand what net-abuse is. AUK is "an
accepted part of the institution" because we /aren't net-abusers/.
If you are so very convinced that I am wrong about that, there's
nothing stopping you* from reporting each AUK post that you imagine to
be abusive of the net to that poster's news provider or ISP.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
> I also dislike them, but like it or not, they're a standard Usenet
> tactic, & if you think that AUK reg's are the only people who
> participate in them, your view of Usenet is very sheltered indeed.
I think that the prime point I'm trying to make is that usenet
invasions are hurting usenet as a whole and its time that they are no
longer considered a standard Usenet tactic. My focus is not against
group X or subcomunity Y, its against behavour Z and tactic A.
[...]
> And just for the record, nothing would make me happier than some
> unbiased method for preventing newsgroup invasions.
At the moment I'd be happy for a wide ranging consensus that invasions
are wrong. A cherry on top would be if adding groups to crossposts
was also placed in that category.
[...]
>> I still don't see exactly what you're referring to here, and wish
>>that you would clarify.
>
> Same here. ;)
I'm beginning to think that the double standard thing is a red herring
and its not worth serious consideration. Lets try not to get bogged
down in a blame game and try to keep focused on dealing with the
problem at hand.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
Lionel
opined:
> Tim Skirvin <tski...@killfile.org> wrote:
>
>> Many things that AUK'ers do are wrong. Off the top of my head, the
>> cascading is outright abusive (both in the "on-the-net" and "of-the-net"
>> standards), and the newsgroup invasions are despicable.
>
>Agreed, their tactics constitute net abuse.
They do? You're subscribed to AUK, are you, and are speaking from
personal experience when you claim that all of us who post in
alt.usenet.kooks are net-abusers?
>> I long ago set up my newsreader to ignore anything crossposted to AUK, and
>> I haven't regretted it.
>
>In Dialog, it's: !delete Header {alt.usenet.kooks}
>
>> I am unwilling to condemn AUK as a whole.
>
>I condemn their tactics not their existence.
Who is 'they' exactly? Name some of these AUK'ers that you're so sure
are net-abusers, & explain what net-abuse they've committed.
>> I still don't see exactly what you're referring to here, and wish
>> that you would clarify.
>
>Action is taken against the HipClones and their handiwork.
Action is usually taken against them when they commit net-abuse.
> Action is taken
>against spammers and their handiwork.
Action is usually taken against them when they commit net-abuse.
> What actions are taken against AUKers
>and their handiwork?
Action is usually taken against them when they commit net-abuse.
What's your point? Please tell me you don't really think that AUK
reg's have some sort of magic amulet that prevents them from being
reported to their provider if they commit net-abuse?
±
>
> On Tue, 2 May 2006, saur wrote:
<< If the AUKers want to go in there and mock them, fine. But posting
dozens of totally irrelevant articles and then cross-posting that vulgar
nonsense to totally unrelated groups should be considered net-abuse.>>
<Got any actual examples of this behaviour?>
I do.
<Or are you perhaps confusing actual Kookologists with other people (eg;
alt.flame, alt.snuh) who merely xpost to AUK a lot?>
Here's the numbers:
Statistics: Messages per Day (12/09/04 - 18/09/04)
alt.usenet.kooks
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
768 820 945 802 850 1250 1500 = 6935
----------
alt.flame:
Results 1 - 10 of 925 from Sep 12, 2004 to Sep 18, 2004 for group:
alt.flame
----------
Statistics: Messages per Day (19/09/04 - 25/09/04)
alt.usenet.kooks
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1012 1032 982 998 1130 1008 1234 = 6162
----------
alt.flame:
Results 1 - 10 of 473 from Sep 19, 2004 to Sep 25, 2004 for group:
alt.flame
----------
Statistics: Messages per Day (05/09/04 - 11/09/04)
alt.usenet.kooks
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
780 696 867 1075 1207 883 1135 = 6643
----------
alt.flame: Results 1 - 10 of 989 from Sep 5, 2004 to Sep 11, 2004 for
group: alt.flame
----------
+++
----------
There's only 5 non-AUKers in this sample of 50 posters:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/f6ec64e0da233f88?dmode=sou
rce&hl=en
From: "Alcatroll Labs Inc." <alcatr...@NOSPAMinsurgent.org>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: AUK Statistics / Week Ending 11 Sep 04
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 12:16:36 GMT
Message-ID: <ci1i7j.3...@nntp.petitmorte.net>
alt.usenet.kooks
6643 100.00% (probe count)
764 11.50% "yyyiiinnnggg" <yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com>
493 7.42% "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null>
303 4.56% "Dr. Flonkenstein" <a...@localhost.localdomain>
235 3.54% Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com>
182 2.74% Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org>
134 2.02% Daedalus <j...@net-kooks.org>
124 1.87% Happy Troll <j...@small.troll>
119 1.79% Sovereign Sockpuppet© <so.ve.re.i...@so.ck.pu.pp.et>
111 1.67% raspberry strawberry and kiwi <y...@nospam.net>
109 1.64% "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgori...@pobox.alaska.net>
99 1.49% go@fish (Vicar Peter Parsnip)
93 1.40% DrPostman <L...@mysig.foremail>
93 1.40% "Bookman" <thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL>
90 1.35% ± <h0plibbb_o...@hotmail.com>
77 1.16% Barbara's Cat <net_...@NOSPAMnet-kooks.org>
76 1.14% Lady Chatterly <g...@dev.null>
76 1.14% ah <h...@verhizn.net>
74 1.11% "Roofshadow \"Courthouse Bozopalooza\" Jackson"
<Roofshadow2...@removespamtrap.yahoo.com>
71 1.07% tho...@antispam.ham
69 1.04% Qasim <q...@spamhotmail.com>
65 0.98% yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com
61 0.92% red dust <o...@nospam.net>
56 0.84% Lady Chatterly <@dev.null>
55 0.83% Chas Kader <c...@boo.gnu.shoo>
55 0.83% "yyyiiinnnggg" <yyyiinn...@yohoo.com>
51 0.77% Homerun Frogbutt <f...@buh.shit.org>
47 0.71% Cujo DeSockpuppet <c...@petitmorte.net>
47 0.71% John Henry <j...@inNOSPAMsurgent.orgy>
46 0.69% "Wally Anglesea" <wangl...@spbigpondammersarevermin.net.au>
42 0.63% yang <y...@nospam.net>
38 0.57% YRT <Y...@nospam.net>
38 0.57% "ExtremeOne, HNIC!" <theextreme...@theHNIC.net>
37 0.56% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.dev.null>
37 0.56% Barbara's Cat <c...@127.0.0.1>
36 0.54% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.invalid.net>
36 0.54% "Dick Hertz (Hey, who's Dick Hertz?)" <m...@example.com>
36 0.54% Phoenix <rbwat...@databasix.com>
36 0.54% "|-|erc" <g...@beauty.com>
34 0.51% Kali <K...@nope.not>
34 0.51% "Bill Cleere" <bcle...@philipkdick.com>
34 0.51% Cameron Drysdale <.@.>
33 0.50% "Mr.Extreme" <extreme...@theHNIC.net>
33 0.50% Lady Chatterly <s...@dev.null>
32 0.48% BostonBlackie© <boston.blac...@verizonNOSPAM.net>
30 0.45% "Sovereign Sockpuppet©" <so.ve.re.i...@so.ck.pu.pp.et>
28 0.42% "Meat-->Plow" <M...@petitmorte.net>
27 0.41% "Volfie" <vol...@ccrtc.com>
27 0.41% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.net>
27 0.41% edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_fh...@yahoo.com>
27 0.41% "C-Fresh" <mas...@mason.snuh>
26 0.39% "ExtremeOne" <extreme...@theHNIC.net>
----------
11 non-AUKers out of top 50 posters:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/764f36524ddf042c?dmode=sou
rce&hl=en
From: Alcatroll Labs Inc. <alcatr...@NOSPAMinsurgent.org>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: AUK Statistics / week ending 02 Apr 2005
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:47:42 +0100
Message-ID: <slrnd5d2r...@nntp.petitmorte.net>
1) Art Deco..................................................: 374
74.8 11.5%
2) CCC.......................................................: 267
53.4 8.2%
3) Dr. Flonkenstein..........................................: 182
36.4 5.6%
4) Aratzio...................................................: 122
24.4 3.7%
5) ah........................................................: 111
22.2 3.4%
6) Kali......................................................: 106
21.2 3.3%
7) ±.........................................................: 73
14.6 2.2%
8) Peter J Ross..............................................: 72
14.4 2.2%
9) Chadwick Stone©...........................................: 62
12.4 1.9%
10) Onideus Mad Hatter........................................: 55
11.0 1.7%
11) King of Brawl Hall........................................: 54
10.8 1.7%
12) Ross......................................................: 51
10.2 1.6%
13) Dr. Who...................................................: 43
8.6 1.3%
14) Fred Hall.................................................: 41
8.2 1.3%
15) Soapy.....................................................: 39
7.8 1.2%
16) Cujo DeSockpuppet.........................................: 38
7.6 1.2%
17) Meat Plow.................................................: 37
7.4 1.1%
18) Sir Gilligan Horry........................................: 37
7.4 1.1%
19) the messenjah.............................................: 36
7.2 1.1%
20) ++The Commentator++.......................................: 32
6.4 1.0%
21) SPV.......................................................: 29
5.8 0.9%
22) Daedalus..................................................: 28
5.6 0.9%
23) ThePsyko..................................................: 26
5.2 0.8%
24) jet.......................................................: 25
5.0 0.8%
25) Linda.....................................................: 25
5.0 0.8%
26) {©¿©}.....................................................: 23
4.6 0.7%
27) Susan Cohen...............................................: 23
4.6 0.7%
28) Sean Monaghan.............................................: 22
4.4 0.7%
29) Barbara's Cat.............................................: 21
4.2 0.6%
30) Bookman...................................................: 20
4.0 0.6%
31) MedEvul...................................................: 20
4.0 0.6%
32) Typhoid...................................................: 19
3.8 0.6%
33) Charles D. Bohne..........................................: 18
3.6 0.6%
34) Yomamma Bin Crawdaddin....................................: 18
3.6 0.6%
35) Michael Baldwin Bruce.....................................: 17
3.4 0.5%
36) Brett.....................................................: 16
3.2 0.5%
37) Pablo.....................................................: 16
3.2 0.5%
38) Guess...@News.tv..........................................: 15
3.0 0.5%
39) Iceman....................................................: 15
3.0 0.5%
40) doc shines................................................: 14
2.8 0.4%
41) Pookie Goddess............................................: 14
2.8 0.4%
42) Ugly Bob..................................................: 14
2.8 0.4%
43) subRoutine................................................: 13
2.6 0.4%
44) Bill Cleere...............................................: 12
2.4 0.4%
45) Coldsnapping..............................................: 12
2.4 0.4%
46) Matthew Fields............................................: 12
2.4 0.4%
47) Missing Person............................................: 12
2.4 0.4%
48) Curious...................................................: 11
2.2 0.3%
49) Dan Baldwin...............................................: 11
2.2 0.3%
50) 03:15:38 GMT..............................................: 10
2.0 0.3%
----------
11 non-AUKers out of top 50 posters:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/2e4fd2711caf687d?dmode=sou
rce&hl=en
From: Alcatroll Labs Inc. <alcatr...@NOSPAMinsurgent.org>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: AUK Statistics / week ending 26 Mar 2005
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:56:31 +0100
Message-ID: <slrnd4desf...@nntp.petitmorte.net>
1) Art Deco................................................: 676 96.6
12.4%
2) Dr. Plattypuss..........................................: 332 47.4
6.1%
3) Dr. Flonkenstein........................................: 314 44.9
5.8%
4) Aratzio.................................................: 198 28.3
3.6%
5) King Of Brawl Hall......................................: 142 20.3
2.6%
6) Jet.....................................................: 138 19.7
2.5%
7) Dr. Who.................................................: 131 18.7
2.4%
8) Meow....................................................: 115 16.4
2.1%
9) Kali....................................................: 112 16.0
2.1%
10) The Holy Order..........................................: 112 16.0
2.1%
11) Daedalus................................................: 108 15.4
2.0%
12) Charles D. Bohne........................................: 107 15.3
2.0%
13) Brett...................................................: 105 15.0
1.9%
14) ThePsyko................................................: 105 15.0
1.9%
15) ±.......................................................: 88 12.6
1.6%
16) Iceman..................................................: 87 12.4
1.6%
17) Peter J Ross............................................: 81 11.6
1.5%
18) B0rn Sk1ppY.............................................: 78 11.1
1.4%
19) Lionel..................................................: 72 10.3
1.3%
20) Soapy...................................................: 71 10.1
1.3%
21) Sir Gilligan Horry......................................: 69 9.9
1.3%
22) Little Meow.............................................: 64 9.1
1.2%
23) Vampi Fangs.............................................: 59 8.4
1.1%
24) Ross....................................................: 57 8.1
1.0%
25) Michael Baldwin Bruce...................................: 52 7.4
1.0%
26) Shit-For-Brains-Response-Team...........................: 50 7.1
0.9%
27) Holly...................................................: 48 6.9
0.9%
28) Missing Person..........................................: 45 6.4
0.8%
29) Suenet..................................................: 42 6.0
0.8%
30) Ugly Bob................................................: 41 5.9
0.8%
31) Spooge..................................................: 40 5.7
0.7%
32) The Messenjah...........................................: 39 5.6
0.7%
33) Dr. David Tholen, KOTM..................................: 36 5.1
0.7%
34) Free Speech.............................................: 36 5.1
0.7%
35) John Henry..............................................: 36 5.1
0.7%
36) Kimberly Barnard (No Not That One)......................: 36 5.1
0.7%
37) Bill Cleere.............................................: 34 4.9
0.6%
38) Chadwick Stone©.........................................: 34 4.9
0.6%
39) 03:15:38 GMT............................................: 33 4.7
0.6%
40) Cujo DeSockpuppet.......................................: 32 4.6
0.6%
41) Davie Tholen............................................: 31 4.4
0.6%
42) Linda...................................................: 31 4.4
0.6%
43) Bookman.................................................: 28 4.0
0.5%
44) Dilligaf................................................: 26 3.7
0.5%
45) Meat Plow...............................................: 26 3.7
0.5%
46) SubRoutine..............................................: 25 3.6
0.5%
47) ++The Commentator++.....................................: 23 3.3
0.4%
48) EditorialStaff..........................................: 22 3.1
0.4%
49) Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)............................: 22 3.1
0.4%
50) John Griffin............................................: 20 2.9
0.4%
----------
8 non-AUKers out of top 50 posters:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/7ded23615c91810b?dmode=sou
rce&hl=en
From: Alcatroll Labs Inc. <alcatr...@NOSPAMinsurgent.org>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: AUK Statistics / week ending 12 Mar 2005
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:06:23 +0000
Message-ID: <slrnd3dgdf...@nntp.petitmorte.net>
1) Art Deco................................................: 283 40.4
7.9%
2) Lawra Bush..............................................: 182 26.0
5.1%
3) Michael Baldwin Bruce...................................: 181 25.9
5.1%
4) Aratzio.................................................: 167 23.9
4.7%
5) Dr. Flonkenstein........................................: 150 21.4
4.2%
6) King Of Brawl Hall......................................: 98 14.0
2.7%
7) Brett...................................................: 97 13.9
2.7%
8) Free Speech.............................................: 93 13.3
2.6%
9) Chadwick Stone©.........................................: 80 11.4
2.2%
10) Kali....................................................: 79 11.3
2.2%
11) Ah......................................................: 78 11.1
2.2%
12) Sir Gilligan Horry......................................: 78 11.1
2.2%
13) Peter J Ross............................................: 65 9.3
1.8%
14) DrPostman...............................................: 63 9.0
1.8%
15) Onideus Mad Hatter......................................: 63 9.0
1.8%
16) Daedalus................................................: 61 8.7
1.7%
17) Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)............................: 53 7.6
1.5%
18) Fred Hall...............................................: 44 6.3
1.2%
19) Meat Plow...............................................: 44 6.3
1.2%
20) Charles D. Bohne........................................: 38 5.4
1.1%
21) ±.......................................................: 35 5.0
1.0%
22) MedEvul.................................................: 32 4.6
0.9%
23) John Henry..............................................: 31 4.4
0.9%
24) Ross....................................................: 31 4.4
0.9%
25) Sean Monaghan...........................................: 31 4.4
0.9%
26) B0rn Sk1ppY.............................................: 26 3.7
0.7%
27) Little Meow.............................................: 26 3.7
0.7%
28) Susan Cohen.............................................: 26 3.7
0.7%
29) Bill Cleere.............................................: 24 3.4
0.7%
30) Widdershins.............................................: 24 3.4
0.7%
31) Holly...................................................: 23 3.3
0.6%
32) Mariposas Morgan Mair Fheal Greykitten Tomys Des Anges..: 21 3.0
0.6%
33) Freddyvess...@Gmail.Com.................................: 20 2.9
0.6%
34) Phoenix.................................................: 20 2.9
0.6%
35) Hatchetmama.............................................: 19 2.7
0.5%
36) Matt Giwer..............................................: 18 2.6
0.5%
37) The Psychedelic Pope....................................: 18 2.6
0.5%
38) Tinplated...............................................: 18 2.6
0.5%
39) Nemesis.................................................: 17 2.4
0.5%
40) Wizard..................................................: 17 2.4
0.5%
41) Bookman.................................................: 16 2.3
0.4%
42) Dr. Harvie Wahl-Banghor.................................: 16 2.3
0.4%
43) ENESSA QUA ONNICA.......................................: 16 2.3
0.4%
44) K. A. Cannon............................................: 16 2.3
0.4%
45) Puck....................................................: 16 2.3
0.4%
46) SubRoutine.W2@Mm........................................: 16 2.3
0.4%
47) Azure...................................................: 15 2.1
0.4%
48) Bertie The Bunyip.......................................: 15 2.1
0.4%
49) Warren..................................................: 15 2.1
0.4%
50) Chad Bryant.............................................: 14 2.0
0.4%
----------
5 non-AUKers out of top 50 posters:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/1a8ed7336f047d3b?dmode=sou
rce&hl=en
From: "Alcadroll Labs Inc" <yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: AUK Statistics / Week Ending 25 Sep 04
Date: 26 Sep 2004 19:24:56 GMT
Message-ID: <cj7528$3qo$0...@pita.alt.net>
906 17.3% "Alcadroll Labs Inc." <yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com>
356 5.24% "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null>
332 4.02% "Dr. Flonkenstein" <a...@localhost.localdomain>
235 3.54% Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com>
182 2.74% Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org>
134 2.02% Daedalus <j...@net-kooks.org>
124 1.87% Happy Troll <j...@small.troll>
119 1.79% Sovereign Sockpuppet© <so.ve.re.i...@so.ck.pu.pp.et>
111 1.67% raspberry strawberry and kiwi <y...@nospam.net>
109 1.64% "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgori...@pobox.alaska.net>
99 1.49% go@fish (Vicar Peter Parsnip)
93 1.40% DrPostman <L...@mysig.foremail>
93 1.40% "Bookman" <thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL>
90 1.35% ± <h0plibbb_o...@hotmail.com>
77 1.16% Barbara's Cat <net_...@NOSPAMnet-kooks.org>
76 1.14% Lady Chatterly <g...@dev.null>
76 1.14% ah <h...@verhizn.net>
74 1.11% "Roofshadow \"Courthouse Bozopalooza\" Jackson"
<Roofshadow2...@removespamtrap.yahoo.com>
71 1.07% tho...@antispam.ham
69 1.04% Qasim <q...@spamhotmail.com>
65 0.98% yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com
61 0.92% red dust <o...@nospam.net>
56 0.84% Lady Chatterly <@dev.null>
55 0.83% Chas Kader <c...@boo.gnu.shoo>
55 0.83% "yyyiiinnnggg" <yyyiinn...@yohoo.com>
51 0.77% Homerun Frogbutt <f...@buh.shit.org>
47 0.71% Cujo DeSockpuppet <c...@petitmorte.net>
47 0.71% John Henry <j...@inNOSPAMsurgent.orgy>
46 0.69% "Wally Anglesea" <wangl...@spbigpondammersarevermin.net.au>
42 0.63% yang <y...@nospam.net>
38 0.57% YRT <Y...@nospam.net>
38 0.57% "ExtremeOne, HNIC!" <theextreme...@theHNIC.net>
37 0.56% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.dev.null>
37 0.56% Barbara's Cat <c...@127.0.0.1>
36 0.54% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.invalid.net>
36 0.54% "Dick Hertz (Hey, who's Dick Hertz?)" <m...@example.com>
36 0.54% Phoenix <rbwat...@databasix.com>
36 0.54% "|-|erc" <g...@beauty.com>
34 0.51% Kali <K...@nope.not>
34 0.51% "Bill Cleere" <bcle...@philipkdick.com>
34 0.51% Cameron Drysdale <.@.>
33 0.50% "Mr.Extreme" <extreme...@theHNIC.net>
33 0.50% Lady Chatterly <s...@dev.null>
32 0.48% BostonBlackie© <boston.blac...@verizonNOSPAM.net>
30 0.45% "Sovereign Sockpuppet©" <so.ve.re.i...@so.ck.pu.pp.et>
28 0.42% "Meat-->Plow" <M...@petitmorte.net>
27 0.41% "Volfie" <vol...@ccrtc.com>
27 0.41% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.net>
27 0.41% edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_fh...@yahoo.com>
----------
5 non-AUKers out of top 50 posters:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/5a04f92d9ac74b67?dmode=sou
rce&hl=en
From: "Alcadroll Labs Inc" <yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: AUK Statistics / Week Ending 18 Sep 04
Date: 20 Sep 2004 02:07:18 GMT
Message-ID: <cile0m$nv$0...@pita.alt.net>
856 13.15% "Real Friendly Neiborhood Vote Ranger"
<yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com>
356 5.24% "C.R. Osterwald" <r...@dev.null>
332 4.02% "Dr. Flonkenstein" <a...@localhost.localdomain>
235 3.54% Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com>
182 2.74% Peter J Ross <gad...@NOSPAMmeow.org>
134 2.02% Daedalus <j...@net-kooks.org>
124 1.87% Happy Troll <j...@small.troll>
119 1.79% Sovereign Sockpuppet© <so.ve.re.i...@so.ck.pu.pp.et>
111 1.67% raspberry strawberry and kiwi <y...@nospam.net>
109 1.64% "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" <vgori...@pobox.alaska.net>
99 1.49% go@fish (Vicar Peter Parsnip)
93 1.40% DrPostman <L...@mysig.foremail>
93 1.40% "Bookman" <thebook...@kc.rr.comNULL>
90 1.35% ± <h0plibbb_o...@hotmail.com>
77 1.16% Barbara's Cat <net_...@NOSPAMnet-kooks.org>
76 1.14% Lady Chatterly <g...@dev.null>
76 1.14% ah <h...@verhizn.net>
74 1.11% "Roofshadow \"Courthouse Bozopalooza\" Jackson"
<Roofshadow2...@removespamtrap.yahoo.com>
71 1.07% tho...@antispam.ham
69 1.04% Qasim <q...@spamhotmail.com>
65 0.98% yyyiiinnn...@yahoo.com
61 0.92% red dust <o...@nospam.net>
56 0.84% Lady Chatterly <@dev.null>
55 0.83% Chas Kader <c...@boo.gnu.shoo>
55 0.83% "yyyiiinnnggg" <yyyiinn...@yohoo.com>
51 0.77% Homerun Frogbutt <f...@buh.shit.org>
47 0.71% Cujo DeSockpuppet <c...@petitmorte.net>
47 0.71% John Henry <j...@inNOSPAMsurgent.orgy>
46 0.69% "Wally Anglesea" <wangl...@spbigpondammersarevermin.net.au>
42 0.63% yang <y...@nospam.net>
38 0.57% YRT <Y...@nospam.net>
38 0.57% "ExtremeOne, HNIC!" <theextreme...@theHNIC.net>
37 0.56% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.dev.null>
37 0.56% Barbara's Cat <c...@127.0.0.1>
36 0.54% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.invalid.net>
36 0.54% "Dick Hertz (Hey, who's Dick Hertz?)" <m...@example.com>
36 0.54% Phoenix <rbwat...@databasix.com>
36 0.54% "|-|erc" <g...@beauty.com>
34 0.51% Kali <K...@nope.not>
34 0.51% "Bill Cleere" <bcle...@philipkdick.com>
34 0.51% Cameron Drysdale <.@.>
33 0.50% "Mr.Extreme" <extreme...@theHNIC.net>
33 0.50% Lady Chatterly <s...@dev.null>
32 0.48% BostonBlackie© <boston.blac...@verizonNOSPAM.net>
30 0.45% "Sovereign Sockpuppet©" <so.ve.re.i...@so.ck.pu.pp.et>
28 0.42% "Meat-->Plow" <M...@petitmorte.net>
27 0.41% "Volfie" <vol...@ccrtc.com>
27 0.41% Joseph Bartlo <jbar...@verizon.net>
27 0.41% edens morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<mair_fh...@yahoo.com>
----------
AUKers pride themselves as cascaders with an eye to the "almighty post
count". Here's some top thread counts - care to take a guess how many
are AUK-driven cascades?
361 5.43% Mother: Please save the World From Fascists
239 3.60% VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, August 2004
172 2.59% WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, August 2004
135 2.03% Robb, fix your sig you fucking loser
118 1.78% The only way ExtremeTard will ever see a pussy - 1 attachment
113 1.70% Still I Rise 09-02-04b
108 1.63% Diameters of planets?
107 1.61% Delusional weblog
106 1.60% little cowardly mikey cook...
100 1.51% Rusty B. Waters new webpage
1) Terry Schiavo ............................................: 67
13.4 2.1%
2) March nominations received so far.........................: 64
12.8 2.0%
3) Hey MedEvul...............................................: 62
12.4 1.9%
4) NOMINATION - Vito Kuhn for 72 Raisins "Crackpot Religion" : 53
10.6 1.6%
5) Michael Jackson is NOT "a Jehovah's Witness"..............: 51
10.2 1.6%
6) Freeza's Folks............................................: 50
10.0 1.5%
7) Nifty little piece about the JW's!........................: 46
9.2 1.4%
8) "Hollywood production about asteroids"....................: 45
9.0 1.4%
9) AND Who is Jim Glass? Why Kimberly Barnard Is Using Usene: 43
8.6 1.3%
10) the dichotomy of free verse...............................: 42
8.4 1.3%
11) Jet: Chickenshit..........................................: 41
8.2 1.3%
12) SAIC Shit outta luck Re: Debunkers described as "Crack-po: 40
8.0 1.2%
13) Socipathic Filthy liar Kimberly Barnard continues to scape: 38
7.6 1.2%
14) You're All Fired..........................................: 37
7.4 1.1%
15) A Jehovah's Witless in full kook meltdown!!!1!!!!.........: 36
7.2 1.1%
16) Disconnected From Reality & Consciousness Re: March nomi: 36
7.2 1.1%
17) Pest posts, March 12-26...................................: 34
6.8 1.0%
18) Any Bidders?!?!...........................................: 31
6.2 1.0%
19) Kali Kooks Out: In which Kali fails Google 101............: 31
6.2 1.0%
20) My question for today.....................................: 31
6.2 1.0%
1) Kali Kooks Out: In which Kali fails Google 101..........: 209 29.9
3.8%
2) Obsessive Compulsive Lying Governments Re: Ping Vampi: 149 21.3
2.7%
3) Ping Vampi.. Re: Good Bye!!!!! Re: Public Service Anno: 119 17.0
2.2%
4) Is Kimberly Barnard A Psychologist?.....................: 96 13.7
1.8%
5) Jet: Chickenshit........................................: 95 13.6
1.7%
6) Charles .... Re: Horry - where ever you are tonight (tod: 79 11.3
1.5%
7) Who is Andy "Labrat" Beckwith?..........................: 78 11.1
1.4%
8) I forgive you...........................................: 75 10.7
1.4%
9) Linda has nothing to discuss with spp regulars, so why d: 69 9.9
1.3%
10) Twonky..................................................: 69 9.9
1.3%
11) Bang Your Buddy's Girlfriend............................: 64 9.1
1.2%
12) The Sad Part Of Alexa's Tholen Impression...............: 62 8.9
1.1%
13) Another one of my predictions fulfilled ... after "Alexa: 61 8.7
1.1%
14) More prayers for Terri Schiavo..........................: 61 8.7
1.1%
15) They will intervene in 2012 and save the world from self: 58 8.3
1.1%
16) Kooki Kali: Fuckhead Supreme: Re: Linda Gore - Formosa o: 56 8.0
1.0%
17) Why Kimberly Barnard Is A Fuck UP.......................: 53 7.6
1.0%
18) REPOST: Re: PING AUK....................................: 52 7.4
1.0%
19) Alexa OD'ed [Re: streaming cosmic top secret crypto secu: 50 7.1
0.9%
20) ANWR again..............................................: 48 6.9
0.9%
1) Advice on how to end/cancel a racist alt.group..........: 90 12.9
2.5%
2) Gawd Damn Fucking Background Anyway.....................: 83 11.9
2.3%
3) Alexa is a danger for society. Re: Alexa finally admits : 76 10.9
2.1%
4) Trolls & other things...................................: 71 10.1
2.0%
5) Alexa...................................................: 70 10.0
2.0%
6) 'art deco' has multiple personality disorder Re: : 65 9.3
1.8%
7) OMG WTF HAS EVERY 1 HAD A CHANCE TO CHECK OUT MEDEVULS N: 65 9.3
1.8%
8) Running Man: MeatWad....................................: 56 8.0
1.6%
9) 'aratzios' Plan to Assassinate George Bush Re: US Gov't: 52 7.4
1.5%
10) NOMINATION OF AUK'S GANG LEADER-PETER J ROSS............: 47 6.7
1.3%
11) David the Throll........................................: 46 6.6
1.3%
12) Changing Usenet for the better..........................: 43 6.1
1.2%
13) Heteros Who Condone Homosexuality: What's Their Problem?: 42 6.0
1.2%
14) Mt. St. Helen's Eruption ?..............................: 41 5.9
1.1%
15) 'Time Travel' Possible Re: Noisy Babies: Information a: 41 5.9
1.1%
16) THE OUTING OF USENET GANGS-AUK MORONS...................: 39 5.6
1.1%
17) Jennings U.F.O. special. WHY???.........................: 36 5.1
1.0%
18) NOMINATION: Onideus Mad Hatter for Bob Allisat Memorial : 35 5.0
1.0%
19) What would be your heaven ? // You have three wishes !!.: 35 5.0
1.0%
20) In regards to Alex Cain.................................: 33 4.7
0.9%
361 5.43% Mother: Please save the World From Fascists
239 3.60% VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, August 2004
172 2.59% WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, August 2004
135 2.03% Robb, fix your sig you fucking loser
118 1.78% The only way ExtremeTard will ever see a pussy - 1 attachment
113 1.70% Still I Rise 09-02-04b
108 1.63% Diameters of planets?
107 1.61% Delusional weblog
106 1.60% little cowardly mikey cook...
100 1.51% Rusty B. Waters new webpage
88 1.32% Anastacia
85 1.28% digest 2453240
84 1.26% DAAAAAAAYUM Sexy!!!!!!!
83 1.25% Alexa Discovers a New Word!
79 1.19% Bill Cleere: Welcome to your future life as a Snuhtard.
77 1.16% Why is there a UFO Cover-up Anyway??///Here's WHY-Explained!!
75 1.13% Atheists dying
73 1.10% Trolls like to ruin the exchange of ideas
70 1.05% The punishment from God
60 0.90% ANOTHER TRIUMPH FOR MAD SCIENCE
361 5.43% Mother: Please save the World From Fascists
239 3.60% VOTE! Usenet Kook Awards, August 2004
172 2.59% WINNERS! Usenet Kook Awards, August 2004
135 2.03% Robb, fix your sig you fucking loser
118 1.78% The only way ExtremeTard will ever see a pussy - 1 attachment
113 1.70% Still I Rise 09-02-04b
108 1.63% Diameters of planets?
107 1.61% Delusional weblog
106 1.60% little cowardly mikey cook...
100 1.51% Rusty B. Waters new webpage
88 1.32% Anastacia
85 1.28% digest 2453240
84 1.26% DAAAAAAAYUM Sexy!!!!!!!
83 1.25% Alexa Discovers a New Word!
79 1.19% Bill Cleere: Welcome to your future life as a Snuhtard.
77 1.16% Why is there a UFO Cover-up Anyway??///Here's WHY-Explained!!
75 1.13% Atheists dying
73 1.10% Trolls like to ruin the exchange of ideas
70 1.05% The punishment from God
60 0.90% ANOTHER TRIUMPH FOR MAD SCIENCE
59 0.89% Peter's pathetic attempt at a 'UPA' award explained
59 0.89% Lady Meltdown is driven mad by Jacko's pedophilia! [Re:
DAAAAAAAYUM
Sexy!!!!!!!
±
<<On Tue, 2 May 2006, Rebecca Ore wrote>>
<Which is why we now invoke Formosa's law to protect truly screwed up,
harmless people. There are a number of loons who post regularly to AUK
who we simply ignore for that reason.>
"Now"? When did AUK come to that consensus?
BTW - Most AUK regs ignore Formosa's Law and I know that you're very
aware of that, based on the discussions you were part of.
<Which was instigated by /you/, Rebecca, & involved a rather nasty
whispering campaign...>
Seriously - why do you bring this sort of interpersonal claptrap to
news.admin.net-abuse.policy?
±
<If you actually read AUK, you'd be aware that we rarely cascade, & when
we do, they're rarely longer than one or two dozen posts long.>
We both know that's just not true, why are you perpetuating lies?
<If you want to see abusive cascading, read alt.snuh or alt.flame for a
few weeks, then compare it to the contents of AUK>
Do you want more numbers, or do you prefer to withdraw your erroneous
claim?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> Rasta Khan <ra...@kotm.biz> wrote:
>
>> Don't you know that Lionel *is* an AUKer? And I don't mean a former AUKer,
>> like Tim is. Lionel is an active kookologist. He made several "kook"
>> nominations last month alone.
>
> double standard.
I've made a nomination in AUK. I don't think that should disqualify me.
> David Formosa is talking about suppressing the exchange of ideas by making
> newsgroups unusable. It does not matter if it's a single individual using
> NewsAgent or a group of self-appointed zealots flooding a newsgroup with
> vulgar nonsense.
I don't think that vulgar nonsence part of it is the mattor, I think
it is the flooding.